Here is one rescue worker who was "in on it"

[theauthor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

"We are walking back because the building is about to blow up"

How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"?

[Garb]

Why don't you ask him why he isn't part of the truth movement?

[mrbaracuda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

"We are walking back because the building is about to blow up"

How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"?

And this supports your insane theory about the gubmint rigging an empty building no one died in that has nothing to do with the subsequent actions taken by the gubmint, be it Afghanistan, Iraq or bills passed how? :rolleyes:

Apart from that, I think you still have some questions pending for an answer here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115744&page=11).
Not to mention explosion does not automatically equal demolitions. But who am I telling that? I don't want to stress the MA I guess. :)

[theauthor]

Why don't you ask him why he isn't part of the truth movement?


Answer the question.

[theauthor]

And this supports your insane theory about the gubmint rigging an empty building no one died in that has nothing to do with the subsequent actions taken by the gubmint, be it Afghanistan, Iraq or bills passed how? :rolleyes:


Why did he say it was about to blow up?

[R.Mackey]

"We are walking back because the building is about to blow up"

How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"?

WTC 7 didn't "blow up." The individual was mistaken, or else you are ascribing a meaning to his words that he never intended.

Very simple.

[theauthor]

WTC 7 didn't "blow up." The individual was mistaken, or else you are ascribing a meaning to his words that he never intended.

Very simple.


He was mistaken? Hw did he manage that?

[Garb]

Answer the question.

Did he know? Was he using hyperbole? Did he help with explosives? Was he allowed to say this on camera? Is he the only one who knows of the explosives being planted?

Sure I find the statement odd but no one has decided to follow up and find the guy who said it, so this statement is meaningless until you know if he actually meant "bring down with explosives."

[peteweaver]

Are you familiar with the concept of a figure of speech ?

[R.Mackey]

He was mistaken? Hw did he manage that?

I don't follow you. People manage to be mistaken all the time, as you magnificently demonstrate.

And, as I stated, that was only one possibility.

[defaultdotxbe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

"We are walking back because the building is about to blow up"

How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"?
since WTC7 didnt "blow up" he was wrong

as for how he knew "it'll be coming down soon" judging the structural soundness of a damaged/burning building is something that firefighters are trained to do

so now why dont you answer the question about why he isnt part of the truth movement?

[theauthor]

Did he know? Was he using hypserbole? Did he help with explosives? Was he allowed to say this on camera? Is he the only one who knows of the explosives being planted?

Sure I find the statement odd but no one has decided to follow up and find the guy who said it, so this statement is meaningless until you know if he actually meant "bring down with explosives."

He didnt just say blow up, he said "about to". How did he know that? Even if they feared collapse, how could he know it would be that imminent? Nobody, especially a proffessional like that, would describe a feared collapse as "about to blow up"....unless he knew it was about to blow up.

[peteweaver]

Oh and why aren't there any sounds of explosions in the raw news footage of the collapse of WTC 7 which has sound ?

[theauthor]

since WTC7 didnt "blow up" he was wrong

as for how he knew "it'll be coming down soon" judging the structural soundness of a damaged/burning building is something that firefighters are trained to do

so now why dont you answer the question about why he isnt part of the truth movement?

He was wrong? Why did he say it in the first place? "Blow up" is a very different concept to "collapse"

[peteweaver]

Even if they feared collapse, how could he know it would be that imminent?

Because of the way it was leaning.

[Undesired Walrus]

On a day such as September 11th, with planes flying into buildings, people jumping to their deaths, two huge buildings collapsing and the entire world's press trained on the streets of New York, I think you can forgive a man for using a common word like 'blow up' in excitable circumstances such as this. As this man has not come forward with this remarkable story of rigged buildings, it seems somewhat likely he was using an understandable hyperbole.

Curious how people such as you -the author- take almost anything like this as literal truth, yet you brush away Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh's 2002 audio-confession for no other reason than it not supporting your theory.

[Garb]

He didnt just say blow up, he said "about to". How did he know that?

Creaking, fire, and structural damage.

Even if they feared collapse, how could he know it would be that imminent? Nobody, especially a proffessional like that, would describe a feared collapse as "about to blow up"....unless he knew it was about to blow up.

What time did he make the statement and how long afterwards did the building collapse? Was this while they were setting up a collapse zone? After? Before?

