Audio of the explosives which brought down WTC 7

[xj0hnx]

It's sarcasm genius. There's some in that statement too in case it also went over your head. :awe:

Ahhh, so then you do believe that it's possible some Arabs hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings, glad you could land on planet reality for a few.

 

[LunarRay]

Ahhh, so then you do believe that it's possible some Arabs hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings, glad you could land on planet reality for a few.

It would seem to me that if one can agree that TERRORIST hijackers took over airliners and flew them into buildings or crashed in Pa. that what flows from that does not easily implicate anyone else (government or otherwise).

I can't imagine OBL sitting over tea coordinating with US Officials the timing of 9/11.
There is little doubt that 9/11 was used by the Administration as additional fodder to pursue the mid east agenda but beyond that I can't fathom it...
To start with... IF I was OBL and assuming he did it... I'd implicate the US Government as quick as I could to undermine any war efforts... think about that.... HOW do you screw the US... you get half the people doubting who did it and then toss in all the anomalies.. and there it is... a Perfect Storm of Doubt and Bush would have to send flowers instead of bringing them....

 

[LunarRay]

I even seen some of of 'em usin' calculaturs.

Goat farmers don't use calculators... they gots fingers and toes ... more than enough to account for the herd most possess...

 

[xj0hnx]

It would seem to me that if one can agree that TERRORIST hijackers took over airliners and flew them into buildings or crashed in Pa. that what flows from that does not easily implicate anyone else (government or otherwise).

I can't imagine OBL sitting over tea coordinating with US Officials the timing of 9/11.
There is little doubt that 9/11 was used by the Administration as additional fodder to pursue the mid east agenda but beyond that I can't fathom it...
To start with... IF I was OBL and assuming he did it... I'd implicate the US Government as quick as I could to undermine any war efforts... think about that.... HOW do you screw the US... you get half the people doubting who did it and then toss in all the anomalies.. and there it is... a Perfect Storm of Doubt and Bush would have to send flowers instead of bringing them....

This.

I often wonder what most conspiracy theorist think happened in regards to the planning on 9/11, and how the can reconcile that with the scope of what would be necessary in actually planning an event like this.

 

[BeauJangles]

It would seem to me that if one can agree that TERRORIST hijackers took over airliners and flew them into buildings or crashed in Pa. that what flows from that does not easily implicate anyone else (government or otherwise).

I can't imagine OBL sitting over tea coordinating with US Officials the timing of 9/11.
There is little doubt that 9/11 was used by the Administration as additional fodder to pursue the mid east agenda but beyond that I can't fathom it...
To start with... IF I was OBL and assuming he did it... I'd implicate the US Government as quick as I could to undermine any war efforts... think about that.... HOW do you screw the US... you get half the people doubting who did it and then toss in all the anomalies.. and there it is... a Perfect Storm of Doubt and Bush would have to send flowers instead of bringing them....

No no, the all-powerful US Government KNEW exactly when and how OBL was going to attack us and planned their own attack accordingly. This is obviously the most simple and plausible explanation to how the WTC came crashing down.

 

[LunarRay]

No no, the all-powerful US Government KNEW exactly when and how OBL was going to attack us and planned their own attack accordingly. This is obviously the most simple and plausible explanation to how the WTC came crashing down.

Aside from the term 'Gun Fire' how many words do you think folks usually use to describe a loud noise heard or felt or seen... like when a fuel tank... hehehehe explodes... or the house just exploded... a gas leak I guess... There are not too many of them kinds of words folks use... How do you describe an event where the attributes of it lead you to use the word... Explode...? Do you always mean that some dynamite or TNT or C4 or RDX or like that was ignited?
What was reported in the video and over the comm systems of the NYPD, NYFD and the other responders that commented was ... "boom, boom boom... explosion... I think I know an explosion when I hear it..." What did that mean?... That the cop knew it was RDX or C4...? I doubt it... Even my Cousin said Boom, Boom lots of Boom... all over inside those towers... He still uses those terms... and that is what he heard... The cause... floor failures.... the cause of the floor failures?
One bit o logic.... Had anyone on the ground or in the tower thought there were explosive devices up in the towers... there would have been far fewer Responder loss of life.

As I indicated earlier, I can see how to collapse the towers sans any outside help...
A fellow named Chandler, a HS Teacher who is pretty sharp.. Attributes the anomalies regarding ejection of material as being from Devices... Air pressure can cause that too... and in not one of the video references do I see the other tell tale signs of device caused explosion... like Flashes or Fire where they emanate.

There are many anomalies found in 9/11 which may never be answered... and I'd love an attempt to do that... But, I think if you choose to adopt the conclusion and fit the observation to that you will always support the conclusion and reject the reality potential... Ya gotta let the evidence lead you to the conclusion... and you must treat the evidence properly... or evaluate it properly... if there are two scenario then fine... don't reject one cuz it don't fit... but let the preponderance of the evidence lead to the conclusion...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It's sarcasm genius. There's some in that statement too in case it also went over your head. :awe:

You need to review the definition of sarcasm.

At least I can rest assured that I don't need to insult other people as a justifcation of my beliefs.

Really?

The latter is actually far more intimidating then an uneducated goat farmer with a pocket knife. 😀

Seems that you actually do need to insult others as a justification for your beliefs.

 

[LunarRay]

No no, the all-powerful US Government KNEW exactly when and how OBL was going to attack us and planned their own attack accordingly. This is obviously the most simple and plausible explanation to how the WTC came crashing down.

Our friends in this forum and elsewhere around the world each have the filter of bias as they look upon this 9/11 event... Some apply a Scientific Bias while others an Emotional or Political or even an Absurd one. It is easy to ascertain which bias is at play... The evidence is accepted or rejected or analyzed with that bias... and the conclusion ... hehehehheeheh fits the evidence biased by that analysis!! Amazing!!... I rather like it when the evidence is treated fairly and fits or supports a theory and when it don't you develop another theory and finally a stable theory develops and from that one might come to a conclusion...
So, when I hear a person support a Government sponsored or aided 9/11, I look at how they see the evidence and if they are moved even a tiny bit by a more reasonable or alternative take on it... or are they steadfast regardless of reasonable alternatives...
It is obvious to even the casual observer looking into this Thread: Who accepts or supports what take on the evidence and how does that fit in with the other aspects they support.. The more subjective bits... And the result is the bias that is loaded into their thinking..

 

[al981]

I think you're missing the point of my argument here, whether that is deliberate or not isn't for me to decide. Yes, the camera shook and thingies fell of the tower. These are two independent events that you are choosing to link together. It isn't my job to tell you why a camera that shooting film of the WTC shakes, it's up to you to show us and prove to us (the 95% of people who do not believe what you're selling) that the camera shakes because of explosions in the WTC.

I can provide you with any one of a number of equally plausible reasons that the camera shook, none of which involve the WTC getting exploded.

I agree with you, the camera shakes and something falls, but what you're proposing is similar to if I argued that the elevator or escalator or gate in this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIEkraNdaSE&feature=related ) moved because of the guy's magic ability. Two events happening simultaneously does not causation make.

Again, the world is awaiting proof that there were bombs. What you have argued thus far is simply that a camera shakes and something falls therefore the viewer should assume that

(a) the ground is shaking underneath the WTC center
(b) the shaking is caused by inaudible explosions

From what you've shown so far, those are both assumptions, not conclusions.

well, this dodging routine is getting old. not surprising you continue to pull the hear no evil, see no evil, won't even consider anything that challenges your official conspiracy routine. another week, another post where you refuse to answer what caused sauret's camera to shake. i'm amazed you didn't use xjohnx's hand of god explanation though! let's count how many times in this thread you "play dumb" and refuse to acknowledge anything. funny copout with the copperfield link LOL. maybe it was magic! playing dumb routine x1.

btw, the explosions were caught on audio, which you have already admitted to (and you even hinted at the audio from across the river being forged, but can't find anyone dumb enough or any evidence whatsoever to accuse the original footage of being fake). oh, wait, i see you said "No, I'm not making any claims whatsoever". playing dumb routine x2.

