LOL! beaujingle now claiming that he was taken out of context, after lying for months that no pre collapse explosions ever occurred. why else would you continue to mention seismographs, seismographs, seismographs? you are erroneously using the seismograph argument (which has been disproven by the way), to deny the fact that hundreds of firefighters and witnesses on the ground gave corroborating accounts of
large pre collapse explosions 
Nobody is stating for a fact that explosions = due to explosives, but it certainly opens up the possibility for explosives. Did you conveniently forget about this?:
"A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away. "
Fantastic, like we've talked about before there were seismographs within Manhattan and the burrows, not 16 km away.
This isn't 1993 and this wasn't the truck bombing in the WTC.
So seismographs were unable to detect jet fuel that had (a) poured down the elevator shafts and subsequently caught on fire or (b) fell down the elevator shafts already on fire and somehow that has relevance to the demolitions charges there were never detected? Since when does a bunch of fuel ablaze equate a controlled demolition?
again, it is a given fact large pre collapse explosions did occur, even for wtc7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI
firefighters corroborating large secondary explosions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgMrDS4puK0
Great, so thousands of people (according to you) saw these explosions, yet nobody can find any trace of their existence, there is no record of them happening on any piece of scientific equipment... isn't entirely more likely that, like we discussed before, this is unreliable eye witness testimony.
These people heard "explosions" but we have no proof that those explosions came from actual explosives.
In fact, we have no evidence at all for the story you've constructed which is why this testimony should be seen for what it is: people who were placed in an incredibly stressful situation reacting to the a previously never-before-seen event and try to rationalize what they saw or heard.
Unfortunately, without any supporting evidence, there is nothing more we can really say.
let's take a trip down memory lane for the LOL:
Originally Posted by BeauJangles
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.
Typical. Take a quote completely out of context and hammer it home like it actually means something. Your inability to contextualize quotes has hamstrung you from the beginning.
Folks, here's littlejingle saying that firefighters are lying when corroborate each other about
pre collapse explosions.
Eye. Witness. Testimony. With. Nothing. To. Back. It. Up. In. The. Middle. Of. A. Giant. Building. Falling. To. The. Ground.
My original response to your bullshit lie:
"LOL! you continually deny the basic fact that explosions and rumblings occurred, claiming "no freaking evidence of it", yet somehow contradict yourself in the exact same sentence by saying the explosions were....wait for.... "
in fact other explosions". ROFL! grats on self ownage, kid."
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30326773&postcount=1312
Deny the basic fact? Me? You're the one who claims that what sounds like a microphone getting brushed against something or is an artifact of audio splicing is "proof" that there were explosions.
edit: I'd just like to add one tidbit which you also cannot explain. IF your video is showing us "explosions" why would the news crew cut away and, if they cut away, wouldn't they go RIGHT BACK? I mean, if I were a reporter standing there and I heard explosions like that, I'd want to get back on the air and say something like "HOLY CRAPOLA, THERE ARE EXPLOSIONS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW." Instead, they carry on like nothing happened. Was the Channel 7 local news team also part of the conspiracy now?
You point to a video camera located on a rooftop about half (a quarter?) of a mile away that shakes and claim it is "proof" of explosions. Listen, if the explosions were violent enough to shake a freaking camera, then it is hard to see how they wouldn't have been detected by ANYTHING else. Not to mention that we have no idea what actually caused that shaking.
Your problem, simply put, is that you cannot, will not, and refuse to construct a coherent and rational argument of what happened and what the order of events were. You place your faith in youtube videos showing cameras shaking, yet deny that any scientific instruments demonstrate the contrary. You use the testimony of individuals who you believe support your wild goose chase, yet you don't even bother to do enough research to find out that they don't support you at all and, when that fact is made apparent to you, you act like a petulant child and bitch and moan at me about it. You're the one who brought these people into this argument, yet you cannot even say for sure that they support you or your claims.
Your charade is beyond silly, considering you cannot rectify the following:
1. Your camera shaking versus the lack of seismograph readings. Now, usually we can attribute that discrepancy to the fact that the nearest major seismograph to NYC might not be large enough to detect a localized event that would cause shaking, however, we also know that there were much smaller seismographs on the ground in Lower Manhattan and the burrows that morning and these devices were being used for construction auditing. Due to their significantly higher sensitivity, it is highly surprising these devices cannot verify your camera shaking.
2. You claim that there were pre-collapse explosions, which you implicitly assume are demolition charges. Take a look at any actual controlled demolition on youtube and you'll see that there is no way there could have been a controlled demolition with conventional explosives.
For example,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZevHUR3_L8&feature=related#t=2m or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ&feature=related (the second one is probably a better example). We can clearly see two things that didn't occur in either tower. First, the incredible explosion that occurs low down on the base of the building and, second, how quickly the collapse follows this explosion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_GpPdgAGwk#t=1m20s
Notice the dramatic difference between these two videos. In the WTC collapse video there are no explosions preceding the collapse and no visible evidence of explosions. The collapse is clearly started at the top of the tower, not at the bottom.
In the controlled demolitions we clearly see that there a series of internal explosions to weaken the building followed immediately by highly visible explosions at the base of the buildings and then their collapse. This collapse is initiated from the base.
There is NO video of either one of the Towers that demonstrates the collapse was initiated at the base.
Zero. Zilch. Nada. None.
Find visual evidence and we'll talk.
4. If demolition chargers were used, why did the thousands of recovery workers never stumble across a single shred of detonation cord, blast caps, or blast residue? Why did no camera on the scene for the recovery capture pictures of any of these things which would be present in the millions for a demolition like this?
3. That your evidence doesn't exclusively support your own half-cocked hypothesis.
Until then, might I remind you that you've now had a few months to stew on the questions that previously stumped you:
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?
These questions are derived directly from the pieces of what you've actually tried to say happened on 9/11.
As for the insults, they're really unbecoming of anyone. Drop it.