And you forget the fact that he could be using a strange form of hyperbole. Someone should go and ask him.

[theauthor]

I don't follow you. People manage to be mistaken all the time, as you magnificently demonstrate.

And, as I stated, that was only one possibility.

So why would he use the phrase "blow up"? Whether he turned out to be right or wrong, what was behind his use of that phrase?

If you were a professional in that situation where 2 towers have already collapsed, would you casually go around telling civilians that buildings were about to blow up?

[1337m4n]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

"We are walking back because the building is about to blow up"

How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"?

You could always ask him.

[DGM]

"We are walking back because the building is about to blow up"

What did this gentleman say he meant by this? Obviously the "truth" movement wouldn't run this without confirming this persons meaning:rolleyes:. Can we see the follow up interview the "truthers" made?

[R.Mackey]

So why would he use the phrase "blow up"? Whether he turned out to be right or wrong, what was behind his use of that phrase?

If you were a professional in that situation where 2 towers have already collapsed, would you casually go around telling civilians that buildings were about to blow up?

This is utterly irrelevant. WTC 7 did not blow up. I already pointed this out to you once.

[Myriad]

"Blow up" is computer science jargon for nonlinear behavior in computer models causing values to increase or diverge so radically as to cause overflows. (Source: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/B/blow-up.html)

So apparently, he was commenting on the difficulty future researchers would have in running accurate computer models of the building collapse that was about to occur.

(Hey, a fireman using computer science jargon makes as much sense as a real estate entrepreneur using demolition jargon -- and in this case, at least the jargon in question really exists.)

Or perhaps there's also a firefighting jargon meaning of the phrase "blow up" that has nothing to do with explosives or explosions? Nah, couldn't be. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fire/glossary.html)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[theauthor]

This is utterly irrelevant. WTC 7 did not blow up. I already pointed this out to you once.

How do you know this when the final report hasn't been released?

[R.Mackey]

How do you know this when the final report hasn't been released?

The NIST WTC 7 report is hardly the only source of information. We know there were no sounds or seismic indications of explosives. We also know the building visibly degraded, slowly, hours before it collapsed. We also know that, in the professional opinion of firefighters on scene, both well before the collapse and to this day, the structure was in danger of collapse due to the damage it suffered, and the ongoing fires.

That's how I know.

What you are attempting to do is claim that, since this person said "blow up," then there were explosives involved. But we already know there weren't. There's no reason to consider this at all.

[Redtail]

So why would he use the phrase "blow up"? Whether he turned out to be right or wrong, what was behind his use of that phrase?
It's a figure of speech.

If you were a professional in that situation where 2 towers have already collapsed, would you casually go around telling civilians that buildings were about to blow up?
Most likely.

[theauthor]

It's a figure of speech.


Most likely.


No, it isn't a figure of speech. Can you find me a single example anywhere, apart from this one, where someone describes the collapse of a building as "blowing up"?

[Ratatoskr]

How do you know this when the final report hasn't been released?

This is a friendly advice from me: Please, stop and think about what you're saying here. We don't need the report to tell us whether or not the building "blew up". Everybody who saw it knows it collapsed. There is a pretty huge difference...

Now, concerning what made the building collapse, then we should wait for the report. Even though the pretty obvious answer is fires and structural damage.

[TexasJack]

"Blow up" is computer science jargon for nonlinear behavior in computer models causing values to increase or diverge so radically as to cause overflows. (Source: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/B/blow-up.html)

So apparently, he was commenting on the difficulty future researchers would have in running accurate computer models of the building collapse that was about to occur.

(Hey, a fireman using computer science jargon makes as much sense as a real estate entrepreneur using demolition jargon -- and in this case, at least the jargon in question really exists.)

Or perhaps there's also a firefighting jargon meaning of the phrase "blow up" that has nothing to do with explosives or explosions? Nah, couldn't be. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fire/glossary.html)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Nice find Myriad. Does that answer your question theauthor?

[theauthor]

The NIST WTC 7 report is hardly the only source of information. We know there were no sounds or seismic indications of explosives. We also know the building visibly degraded, slowly, hours before it collapsed. We also know that, in the professional opinion of firefighters on scene, both well before the collapse and to this day, the structure was in danger of collapse due to the damage it suffered, and the ongoing fires.