No, nobody is a liar. You need to reread the end of my last post, about eyewitness testimony. In fact, you should read books about eyewitness testimony and its reliability when it comes to court cases. The long and short of it is that people are not reliable, but not through any fault of their own.

I'm sure you watch the news. Ever seen a story about a shooting where a neighbor says something along the lines of "I thought it was firecrackers at first?" I know you have. Did they REALLY hear firecrackers? No, but they assumed they did. Again, in the situation of WTC 1 and 2 we have two gigantic structures in the process of catastrophic failure. All sorts of forces are at work and, as the building self-destructs, should we really be that surprised that people hear things that sound like explosions? I don't think so.

The point of the ImplosionWorld article, which you completely missed, is that the only reliable way to prove a conspiracy is with hard data. You are obsessed with another logical fallacy when it comes to the seismographs -- that because the seismograph in place in White Plains did not detect the 1993 bombing, then there's no way they could have detected the 2001 bombs.

This is plausible, however we know for a fact that portable seismographs were on the ground in Manhattan and Brooklyn. There is no evidence that similar seismographs were in operation in 1993. More seismographs much (much) closer to the epicenter of the collapse means that the data from 2001 is much more reliable than the data from 1993.

Does that mean that there's no way the supposed explosions were detected? No, of course not. All it means is that we have data from Sept 11, 2001 from multiple seismographs located both far (White Plains) and near (Manhattan and Brooklyn). None of them detected your explosions.

The only counterargument you've mustered is simply "well, in 1993 they didn't pick up the explosions either." Again, 1993 is not 2001. Just because they didn't detect something once doesn't infallibly mean that they won't get it the second time.

Let me lay it out for you: The scientific data we have for Sept 11, 2001 does not support your theory in two separate, but very important ways:

1. It does not support the idea that there were explosions prior to the collapse.

2. The seismograph readings of the collapse itself does not support the theory that it was a controlled demolition.

These two points need to be addressed in some more substantial way than what you've managed, which is namely ignoring them.

Let's get a few things straight.

1) It was you that brought up the seismographs to try and refute the corroborating footage and eyewitness testimony of explosions / rumblings that shook the immediate area prior to the collapse of the towers. you failed miserably the first time, and had to admit that when i cornered you 🙂

2) you're still making the bullshit and proven wrong claim that:
"The seismograph readings of the collapse itself does not support the theory that it was a controlled demolition.".

I gave you numerous instances where corroborated and verified explosions / rumblings took place from credible eyewitnesses on the ground. and you're still playing the "seismographs didn't pick them up so there's no evidence any rumblings and explosions occured" bullshit? again, the seismographs didn't pick up shit except for the biggest earthquake like jolts, one being the initial impact of the towers, and two, the full force of the towers collapsing. they didn't pick up all the numerous other explosions and rumblings which you are now denying as seen below, so why on earth are you still clinging to implosionworld's debunked claim? 🙂 playing dumb routine x3.

For the record, you are the one who has introduced the concept that people are lying. I never said, nor do I believe, that any of these eyewitness accounts are lies. They are the truth as that person saw it.

....
....


So, do we throw out all the other evidence we have for eyewitness accounts or do we realize that these people, in the confusion, may have mistaken loud noises and fires from other sources as explosions? This is where you and I (and pretty much everyone else) differ.

Ah, so you again refuse to acknowledge that any explosions or rumblings, which are all corroborated by the way, took place. rumblings which shook the ground and chandeliers in buildings to many eyewitnesses, and you're somehow pulling the "eyewitnesses could be mistaken" bullshit card LOL. this isn't a case of eyewitnesses identifying the wrong colored shirt or the facial features of a criminal. the eyewitnesses i cited either felt large rumblings and heard loud explosions (whatever they may be from), or they did not. given the fact that your cherished seismographs didn't pick up any of those rumblings or explosions, you don't have the balls to admit the rumblings occurred, and are now playing dumb x4.

Again, you are misconstruing what I said. Re-read what I posted before the eye witness stuff.

playing dumb x5.

If you recall, CNN and other news agencies also reported that WTC 7 had collapsed even though you can clearly see it still standing in the background.

haha no kidding, and the fact that so many news stations turned their attention to wtc7 a few minutes before the collapse, and preannounced the collapse before it actually happened, means someone was giving them a heads up it was about to come down. who knew it was coming down in that immediate time frame? they must've had the vision of god, or knew for a fact it was coming down.

As the news was unfolding there were lots of things happening at once. It is clear that nobody had any idea what the hell was going on when it first happened. The news reports, at first, weren't even sure if a plane had crashed into the WTC.

What does this tell us? Confusion reigned supreme that morning and many things which weren't true were reported as news. CNN also reported car bombs going off in Washington DC. Was that true? No. Were they lying? No. They simply were confused, like much of the rest of the country.

news networks reporting erroneous information without verifying them is one thing. numerous eyewitnesses reporting hearing big explosions and reporting the ground / buildings/ chandeliers shaking is completely different. either they felt them, or they did not feel them. given that they are all corroborating each other, it is a fact that they did in fact feel the rumblings, and your precious seismographs did not pick them up. you can't even cite a single seismograph that did LoL. playing dumb x6.

You're introducing the concept of liars here, not me. I'd rather stick to WTC 1 and 2, because 7 is really an entirely separate event. I can't look at videos with audio right now, so let's put that one on hold.

well, either the eywitnesses felt the rumblings and heard explosions, or they did not. there are no in betweens. since you are claiming they are mistaken, then you are calling them liars, and they did not feel the ground shake or anything else. it is quite simple. the eyewitnesses are on record stating they did. again, your precious seismographs did not pick anything up, hence the fallacy of your argument that has already proven to be dead wrong weeks ago. playing dumb x7.

ah, and here come your excuses for not knowing much about wtc7... in a thread about wtc7 no less... kek. on a side note, feel free to acknowledge that the steel retrieved from wtc7 did in fact melt. Lyingchickens is having a seizure confronting that basic fact.

There are a multitude of reasons the camera shook, all of which would be consistent with the data we have that do not involve an explosion. When you're introducing a rival theory of events, it's really your job to prove that you're right, not our job to prove you're wrong.

I've proven the rumblings and explosions did in fact occur, as corrobrated by numerous witnesses and testimonies given on camera by numerous news networks. You've just chosen to play dumb and not accept those basic facts. playing dumb x8.

There are thousands of reasons that are all more plausible, currently, than your explosions theory. You're supposed to be the one showing the world why those thousands are incorrect.

Oh but we've given plenty of hard factual evidence, including the fact that steel from the buildings did in fact melt, as proven by FEMA's report... chickens had a few seizures and didn't even bother to refute it one post below yours LoL. Oh i'm going to have a blast calling him out again. Of course, other facts consistent with a form of demolition include all the corroborating eyewitness testimony of explosions and rumblings you are denying. playing dumb x9.

You've offered no explanation that is consistent with the data we have.

If explosions took down the WTC, we'd expect to see that in the collapse model (we don't)
We'd expect to see it the physical evidence (we don't)
We'd expect to see it in the visual evidence (we don't)
we'd expect to see it in some data set (we don't)

By that token, I can offer you three explanations that are equally as plausible:
(1) the video is doctored in post-processing -- probably unlikely, but equally as possible as your bombs theory
(2) the shaking was deliberately caused by the recorder -- also highly unlikely, but still at least as plausible as the explanation you've offered.
(3) subway, building construction, large truck. Again, all more plausible than the story you've told us simply because the story you've told not only has no evidence (like the ones I just gave you), but it clashes with the mountain of evidence we do have.

LoL Collapse model? show me a collapse model that took into account the possibility of a classical or covert demolition. what's that? you can't because NIST's models never took into account those possibilities or acknowledged anything i've stated in this thread? LoL. playing dumb x10.

we have audio and visual evidence, including kyleb's original post of mulitple microphones / cameras that picked up pre collapse explosions for wtc7 🙂 oh wait, you don't want to talk about wtc7 for some bizzare reason.

let's see, we also have all of the confirmed pre collapse explosions /rumblings you are continually playing dumb about.. and the confirmed multiple eyewitnesses who saw red / orange lower level flashes, which again, you have acknowledged but want to conveniently forget.

oh let's not forget the iron spheres, and traces of thermite found in dust in the immediate area of ground zero. did i mention it's a fact the steel indeed melted? you taking notes LyingChickens? hahaha.

