• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The unending claim of "secondary explosions"

Why are A&E not able to grasp reality? ignorance or greed

Fonebone said:
Hot dam Carlitos, I've been searching for a classic example of a true
simile and I think you just supplied it.
The 9-11 debunking squads have labeled all references to explosions as
similes and I required an example that exemplified a genuine simile for
comparison. Thank You

Now, What knowledge can be gained by dissecting and perusing obvious
similes as reported?
Click to expand...

A&E spread lies and make money from fooling gullible people too lazy to think for themselves.

The Idiots at A&E turn hearsay, sounded like, into a vast conspiracy of explosives planted by people they can't name. How do bogus movements find so many idiots to propagate the dumbest claims?

Furthermore, the 21 instances of eyewitness reporting, all of which contain spontaneous descriptions of the phenomena the reporters witnessed, strongly corroborate the overwhelming scientific evidence that explosives were used to destroy the Twin Towers.
Click to expand...

This is not evidence, sounded like an explosion is not proof of explosives.

A&E continue to prove there are gullible people who fall for the most ridiculous claims born in ignorance and deceit.

BTW, if the WTC fantasy of explosives was true, it would have been solved in a few days.

A&E, have no clue what sounded like means. You and A&E never had, and never will have evidence for explosives. There is only evidence for 19 terrorists, and four planes. Better luck with Bigfoot, you can use the same evidence = to nothing

Why does A&E spit on those who died on 9/11 due to the acts of 19 terrorists by spreading the dumbest lies? Got a clue yet? Do you believe these delusional claims?
 
bknight said:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Completely expected from people who have never witnessed real explosive detonation.
Click to expand...

Indeed to many/all that had never been around the chaos of exploding devices of all kinds detonating within "arms-length".
Click to expand...
For many years I have wanted to take some of these explosion claiming truth leaders onto a demolition training range.

Let off a couple of lengths of det cord and a few lumps of HE.

They have NEVER heard the real thing. And the distinctive "crack" is unmistakeable.

Once heard never forgotten. And after someone has heard the real thing NEVER again can they by mistake or ignorance claim "explosive". They would have to deliberately lie.

Sure most of them wouldn't hesitate but....
 
MattNelson said:
I won't call myself a truther anymore, since apparently one has to believe the 1st plane hit after the secondary explosions, (see thread) however....

I did spend way too much time looking at this first event, while still courting a conspiracy theory, as detailed in my book (68 MB) between pages 100-139. We know that when the first plane hit (as well as when the 2nd plane hit), "Two WTC open/auto (O/A) 13 kW feeders went off" going by a 9/11 commission document from Con Edison. http://cryptome.org/nara/coned-04-0226.pdf -- Yet we also know there was fuel and a conflagration in the lobby. The same fuel burned Felipe David (the man in Rodriguez's story/stories) on B1, exploding into the mall. It also tore into B4 coming from the 6/7 cars' pit door.

A few lobby reports:

“Baffled, Ronnie peered through the revolving door into the lobby of the north tower. He could see it was filling with black haze.” Coming towards him then was Jennieann Maffeo, naked, all black and red, in agony, the zipper of her burned-off, melted garment looking “as though it were the zipper to her own body. [...] Suddenly, Jennieann told Ronnie, something bright and intensely hot enveloped her, a vapor. She thought it had dropped down the elevator shaft.” (Hampton Sides, Americana: Dispatches from the New Frontier, Anchor Books, 2004.

"I walked out the revolving door from the lobby... and I had no sooner walked out the door where I heard a whooshing, roaring noise.... I looked – I heard the boom and the ground tremble and the next thing I know I was looking up at the roof and I'm seeing stuff coming off the roof. I figured my best bet would be to get back into the building.... I had no sooner gone back into the revolving door when a – all the sudden it seemed like the whole lobby, the door I was in and everything filled up with a yellowish, brownish combustible mixture. It didn't really smell any different, but it wasn't – it took so quickly to happen, it was like a tenth of a second, and the next thing I know it was a major explosion, of which I'm now thrown back out through both of these uh, the revolving door and outside." - Kenneth Summers on NBC, from his hospital bed.

"I was walking through the mall toward Tower One to get to the elevator. The lights flickered. I stopped in my tracks and looked around. I saw a brown cloud coming down the center corridor in the lobby, and I feared for my safety. The brown cloud had a heavy density and reached from floor to ceiling. It looked to me like it was both smoke and debris. It first came from the center corridor, but by the time it reached the revolving doors (a split second later) it seemed to come from every direction. At this point, the revolving doors exploded. They seemed to vaporize." - NIST NCSTAR 1-7, p. 76, "Interview 1000046” (NIST 2004)
Click to expand...

Rodriguez' claim is the initial event..... the plane strike. He claims to have witnessed an explosion before he felt and heard the building shake from the plane impact.

My point was that he was 1100 feet below the impact... sound would tale one second to reach him. Any electrical issue... such as short circuit in the electrical over protection in the sub basement would essentially happen at the same time as the riser wires were severed by the jet impact as electricity travels at 186,000 feet / sec... essentially instantaneous at this distance.

The ALSO was an explosion at the moment of impact in WTC7 for the same reason... short/failure of circuit protection causing an electrical explosion. There are plenty of videos online of transformers of all size exploding from short circuits.