That's how I know.

What you are attempting to do is claim that, since this person said "blow up," then there were explosives involved. But we already know there weren't. There's no reason to consider this at all.


How exactly do we know there were no sounds? There were people who described hearing such sounds. One described it as like a clap of thunder before the building caved out.

[Tomblvd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

"We are walking back because the building is about to blow up"

How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"?


Weren't you complaining last nite about how we were "disrespecting the fallen heroes" by not taking a firefighter's hyperbolic statement at face value?

And now your're accusing one of them of being in on the conspiracy?

All that on top of multiple statements about how people in the military are stupid.

You're having a bad 24 hours.

[R.Mackey]

No, it isn't a figure of speech. Can you find me a single example anywhere, apart from this one, where someone describes the collapse of a building as "blowing up"?

The Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?page=1&term=blow+up) (warning: Vulgar content!) lists a multitude of figures of speech for "blow up," many of which have absolutely nothing to do with explosives.

In particular, note the link to the term "implode." Implosion is an adequate description of the WTC 7 collapse, and was so used by FEMA in its report.

And, anticipating the obvious retort, implosions can occur without any explosive devices whatsoever, particularly in heavily damaged structures.

[RedIbis]

The NIST WTC 7 report is hardly the only source of information. We know there were no sounds or seismic indications of explosives. We also know the building visibly degraded, slowly, hours before it collapsed. We also know that, in the professional opinion of firefighters on scene, both well before the collapse and to this day, the structure was in danger of collapse due to the damage it suffered, and the ongoing fires.

.

What we know is the majority of firefighters and other FDNY personnel on the scene were told that bldg would collapse, not that they all agreed collapse was imminent.

You know better.

[R.Mackey]

How exactly do we know there were no sounds? There were people who described hearing such sounds. One described it as like a clap of thunder before the building caved out.

That sound is not consistent with explosive demolition.

The characteristic is the firecracker-string of separate explosions, all in rapid sequence. Or very large explosions that occur well before any motion of the structure. Neither of these were reported by anyone, nor do they appear on any of the numerous videos, with full audio, of the collapse.

That's how, exactly, we know.

[R.Mackey]

What we know is the majority of firefighters and other FDNY personnel on the scene were told that bldg would collapse, not that they all agreed collapse was imminent.

You know better.

What a disingenuous statement. "A majority" is not sufficient. The explosives theory, which does not require firefighter opinion for refutation since the physical evidence alone does this -- I only throw it in for corroboration -- would require all firefighters to have been told, not just "a majority."

Furthermore, as you've already been explained to, of course they were told. Disasters require coordination. That includes telling people things that should be totally obvious, just in case, so they don't do something stupid.

If you could find me firefighters who were told it would collapse but disagreed with that assessment based on their own feelings, that might be worth exploration. Alas, you cannot.

[MarkyX]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

"We are walking back because the building is about to blow up"

How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"?

How do I know he is even talking about WTC7? What is his name? The video was provided by a 9/11 denier, so the uploader could've easily spliced it, which looks like he did.

[BigAl]

If the members of the "Truth Movement" ever learn what is meant by
"simile" and metaphor" and how they were used when eyewitnesses to WTC
described what they saw, the entire movement would blow away in a
pyroclastic cloud with a noise like a freight train.

[Grizzly Bear]

No, it isn't a figure of speech. Can you find me a single example anywhere, apart from this one, where someone describes the collapse of a building as "blowing up"?

Based on what happened that day I could easily understand people using hyperboles or jumping to conclusions... There are countless accounts of explosions and people thinking at first that they were bombs, however considering the uniqueness of the situation I find it hardly surprising...

There's a difference between reaction to a major situation and bluntly stating with absolute certainty that there were actually bombs...

How exactly do we know there were no sounds? There were people who described hearing such sounds. One described it as like a clap of thunder before the building caved out.

People were describing the sound of people hitting the pavement as bombs, and loud explosions. Can you imagine the noise of hearing a 1-acre plane of concrete slamming into another 1-acre plane of concrete?

[applecorped]

What we know is the majority of firefighters and other FDNY personnel on the scene were told that bldg would collapse, not that they all agreed collapse was imminent.

You know better.

So. I know you are going to die. I may not know what day but I know you will.