No, I'm not making any claims whatsoever. You are the ones claiming that the noises heard are explosions. You're doing so without any real evidence besides the supposed explosions themselves.

actually, the witnesses are the ones corroborating each other by stating they heard huge explosions at the lower levels. and you're saying they're mistaken or lying with no evidence of your own, as proven by the fallacy of your failed seismograph argument. playing dumb x11.

Look, I know you don't get it, but what you're doing is the equavialent of trying to define a word by using the word. Your evidence of the explosions IS the explosions and, in your mind, there is no other plausible explanation. Yet, the truth is that everything you've presented is inconclusive, at best. Yes, the audio has recorded loud noises. That's it. Considering the flurry of activity surrounding the WTCs' collapses, there's no way you, or I, can pinpoint what is making those noises except by jumping to conclusions.

oh, so we do have loud noises picked up by the microphone! thanks for playing. since it is now a given and you have admitted it, those "noises" / explosions should now be part of the public record and admitted as official evidence and factored into a new investigation and collapse model. that is how the scientific method works, son. hurry up and let NIST know that you have "noises" on audio that should be part of the official investigation, since they have never acknowledged it in the first place. of course, that's if you can get over your ridiculous and unsubstatiated claim that the audio was "doctored" LoL. again, you'll be on the first one on the planet to make that claim. it is easy for experts to find and point out forged audio, so get to it, kid.

I understand that the end goal of these would-be conspirators was to bring the towers down. That was a must for their plan.

What you've just argued is that Sept 11th response would have only happened because of the airplanes. I think that's probably incorrect. If the towers had fallen in 1993, there definitely would have been a bigger response. It is the act, not the method that, in my opinion, is what triggered the response.

Wow, you are dead wrong on that statement too. My argument, which was clear as day before...but somehow you managed to get wrong... is that the 9/11 response would've only been possible if the towers came down, planes or no planes. Try reading...

You're missing my point though:

These would-be conspirators have now spent months wiring the WTC, doing so in complete secrey. Everything is ready to go and the demolitions alone are enough to take down the towers (after all, that's why they really fell, right? Not because of the planes... the planes were just a window dressing). Why the ever-loving christ would they risk slamming planes into the buildings? What if it cut their detonation cords? What if it caused a premature explosion that prevented the towers from coming down? Then what? Firefighters go in and find out the whole building was ready to blow? This strikes me as really implausible and an unnecessary complication to the most complicated act of terrorism carried out.

Ah, the fallacy of this argument is that anyone would believe the terrorists, who were being monitored closely by military programs such as ABLE danger, could have somehow escaped for weeks unnoticed and rigged the towers with limited / no demolition knowledge, and brought three towers down. obviously, fall men were needed, and the terrorists served that purpose. long detonation cords are needed? ever heard of wireless demolition? welcome to the present day. premature explosion? you'd just blame that on the plane, no worries there. Firefighters going in to the building would find carefully hidden explosives that nobody else in the preceeding weeks noticed? No worries there either. Speaking of the firefighers, many of them swore bombs were going off around them since there were once again, big explosions and rumblings occurring. should i pull up their quotes too? you'd have to use the playing dumb card again since no seismographics picked up the explosions and rumblings they felt and heard😀

Wait, what scientific evidence there was thermite?

....

Basically, there are lots of ways that these materials could be present at Ground Zero. None involve thermite.

You've been posting in 9/11 threads for how many years, and you don't know the most basic facts about thermite evidence? Try to keep up, kid.

Thermite is a possibility, that is a fact, no matter how hard you try to deny it.

As for the melted girders, I can't watch any videos, so I can't really comment on which variation of this theory it is, but suffice to say that NASA stated surface temps reached as high as 1341 degrees

...

Much of the other testimony concerning molten steel has been proven to either be misquotes or just factually incorrect. For example, on further questioning, many have stated that by "molten" they really meant "glowing red." One requires 2700+ F, the other requires 800+ F. We can get more into this if you choose.
...

As stated before, the was molten STEEL at ground zero.

and as posted previously to LyingChickens:

From FEMA: " It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occurred in the grain boundary regions of this steel as was observed in the a36 steel in wtc7"

"Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field."

Feel free to educate yourself on this given fact, and how normal office materials cannot melt steel as demonstrated in this experiment...so what did?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw

Also acknowledge it is a given fact that the steel melted. so much for the "steel did not melt" lie 😀

Finally, we have testimony from rescue workers who went into Building 6 (which nobody claims got blown up by thermite). They all state they saw "molten" debris and that it was hot enough for metal to be dripping down the walls. If thermite melted the beams in WTC 1, 2, and 7 then how do you explain the exact same observations in a building that nobody is claiming was demolished by thermite?

admit it all into evidence, including wtc6 and let the chips fall where they may! that's the scientific method. unfortunately, the proven melting of steel at wtc7 was never acknowledged by NIST, despite the urging of professors associated with FEMA and FEMA themselves.

There's a reason the vast majority of this country, the world, and nearly every expert in the field agree with the NIST repot and it isn't because the government paid them off -- it's because the body of evidence we have fits the report. It just does. The collapse itself fits the NIST's (and others') collapse models without the use of explosives.

lmfao at "vast majority". only in your delusional mind. i'm reminded of an anandtech thread a college friend linked me in 2005 or 2006, seems a clear split down the middle of those in favor / against a conspiracy. "nearly every expert" in favor of NIST's report is also a lie, given ae911truth.org. it is also reasonable to assume everything i've posted in this thread (along with all the material kylbe has provided) has never made it to the eyes and ears of the vast majority of the population 🙂 also the numerous demolitions experts who believe WTC7 came down due to demolition alone.

We have yet to turn up a smoking gun. Despite your lengthy rebuttals, you have no smoking gun. You have no physical evidence to prove there were explosions. None, zero, zip. What you do have are inconclusive videos, inconclusive audio, and a penchant for casting aside evidence that flies directly in the face of your 'theory.' Why are you expecting anyone to believe you?

LoL. despite your lengthy rebuttals, you have not proven the towers came down as you claim. in fact, the admitted multiple seconds of free fall collapse of wtc7 (which you are in denial about), audio evidence of pre collapse explosions, and all corroborating eyewitness testimonies all build a tremendous case for covert demolitions all contradict your official fairy tale model, since none of these facts which destroy your official theory were ever acknowledged or considered 🙂 even NIST's collapse models do not include any simulation of their now admitted free fall, and pre free fall simulations look nothing like its actual collapse on video. kek.

Again, this is just not true. There are noises, but they aren't necessarily explosions. You are the one assuming that they are and fitting the evidence around your beliefs.

playing dumb x12. i offered an explanation based upon all available corroborating evidence. your only explanation is the audio across the river was "doctored", and provide no alternative. LMFAO.

First of all, it wasn't implosionworld reporting that there were other seismographs, it was one of the leading companies in the world on construction auditing. They have no affiliation with anyone, but they made their records available when they learned what happened.

....

playing dumb x13. already destroyed your pathetic attempts at denying rumblings and explosions took place. the seismographs didn't pick them up? well then, perhaps they weren't close enough, since they only picked up the largest impacts. fact is, rumblings occurred, and you have no defense against that fact except for claiming eyewitnesses being mistaken LOL.

Instead launching your all-out vindictive war against every shred of evidence that is against your case, why don't you model your own collapse...

Gladly. Let's use NIST's WTC7 model for consistency. Oh right, they never released it for public scrutiny or any of the numbers they plugged in. gg.

"vindictive"? only because the united states government has flat out lied by not acknowledging any of the stated facts in this thread in their official investigations. even FEMA's own melted steel confirmation never made it into NIST LOL.

Like I've said before, you should read up on eye witness testimony before touting it as one of the foundations of your argument.

For the record, I'm not disputing what a single solitary person said. I don't think any of them were lying.

Covering your ass because you know your seismograph argument was proven wrong the first time, and all the corroborating eyewitnesses just proved you wrong again.

You still can't tell me what explosives were used.

You cannot do this because there is no evidence for real explosives, so you (and the others who believe you) have simply moved to something there is evidence of -- thermite.