So YES there were explosions at the instant of the impact of AA11 as it severed 13.8 KV risers. These explosions led to fires. YES fuel entered the building and some likely spilled down the shafts... aerosolized and likely exploded causing havoc in the shafts which were on both long sides of the core. The ere not individual isolated shafts but it appears that the central bays on the north side of the core were destroyed where the plane penetrated the core and damage express freight and passenger car shafts at cols 503, 504, 505, 506, 604 & 605 which went from the basement and lobby to the top of the building
 

Attachments

  • tony's columns_page1.jpg
    tony's columns_page1.jpg
    35.6 KB · Views: 12
ozeco41 said:
For many years I have wanted to take some of these explosion claiming truth leaders onto a demolition training range.

Let off a couple of lengths of det cord and a few lumps of HE.

They have NEVER heard the real thing. And the distinctive "crack" is unmistakeable.

Once heard never forgotten. And after someone has heard the real thing NEVER again can they by mistake or ignorance claim "explosive". They would have to deliberately lie.

Sure most of them wouldn't hesitate but....
Click to expand...

As someone who grew up in the Tar Spring Oil Fields of Kentucky and played with explosives from tho oil fields, I can tell you none of those books sound like explosives to me. Once used exposives to shoot myself out over a lake, and I can tell you it was a bad mistake.
 
Oystein said:
Could you do us a favor and identify those among reports of explosions and secondary explosions which may be consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition charges? Thank you.

...

The historic record of 9/11 so far is actually completely void of evidence for explosive charges associated with any of the collapses. (I am sure you have been painfully aware of this reality for years)


I pre-preemptively wish to thank you very sincerely for either your non-answer, or your completely and transparently evasive answer, which will not, in fact, contain any reference whatsoever to any witness report or physical recording of any explosion(s) that may plausibly be consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition charges :)
Click to expand...

I wish to repeat my sincerest thanks, Fonebone, for your no doubt conscious decision not to answer my question and thereby confirm that you know perfectly well there is ZERO evidence for explosives consistent with explosive demolition:

  • There is ZERO evidence for explosive demolition in the witness accounts
  • There is ZERO evidence for explosive demolition in the video and sound recordings
  • There is ZERO evidence for explosive demolition in the physical evidence

Again, thanks for implicitly AGREEING without qualification to all of that by not responding to my question. I will henceforth list you as my witness for NO explosive charges on 9/11 :)
 
Oystein said:
Could you do us a favor and identify those among reports of explosions and secondary explosions which may be consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition charges? Thank you.

Because, you see, for years now, I have time and again asked Truthers this question - which reports or sound records of "explosions" on 9/11 are consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition charges? - and NOBODY EVER identified only just one such explosion either in the witness record or in the video/sound record that survived more than 3 seconds of cursory scrutiny. None.

The historic record of 9/11 so far is actually completely void of evidence for explosive charges associated with any of the collapses. (I am sure you have been painfully aware of this reality for years)


I pre-preemptively wish to thank you very sincerely for either your non-answer, or your completely and transparently evasive answer, which will not, in fact, contain any reference whatsoever to any witness report or physical recording of any explosion(s) that may plausibly be consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition charges :)
Click to expand...


Is that so ? What do you have to say about this post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13000365#post13000365
HUGE EXPLOSION - Raining debris down on all of us ! N.J.Burkett on live television.
 
Fonebone said:
Is that so ? What do you have to say about this post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13000365#post13000365
HUGE EXPLOSION - Raining debris down on all of us ! N.J.Burkett on live television.
Click to expand...

The same I had to say about this post back then, in February:

Oystein said:
What's your point, Fonebone? There are no explosion sounds in this video consistent with explosive demolition, or are there?
Click to expand...

You see, in that video, not only the words of the reporter are recorded, the video also contains the sound recording of the event he is describing as "huge explosion".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCPVNLLo-mI

But - there is no number of sharp, extremely loud explosion sounds immediately PRIOR to the visible collapse, or is there?
The sounds and sights recorded in the video IMMEDIATELY disprove any notion that an explosive demolition is going on.

Can you please explain in full and grammatical sentences of English how either the sounds and sights of the event as captured in the video or the words of the reporter are evidence of explosion sounds consistent with explosive demolition in terms of loudness, timing, number and brisance?

You know, I already asked you the very same question back in last September:
Oystein said:
And ... your argument and conclusion now is ... what?
Can you spell out, in a short string of full grammatical English sentences, what you mean to say?
Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding us that you have never been able to point to any sound record, nor to any witness statement, that contains explosions consistent with explosive demolition.
 
Last edited:
After all these years, Oystein, it's still the case that you can specify "explosions and secondary explosions which may be consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition charges" all you like, but truthers will still say "this guy said he heard an explosion" and pretend that proves the presence of demolition charges. They'll cherry-pick one word in your request and match it to one word in their description, then have the nerve to pretend they've given you a valid answer.

Dave
 
Fonebone said:
Is that so ? What do you have to say about this post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13000365#post13000365
HUGE EXPLOSION - Raining debris down on all of us ! N.J.Burkett on live television.
Click to expand...

The reporter looked up and saw what he thought LOOKED LIKE AN EXPLOSION. Technically as the building collapse the air between the floors was rapidly compressed which is like an explosion. This is not the same as the use of explosives. They would be loud, they would have heard them in New Jersey, there would be no doubt.

When I was a kid when I played Army I loved throwing dirt clods because they came apart in a cloud of dust and fragments like a hand grenade. They looked like they exploded, but OBVIOUSLY they just disintegrated on impact.

This is exactly what everyone sees in the videos of the collapses. Sheetrock, ceiling tiles, florescent lights, and concrete all being pulverized in the fraction of a second thanks to gravity and the laws of motion and resistance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom