911

[Czero 101]

I would just wonder why you still aggravate yourself with replying or posting back and forth......lol

Well, of course I wonder that, too, sometimes, but you'll notice (or maybe you won't *shrug* ) that I tend to ignore the person I was referring to and that Skyeagle was, in your opinion, being "rude and derogatory" to...

As much as I can, anyway... Sometimes the willful ignorance, hypocrisy and constant lies are just too much to ignore....

There are lots of wackos...conspiracy minded and otherwise. Choose your battles I say. I don't worry about who argues for 'my' side...I don't look at the pursuit of truth and justice as 'mine'......I don't really care at the end of the day who believes me or listens to me....I just like to encourage people to think and not accept 'official' stories as the truth. If ya don't then fine.....if someone aggravates me too bad I move on.....no biggie really.

Having an alternative explanation doesn't mean someone is a kookie conspiratorial wacky nut.....sometimes it does;) lol but not always.

I am more offended when high ranking officials lie to me..and give preposterous explanations....but hey that's just me.

I agree for the most part that there are "whackos" on both ides of this and will also admit that there are people on my "side" that I don't particularly enjoy being associated with simply because we argue the the same side of this particular issue. I tend to keep my distance from them, too...

I agree that being "lied to" by "high ranking officials" is not really a good thing, but then again, it makes one wonder what it is you (or others) are using to make the deduction that you are, in fact. being lied to....?

Cz

Edited October 17, 2012 by Czero 101

[TrueBeliever]

In regards to 9/11, detail lies of the government.

Where do I begin??!! lol

For starters the lack of a legitimate IMO investigation.............and sorry I do not believe WTC 7 fell of it's own accord from fire damage.....amazing isn't it that 3 buildings...2 HUGE skyscrapers fell into their own footprint.......the scrambling of jets....or lack thereof...or shall we say inadequacy of....

....the seemingly willflul headturning and ignoring of warnings and good intel on several of the hijackers........many many times......

The statement Oh we never thought someone would do this! really? besides having had training exercises for it? AND within hours if not minutes stating who the perps were and that the attack FIT their MO.....but of course you never imagine such a thing right?!

and then you have many who were warned not to fly or conveniently had meetings elsewhere.....

and I personally do not think Rumsfeld slipped when he said FL 93 was shot down......

the thing is there is just so much....so much bs, so much contradiction.....I haven't even presented it clearly and precisely like I would like to..there is just so much when the entire picture is looked at.....it sickens me to the core. I was just at WTC memorial....and I cried as if it had just happened. I am troubled by it to this day...deeply troubled...the audacity and brutality of any and all involved haunts me, angers me, p***es me the eff off! I know there will probably never be justice as far as the whole truth of who and why being revealed........or all the perps being punished, but one can hope I guess that one day......

there is so much more....but it gets complicated

[RaptorBites]

Where do I begin??!! lol

I could say the same about your post.

For starters the lack of a legitimate IMO investigation.............

Legitimate based on who's standards?

and sorry I do not believe WTC 7 fell of it's own accord from fire damage.....

Add to that large amounts of damage from falling debris.

amazing isn't it that 3 buildings...2 HUGE skyscrapers fell into their own footprint.......

funny how most people believe that the WTC towers would have just toppled over instead of considering the possibility of a progressive collapse.

in any case, have you seen photos of ground zero? Can you honestly sit there and think that the buildings came down in a controlled manner based on the debris field?

the scrambling of jets....or lack thereof...or shall we say inadequacy of....

I am sure skyeagle will address this, or frenat probably will.

....the seemingly willflul headturning and ignoring of warnings and good intel on several of the hijackers........many many times......

Seemingly willful is not the same as willful.

The US Intelligence department makes mistakes all the time. Why would it surprise anyone that terrorists have slipped into the country undetected. The fault lies with our intelligence community's ability to share information between each other effectively.

Had you been in the military during wartime, you would know this.

The statement Oh we never thought someone would do this! really? besides having had training exercises for it? AND within hours if not minutes stating who the perps were and that the attack FIT their MO.....but of course you never imagine such a thing right?!

