9/11 Explosions and "explosives"...

[Baz Dane]

Ok... don't really fight!

As I have been seeing quite a lot about the "explosions" being posted in other threads... Notably the 28 Redacted Pages, and the now closed Plane Impact threads, among others, I thought I would start this thread for that purpose.

Explosions/explosives in the Towers?

It's an interesting discussion, and as some posters here have pointed out in other threads, there has been no evidence in the form of destroyed explosives equipment like blasting caps, wires etc.

They will tell you there is no evidence of explosives, period.

Other people argue there is plenty of evidence, from witness statements and video footage and more perhaps?

The 9/11 Commission and NIST say there were no explosive evidence found... But I do believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, they also admitted that they were not looking for any.

As for my own opinion, well... One thing I take into account is, based on the evidence found(much discussed in the 28 Pages thread here at UM) the 9/11 Commission is incomplete.

They were wrong about the funding of the 9/11 hijackers.

But let's not argue that here of course, this is about "explosions".

Witnesses have claimed to hear explosions, but what do they represent? Do they represent explosives?

For me, I find that all 3 towers came down in a rather unorthodox manner such as when I try to consider the top smaller portion smashed it's way through the huge structure underneath, with hardly any resistance at all, as both were disintegrating into dust. And this happened to both Twin Towers, exactly the same way?

I would figure the smaller portion above would smash/disintegrate maybe to the 50th floor or something, but then be too pulverized(with no great mass left) to continue to destroy the rest.

But then again, I recognize that I am not a physics professor.

Someone I believe mentioned something about pancakes at one time, but forgot the syrup...

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers..."

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

To be totally honest though, while I find that all 3 towers came down under rather strange circumstances, it was, afterall, a rather strange and terrible day, but I am not ready to point a finger just yet, so I am on the fence on this one.

My opinion is to get through the current 9/11 related trials and follow whatever evidence is gleaned from those cases... if any. Perhaps more connections than we think will pop up in these trials?

Although I'm not quite ready to battle for either side on this one, I will present these video clips that I found rather interesting in relation to the "explosions" of 9/11.

In this video of the North Tower coming down, they claim to have had to file a lawsuit to get this video, but they got it.

They adjust for the time delay in the sound(in the second time they show the clips... sound delay it better explained in the series of videos below this one) and they make the claim for explosives...

(Running time 3:36 mins)

What do you think? Any meat on them bones?

These next clips come from the video 9/11 Eyewitness(Link to full video below)

Rick Siegel was on-hand with excellent camera equipment to capture the fall and "explosions" of the tower.

So here is the original(they claim in the video) footage of the tower coming down.

Note- The sound takes about 9 seconds to reach the camera, as he is about 2 miles away.

( :43 seconds)

Now here is the film explaining sound delay, and explaining the distance and formula etc, and they present the video again, but with the sound in sync with the falling of the tower as if you were standing right beside it.

(3:39 mins)

Here is a reporter saying "The twin disaster at the WTC happening shortly before 9:00 am, then right around 9:00 am and then just a little while ago a third explosion"

( :19 seconds)

A third explosion?

Here is the FULL video... with lots of accusations in it to be sure.

Some posters will love it, some will not bother with it. I watched it all, but I can not confirm this footage is unaltered in sound. I could fake sound in a video easily.

(1:40:40 hours)

Something I learned as well, was that Rick Seigel sued some "truther" who had used his footage for their own video purposes, but altered the sound to add more sirens and stuff.

I have to ask though that IF, and I can not know for sure, but IF, Rick's video, as presented in this film, truly IS unedited in sound and truly does represent the sounds of 9/11 that morning, do these sounds qualify as explosives?

Something to note... as I said above, can easily take video footage and add and manipulate any sounds I want in them very easily. I have a full recording studio and you might say I'm something of an expert when it comes to sound and recording manipulation.

While I may be a great person for sound and it's alterations etc, I am not an expert for sounds of explosives while being nearby.

Food for thought. (Also - I did not add or edit any sound in the above videos in case anyone is wondering)

So... Explosives???

Go...

Last note... I'm not claiming one thing or another here... Just presenting some footage I found to be rather interesting. While I will likely not be participating in this thread very often, I will no doubt be reading along as the debate grows... If the debate grows.

[Czero 101]

No one denies there were explosions and "sounds of explosions" (things that sound like explosions but aren't the result of explosives / explosions).

However, the CT / Truther crowd seem unwilling or incapable of admitting that bombs / explosives (in the context of purposely placed demolition charges) aren't the only things that can make sounds that are "explosion-like".

There are many things in a typical office that can and will explode when heated or compressed. It is also quite possible that there were other not-so-common-but-not-conspiracy-related explosive materials in some of the offices.

And then there's Elevators, a topic that has been brought to the table several times and almost without exception has been summarily ignored or handwaved away by the CT / Truther crowd.

