1999 replies to this topic

[Q24]

Czero 101, on 19 April 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

How do you explain the information I posted earlier of the elevator cars crashing into the sub-basement and those sounds being confused for the sounds of explosions?

I meant to respond to that.

How does an elevator car explain the numerous explosions reported at different levels long after the impacts?  It doesn’t appear possible that the relatively low temperatures in the core caused a continuous/steady stream of falling elevator cars.

There was also no failure of structural elements (like the crane example) prior to the failure at the collapse zone.  Others believe the explosions were a natural result of the fire (even lower down the building where there was no fire), though the FDNY and FBI both believed on that morning there were “secondary devices” planted in the buildings.

So shocked were the FDNY by the first complete collapse (rather than partial collapse after a number of hours as their experience suggested), that a discussion immediately followed in their ranks as to whether the building was brought down by charges.

Of course their initial determination and subsequent theory were correct.

[Czero 101]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

I meant to respond to that.

How does an elevator car explain the numerous explosions reported at different levels long after the impacts?  It doesn’t appear possible that the relatively low temperatures in the core caused a continuous/steady stream of falling elevator cars.

Yes, well, if you had read carefully you would have probably noticed where I prefaced the quote with this:

Czero 101, on 16 April 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

Regarding what was perceived as the "explosions", or at least addressing some of them, I posted this a while back:

At no point in the two posts where I have provided this exact quote does it claim to account for all the "sounds of explosions" nor have I claimed that either, despite your attempts to imply that it does or that I did.







Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 19 April 2012 - 05:20 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 19 April 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

You keep forgetting that other buildings suffered more damage and had bigger fires and survived. Even the NIST said the damage was not a contributing factor to the collapse of WTC7.

And, I say that impact damage suffered by WTC 7 was a contributing factor. The damage was very serious. Even firefighters observed the damage and knew the building was coming down.

Quote

And remember that the NIST said the damage didn't cause the building to collapse.

Fire weakened the structure.

Quote

Or maybe it was those explosions that made firefighters unable to get to the building like in those news reports from those at GZ?

There was no evidence that explosives were used. Was the water system working at the time? Did the firefighters hear strange noises within WTC 7 before it collapsed? Did they observe massive damage to WTC 7 before the building collapsed?

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 April 2012 - 05:35 PM.

[mrbusdriver]

This is one part of a series of videos rebutting a 9/11 video by Richard Gage.

[skyeagle409]

Wandering, on 19 April 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

I don't know how an object crashing to the ground can be interpreted as an explosion.

Check this out. Czero posted the story and link the other day.

Quote

The Elevator Man's Tale

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.

So right after that explosion, we were ordered to leave the building.

My link

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 April 2012 - 05:49 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 19 April 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

But it's a lot quicker to heat soak steel than spend weeks planning and wiring a building for demolition right?? So why don't demolition companies use it Skyeagle??

Because fires are not considered a precise form of demoliton and fires pollute the air with harmful chemicals from plastics and other sources. It was alll very simple to understand why fire is not used to demolish steel-frame buildings.

Quote

But fires caused the precise demolition of WTC7....according to your logic.

Fires can cause structural failure in steel-framed buildings and when you throw in impact damage, ...welll, you should be getting the message by now.

Quote

Unless you think a building collapsing straight down into it's own footprint is not precise!!  

The building in Seoul collapsed straight down.

Quote

Demolition sometimes goes wrong, your point being what exactly?? lol They should have used fires?? lol

Nope. Do it like it has been done. Spend many weeks planning, preparing, pre-weakening the structure and precise placement of explosives. No one is going to plant tens of thousands of tons of thermite to bring down the WTC buildings. That is what I am talking about in regards to the 9/11 Truthers not understanding what it takes to bring down a building with explosive. They think that all you have to do is to plant explosives inside a steel-framed building and it will collapse, but that is not that easy and why I posted photos of buildings that were struck by bombs and yet remained standing.

Do you know why?

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 19 April 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

Here you are lying about your lies.  

Please point out where I have SUPPOSEDLY used them (A&E for 9/11 Truth) as IF they were demolition experts.  

Cause frankly Skyeagle, your imagination is running fricking wild and inventing things which clearly don't exists.

You used them as references, am I correct?? Let them have their new investigation, but the results will go against the 9/11 Truthers just as that new FDR investigation of American 77 went against the 9/11 Truthers in 2011.