As have been stated, the intelligence community has issues with data sharing.

and then you have many who were warned not to fly or conveniently had meetings elsewhere.....

Any articles regarding this? Would be an interesting read.

and I personally do not think Rumsfeld slipped when he said FL 93 was shot down......

Fine. Show me proof of a missile hitting flight 93. Show me studies on the datamined FDR of flight 93 that shows that it was blown out of the sky. Show me evidence where the missile that struck flight 93 came from.

the thing is there is just so much....so much bs, so much contradiction.....I haven't even presented it clearly and precisely like I would like to..there is just so much when the entire picture is looked at.....it sickens me to the core. I was just at WTC memorial....and I cried as if it had just happened. I am troubled by it to this day...deeply troubled...the audacity and brutality of any and all involved haunts me, angers me, p***es me the eff off! I know there will probably never be justice as far as the whole truth of who and why being revealed........or all the perps being punished, but one can hope I guess that one day......

there is so much more....but it gets complicated

Complicated because maybe you do not understand the dynamics and the sciences on what could explain 9/11.

Thats okay. If you want to get into details, then all you have to do is ask the questions one at a time and I am sure we will be able to "educate you".

[TrueBeliever]

I could say the same about your post.

Legitimate based on who's standards?

Add to that large amounts of damage from falling debris.

funny how most people believe that the WTC towers would have just toppled over instead of considering the possibility of a progressive collapse.

in any case, have you seen photos of ground zero? Can you honestly sit there and think that the buildings came down in a controlled manner based on the debris field?

I am sure skyeagle will address this, or frenat probably will.

Seemingly willful is not the same as willful.

The US Intelligence department makes mistakes all the time. Why would it surprise anyone that terrorists have slipped into the country undetected. The fault lies with our intelligence community's ability to share information between each other effectively.

Had you been in the military during wartime, you would know this.

As have been stated, the intelligence community has issues with data sharing.

Any articles regarding this? Would be an interesting read.

Fine. Show me proof of a missile hitting flight 93. Show me studies on the datamined FDR of flight 93 that shows that it was blown out of the sky. Show me evidence where the missile that struck flight 93 came from.

Complicated because maybe you do not understand the dynamics and the sciences on what could explain 9/11.

Thats okay. If you want to get into details, then all you have to do is ask the questions one at a time and I am sure we will be able to "educate you".

I am definitely not a science person! lol

Doesn't mean I am stupid though.

There are professionals, architects, firefighters and others who think it was controlled demolition.Quite frankly I would like to just believe the official version of events......and actually I am not like most 'conspiracy theorists' where I think every damn little thing was a lie a fake a fraud. Not at all. And I wouldn't feel disappointed if it was 100% proven the towers all fell without controlled demolition......the truth matters more to me than being 'right'

[skyeagle409]

Where do I begin??!! lol

For starters the lack of a legitimate IMO investigation.............and sorry I do not believe WTC 7 fell of it's own accord from fire damage.....amazing isn't it that 3 buildings...2 HUGE skyscrapers fell into their own footprint.......

That is because gravity was responsible after fire weaken the steel structures of the WTC buildings.

...the scrambling of jets....or lack thereof...or shall we say inadequacy of....

Air Force jets established a CAP over Washington D.C., but by that time, it was too late. I might add that the military didn't know where United 93 was until civilian ground controllers told the military that United 93 had already crashed. To show how 9/11 conspiracy websites distort the truth, some have claimed that a F-16 pilot shot down United 93 when it fact, the pilot they claimed shot down United 93 wasn't even in the area! And, here's another example.

While on their mission to sanitize the airspace from threats the two fighter pilots were sweeping the area looking for Flight 93 when they heard that it had crashed into a field in Stonycreek Township, not far from Shanksville, Pennsylvania. By this time, U.S. Airspace was declared a no fly zone and all non military planes were grounded.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/brave-f-16-pilot-considered-ramming-flight-93-on-911/

....the seemingly willflul headturning and ignoring of warnings and good intel on several of the hijackers........many many times......