[theauthor]

How do I know he is even talking about WTC7? What is his name? The video was provided by a 9/11 denier, so the uploader could've easily spliced it, which looks like he did.


Stop grasping at straws. He said that, amongst other things, on the CNN video. Nobody has spliced anything. If you want to claim they have then provide proof.

[DGM]

If the members of the "Truth Movement" ever learn what is meant by
"simile" and metaphor" and how they were used when eyewitnesses to WTC
described what they saw, the entire movement would blow away in a
pyroclastic cloud with a noise like a freight train.
You assume the want to know the truth. This is obviously not the case because if they did they would talk to this/these person/s and find out what he/she meant. Expanding the "cult" is all they want.

[MarkyX]

Stop grasping at straws. He said that, amongst other things, on the CNN video. Nobody has spliced anything. If you want to claim they have then provide proof.

How come the video doesn't show the person's name? Usually when there is a quote like that, we are least told who it is.

As for the splicing bit, why are the streets from the 12 second mark so different? Why a fade from the top at the 14 second mark ? Why is the 38 second mark have the video of the WTC7 collapse, interrupting the reporter's speech?

[1337m4n]

How exactly do we know there were no sounds? There were people who described hearing such sounds. One described it as like a clap of thunder before the building caved out.

1) But did anyone hear this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ)?

2) How do you explain the fact that no audio recordings pick up the sounds of demolitions?

3) How do you explain the fact that the seismic data all show that there were no demolitions?

[theauthor]

How come the video doesn't show the person's name? Usually when there is a quote like that, we are least told who it is.

As for the splicing bit, why are the streets from the 12 second mark so different? Why a fade from the top at the 14 second mark ? Why is the 38 second mark have the video of the WTC7 collapse, interrupting the reporter's speech?

Why would it show his name? They didnt interview him. They were just filming as he came along and said it to people.

[MarkyX]

Why would it show his name? They didnt interview him. They were just filming as he came along and said it to people.

The guy's holding the camera and giving orders, right? I like to know who he is. What street was he on? Why do you refuse to answer my other points?

[Russ_Dalton]

The NIST WTC 7 report is hardly the only source of information. We know there were no sounds or seismic indications of explosives. .........
What you are attempting to do is claim that, since this person said "blow up," then there were explosives involved. But we already know there weren't. There's no reason to consider this at all.

The video clearly shows sounds when the workers walk away from WTC7. Watch the video again.

How did you rule out the possibility that there were no explosives?

[Elizabeth I]

He was mistaken? Hw did he manage that?

You have to manage to be mistaken? I must be extremely talented then, because I'm mistaken all the time with no effort at all.

And, as far as the statement in the OP is concerned, even if the individual in question did say what you say he said, and even if he meant what you say he meant, why is he apparently the only one among the hundreds of firefighters, EMTs, and police who were there that day to say any such thing? Could he have been...oh, I don't know...mistaken?

And, finally, TA, would you please address this post from Myriad?

Or perhaps there's also a firefighting jargon meaning of the phrase "blow up" that has nothing to do with explosives or explosions? Nah, couldn't be (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fire/glossary.html).

[Redtail]

No, it isn't a figure of speech.

Yes it is.


Can you find me a single example anywhere, apart from this one, where someone describes the collapse of a building as "blowing up"?http://board.spawn.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-419685.html
My house blew up sale...Not good enough? How about this?
blow-up -- A sudden increase in fire intensity or rate of spread strong enough to prevent direct control or to upset control plans. Blow-ups are often accompanied by violent convection and may have other characteristics of a firestorm.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fire/glossary.html

ETA: Whoops! Missed that one by Myriad.

[Bobert]

Why did he say it was about to blow up?
I can only SPECULATE like you are doing right now.
Why this game of asking us why he said that?
Do you think that maybe based on years of experience and training that they suspected the building was about to come down.
Maybe he used the word "blow up" figuratively?
After all his job was to protect lives and maybe he used this term because it gets people attention and gets people moving thereby accomplishing his goal of saving lives?
You do realize that alot of people used the words "blew up" "exploded" that day but they weren't implying controlled demolition?
They were simply descriptive words.
I will now let you get back to your trolling.

[Russ_Dalton]

1) But did anyone hear this
youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ ?

2) How do you explain the fact that no audio recordings pick up the sounds of demolitions?