Well, you've got a huge problem that you've conviently ignored throughout this post:

There is plenty of evidence for a demolition. you have just ignored them all. I don't need to tell you what explosives were used to bring down Dallas Stadium... but I know it was a demolition 🙂

Thermite doesn't explode.

Straw man fallacy argument that doesn't take into consideration a combination of explosives being used. try harder.

Why is this a problem?

While you've been hammering away at me with audio, cameras, and eye witness testimony you've refused to address the most basic point: Thermite doesn't explode, so what caused all the supposed rumblings and explosions you're talking about? It can't be other explosives, because there is literally zero evidence for them. None. Not a shred.

yeah, audio, cameras, eye witnesses testimony are all consistent with demolitions, (and you can't offer any plausible alternative) and plenty of evidence, including the confirmed melting of steel. once you acknowledge these facts, the only remaining part is to dig up everything that was buried and search for any additional evidence. who knows? maybe they were buried / crushed into a pieces like the majority of wtc debris / melted to make them indistinguishable from anything else. fact remains: everything i've stated in this has not been acknowledged by NIST or the united states government because it directly challenges and destroys their atrocious theory (LOL WTC7 simulations).

Do you really think that if there was a shred of evidence that an explosive (like the binary ones I showed you or c4) was used at Ground Zero that you and others would be claiming they used thermite? Of course not!

sure we would, kid, because the scientific evidence says so, including the confirmed melting of wtc7 steel.

Don't argue with me. Argue with the guy who saw it. After all, you're relying on HIS testimony, despite the fact that he seems to have no qualms with the idea that planes caused the destruction he witnessed. Again, don't come after me. I'm just pointing out that the guy actually agrees with me, not you.

Agrees with you? LOL. you mean how he initially claimed what he saw was consistent with the 93 bombing? multiple floors destroyed without a trace of flames, only smoke and the smell of gas / kerosene? a fireball could've made it down there, but destroying multiple floors to a pulp while leaving elevators intact is a call for further investigation.

In the case of the NIST images, I have no idea what they are, what part of the site they came from or what report they came from. Neither do you.

Ah, in multiple years of posting on 9/11 this site, you have not studied much of wtc7 at all, the supposed smoking gun of 9/11 theories directly challenging all official theories. try to keep up. the exact site path they came from has been offline now for some time. again, youtube and explain why their simulations look nothing like the actual collapse , and why their sims stop right before their admitted free fall collapse begins.

On top of that, you're now telling me that the FDNY was in on the conspiracy too? Remember that part where I asked you to present us a theory, one that included the who the what the where the why and the how? This is why. It is all-too convenient right now for you to take quotes and then say "haha see, I told you there was a conspiracy!"

You've so far implicated:

NIST, FEMA, FDNY, NYPD, Some nefarious unnamed government organization, the professors who worked with the NIST, the peer-reviewed publications that concurred with the NIST report, Popular Mechanics, the American Institute of Architects, etc, etc.

Who WASN'T part of your conspiracy?

wtf? when did i ever state so many people were knowingly involved in the conspiracy? i never did...

it is a fact that someone issued orders to clear the area around wtc7 and alerted numerous news networks a few minutes before its collapse (which is why the news networks prematurely reported its demise). the only question remains who was the originator, and that would be determined in any real investigation. how the hell did you come up with all firefighters and police officers in on the conspiracy? what are you smoking kid?

i like how you didn't even address mcpadden's testimony of a damn countdown and what he heard: guess what, more corroborating testimony of loud pre collapse explosions. or the fact the firefighter clearly stated "Seven is exploding!".

OKay, so the FDNY, down to laddermen, were in on it? You're saying that 14,000 people knew, or knew somebody who knew, that there was a bomb in the building yet none of them have come forward?

LoL. outright stupidity on your part to claim 14,000 were in on it. that makes no sense at all LOL.

If that firefighter that told that Singh there was a bomb in the building still believed there was a bomb, wouldn't he have come forward and said something? Wouldn't another firefighter have said something by now?

Or the more logical answer is that the firefighter in question was merely following orders, and telling people to evacuate because of the orders he was given. LOL at your 14,000 officers involved in the conspiracy.

Finally, on my end this quote is attributable to the same thing that all the others are -- confusion. We see it everywhere in Lower Manhattan on the day the planes collapsed. CNN, BBC, ABC, CBS, NBC all reported things that were factually incorrect. Yahoo news described the event as a "terrible accident" right after the first plane hit. There are literally thousands of examples of people saying things that aren't right. That doesn't mean they're liars, it just means that they were confused as hell.

Yet all the news networks reported the same thing: eyewitnesses on the ground reporting explosions and rumblings which you are in complete denial about. They either felt the ground / building / saw chandeliers shake and heard explosions, or they did not. No ifs ands or buts. No amount of denials on your part will change that. playing dumb x14. not bad, a lower count than i had anticipated.

you really need to work on your reasoning skills... seriously... getting anne thompson's 10:30 statement completely wrong and then the 14,000 in on the conspiracy argument. hahaha. Too damn funny! Kids these days!

 

[al981]

Wonderfull logic you employ there. It's akin to "Hey, does your mother know you jerk off in the closet?"

Neither NIST or NG are lying. The simple fact is that you are far too stupid to understand why the statements do not conflict.

Ladies and gentlemen, once again, do note LyingChickens flat out refuses to address or acknowledge Sunder's claim that directly contradicts national geographic's claim:

Here it is again, because LyingChicken continues to dodge like the pussy he is:

sunder is ON RECORD stating : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVE34kMwn0U#t=3m40s

"And, if you looked at the amount of thermite or thermate needed to bring this building down, you would had to place a hundred pounds of thermite right in proximity to the column ... because what thermite does is actually melt the steel."


another dodge inc!

More lying nuttery from you, by ommission. Romero also claimed that is was the terrorists that planted the explosives.

"The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said."

But you never tell the whole story, do you, lying dirtbag?

LOL, wait, so by romero claiming terrorists planted explosives to bring down the towers, that somehow damages the argument against demolition? wait what??? 😀😀😀 did your resulting seizure from lying about the confirmed melted wtc7 steel fry your brain, son? oh oh, i get it, as long as romero isn't saying the US GOVERNMENT DID IT, then it's ok! LOL!

So what exactly did I "lie" about, you pussy dodging liar? everything i stated about romero is true:

"Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said ...

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said."


Lulz, thanks for playing Chickens.

I was pointing out what a nutjob Steven Jones is. Did that go right over your pointy head too? I guess I give you too much credit. Apparently I need to type slower and stop using words with two or more syllables so you can comprehend things more easily.

Ah, the fallacy of your bullshit religious argument has no basis in this discussion.

And you're back to repeating the same crap again, as if repeating bad physics and science over and over will somehow make it correct. It doesn't. Doing that merely serves to make you look like a fool with some serious mental issues...which would also explain your nut job beliefs.

"Snip"? LOL. Ladies and genetlemen, please note that once again, for probably the 50th time in this thread, TenderLyingChickens is dodging when facts are presented that destroy his pathetic arguments. in this case, his argument was "steel didn't melt on 9/11".

Once again, because he outright refused to acknowledge he was proven dead wrong, FEMA clearly tested and stated that steel from 9/11 did in fact melt:

From FEMA: " It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occurred in the grain boundary regions of this steel as was observed in the a36 steel in wtc7"

"Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field."

Stop lying Chickens.

Fact: Steel melted, LyingChickens lied.

KyleB was dead on accurate when he made this comment about you, LyingChickenShit:

""You can ask TLC for a learned explanation for what caused the molten steel, but he can't give you one, nor can anyone else who insists on clinging to the official story. If you do ask him for a reasonable explanation, he'll likely lash out at you [and constantly lie his ass off, edit by al981], calling you a simpleton and anything else he can come up with to obfuscate the evidence in his demented defense of the official conspiracy theory. "


Let us sit back, enjoy, and watch the proven Liar have another seizure and outright refuse to acknowledge that blantant fact that destroyed his "steel did not melt" lie 😀😀😀. "Snip" inc. hahaaha.

 

[alkemyst]

This.