And look what happened when someone decided to take another look.

Quote

Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

By John Fleck
Journal Staff Writer

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

My link

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 April 2012 - 06:13 PM.

[Q24]

Czero 101, on 19 April 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

Yes, well, if you had read carefully you would have probably noticed where I prefaced the quote with this:



At no point in the two posts where I have provided this exact quote does it claim to account for all the "sounds of explosions" nor have I claimed that either, despite your attempts to imply that it does or that I did.

Oh sorry… it’s the way you worded it.  I got the false impression you were suggesting all of the explosions may have been falling elevator cars.  Never mind then.  I’m more interested in the explosions that led experienced personnel of the FDNY and FBI to believe there were “secondary devices” and “bombs” planted in the buildings on 9/11.

[Czero 101]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Oh sorry… it’s the way you worded it.  

Really...?

Quote

I got the false impression you were suggesting all of the explosions may have been falling elevator cars.

You got that impression from this:

Quote

Regarding what was perceived as the "explosions", or at least addressing some of them

...?  

Somehow its my fault that you misinterpreted something that I wrote specifically to ensure that such misinterpretations wouldn't happen...?

Maybe you should get your computer's monitor checked because it seems to only be showing you what you want to see, not what is really there....  

Quote

I’m more interested in the explosions that led experienced personnel of the FDNY and FBI to believe there were “secondary devices” and “bombs” planted in the buildings on 9/11.

You mean people like FDNY Deputy Assistant Chief Albert Turi who is quoted by some who believe there were "bombs" and "secondary devices / explosions" as saying:

Quote

And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out.

[SOURCE]

Which is all fine and good (I guess), except that they have cherry-picked that quote and neglected the rest of what Turi said immediately after that snippet:

Quote

And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. i later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go. And as my eyes traveled further up the building, I realized that this building was collapsing and I turned around and most everybody was ahead of me running for the garage, and I remember thinking I looked at this thing a little bit too long and I might not make this garage. But I dio [sic].

[SOURCE]

Or FDNY Battalion Chief Brian Dixon who is quoted (in the same source as the cherry-picked truncated Turi quote above) as saying:

Quote

... the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.

And again, the full, unabridged quote:

Quote

I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing -- it actually looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out.I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That is what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.

[SOURCE]

Now Q, you will want to read this next sentence very slowly so that you don't read into it things I haven't said or implied misinterpret what it says:

I'm not suggesting that every quote that references "bombs" or "secondary explosions / devices" has taken out of context, doesn't represent what someone believed at the time or has been similarly cherry-picked to give the impression that someone said one thing, when the opposite is fairly apparent when the whole quote is viewed in context, but certainly the fact that some of them can be shown to have been "selectively edited" (to be generous) - and I'm sure there are more than just the two examples I've given - should give one reason to question the validity of those claims, or at least, question the motives of those who push that particular theory of "bombs" and / or "secondary devices / explosions".

If you have questions, Q, about the preceding sentence, please ask me first before putting words in my mouth again.





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 19 April 2012 - 08:00 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Quote

Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says

Published: August 21, 2008

The investigators determined that debris from the falling twin towers damaged structural columns and ignited fires on at least 10 floors at 7 World Trade Center, which stood about 400 feet north of the twin towers. But the structural damage from the falling debris was not significant enough to threaten the tower's stability, Dr. Sunder said.

The fires on six of the lower floors burned with particular intensity because the water supply for the sprinkler system had been cut off — the upper floors had a backup water supply — and the Fire Department, devastated by the collapse of the twin towers, stopped trying to fight the blaze.

Normally, fireproofing on a skyscraper should have been sufficient to allow such a blaze to burn itself out and leave the building damaged but still standing. But investigators determined that the heat from the fire caused girders in the steel floor of 7 World Trade Center to expand. As a result, steel beams underneath the floors that provided lateral support for the tower's structural columns began to buckle or put pressure against the vertical structural columns.

My link

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 April 2012 - 07:52 PM.

[Q24]

Czero 101, on 19 April 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Really...?


You got that impression from this:


...?  

Yes, really.  It's where you said, "Regarding what was perceived as the "explosions", or at least addressing some of them”.  The underlined sounded like you were perhaps referring to all of the explosions, and then adding "or at least addressing some" as a minimum.  And I haven’t said anything is your “fault” - you have clarified now, which I have accepted, do get over it.