Case in point:

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]

To be perfectly clear, I am not suggesting that crashing elevators can account for all the examples of the "sounds of explosions" heard that day, but they certainly can and, in the opinion of a great many people, do account for some.

Cz

[Likely Guy]

From your wall of text, I'll pick... this brick!

"The 9/11 Commission and NIST say there were no explosive evidence found... But I do believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, they also admitted that they were not looking for any."

They also weren't looking for Death Star rays, mini-nukes and a whole other host of ludicrous possibilities. If it was a control demolition, they would have found a mile of wires.

Were they looking for miles of wires? No.

Did they find miles of wires? No.

Ergo, it wasn't a controlled demolition. This doesn't include, of course, other evidence that also confirms that it wasn't a controlled demolition.

[Baz Dane]

From your wall of text, I'll pick... this brick!

"The 9/11 Commission and NIST say there were no explosive evidence found... But I do believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, they also admitted that they were not looking for any."

They also weren't looking for Death Star rays

I read to this point and nearly spit my pop all over my keyboard! lol

Awesome! ... See, who says Judy Wood was good for nothing?

I like her one tiny bit more now!

[Careful_perspective]

I don't really know a ton about this Topic, but I do know that some of the evidence for explosions has been that people who worked in the building heard weird construction like noises throughout the buildings in weeks before..is this true?

[DONTEATUS]

Next thread to be Locked, due to no actual fact based evidence,details,proof !

[Imaginarynumber1]

There were no bombs in any of the towers.

/thread

[Likely Guy]

I don't really know a ton about this Topic, but I do know that some of the evidence for explosions has been that people who worked in the building heard weird construction like noises throughout the buildings in weeks before..is this true?

On a building that size with office walls being removed and/or expanded, construction noise would be expected throughout the lifetime of the building. New renters? New construction.

Hundreds, and I mean hundreds of guys in each of those buildings rolling out primer cord and Oxy/Ace hoses, punching out walls, jackhammers... they would have been noticed. It should have taken at least two years to complete.

Yet, no one noticed.

Therefore. No.

[skyeagle409]

To demolish a steel frame building requires many months of preparation. The process is noisy, dirty and produces tons of waste products and would have drawn a lot of attention in a building occupied by thousands of people.

Could such an operation have been carried out beneath the watchful eyes and ears of the building custodians and inspectors? I don't think so!

.

Edited December 18, 2014 by skyeagle409

[Likely Guy]

Explosion: "A thing that goes BOOM."

Explosive: "A thing that was designed to go BOOM."

No evidence of the latter, but I see how some people mistakenly interchange the two. But, that's the facts, jack!

Edited December 18, 2014 by Likely Guy

[Likely Guy]

Next thread to be Locked, due to no actual fact based evidence,details,proof !

No, you just have to be respectful and thought based in your response.

I, for one, would proud to be referred to as an effeminate cheerleader.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Likely Guy

[Space Commander Travis]

On a building that size with office walls being removed and/or expanded, construction noise would be expected throughout the lifetime of the building. New renters? New construction.

Hundreds, and I mean hundreds of guys in each of those buildings rolling out primer cord and Oxy/Ace hoses, punching out walls, jackhammers... they would have been noticed. It should have taken at least two years to complete.

Yet, no one noticed.

Therefore. No.

I suppose, on the basis that no one's going to question people wandering about with hard hats and boxes of tools and reels of cable and what have you, (particularly if they had "security passes", which I expect they'd have had to, but which wouldn't be difficult to fake, would they), really anyone could pass off doing whatever they wanted to do as some sort of construction work or refurbishment or alterations, and if anyone did ask they could fob them off with some construction industry tech-speak, so perhaps that wouldn't have been entirely impossible (hypothetically).

[Likely Guy]

I suppose, on the basis that no one's going to question people wandering about with hard hats and boxes of tools and reels of cable and what have you, (particularly if they had "security passes", which I expect they'd have had to, but which wouldn't be difficult to fake, would they), really anyone could pass off doing whatever they wanted to do as some sort of construction work or refurbishment or alterations, and if anyone did ask they could fob them off with some construction industry tech-speak, so perhaps that wouldn't have been entirely impossible (hypothetically).

Far-fetched hypothetically, it might be a possibility (in the loosest definition of the terms).

But yeah sure, why not?

Edit: 'Security Passes'!, that's the ticket. Others had 'Press Passes'. That was the other ticket.

Ah ha! It's obvious!

Edited December 18, 2014 by Likely Guy

[DONTEATUS]

I would like to know how many people in U/M think that anything but what Happened that day ,Actually Happened?

I.E. Two Jet Airliners Hit the towers ,started the Fires, weakened the structure, And Gravity Weight Real Physicis brought them down ?

100% - 90 % - 80 % - 70 %- ?

[Rafterman]

To demolish a steel frame building requires many months of preparation. The process is noisy, dirty and produces tons of waste products and would have drawn a lot of attention in a building occupied by thousands of people.