I often wonder what most conspiracy theorist think happened in regards to the planning on 9/11, and how the can reconcile that with the scope of what would be necessary in actually planning an event like this.

well all in all there was a conspiracy somewhere and I am sure those surrounding it weren't all for the mass-killing of what may have been some of their own kind on those planes and buildings.

People love to believe nothing like this would be a secret because someone would have to tell. Unfortunately that's one of those things that just don't happen in reality much. For one in any group like that, it's made up of like-minded people. No different than a simple street gang or as complex as top-secret research.

Then the new has stories of that guy from the gang 'ratting' out his fellow members and shortly dying oddly...or the lab engineer that sells a draft to a competing company and somehow decides to party that night and run into a drainage ditch.

When it comes down to it I am sure many many many big businesses and government agencies has to make decisions that took the lives of many people even if indirectly.

 

[xj0hnx]

Ladies and gentlemen, once again, do note LyingChickens flat out refuses to address or acknowledge Sunder's claim that directly contradicts national geographic's claim:

Here it is again, because LyingChicken continues to dodge like the pussy he is:

sunder is ON RECORD stating : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVE34kMwn0U#t=3m40s

"And, if you looked at the amount of thermite or thermate needed to bring this building down, you would had to place a hundred pounds of thermite right in proximity to the column ... because what thermite does is actually melt the steel."

I DIRECTLY addressed this piece of shit video, and raped it, why are YOU avoiding it?

You really ARE one of the stupidest people I have ever seen.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I DIRECTLY addressed this piece of shit video, and raped it, why are YOU avoiding it?

You really ARE the stupidest people I have ever seen.

He's in his own delusional little fantasy land. He's so far from reality there is no point in even responding to his idiocy any longer.

 

[BeauJangles]

I'm sick of answering your questions, so I'm going to ask some of my own.

What is your explanation for seismographs located within Manhattan and Brooklyn being unable to detect the shaking that is visible on this camera?


As for my explanation of the camera shaking, here are three:

1) He shook it himself, whether by accident or on purpose.
2) His building was under construction and was shaken by renovations
3) A large air handler or other mechanical device turned on, causing the shaking.

There are three equally plausible explanations to why the camera shook. Sure, you're going to write them off, but you don't see to understand that there is just as much evidence for those three as there is for your explanation. So go ahead, prove to use that none of these three explanations is correct.

Let's get a few things straight.

1) It was you that brought up the seismographs to try and refute the corroborating footage and eyewitness testimony of explosions / rumblings that shook the immediate area prior to the collapse of the towers. you failed miserably the first time, and had to admit that when i cornered you 🙂

2) you're still making the bullshit and proven wrong claim that:
"The seismograph readings of the collapse itself does not support the theory that it was a controlled demolition.".

I gave you numerous instances where corroborated and verified explosions / rumblings took place from credible eyewitnesses on the ground. and you're still playing the "seismographs didn't pick them up so there's no evidence any rumblings and explosions occured" bullshit? again, the seismographs didn't pick up shit except for the biggest earthquake like jolts, one being the initial impact of the towers, and two, the full force of the towers collapsing. they didn't pick up all the numerous other explosions and rumblings which you are now denying as seen below, so why on earth are you still clinging to implosionworld's debunked claim? 🙂 playing dumb routine x3.

No, what you've provided is eye witness testimony which does not EXCLUSIVELY back your side of the story. Namely, there are other explanations that can be presented and, when considered with all the data we have, the other explanations are more plausible than yours.

Concerning the seismograph data, you have continually stuck your head in the sand about the fact that 2001 is not 1993. There is other data available that flies directly in the face of this ridiculous theory you've tried to present.

1. Please address why Protec's engineeers, who had multiple seismographs located in Manhattan and Brooklyn detected the plane impacts and the subsquent collapses but failed to detect your mysterious shaking.

2. Please address the fact that your eye witness testimony does not exclusively support your theory and acknowledge the fact that eye witness testimony, in any legal or non legal case, is NOT reliable.

Ah, so you again refuse to acknowledge that any explosions or rumblings, which are all corroborated by the way, took place. rumblings which shook the ground and chandeliers in buildings to many eyewitnesses, and you're somehow pulling the "eyewitnesses could be mistaken" bullshit card LOL. this isn't a case of eyewitnesses identifying the wrong colored shirt or the facial features of a criminal. the eyewitnesses i cited either felt large rumblings and heard loud explosions (whatever they may be from), or they did not. given the fact that your cherished seismographs didn't pick up any of those rumblings or explosions, you don't have the balls to admit the rumblings occurred, and are now playing dumb x4.

See above.

Protec AND white plains detected four seismic events that morning -- Plane 1 hitting WTC 1, Plane 2 hitting WTC 2, WTC 1's collapse, WTC 2's collapse. Even though you cling to the shaking camera (which I offered you three explanations for... feel free to prove those wrong), you cannot explain why they failed to detect such a sizable rumbling at the base of the tower.

Please read at least an article on eye witness testimony.

haha no kidding, and the fact that so many news stations turned their attention to wtc7 a few minutes before the collapse, and preannounced the collapse before it actually happened, means someone was giving them a heads up it was about to come down. who knew it was coming down in that immediate time frame? they must've had the vision of god, or knew for a fact it was coming down.

So now ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, BBC were all in on your conspiracy? You're up to THOUSANDS of people, none of whom have ever come forward. Plus, why would anybody give them a "head's up?" What is the fucking point of telling reporters about somethng that is about to happen? They're going to see it.

So far, this is dumbest thing you've said.

Why would the US Government TIP OFF news agencies prior to destroying WTC 7?

news networks reporting erroneous information without verifying them is one thing. numerous eyewitnesses reporting hearing big explosions and reporting the ground / buildings/ chandeliers shaking is completely different. either they felt them, or they did not feel them. given that they are all corroborating each other, it is a fact that they did in fact feel the rumblings, and your precious seismographs did not pick them up. you can't even cite a single seismograph that did LoL. playing dumb x6.

Okay.

Let's understand something.

There are two skyscrapers in the process of catastrophic failure. You have videos of things fall off of them. We have evidence of the massive destruction the planes wrought all the way down to the lobby. These events may have sounded like explosions, but you have provided no proof that the sounds were indeed explosions and not one of many other MORE plausible explanations.

well, either the eywitnesses felt the rumblings and heard explosions, or they did not. there are no in betweens. since you are claiming they are mistaken, then you are calling them liars, and they did not feel the ground shake or anything else. it is quite simple. the eyewitnesses are on record stating they did. again, your precious seismographs did not pick anything up, hence the fallacy of your argument that has already proven to be dead wrong weeks ago. playing dumb x7.

ah, and here come your excuses for not knowing much about wtc7... in a thread about wtc7 no less... kek. on a side note, feel free to acknowledge that the steel retrieved from wtc7 did in fact melt. Lyingchickens is having a seizure confronting that basic fact.

The bolded is such a fail. Those people saw and heard things that sounded like explosions, they aren't lying about that. They also are not correct in saying that they were explosions. Why? Because there's no freaking evidence of it and there is a lot of evidence for other things that may have sounded and felt like explosives going off, but were, in fact other events or other explosions.

Please read up on eye witness testimony, for your own sake. You're just making a fool of yourself. Time and again I've provided you with other sources for the "explosion" noises and the fires and everything else.

Every time, you stick your hands in your ears and scream "they must be bombs because I say they're bombs."

Wrongo.

So that you don't humiliate yourself even further, why not read what I wrote in my last post? The firecracker example is the easiest one i could think of, but there are thousands of examples of people hearing or seeing one thing, only to later realize that it was, in fact something else.

I've proven the rumblings and explosions did in fact occur, as corrobrated by numerous witnesses and testimonies given on camera by numerous news networks. You've just chosen to play dumb and not accept those basic facts. playing dumb x8.

There's no chance the media was wrong?

Ohhhhh, right. I forgot that your conspiracy now includes every major news outlet. You have tens of thousands of people that are now 'in' on your theory. Do you really believe that tens of thousands of people have kept their mouths shut for 9 years? No, it's impossible. This is ridiculous.