Overlooking or simply ignoring important intelligence information is nothing new between our intelligence services and has been going on for many decades before the 9/11 attacks and problems still persisted years after 9/11.

...and I personally do not think Rumsfeld slipped when he said FL 93 was shot down......

Since when did Rumsfield declare that United 93 was shot down? Once again, you have allowed your mind to be poisoned by 9/11 conspiracy websites!

[skyeagle409]

There are professionals, architects, firefighters and others who think it was controlled demolition.

Fact of the matter is, demolition companies, architects, and civil engineers do not support the demolition theory of 9/11 conspiracist.

And I wouldn't feel disappointed if it was 100% proven the towers all fell without controlled demolition......the truth matters more to me than being 'right'

Fact of the matter is, there is no evidence of explosions in the WTC video, nor are sounds of explosions heard during the collapse of the WTC buildings. Explosions were not detected on monitors in the area and demolition experts and recovery crews did not find nor recover explosive evidence.

The way the WTC buildings collapsed is not evidence of explosive demolition.

Edited October 17, 2012 by skyeagle409

[TrueBeliever]

That is because gravity was responsible after fire weaken the steel structures of the WTC buildings.

Air Force jets established a CAP over Washington D.C., but by that time, it was too late. I might add that the military didn't know where United 93 was until civilian ground controllers told the military that United 93 had already crashed. To show how 9/11 conspiracy websites distort the truth, some have claimed that a F-16 pilot shot down United 93 when it fact, the pilot they claimed shot down United 93 wasn't even in the area! And, here's another example.

Overlooking or simply ignoring important intelligence information is nothing new between our intelligence services and has been going on for many decades before the 9/11 attacks and problems still persisted years after 9/11.

Since when did Rumsfield declare that United 93 was shot down? Once again, you have allowed your mind to be poisoned by 9/11 conspiracy websites!

come on, you have heard the video of Rumsfeld 'slipping' saying when FL 93 was shot down?? really? you never heard him say that? Maybe he misspoke,,,,,,but he DID say it. I didn't hear it on any conspiracy website.

[TrueBeliever]

Fact of the matter is, demolition companies, architects, and civil engineers do not support the demolition theory of 9/11 conspiracist.

Fact of the matter is, there is no evidence of explosions in the WTC video, nor are sounds of explosions heard during the collapse of the WTC buildings. Explosions were not detected on monitors in the area and demolition experts and recovery crews did not find nor recover explosive evidence.

The way the WTC buildings collapsed is not evidence of explosive demolition.

Of course there was no explosive evidence ...the steel tresses columns and beams were recycled overseas! Evidence was hurried out of the country fast as can be.

Some firefighters on the scene may disagree with you as far as no evidence or sound of explosions.....but hey what does a firefighter know right?

[Q24]

Legitimate based on who's standards?

Based on the FBI’s standards pre-9/11 and the 9/11 Commissioner’s standards thereafter.

Add to that large amounts of damage from falling debris.

The NIST report concluded that the debris damage to WTC7 was largely superficial and had no bearing on collapse of the building. One of many quotes from NCSTAR1-9 which explain this: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001." Your argument is outdated and out of line with the official theory if you want to claim debris damage had anything to do with the WTC7 collapse.

I am sure skyeagle will address this, or frenat probably will.

Are you even serious, calling on skyeagle for help? He’s a laughing stock with both sides of debaters.

I’ll address the air defense failure... fighters scrambled to defend the Pentagon were further away at the time of the impact than when they’d taken off, despite clear request from NORAD for cover over Washington - their order was not adhered. During this time, in the Presidential Emergency Operations Centre (PEOC), Dick Cheney had in place an undisclosed order in regard to the incoming threat... and it wasn’t for an intercept or shootdown... so you work it out...

Seemingly willful is not the same as willful.

The US Intelligence department makes mistakes all the time. Why would it surprise anyone that terrorists have slipped into the country undetected. The fault lies with our intelligence community's ability to share information between each other effectively.

Had you been in the military during wartime, you would know this.