Could such an operation have been carried out beneath the watchful eyes and ears of the building custodians and inspectors? I don't think so!

.

Not to mention, to then be able to crash an airliner into the buildings and not damage or destroy the explosives in any way.

[Space Commander Travis]

I would like to know how many people in U/M think that anything but what Happened that day ,Actually Happened?

I.E. Two Jet Airliners Hit the towers ,started the Fires, weakened the structure, And Gravity Weight Real Physicis brought them down ?

100% - 90 % - 80 % - 70 %- ?

90% to that, probably, but The people involved were who we're told that they were and no one else, and they did it purely because They Hate Our Freedoms, and certain loyal allies weren't involved at all? Perhaps 30% probability. Edited December 18, 2014 by Valdemar the Great

[Stundie]

Not to mention, to then be able to crash an airliner into the buildings and not damage or destroy the explosives in any way.

This argument keeps cropping up but doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Just a few thoughts as to why the argument is wrong....

• Ever thought that explosives could have been placed away from the impact zones?
  
• Even if some of the explosives were damaged, there could still be plenty that survive.
  
• Even if explosives are destroyed, then they have done their job a little bit early.
  
• Some explosives like C4 do not explode when on fire and would be capable of surviving.
  

These points have been brought up time and time again.

[skyeagle409]

I would like to know how many people in U/M think that anything but what Happened that day ,Actually Happened?

I.E. Two Jet Airliners Hit the towers ,started the Fires, weakened the structure, And Gravity Weight Real Physicis brought them down ?

100% - 90 % - 80 % - 70 %- ?

That is correct, and after 13 years, there is not one shred of evidence that explosives were used.

[skyeagle409]

[quote name='Likely Guy' timestamp='1418870573' post='5395271

"The 9/11 Commission and NIST say there were no explosive evidence found... But I do believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, they also admitted that they were not looking for any."

You are correct. Check it out.

Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

http://www.webcitation.org/5pvOUTcar

Edited December 19, 2014 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Explosion: "A thing that goes BOOM."

Explosive: "A thing that was designed to go BOOM."

No evidence of the latter, but I see how some people mistakenly interchange the two. But, that's the facts, jack!

That is correct. There are those who seem to think that you can just place explosives inside of a steel frame building and the building will instantly collapse. I guess they didn't understand why WTC 1 did not collapse after a huge bomb was detonated beneath that building.

[Empty Garden]

Explosion: "A thing that goes BOOM."

Explosive: "A thing that was designed to go BOOM."

No evidence of the latter, but I see how some people mistakenly interchange the two. But, that's the facts, jack!

That seems like a gross oversimplification to me.

About 6 months ago I watched at a friend's house a presentation by Richard Gage and Architects & Engineers for 911 truth. I agree with his conclusion that the government explanation, both 911 Commission and the NIST report, are terribly incomplete. Probably as iplete ncompleteas your simple post is.

As Dan Rather and others pointed out, it really did look like a controlled demolition. It probably was one. There are too many facts and mysteries that do not fit into the official explanation. Really, how can the official story explain so many things that it does not even address, like the WTC 7 and the molten iron present for months?

[Space Commander Travis]

So why should a controlled demolition result in molten iron being present for months? Controlled demolitions are a usual way to demolish tall buildings, but they rarely result in molten iron, let alone such a state persisting for months.

[skyeagle409]

So why should a controlled demolition result in molten iron being present for months? Controlled demolitions are a usual way to demolish tall buildings, but they rarely result in molten iron, let alone such a state persisting for months.

it is amazing to think that there are those who thought that molten metal was evidence of controlled demolition. I don't know where they got that false idea from.

[skyeagle409]

About 6 months ago I watched at a friend's house a presentation by Richard Gage and Architects & Engineers for 911 truth.

I have to stop you there for a moment because Richard Gage has been caught lying on video..

As Dan Rather and others pointed out, it really did look like a controlled demolition. It probably was one.

No, it wasn't and Dan Rather is not a demolition expert. In fact, demolition experts have stated for the record that the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 were not similar to explosive demolitions. There is no sound of explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed and no explosives were seen on video either. To firm up that point, explosions were not detected by seismic monitors in the area, which is a clue that explosives were not responsible for the collapse of those buildings.

There are too many facts and mysteries that do not fit into the official explanation. Really, how can the official story explain so many things that it does not even address, like the WTC 7 and the molten iron present for months?

Explosive demolition of buildings do not leave behind molten steel for months. Were you aware that stored iron can create temperatures high enough to start fires?

Iron Burns

"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

http://chemistry.abo...a/aa051903a.htm

.

Edited December 20, 2014 by skyeagle409

[preacherman76]

There were reports of explosions in the towers before the first plane even hit. It was the last thing I heard on the radio before I turned it off that morning.