3) How do you explain the fact that the seismic data all show that there were no demolitions?

(1) and (2) Go to imlplosionworld.com > click "Cinema explosif". Explain to me why every controlled demolition is different from each other. Why are the sounds in those controlled demolitions different from the video you posted.

(3) Does every explosion record a seismic data?

[Bobert]

Stop grasping at straws. He said that, amongst other things, on the CNN video. Nobody has spliced anything. If you want to claim they have then provide proof.

Why is it that truthers only care about proof and evidence when it supports their fantasy?

[Elizabeth I]

1) But did anyone hear this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ)?

2) How do you explain the fact that no audio recordings pick up the sounds of demolitions?

3) How do you explain the fact that the seismic data all show that there were no demolitions?

2) They've been edited out by THEM.

3) They've been suppressed by THEM.

[MarkyX]

The video clearly shows sounds when the workers walk away from WTC7. Watch the video again.

Again, what is the name of the person? What street? Why was there so many cuts during the video? A real news report doesn't have 20 different camera angles within a minute.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Even if they feared collapse, how could he know it would be that imminent?


Maybe he didn't. Once you've come to the conclusion that a building is likely to collapse, whether you think it'll collapse in the next ten minutes or the next ten hours, you don't hang around in its shadow.

[tsig]

He didnt just say blow up, he said "about to". How did he know that? Even if they feared collapse, how could he know it would be that imminent? Nobody, especially a proffessional like that, would describe a feared collapse as "about to blow up"....unless he knew it was about to blow up.

WOW! He knew. Yet he remains silent. It speaks louder than words.

[JimBenArm]

Why did he say "blow up"? Because they were getting ready to inflate the building with helium so it would float. They were planning to use it as a giant balloon in the next Macy's parade. Sadly, the building collapsed before it was fully inflated, and foiled their plan.

Any other stupid questions that need not be answered?

[chillzero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

"We are walking back because the building is about to blow up"

How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"?

The building was on fire, and at that time they may not have known what had fallen into it from the other towers, since something clearly did.

Maybe he believed it was about to blow up, due to fuel, power, etc contained inside it.

Maybe he said it because he believed it. It's not the same as knowing it.

Why do you think he said it? Do you think he was telling the cameramen that he had just finished planting bombs all over the place, or something?:rolleyes:

[R.Mackey]

The video clearly shows sounds when the workers walk away from WTC7. Watch the video again.

How did you rule out the possibility that there were no explosives?

Yes, sounds of the collapse itself. Not sounds consistent with explosives.

I explained the answer to your question in the very post you quoted. Your conduct is quite puzzling.

[Dave_46]

No, it isn't a figure of speech.
<snip>

You have made a definite statement there. What is your evidence for this assertion?

Dave

[Tomblvd]

This is nothing more than another game of "gotcha". Using the people directly involved in the tragedy as props.

Just like yesterdays thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3776030#post3776030) where t.a. and another tried to make the argument that the towers disintegrated into nothing but dust becuase a firefighter, right afterwards, said the building crumbled to dust.

On the strength of that ONE hyperbolic statment, they stated as absolute, unassailable fact that the towers crumbled to nothing but dust.

Big hunks of concrete and steel notwithstanding.

[Russ_Dalton]

Again, what is the name of the person? What street? Why was there so many cuts during the video? A real news report doesn't have 20 different camera angles within a minute.

You could clearly (1) hear a explosion type sound (2) see the worker look back and say to effect of - "its blowing". You'd like to comment on that part?

That part doesn't have any cuts. Are you saying the video is fake?

[tsig]

How do you know this when the final report hasn't been released?

Some of us use our brains to figure things out. We do not rely on books.

[Russ_Dalton]

Yes, sounds of the collapse itself. Not sounds consistent with explosives.

I explained the answer to your question in the very post you quoted. Your conduct is quite puzzling.

How did you differentiate the sound of collapse from the sound of explosion?

[jhunter1163]

Again, what is the name of the person? What street? Why was there so many cuts during the video? A real news report doesn't have 20 different camera angles within a minute.

The headlines scrolling by appear to indicate that this is part of some anniversary program. One of them says "50% of Americans blame Bush for 9/11". We didn't reach that point for several years.

[R.Mackey]

How did you differentiate the sound of collapse from the sound of explosion?