This gives a false impression. Even when the FBI knew the terrorists were in the country before 9/11 and wanted to open a criminal investigation, the CIA blocked them – it was not due to a system flaw/inability to share intelligence, but outright obstruction of the FBI to do their duty – the CIA had an operation surrounding the hijackers that they were protecting. Please see my posts on this page for wider information.

Fine. Show me proof of a missile hitting flight 93. Show me studies on the datamined FDR of flight 93 that shows that it was blown out of the sky. Show me evidence where the missile that struck flight 93 came from.

There is strong evidence for a Flight 93 shootdown - please thoroughly absorb the evidence in posts #1997 & #1999 here.

[skyeagle409]

Based on the FBI’s standards pre-9/11 and the 9/11 Commissioner’s standards thereafter.

But, it has already been acknowledged that the FBI had problems within its own agency before the 9/11 attacks.

The NIST report concluded that the debris damage to WTC7 was largely superficial and had no bearing on collapse of the building.

How much of the south side of WTC7 was taken out by impact damage?

Are you even serious, calling on skyeagle for help? He’s a laughing stock with both sides of debaters.

On the contrary, you, and the 9/11 conspriacist have made a laughing stock of yourselves!! Case in point;, false stories and hoaxed photos and videos where the 9/11 conspiracy folks used them in their arguments!

As I have said before, claims of 9/11 conspiracist are ignorant-based.

I’ll address the air defense failure... fighters scrambled to defend the Pentagon were further away at the time of the impact than when they’d taken off, despite clear request from NORAD for cover over Washington - their order was not adhered.

At what time was that order received by commanders in the field? Whom advised the military that United 93 crashed and at what time was the message acknowledged?

You see, it is like this, I could have passed on false and misleading information to those 9/11 conspiracy websites and you would even have known the difference. BTW, were you even aware that some of the information you have presented was false or misleading?

During this time, in the Presidential Emergency Operations Centre (PEOC), Dick Cheney had in place an undisclosed order in regard to the incoming threat... and it wasn’t for an intercept or shootdown... so you work it out...

At what time frame can we attached that order?

Edited October 18, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Of course there was no explosive evidence ...the steel tresses columns and beams were recycled overseas!

Were you aware that steel from the WTC buildings were examined at the Fresh Kills landfill? Some of the steel from the WTC buildings was used in the construction of the USS New York, and passed around the country.

Some firefighters on the scene may disagree with you as far as no evidence or sound of explosions.....but hey what does a firefighter know right?

I have spent a lot of time in war and heard many explosions over the years and I didn't see a single piece of evidence in the WTC videos nor heard the sound of bomb explosions in those videos. When you have heard sound of bomb explosions as many times as I have, you would know exactly what I mean.

This is not what was seen nor heard during the collapse of the WTC buildings.

[TrueBeliever]

Were you aware that steel from the WTC buildings were examined at the Fresh Kills landfill? Some of the steel from the WTC buildings was used in the construction of the USS New York, and passed around the country.

I have spent a lot of time in war and heard many explosions over the years and I didn't see a single piece of evidence in the WTC videos nor heard the sound of bomb explosions in those videos. When you have heard sound of bomb explosions as many times as I have, you would know exactly what I mean.

This is not what was seen nor heard during the collapse of the WTC buildings.

[media=]

[/media]

Are you calling the witnesses there liars?

[Czero 101]

Are you calling the witnesses there liars?

I doubt he is, but I won't claim to know where Skyeagle is going to go next with his "argument"

Do you agree any of the following:

- that it is possible that the "sounds of explosions" may not necessarily have been actual explosives?

- that it is possible that the "sounds of explosions" could have been other things that were mis-identified or assumed to have been "explosives" because of the panic and confusion on that day?

- that it is possible that those firemen and other witnesses who heard the "sounds of explosions" were not lying when they reported them as "bombs" or "explosions" but because they are not explosives / demolitions experts may have misidentified something else as an explosive device?

I know the last two are fairly similar, but they are also different enough to warrant separate questions.

Cz

[TrueBeliever]

I doubt he is, but I won't claim to know where Skyeagle is going to go next with his "argument"

Do you agree any of the following:

- that it is possible that the "sounds of explosions" may not necessarily have been actual explosives?