What you're saying is that the government basically announced to the news organizations that they were going to destroy the wTC. That's like Jack the Ripper telling the London Daily that he's going to kill Sarah Smith, Shelly Waters, and Rachelle Johnson at 9 pm Sept 10, 11 am Sept 13, and 5 pm Oct 5. So full of fail.

Oh but we've given plenty of hard factual evidence, including the fact that steel from the buildings did in fact melt, as proven by FEMA's report... chickens had a few seizures and didn't even bother to refute it one post below yours LoL. Oh i'm going to have a blast calling him out again. Of course, other facts consistent with a form of demolition include all the corroborating eyewitness testimony of explosions and rumblings you are denying. playing dumb x9.

Look, if you're not going to even bother to read what I wrote, why don't you just stop posting? I gave you ample reasons for the "melting steel." I showed you that most of the "eye witness" testimony of melted steel really was heresay. I showed you that despite their being molten metal, there are no actual reports of anyone testing that metal to determine if it is steel.

Finally, we looked at the surface temp of the wreckage, we heard testimony from rescuers who saw the exact same conditions in the basement of a building that hadn't been destroyed by thermite.

But hey, let's ignore all that go with your fantasy.


Find me an example of a piece of steel from WTC 1, 2, or 7 that was melted. For this game, you need to find steel that is entirely liquid (not just glowing) and has been tested and confirmed to be steel.

LoL Collapse model? show me a collapse model that took into account the possibility of a classical or covert demolition. what's that? you can't because NIST's models never took into account those possibilities or acknowledged anything i've stated in this thread? LoL. playing dumb x10.

Have you read the NIST report? The entire thing? Have you read why they, and others quickly ruled out explosives?

Either explain to me the NIST's collapse model or present your own

You can do neither, I'm sure.

we have audio and visual evidence, including kyleb's original post of mulitple microphones / cameras that picked up pre collapse explosions for wtc7 🙂 oh wait, you don't want to talk about wtc7 for some bizzare reason.

Oh! The Wild Goose Chase Strategy. Effectively employed by event8horizon a few years ago, and earlier in this thread. Here's how it works: As the latest truther argument crumbles they quickly substitute in a new topic, usually posting something copied and pasted from another website with ample youtube videos and sensationalist headlines. The idea is to keep everyone running in circles.

So, no. We aren't going to talk about WTC 7 until we're done with 1 & 2.

let's see, we also have all of the confirmed pre collapse explosions /rumblings you are continually playing dumb about.. and the confirmed multiple eyewitnesses who saw red / orange lower level flashes, which again, you have acknowledged but want to conveniently forget.

oh let's not forget the iron spheres, and traces of thermite found in dust in the immediate area of ground zero. did i mention it's a fact the steel indeed melted? you taking notes LyingChickens? hahaha.

Again, you're going to have a tough time backing up the "steel melted" claim, but we've been over this. Re-read my fucking post before you run your mouth. Try actually address ANY of the points I raised.

When you go back and read my post, read the part where I specifically address the presence of four compounds that could be related to thermite.

actually, the witnesses are the ones corroborating each other by stating they heard huge explosions at the lower levels. and you're saying they're mistaken or lying with no evidence of your own, as proven by the fallacy of your failed seismograph argument. playing dumb x11.

The witnesses are coorberating the fact that the towers were falling, things were on fire, and the building was in the process of collapse. They are not cooberating explosives. Do they ever use the word "explosives?" No.

You are incapable of understanding that the word "explosion" does not translate to "explosives." Read a dictionary. Read a book on eye witness testimony.

oh, so we do have loud noises picked up by the microphone! thanks for playing. since it is now a given and you have admitted it, those "noises" / explosions should now be part of the public record and admitted as official evidence and factored into a new investigation and collapse model. that is how the scientific method works, son. hurry up and let NIST know that you have "noises" on audio that should be part of the official investigation, since they have never acknowledged it in the first place. of course, that's if you can get over your ridiculous and unsubstatiated claim that the audio was "doctored" LoL. again, you'll be on the first one on the planet to make that claim. it is easy for experts to find and point out forged audio, so get to it, kid.

Again, you completely fail to understand that the audio isn't conclusive of anything. It's noise. Find me the noisemaker.

Wow, you are dead wrong on that statement too. My argument, which was clear as day before...but somehow you managed to get wrong... is that the 9/11 response would've only been possible if the towers came down, planes or no planes. Try reading...

Sure, whatever. We agree then? They didn't need the airplanes? Or they did need the airplanes? Or did they need the missiles? Seriously, get your fucking story straight.

Why did the planes strike the towers? Why did the plane strike the pentagon? Why did the other plane crash? Did Osama cooperate with the US Government? -- What is YOUR story?

Ah, the fallacy of this argument is that anyone would believe the terrorists, who were being monitored closely by military programs such as ABLE danger, could have somehow escaped for weeks unnoticed and rigged the towers with limited / no demolition knowledge, and brought three towers down. obviously, fall men were needed, and the terrorists served that purpose. long detonation cords are needed? ever heard of wireless demolition? welcome to the present day. premature explosion? you'd just blame that on the plane, no worries there. Firefighters going in to the building would find carefully hidden explosives that nobody else in the preceeding weeks noticed? No worries there either. Speaking of the firefighers, many of them swore bombs were going off around them since there were once again, big explosions and rumblings occurring. should i pull up their quotes too? you'd have to use the playing dumb card again since no seismographics picked up the explosions and rumblings they felt and heard😀

This just isn't worth arguing.

Now terrorists with demolitions experience took down two 110 story buildings in a way that somewhat resembled a controlled demolition -- so much so that nutjobs everywhere are claiming it was? Do you have any idea how hard it is to make a building fall into its own footprint and now you're telling us that guys with no experience did this?

Jeez, next time a casino in Vegas needs to come down, MGM should just go down to Home Depot and pick up an army of immigrants to do it. After all, you don't need any experience to rig a building or set up a wireless detonation. None.

As for "it wouldn't have mattered if the explosives had failed." Wait, weren't you just arguing that the government NEEDED Sept 11? Wouldn't that sorta make this a no-fail mission?

Get your story straight.

You are just taking this failboat further down the stream.

You've been posting in 9/11 threads for how many years, and you don't know the most basic facts about thermite evidence? Try to keep up, kid.

Thermite is a possibility, that is a fact, no matter how hard you try to deny it.

I didn't deny there is evidence of the four primary chemicals that make up thermite. Read my post.

As stated before, the was molten STEEL at ground zero.

Read my post again. Try responding to anything that I wrote rather than blathering the same talking point over and over again.

From FEMA: " It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occurred in the grain boundary regions of this steel as was observed in the a36 steel in wtc7"

"Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field."

Feel free to educate yourself on this given fact, and how normal office materials cannot melt steel as demonstrated in this experiment...so what did?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw

Also acknowledge it is a given fact that the steel melted. so much for the "steel did not melt" lie 😀

Read. My. Post.

admit it all into evidence, including wtc6 and let the chips fall where they may! that's the scientific method. unfortunately, the proven melting of steel at wtc7 was never acknowledged by NIST, despite the urging of professors associated with FEMA and FEMA themselves.

Answer my question in my last post concerning Building 6.

lmfao at "vast majority". only in your delusional mind. i'm reminded of an anandtech thread a college friend linked me in 2005 or 2006, seems a clear split down the middle of those in favor / against a conspiracy. "nearly every expert" in favor of NIST's report is also a lie, given ae911truth.org. it is also reasonable to assume everything i've posted in this thread (along with all the material kylbe has provided) has never made it to the eyes and ears of the vast majority of the population 🙂 also the numerous demolitions experts who believe WTC7 came down due to demolition alone.

I believe the last 'scientific' poll done by a major research institution put truthers at less than 5&#37; of the US population and, among academics at <1%

LoL. despite your lengthy rebuttals, you have not proven the towers came down as you claim. in fact, the admitted multiple seconds of free fall collapse of wtc7 (which you are in denial about), audio evidence of pre collapse explosions, and all corroborating eyewitness testimonies all build a tremendous case for covert demolitions all contradict your official fairy tale model, since none of these facts which destroy your official theory were ever acknowledged or considered 🙂 even NIST's collapse models do not include any simulation of their now admitted free fall, and pre free fall simulations look nothing like its actual collapse on video. kek.