Again, I explained this in the post you quoted. You must have seen it. Nevertheless, I will explain again.

Explosives used in demolition make one of two sounds. Either a firecracker string of explosions, or very large explosions, that occur before any structural motion.

This does not happen. There are many videos to choose from. Had this happened, it would have been heard in most if not all of them. There are none.

[BirdyBuddy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

"We are walking back because the building is about to blow up"

How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"?

Can you point to evidence that he did indeed "know"? He didn't say "I know the building is about to blow up."
He used terminology familiar to him while under extreme pressure, without consideration for accuracy. He didn't have to moment to choose his words with care. He needed to get a point across quickly. He blurted out what came natural for him to say at that moment. But where is it that shows he "knew"? It's just not there. You are reading too much into just one sentence to pin the whole collapse on conspiracy.

I think it's time to add reading comprehension and basic grammar tests to the sign up requirements here.

[Russ_Dalton]

Again, I explained this in the post you quoted. You must have seen it. Nevertheless, I will explain again.

Explosives used in demolition make one of two sounds. Either a firecracker string of explosions, or very large explosions, that occur before any structural motion.

This does not happen. There are many videos to choose from. Had this happened, it would have been heard in most if not all of them. There are none.

Go to implosionworld.com, click "cinema explosif" . Watch all the videos.

Most of your statements are debunked.

There are varying types of explosive sounds, which are not immediately followed by structural motion.

In other words- Structural motion is not necessarily preceded by an explosive sound.

[Tomblvd]

Can you point to evidence that he did indeed "know"? He didn't say "I know the building is about to blow up."
He used terminology familiar to him while under extreme pressure, without consideration for accuracy. He didn't have to moment to choose his words with care. He needed to get a point across quickly. He blurted out what came natural for him to say at that moment. But where is it that shows he "knew"? It's just not there. You are reading too much into just one sentence to pin the whole collapse on conspiracy.

I think it's time to add reading comprehension and basic grammar tests to the sign up requirements here.


How about just some basic, human honesty?

[Tomblvd]

As a "logical" conclusion to this "gotcha" quote insanity, I guess we can conclusively state that at least 20,000 people died in the twin towers collapse, because I heard MANY people say that the in the hours and days after the attack.

Because ALL statements made in the heat of the moment are accurate, right?

[dbalsdon]

[thread title]Here is one rescue worker[/thread title]

One described it as like a clap of thunder

Bolding mine. One.... out of how many people, that were there, that day???

[Elizabeth I]

In other words- Structural motion is not necessarily preceded by an explosive sound.

No, sometimes it is preceded by an earthquake, or a tornado, or a hurricane, or by planes flying into the building in question, or by fire, or by large chunks of another building falling on it, or several of those elements in combination or in succession.

How can so many people be so sap-skulled and thick-headed at the same time?

[Grizzly Bear]

There are varying types of explosive sounds, which are not immediately followed by structural motion.

In other words- Structural motion is not necessarily preceded by an explosive sound.

Neither are explosives required to generate sounds... what kind of noise do you think an acre of concrete floor makes when it slams down onto another concrete floor with 200,000+ (dynamic load) tons of pressure?

Do you purposefully ignore other sources of sound?

[theauthor]

.

How can so many people be so sap-skulled and thick-headed at the same time?


I used to ask the same question but iv gotten used to JREF now.

[pomeroo]

He was mistaken? Hw did he manage that?


He was human. Humans make mistakes on occasion.

You, by contrast, make mistakes all the time.


UPDATE: Ryan beat me to this insight.

[mrbaracuda]

Why did he say it was about to blow up?

Main Entry:
ex·plo·sion
Pronunciation:
\ik-ˈsplō-zhən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin explosion-, explosio act of driving off by clapping, from explodere
Date:
1667
1 : the act or an instance of exploding <injured in a laboratory explosion>
2 : a large-scale, rapid, or spectacular expansion or bursting out or forth <the explosion of suburbia> <an explosion of red hair>
3 : the release of occluded breath that occurs in one kind of articulation of stop consonants

Link. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explosion)

[pomeroo]

Stop grasping at straws. He said that, amongst other things, on the CNN video. Nobody has spliced anything. If you want to claim they have then provide proof.