- that it is possible that the "sounds of explosions" could have been other things that were mis-identified or assumed to have been "explosives" because of the panic and confusion on that day?

- that it is possible that those firemen and other witnesses who heard the "sounds of explosions" were not lying when they reported them as "bombs" or "explosions" but because they are not explosives / demolitions experts may have misidentified something else as an explosive device?

I know the last two are fairly similar, but they are also different enough to warrant separate questions.

Cz

definitely... I agree there could be other explanations for that they heard/what they thought they heard. most definitely.

do you agree they could actually HAVE heard explosions?

[Czero 101]

definitely... I agree there could be other explanations for that they heard/what they thought they heard. most definitely.

do you agree they could actually HAVE heard explosions?

Yes, I do agree its possible, and I do believe that some of the "sounds of explosions" heard that day may have actually been things that actually exploded, but that it is extremely more likely that they were things that could be found in any office building anywhere on the planet that could explode in a fire or when crushed, rather than "bombs" or "secondary explosive devices" claimed by some CT's.

Then there's this from an earlier discussion about this very same topic:

How about the words of someone who was there, in one of the towers, when it was hit:

The Elevator Man's Tale

Featuring the unabridged transcript and audio.

Robert Jones

Age: 52

Hometown: Montgomery

Family: Two children

Occupation: Elevator mechanic for Ace Elevator in the World Trade Center

Was in the south tower when the first plane hit.

...

As I turned around to go back toward the core of the building in the lobby, the second plane hit, and that shook the building.

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

I’m looking from the lobby up to a mezzanine area or the second floor where they lined up all the people to go up to the rooftop, and I’m looking up expecting something, building parts to be coming down, because I wasn’t quite sure what that noise was.

But I found out later, when the plane came through the building, it cut the hoist ropes, the governor ropes, of (the) 6 and 7 cars, which was the observation cars.

Every night they would park those two cars up on the 107th floor. At the time the plane impacted B Tower, the observation deck wasn’t open yet, which was another life-saving factor. At the time it impacted the building, they hadn’t opened the observation deck.

Had they, there would’ve been many, maybe another 1,000, 2,000 people on the rooftop, because it was a clear day. It was a beautiful day.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

And apparently from what I talked to with other mechanics, they saw the doors, the hatch doors blow off in the lobby level of 6 and 7 car.

[SOURCE]

So, given the discussion so far, would you agree that its likely that at least some of the reports of explosions could have actually been the mis-identified sounds of elevator cars falling from great heights and impacting either in the sub basements, or (for those who claim there were explosions mid-way up the buildings) impacting one of the different transfer floors (called Sky Lobbies) between different banks of elevators as seen in the illustration below:

Cz

[Likely Guy]

definitely... I agree there could be other explanations for that they heard/what they thought they heard. most definitely.

do you agree they could actually HAVE heard explosions?

You're right, there are other explanations for what they thought they heard. There are also other explanations for what we think we have read regarding some of the eye witness testimonies.It's called selective editing by the so called Truth Movement. You might find this page informative regarding what the firemen and first responsders said 'in context' that day.http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm

[booNyzarC]

definitely... I agree there could be other explanations for that they heard/what they thought they heard. most definitely.

do you agree they could actually HAVE heard explosions?

In addition to the responses you've already received, I would like to ask whether or not you consider the sounds of explosions that were reported by witnesses at no time even close to the collapses (which I think pretty much covers all of them...) could have had anything at all to do with any kind of demolition charges supposedly causing the collapses?

Does the fact that none of these reports of explosions seem to actually coincide with the collapses themselves seem to suggest the high likelihood that there isn't a direct relationship between them and the collapses? Strictly from the perspective of your discerning mind, of course.

[Q24]

Yes, I do agree its possible, and I do believe that some of the "sounds of explosions" heard that day may have actually been things that actually exploded, but that it is extremely more likely that they were things that could be found in any office building anywhere on the planet that could explode in a fire or when crushed, rather than "bombs" or "secondary explosive devices" claimed by some CT's.

Objection...