Czero 101, on 19 April 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

You mean people like FDNY Deputy Assistant Chief Albert Turi who is quoted by some who believe there were "bombs" and "secondary devices / explosions" as saying:

No, I mean like: -

• 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.”

And this lot: -
http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=3562455

Unless you can explain every one of those reports then you are wasting your time.

[Wandering]

Czero 101, on 19 April 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

Does that mean that it is impossible for the sound of something impacting the ground - typically a loud sudden "bang" - to be interpreted by people to be an explosion - also typically a loud, sudden bang"?

No, of course not.

Czero 101, on 19 April 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

The "mechanics" behind a car backfire and a handgun being fired are very different, yet one is quite often confused for the other.

In my opinion that's one of those things which gets exaggerated a bit in the movies/tv, in real life the 2 sound quite different. Not that many people have practice with handguns though, so they don't know what it sounds like.

Czero 101, on 19 April 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

There is a difference between an "impact" sound and a "metal tearing" sound, to be sure, although there have been numerous accounts of the sounds of rivets "exploding" and "sounding like gunshots" when they are actually just snapping or being torn away from whatever structure they're attached to.

Metal stain tests, when a metal sample - such as a bolt - is stretched until failure often sound like small explosions or "bangs" at the moment of failure.

I'd describe it as more of a 'popping' bang, but I know what you mean. They also generally have that metallic 'ping' sound when they do. With all the 'crush up'   occurring as the towers collapse, you wouldn't be able to hear bolts going 'bang' as even with so many of them the sound would be drowned out by the...best word, 'rumble' of the collapsing towers. You would need short, sharp 'bangs' to be heard clearly through that, not just bolts popping out.

Czero 101, on 19 April 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

Would you be able to tell the difference? How do you explain the information I posted earlier of the elevator cars crashing into the sub-basement and those sounds being confused for the sounds of explosions?



Cz

Yes I would. That's a great example and probably the only one that could well be interpreted as an explosion while a building is collapsing. The impact causing doors to 'blow open' is in line with what most people understand and explosion to be and I can easily see how that would be interpreted as an explosion. Unfortunately that's only one example and well, the elevators had to come down at some point. It's hardly a deal breaker for me.

[mrbusdriver]

Question...

When was the last time a major CD was done with no pre-weakening, and no internal pre-demolition?

Also, many quotes from firefighters about "sounding like" explosions. How many of them still believe that they were bombs/cutting charges? It seems the secondary device fears at the time were similar to all the false explosions being reported in DC...just plain overreaction and fear. I'm certain there were a ton of fearful first responders that day.

The towers were decaying as the fires and damage spread. Many, many reports of strange sounds within the buildings themselves as things slowly came apart.

[mrbusdriver]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Oh sorry… it’s the way you worded it.  I got the false impression you were suggesting all of the explosions may have been falling elevator cars.  Never mind then.  I’m more interested in the explosions that led experienced personnel of the FDNY and FBI to believe there were “secondary devices” and “bombs” planted in the buildings on 9/11.

Fear? They knew it was a terrorist event, that there might be secondary events seemed logical at the moment.
But there are other things that cause lound reports too. The term "explosion" doesn't necessarily mean "bomb". Plus, structure was breaking, and transmitting sound in doing so. There were many potential sources of loud noises/vibrations there.

You can see random expansions in the smoke plumes coming from the buildings, lots of fire-adverse things were lighting off as the fires progressed.

[Czero 101]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

No, I mean like: -

• 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.”

And this lot: -
http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=3562455

Unless you can explain every one of those reports then you are wasting your time.

Lets have a look at that list from the post you've linked:

Q24, on 06 September 2010 - 02:08 AM, said:

• Eyewitness, “When we got down to the 6th floor there was like another shake or another explosion and everyone started panicing…”
  
  
• Eyewitness, “It just went ba-boom, it was like a bomb went off and it was like holy hell coming down them stairs…”
  
  
• Eyewitness, “We were stuck on the stairs for a while and finally got down to the lobby then when we get to the lobby there was a big explosion.”
  
  
• 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, “As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway there was a heavy duty explosion.”
  
  
• Firefighter, “I got an eyewitness who said there was an explosion on floors 7 and 8, 7, 8.”
  
  
• Firefighter, “Battalion 3 to dispatch, we’ve just had another explosion.”
  