You have no presented facts.

Here is what you have given us:

1) a video of the tower in which the camera shakes
2) audio that has loud noises
3) eye witness testimony that doesn't even solely support your claims
4) eye witness testimony from witnesses that agree with me

Where is there a fact hidden in there?

playing dumb x12. i offered an explanation based upon all available corroborating evidence. your only explanation is the audio across the river was "doctored", and provide no alternative. LMFAO.

I'll address your audio in a more substantial way once you stop ignoring 95% of my posts.

playing dumb x13. already destroyed your pathetic attempts at denying rumblings and explosions took place. the seismographs didn't pick them up? well then, perhaps they weren't close enough, since they only picked up the largest impacts. fact is, rumblings occurred, and you have no defense against that fact except for claiming eyewitnesses being mistaken LOL.

You don't even bother to read what I write. Explosions happened prior to the WTC falling, a great example is jet fuel combusting as it fell down the elevator shafts. Explosions, fires, and partial collapses were all common within the WTC.

You have done nothing to prove that any of those things were linked to explosives versus being part of the collapse process of the building itself.

Please, please provide some evidence that links these reports to actual explosives, rather than simply self-referentially referring to them over and over again.

Gladly. Let's use NIST's WTC7 model for consistency. Oh right, they never released it for public scrutiny or any of the numbers they plugged in. gg.

Considering you can't even put together a coherent argument about WTC 1 and 2, why should we talk about 7? Quit being diversionary and get to the meat of your argument.

"vindictive"? only because the united states government has flat out lied by not acknowledging any of the stated facts in this thread in their official investigations. even FEMA's own melted steel confirmation never made it into NIST LOL.

LOL?

Covering your ass because you know your seismograph argument was proven wrong the first time, and all the corroborating eyewitnesses just proved you wrong again.

You have just chosen to not read anything I posted.

There is plenty of evidence for a demolition. you have just ignored them all. I don't need to tell you what explosives were used to bring down Dallas Stadium... but I know it was a demolition 🙂

I take back my earlier statement, this is the single dumbest thing that you've posted here thus far. What does a stadium demolition have to do with two 110 story buildings falling down?

Agrees with you? LOL. you mean how he initially claimed what he saw was consistent with the 93 bombing? multiple floors destroyed without a trace of flames, only smoke and the smell of gas / kerosene? a fireball could've made it down there, but destroying multiple floors to a pulp while leaving elevators intact is a call for further investigation.

Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. "We smelled kerosene," Mike recalled, "I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs", referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working.

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

"There was nothing there but rubble, "Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. "There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything" he said.

They decided to ascend two more levels to the building's lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor. "They got us again," Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993.

Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building's structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building. Mike walked through the open doorway and found two people lying on the floor. One was a female Carpenter and the other an Elevator Operator. They were both badly burned and injured. Realizing he had to get help, Mike ascended to the Lobby Level where he met Arti DelBianco, a member of his work crew. People were now coming down the same stairway from above the lobby and Arti and Mike had to stay where they were to direct people out of the stairway door and into the building's lobby. If they didn't, people descending could walk past the lobby door and unwittingly keep descending into the sublevels of the building.

...

The smoke in the stairwell was constant and at one point, Mike told Arti that he was going to catch a quick breath of fresh air. He walked out into the main lobby of the building, seeing it for the first time.

"When I walked out into the lobby, it was incredible," he recalled. "The whole lobby was soot and black, elevator doors were missing. The marble was missing off some of the walls. 20-foot section of marble, 20 by 10 foot sections of marble, gone from the walls". The west windows were all gone. They were missing. These are tremendous windows. They were just gone. Broken glass everywhere, the revolving doors were all broken and their glass was gone. Every sprinkler head was going off. I am thinking to myself, how are these sprinkler heads going off? It takes a lot of heat to set off a sprinkler head. It never dawned on me that there was a giant fireball that came through the air of the lobby. I never knew that until later on. The jet fuel actually came down the elevator shaft, blew off all the (elevator) doors and flames rolled through the lobby. That explained all the burnt people and why everything was sooted in the lobby."

That is the extent of his quote. He doesn't go on to say, "I still believe that there were bombs in the basement" or "this was exactly like 1993." What he says is that he was confused as hell at first, thought that it was eerily similar to 1993, but that many things made sense after he learned that jet fuel had fallen down the elevator shafts.

That doesn't help your argument. It doesn't really help mine either, but don't harp on the first half of the quote while you ignore the last part AND while you ignore the fact he makes no statement that he disagrees with the assessment of the fall.

Check for yourself: http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

You might as well email him and start arguing with him, not me.

Ah, in multiple years of posting on 9/11 this site, you have not studied much of wtc7 at all, the supposed smoking gun of 9/11 theories directly challenging all official theories. try to keep up. the exact site path they came from has been offline now for some time. again, youtube and explain why their simulations look nothing like the actual collapse , and why their sims stop right before their admitted free fall collapse begins.

Typical. This is the event8horizon move -- change the subject. We covered this a few paragraphs up. Next time, include more youtube and more copied and pasted email chains. That'll help.

We aren't talking about WTC 7.

wtf? when did i ever state so many people were knowingly involved in the conspiracy? i never did...

it is a fact that someone issued orders to clear the area around wtc7 and alerted numerous news networks a few minutes before its collapse (which is why the news networks prematurely reported its demise). the only question remains who was the originator, and that would be determined in any real investigation. how the hell did you come up with all firefighters and police officers in on the conspiracy? what are you smoking kid?

i like how you didn't even address mcpadden's testimony of a damn countdown and what he heard: guess what, more corroborating testimony of loud pre collapse explosions. or the fact the firefighter clearly stated "Seven is exploding!".

Yes, it is fact that the FDNY determined the buildings were to dangerous and tried to pull most of their personnel out. Is that a conspiracy? No. It's prudence.

As for the conspiracy you are alluding to:

Fact: A firefighter said, "seven is exploding."
Fact: WTC 7, at no point, looked like it was exploding.

What does that mean? Either, it means that this guy was mistaken in his choice of words (namely, he was declaring that 7 was in jeapordy of collapse) OR he knew it was coming down.

If it was the latter, then he must have been in on the conspiracy, right? How else would he have known?

If a petty ladderman was in on the conspiracy, then wouldn't other firefighters have been in too? Or was this one guy placed by the government to make the statement "seven is exploding" prior to its collapse just to tease us?

On top of the firefighters, you have accused the NIST and FEMA of both lying. You've also implicated every major news network. That's gotta be over a thousand people in your giant conspiracy, most of whom are university professors, architects, building specialists, and people who have no connection to the government. You implicity are implicating many other qualified organizations of professions (implosionworld, ASE, AIA, etc) of being 'in on it' because ALL of them have come forward in agreement with the NIST report and, if the NIST report was rife with factual errors, as you claim, then these experts would have noticed that. To stay quiet either means that they agree with the NIST report (which they do) or that they were in on the conspiracy.

Who is part of your conspiracy and who isn't?

LoL. outright stupidity on your part to claim 14,000 were in on it. that makes no sense at all LOL.

Dropping the fucking lols. It makes you sound even more retarded.

Or the more logical answer is that the firefighter in question was merely following orders, and telling people to evacuate because of the orders he was given. LOL at your 14,000 officers involved in the conspiracy.

Right. That is what he was doing. If he was following orders to evacuate people though, how did he know the building was going to explode? All he would have known was to evacuate the building, not that there were explosives inside. By placing creedence in his statement that the building was going to blow, you must be implicating him in the conspiracy.

If he is implicated, then there must be other firemen who knew too, after all, who told him that the building was going to explode?


Take your condescending attitude somewhere else.

You willingly refuse to actually read what I write and instead repeat the same bullshit over and over again.

Try responding to anything I actually said in my last post, because this was just a failboat full of fail.


Edit:

Here are a few of the pending questions you will not answer:

What is your explanation for seismographs located within Manhattan and Brooklyn being unable to detect the shaking that is visible on this camera?

Do you recognize the fact that your eye witness testimony does not exclusively support your own theory of what happened? Do you even begin to comprehend that it also fits the version of events that I have been putting forward?