Reference to “bombs” and “secondary devices” were reported by firefighters, witnesses and police officials on scene that morning, they were not “claimed by some CT’s”.

A selection of reports: -

• News reporter, Pat Dawson, “Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, he received word of a possibility of a secondary device; that is another bomb going off, there was another explosion which took place, according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.”
  

• Eyewitness, “It just went ba-boom, it was like a bomb went off and it was like holy hell coming down them stairs…”
  

• Eyewitness evacuating from 47th floor, “There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. There was another explosion.. and another.. I didn't know where to run.”
  

• Firefighter on 24th floor of WTC1 after hearing an explosion, “I'm thinking, Oh. My God, these b******* put bombs in here like they did in 1993!??”
  

• Firefighter, “It was a secondary explosion probably a device either planted before or upon the aircraft that did not explode until an hour later.”
  

• News reporter, “We presume because of the initial explosion there may have been secondary explosions as well that were detonated in the building by these terrorists.”
  

• News reporter, “We’re obviously having a bit of trouble right now maintaining our location because we just heard one more explosion… do you know anything about those extra explosions we heard? Were they car bombs?”
  

I believe those on scene, in particular the firefighters, were best placed to discern what is normal result of a fire situation and what is unusual, raising concerns of “bombs” and “secondary devices”.

So, given the discussion so far, would you agree that its likely that at least some of the reports of explosions could have actually been the mis-identified sounds of elevator cars falling from great heights and impacting either in the sub basements, or (for those who claim there were explosions mid-way up the buildings) impacting one of the different transfer floors (called Sky Lobbies) between different banks of elevators as seen in the illustration below:

No, the emergency brakes should stop that occurring when the cables are severed. If it did occur then it should have been at the time of impact, not continuously leading up to the collapse. Also in WTC1 the majority of cars in shafts below the impact and fire zone (lower floors where the explosions were reported to have taken place) were contacted by an elevator supervisor, suggesting they were not destroyed. The falling elevator car theory is therefore a poor explanation for the many reports of explosions that took place from the impacts up to the collapses.

However, the elevator shafts would be prime location for access to the core columns, placement and concealment of demolition charges. It also happens that the towers tilted in direction not congruent with the impacts, but in direction of the main body of elevator banks. We know that elevator doors were blown right off (firefighter: “So we’re standing there in the lobby getting all together, all of a sudden we hear [simulates explosive sound], I look down to my right and the elevator has exploded like something like out of a Bruce Willis Die Hard movie”), and in the case of WTC7, which did not even suffer an airliner impact, a car was somehow ejected right out of its shaft. This evidence indicates demolition charges placed in the elevator shafts, detonated a time apart to weaken the building and conceal the demoltion.

[skyeagle409]

Objection...

Reference to “bombs” and “secondary devices” were reported by firefighters, witnesses and police officials on scene that morning, they were not “claimed by some CT’s”.

A selection of reports: -

• News reporter, Pat Dawson, “Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, he received word of a possibility of a secondary device; that is another bomb going off, there was another explosion which took place, according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.”
  

• Eyewitness, “It just went ba-boom, it was like a bomb went off and it was like holy hell coming down them stairs…”
  

• Eyewitness evacuating from 47th floor, “There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. There was another explosion.. and another.. I didn't know where to run.”
  

• Firefighter on 24th floor of WTC1 after hearing an explosion, “I'm thinking, Oh. My God, these b******* put bombs in here like they did in 1993!??”
  

• Firefighter, “It was a secondary explosion probably a device either planted before or upon the aircraft that did not explode until an hour later.”
  

• News reporter, “We presume because of the initial explosion there may have been secondary explosions as well that were detonated in the building by these terrorists.”
  

• News reporter, “We’re obviously having a bit of trouble right now maintaining our location because we just heard one more explosion… do you know anything about those extra explosions we heard? Were they car bombs?”
  

I believe those on scene, in particular the firefighters, were best placed to discern what is normal result of a fire situation and what is unusual, raising concerns of “bombs” and “secondary devices”.

But, there is no evidence that explosives were used! Let me break it down.