  
• Firefighter, “… Warren Street, because of the secondary explosion.  We’ve got numerous people covered with dust from the secondary explosion.”
  
  
• Firefighter, “We got another explosion on the Tower, 10-13, 10-13.”
  
  
• Firefighter, “I was involved in the secondary explosion at tower one.”
  
  
• Firefighter, “It was a secondary explosion probably a device either planted before or upon the aircraft that did not explode until an hour later.”
  
  
• 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.”
  
  
• Police officer, “There were numerous secondary explosions taking place in that building, there were continuous explosions.”
  
  
• Doctor comment on patient, “He was actually on the 78th floor of the second tower and was evacuating the tower and experienced all these explosions and made his way back down.”
  
  
• News reporter, Rick Sanchez, “I spoke with some police officials moments ago Chris, and they told me that they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Centre may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it.”
  
  
• News reporter, Jack Kelly, “Apparently what appears to have happened was that at the same time as the two planes hit the buildings that the FBI most likely thinks there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down.”
  
  
• 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.”
  
  
• News reporter, “At 10:30 I tried to leave the building but as soon as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble, then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave because if there was a third explosion this building might not last.”
  
  
• News reporter, Steve Evans, “Then an hour later than that, we had that big explosion from much much lower.  I don’t know what on earth caused that.”
  
  
• News reporter, “We’ve heard reports of secondary explosions after the aircraft impacted, whether in fact there wasn’t something else at the base of the building the coup de grâce to bring them down.”
  
  
• 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?”

Ok... first off, lets remove the ones without names, since, really, they can't be followed up on or counted on to be accurate or even real.

That leaves us with:

Q24, on 06 September 2010 - 02:08 AM, said:

• News reporter, Rick Sanchez, “I spoke with some police officials moments ago Chris, and they told me that they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Centre may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it.”
  
  
• News reporter, Jack Kelly, “Apparently what appears to have happened was that at the same time as the two planes hit the buildings that the FBI most likely thinks there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down.”
  
  
• 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.”
  
  
• News reporter, Steve Evans, “Then an hour later than that, we had that big explosion from much much lower.  I don’t know what on earth caused that.”

1.

News reporter, Rick Sanchez, “I spoke with some police officials moments ago Chris, and they told me that they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Centre may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it.”

"some police officials"... well, that sure narrows it down

"may have been a van" "may have had some type of explosive device"... Just as likely that it "may not have been a van" and / or "may not have contained an explosive device".

(Note: Rick Sanchez would later go on to proclaim that 9/11 conspiracy theorists were "nuts and whackos"... doesn't have much to do with this topic, but I thought it was interesting...)

2.

News reporter, Jack Kelly, “Apparently what appears to have happened was that at the same time as the two planes hit the buildings that the FBI most likely thinks there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down.”

"the FBI most likely thinks"... doesn't sound very definitive, does it...?

"exploded at the same time and brought both of them down"... well, regardless of whether you believe the official explanation or not, I think its safe to say that most people on either side of the fence don't believe the towers were each brought down by a "car or truck", especially given that the collapse doesn't start at the bottom where the alleged car or truck would be parked.

Kelley would also later go on to say that the reports were "unconfirmed" and merely a "working theory", and then in 2004 he would get fired from USA Today after it was brought out that he had been fabricating sources for his stories since 1993.

3.

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.”

"received word of a possibility of a secondary device"... A "possibility" is hardly confirmation of fact.

"according to his theory"... the reporter even confirms that its just a theory, not fact.

Turns out, Dawson was reporting what he had been told by FDNY Deputy Assistant Chief Albert Turi (about 1/4 of the way down that page, at "0:13:44"), whom I mentioned earlier as having been misquoted by, oh, let's call them "Explosionists", and what he initially theorized to be explosions was actually the sound of the tower's floors collapsing

4.

News reporter, Steve Evans, “Then an hour later than that, we had that big explosion from much much lower.  I don’t know what on earth caused that.”

"I don't know what on earth caused that"... pretty self explanatory. He doesn't say it was a bomb or secondary device, just an explosion that came from....? He doesn't know where or what it came from, just that it came from "much lower". Could very well have been an elevator crashing through to lower levels or the sub-basement.

There is one unnamed statement I'll address:

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.”

Sounds an awful lot like a description of an elevator crashing to the bottom of the tower.





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 20 April 2012 - 03:29 AM.