Please address the fact that your eye witness testimony does not exclusively support your theory and acknowledge the fact that eye witness testimony, in any legal or non legal case, is NOT reliable.

Please address why Protec's engineeers, who had multiple seismographs located in Manhattan and Brooklyn detected the plane impacts and the subsquent collapses but failed to detect your mysterious shaking.

Why would the US Government TIP OFF news agencies prior to destroying WTC 7?

Find me an example of a piece of steel from WTC 1, 2, or 7 that was melted. For this game, you need to find steel that is entirely liquid (not just glowing) and has been tested and confirmed to be steel.

Either explain to me the NIST's collapse model or present your own

Why did the planes strike the towers? Why did the plane strike the pentagon? Why did the other plane crash? Did Osama cooperate with the US Government? -- What is YOUR story?

Read. My. Post. especially the parts concerning thermite and melted steel.

Please, please provide some evidence that links these reports to actual explosives, rather than simply self-referentially referring to them over and over again.

Who is part of your conspiracy and who isn't?

 

[BeauJangles]

Getting off the truther train for a moment, let's go back to one tiny detail our dear friend keeps forgetting: thermite doesn't explode.

So, while you've been spending thousands of words "proving" to me and the world that these explosions happened (the shaky camera!), you can't tell me what caused the shaking.


What caused the explosions that caused the shaking?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Getting off the truther train for a moment, let's go back to one tiny detail our dear friend keeps forgetting: thermite doesn't explode.
So, while you've been spending thousands of words "proving" to me and the world that these explosions happened (the shaky camera!), you can't tell me what caused the shaking.
What caused the explosions that caused the shaking?

You forget; it's not thermite, it's the mystical and elusive "nano-thermite". It can have whatever properties they want to attribute to it.

 

[hichu]

He's in his own delusional little fantasy land. He's so far from reality there is no point in even responding to his idiocy any longer.

are you going to admit the steel from building 7 melted? i downloaded the F.E.M.A report and that is what F.E.M.A stated.

there is a lot of good information in this thread. thank you kyle and all the rest for providing so many witness accounts of explosions before those towers fell. those deep sounds heard before wtc7 came down in kyle's first post are very compelling.

 

[LunarRay]

You forget; it's not thermite, it's the mystical and elusive "nano-thermite". It can have whatever properties they want to attribute to it.

"
MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[3] Nanoenergetic materials can store higher amounts of energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are considered to be a promising application of nanoenergetic materials. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

It would appear you are correct. Nano-Thermite can be configured to explode.

 

[alkemyst]

are you going to admit the steel from building 7 melted? i downloaded the F.E.M.A report and that is what F.E.M.A stated.

there is a lot of good information in this thread. thank you kyle and all the rest for providing so many witness accounts of explosions before those towers fell. those deep sounds heard before wtc7 came down in kyle's first post are very compelling.

his take on it is the same dodge the NIST did.

Didn't contribute to the falling of the towers so no need to look further.

"could have been aluminum cans and tin foil"

 

[Cogman]

are you going to admit the steel from building 7 melted? i downloaded the F.E.M.A report and that is what F.E.M.A stated.

there is a lot of good information in this thread. thank you kyle and all the rest for providing so many witness accounts of explosions before those towers fell. those deep sounds heard before wtc7 came down in kyle's first post are very compelling.

You are, an idiot. Go look up what a REAL demolition explosion sounds like, not this amplified by x100000000000000000 crap. There are 1000s of them on the web.

 

[BeauJangles]

"
MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[3] Nanoenergetic materials can store higher amounts of energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are considered to be a promising application of nanoenergetic materials. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

It would appear you are correct. Nano-Thermite can be configured to explode.

Right, this stuff is used in conjunction with regular explosives to modify the effects of the explosive. It is more reactive than normal thermite, but it is still not an explosive in and of itself. Considering we have no evidence of any other type of explosive at Ground Zero, nano-thermite is just another farce; shit flung against a wall in hopes that it will stick.

edit: and before someone jumps all over "thermobaric weapons," they aren't bombs in the conventional sense, they're weapons designed to work much like napalm, only more destructive. Little explosion, lots of duration.

 

[BeauJangles]

are you going to admit the steel from building 7 melted? i downloaded the F.E.M.A report and that is what F.E.M.A stated.

there is a lot of good information in this thread. thank you kyle and all the rest for providing so many witness accounts of explosions before those towers fell. those deep sounds heard before wtc7 came down in kyle's first post are very compelling.

What evidence are you pointing to that indicates there was melted steel?

 

[xj0hnx]

It would appear you are correct. Nano-Thermite can be configured to explode.

Either it was compounded to explode as a conventional explosive, or it was used to burn through steel, one, or the other, funny thing is one contradicts the other so it's just Truthers swinging back and forth depending on which version they are arguing.

--no longer addressing LunarRay ---

so, according to Truther theory this is what happened ....

At least two different types of exotic explosive compounds to accomplish the same thing, with a ridiculously complex, completely wireless, free-form ignition system were placed without notice by anyone, through out three buildings with protective shielding to prevent premature, and/or sympathetic detonation, and managed to be set off by government men at some undisclosed location, in a way that didn't have a report, flashes, or leave any evidence and all functioned perfectly all three times even in the face of uncontrollable fires, and the impact of the plane crash's? All this orchestrated by the US Government, and thousands of people involved have kept quiet for almost a decade?

This is you believe, but three buildings collapsing from being hit by jetliners, and having raging uncontrolled fires causing a systematic break down in structure integrity is for nut jobs?

BeauJangles, al981 is typical of a Truther, he has a conclusion and is finding, and discarding evidence to support that conclusion. He and frankly none of the Truthers, are actually seeking the truth, they are only interested in pieces of argument that support their predetermined conclusion.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

are you going to admit the steel from building 7 melted? i downloaded the F.E.M.A report and that is what F.E.M.A stated.

You may have downloaded it but you didn't read it properly. They found a few pieces of steel eroded due to a corrosive, high-temperature, chemical reaction. Making the jump from a few pieces were chemically corroded to "the steel from building 7 melted" is not only misinformed, it's blatantly dishonest.

there is a lot of good information in this thread. thank you kyle and all the rest for providing so many witness accounts of explosions before those towers fell. those deep sounds heard before wtc7 came down in kyle's first post are very compelling.

🙄

Another who can't quite grasp that explosions != explosives.

 

[LunarRay]

Right, this stuff is used in conjunction with regular explosives to modify the effects of the explosive. It is more reactive than normal thermite, but it is still not an explosive in and of itself. Considering we have no evidence of any other type of explosive at Ground Zero, nano-thermite is just another farce; shit flung against a wall in hopes that it will stick.

edit: and before someone jumps all over "thermobaric weapons," they aren't bombs in the conventional sense, they're weapons designed to work much like napalm, only more destructive. Little explosion, lots of duration.

As I read it Nano-Thermite lites off and creates molten iron which 'burns' real hot like... There is no evidence of eyeballs seeing stuff melting in the Towers... other than that molten drippy stuff in Tower 2's 80ish floor. and if you'll accept my word... They were more concerned with the structural changes and there were lots of folks looking into that aspect... DeMartini tore into the core area to check on it and reported structural anomalies in the core there... let's see.. floor 78 and dang... I can't recall what other floors my cousin said they tried to go up to... oh.. floor 86 had a report of massive damage from a young fellow 'stuck' there from fallen floors and like that in tower one... the first one hit. They couldn't make it up there for the damage lower down... They used the stairs Bravo and Charlie what ever that was... I guess Alpha was clear but they didn't know it... Communication sucked! I don't think anyone made it up and down if they ventured above like floor 40ish...
What I find maybe remarkable is the damage early on on so many lower floors and not one bit of comment as to explosive or incendiary causation other than the elevators blown out... not the columns but the elevators... probably avgas..... somehow those buildings were doomed... 20 floors below or so the impact zone all messed up...
I mentioned earlier that per protocol if there was suspect boom devices or incendiary ones I don't think they'd have gone in.. The bomb squad would... and they did have three units (them trucks equipped to deal with bombs and experts in that field) there... They did not enter as I understand it...