* No bomb explosions were seen in the videos

* No bomb explosions were heard in the videos nor on audio

* No bomb explosions were detected on seismic monitors in the general area

* No evidence of explosives were found in the rubble of the WTC buildings

Question is, where did 9/11 conspiracist get the idea that explosives were used when there is no shred of evidence that explosives were used in the first place? If you cannot provide evidence of explosives, and you have no case.

Remember, just because someone who says they heard an explosion, is not evidence that explosives were used because there are many cases where people reported the sound of explosives only to find the sounds were attributed to sources other than explosives.

Edited October 18, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

But, there is no evidence that explosives were used!

What a silly thing to say right after I provided evidence indicative of explosives.

* No bomb explosions were seen in the videos

Wrong – the ‘squibs’ seen during the collapses match those of recorded demolitions.

* No bomb explosions were heard in the videos nor on audio

Wrong again – along with the witness testimony already provided, explosions are heard in video footage.

* No bomb explosions were detected on seismic monitors in the general area

Daft - neither was the 1993 explosion detected on seismic monitors, but it happened.

* No evidence of explosives were found in the rubble of the WTC buildings

Daft again – no one looked for evidence of explosives in the WTC rubble.

Though evidence of weakening/melting of steel members, at temperatures the fires could not achieve, and which FEMA stated could have began prior to the collapse, was found.

Remember, just because someone who says they heard an explosion, is not evidence that explosives were used because there are many cases where people reported the sound of explosives only to find the sounds were attributed to sources other than explosives.

The cases where the explosions are attributed to other sources fall short. For instance, explosions at locations where there was no impact or fire to cause them, and elevators which did not continuously fall. The simplest and most fitting explanation for the body of explosions reported and the results witnessed, is demolition charges. This is why fire department and police officials (who were much better placed than you to decide) worked to the theory, "that there were actually devices that were planted in the building",on the morning of 9/11.

[Czero 101]

Fancy seeing you here, Q.... one would have thought you were too busy having your hind quarters handed to you by LG in the other thread to bother diving into another one...

ETA...

On and...

Objection Overruled.

Cz

Edited October 18, 2012 by Czero 101

[skyeagle409]

What a silly thing to say right after I provided evidence indicative of explosives.

Wrong – the ‘squibs’ seen during the collapses match those of recorded demolitions.

Apparently, you didn't review the video I posted before, so here it is again, and notice the squibs and take note that no explosives are used. Remember, as the buildings collapse, all of that air is going to be forced out. Check it out and notice the squibs and remember no explosives are used.

Wrong again – along with the witness testimony already provided, explosions are heard in video footage.

Let's take a look.

[media=]

No sound of explosions anywhere within that video.

Daft - neither was the 1993 explosion detected on seismic monitors, but it happened.

The demolition expert whose monitors I spoke of, denied that his monitors detected explosions. In addition to Protec, how about these companies;

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

Manafort Brothers

Tully Construction,

Daft again – no one looked for evidence of explosives in the WTC rubble.

They would not have had to look very hard because they would have had trouble avoiding thousands of feet of detonation wires if explosives were used.

Upon examination of the steel at the Fresh Kills landfill, no evidence of explosives nor thermite cutting on steel from the WTC buildings were found and remember, thermite is not a high energy explosive nor widely used by demolition companies.

Here is what bombed buildings look like when not pre-weaken.

1993 WTC1 Bombing

As you can see, WTC1 remained standing.

Though evidence of weakening/melting of steel members, at temperatures the fires could not achieve, and which FEMA stated could have began prior to the collapse, was found.

Temperatures from the fires were high enough to weaken steel, not melt steel.

The cases where the explosions are attributed to other sources fall short. For instance, explosions at locations where there was no impact or fire to cause them, and elevators which did not continuously fall. The simplest and most fitting explanation for the body of explosions reported and the results witnessed, is demolition charges.

They were mistaken because seismic monitors did not detect explosions, nor are explosions seen on video, and once again, demolition experts and recovery crews did not find evidence of explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

This is why fire department and police officials (who were much better placed than you to decide) worked to the theory, "that there were actually devices that were planted in the building",on the morning of 9/11.

There were no explosive devices planted either and remember, no one found evidence of explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Edited October 18, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

Fancy seeing you here, Q.... one would have thought you were too busy having your hind quarters handed to you by LG in the other thread to bother diving into another one...

Well... if that constitutes not addressing real points on the Talking Turkey thread in favour of making minor speculative arguments elsewhere – grasping at straws that unequal standards applied to authors somehow presents a fair discussion, and that 9/11 discussion in the mainstream has no political strings attached... then one would have thought so. Though apparently I’m here rather than busy there right now, so I guess you were mistaken.

Objection Overruled.

Objection upheld - on record evidence should not be misrepresented/downplayed simply as ‘CT claims’ when it is actually sourced from eyewitnesses, reporters and firefighters.

Any advances on your falling elevator theory, which is clearly not a comprehensive or even partly good match to the reports and evidence of explosions?

Perhaps, they were falling elevator cars packed with shaped charges?

Oh look, here’s one now from WTC7: -

[media=]

[/media]

Elevator car my ***.

The claim that fire caused this complete collapse (not to mention sudden, symmetrical and freefall) is absurd – it’s not even possible – any research of indeterminate structures and all known precedent will tell you why. People who think it is reasonable clearly do not understand the construction of the building nor office fires. And after the building owner had that very morning been seeking authorisation for the demolition of WTC7... a plan that many on scene knew was taking place and even media reporters picked up on (though you will find no investigation of this evidence or questioning of these individuals in official reports, not a shred – investigation, pfft - how can anyone defend that?)... then woah, fire beat them to it, surrre.

If I were an official story adherent I wouldn't even try to argue this one. I'd say ok, it was a demolition performed for safety reasons and it's been covered up as some sort of agreed insurance scam - to make the claim as part of the terrorist attack. Though I guess that opens up a whole can of worms when we look further into the detail.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Well... if that constitutes not addressing real points on the Talking Turkey thread in favour of making minor speculative arguments elsewhere – grasping at straws that unequal standards applied to authors somehow presents a fair discussion, and that 9/11 discussion in the mainstream has no political strings attached... then one would have thought so. Though apparently I’m here rather than busy there right now, so I guess you were mistaken.

Which 'real' points am I not addressing again Q? I've seen what you mean by 'real points', it consistently means 'circumstantial' at best, and when pressed on a topic, we get to 'well it could be, it'd be naive to think it's not a possibility'. Or maybe on whatever real point you were just being over-certain and what you say can't actually be taken as having evidence behind it. That's a lot of irrelevant and illogical muck for me to wade through and unpack to get to the non-embellished facts behind your 'real points', if they exist at all. Ya see, I'm skeptical, including of myself; your mileage may vary. And from a skeptical standpoint, only having circumstantial evidence for your conclusions is strike one and two. And is that what 'journals proven to be biased due to political sensitivity' has now been transformed to, the strawman of, 'the 9/11 discussion in the mainstream has no political strings attached'? I understand you needing to back away from your original bs there, I wish I could say that I could 'trust you to retract it' instead of hand-waving.

But agreed, our argument about our argument is boring. On point, what is your proof that the explosions are actually from explosives and not things falling? How have you determined they are not from myriad things that will explode when exposed to fire? What does the analysis of truthers' show should have happened to the millions of square feet of air when the building collapsed, if you disagree that that is what the 'squibs' visible actually are?

[+Liquid Gardens]

And after the building owner had that very morning been seeking authorisation for the demolition of WTC7... a plan that many on scene knew was taking place and even media reporters picked up on (though you will find no investigation of this evidence or questioning of these individuals in official reports, not a shred – investigation, pfft - how can anyone defend that?)... then woah, fire beat them to it, surrre.

And your evidence that the building owner was seeking authorization to demolish 7 that morning is? The evidence that he is not referring to having to demolish 7 if it remains standing after the fire and damage sometime in the future is? And in the unlikelihood that you are correct, the reason the building owner is so stupid to allow us even to know about this conversation is? Is there a problem with confronting your speculation with opposing speculation?