You started a pointless thread just to make a horse's ass of yourself again? How slow is the pace of life in Manchester these days?

[Elizabeth I]

How can so many people be so sap-skulled and thick-headed at the same time?

I used to ask the same question but iv gotten used to JREF now.

And yet I notice you have not replied in any sensible fashion to any of the reasonable explanations to your question put forward in this thread.

Nor have you given a satisfactory response to Undesired Walrus's question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115353).

[mrbaracuda]

Or perhaps there's also a firefighting jargon meaning of the phrase "blow up" that has nothing to do with explosives or explosions? Nah, couldn't be. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fire/glossary.html)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Nice.

Respectfully,
mrcuda :)

[pomeroo]

The video clearly shows sounds when the workers walk away from WTC7. Watch the video again.

How did you rule out the possibility that there were no explosives?


The demolition professionals ruled out the posssibility of explosives when they failed to discover physical evidence--detonator caps, bits of wiring, chemical signatures, etc.

Of course, uneducated conspiracy liars know so much more than professionals in all relevant fields.

[WildCat]

You could clearly (1) hear a explosion type sound (2) see the worker look back and say to effect of - "its blowing". You'd like to comment on that part?
That's an easy one Russ. According to the Fire Department of New York the building had been completely engulfed by fire for several hours. It was leaning, there was a large kink in the roofline indicating structural failure, and one of the penthouses collapses completely into the building before the rest of the building came down completely.

I bolded those parts where "truthers" like to substitute "Bush" and "small isolated fires" as the case demands.

That part doesn't have any cuts. Are you saying the video is fake?
The editing of who knows what or how many videos into one video of "truth" do make it suspect, don't you think?

[WildCat]

Some of us use our brains to figure things out. We do not rely on bkooks.
I fixed your typo there tsig. :D

[pomeroo]

I used to ask the same question but iv gotten used to JREF now.


For years, you've peddled the same silly lies under dozens of names on every 9/11 site on the net. You've been drubbed soundly everywhere you go and you have never come close to producing a shred of real evidence for your deranged fantasies. Do you notice a trend?

[Reality Believer]

Author, lets assume that there is a 50% chance that the guy was referring to a controlled demolition. Lets also assume there is a 50% chance he wasn't.

Given the weight of other supporting evidence from prior events, video and subsequent investigations, which scenario is more likely to be true?

[WildCat]

As a "logical" conclusion to this "gotcha" quote insanity, I guess we can conclusively state that at least 20,000 people died in the twin towers collapse, because I heard MANY people say that the in the hours and days after the attack.
OMG, that means that 17,000 people dashed in to plant the explosives by order of THEM were blown up (tricked of course) by the few people who knew the whole plan! They not only blew up the records in WTC 7 but also the people who planted the explosives, so they couldn't talk later! This is why no one is talking!!!!!!!!!!

/truther

[Elizabeth I]

And, oh yeah, I forgot:

And, finally, TA, would you please address this post from Myriad? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fire/glossary.html)

Or, to save you the trouble of having to click on the link and all, here it is:

blow-up -- A sudden increase in fire intensity or rate of spread strong enough to prevent direct control or to upset control plans. Blow-ups are often accompanied by violent convection and may have other characteristics of a firestorm (see flare-up). - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fire/glossary.html

[BigAl]

Again, I explained this in the post you quoted. You must have seen it. Nevertheless, I will explain again.

Explosives used in demolition make one of two sounds. Either a firecracker string of explosions, or very large explosions, that occur before any structural motion.

This does not happen. There are many videos to choose from. Had this happened, it would have been heard in most if not all of them. There are none.

The noise made by a collapse would be generated as the material hit the ground. The noise made by demolition would be heard before any collapse of material. It's safe to say that on an oscilloscope, the waveforms would be very different.

[Tomblvd]

author, where are those at least 17,000 people we were told were dead that day?

[Jonnyclueless]

I think theauthor is "special"....

[Russ_Dalton]

That's an easy one Russ. According to the Fire Department of New York the building had been completely engulfed by fire for several hours. It was leaning, there was a large kink in the roofline indicating structural failure, and one of the penthouses collapses completely into the building before the rest of the building came down completely.

I bolded those parts where "truthers" like to substitute "Bush" and "small isolated fires" as the case demands.


The editing of who knows what or how many videos into one video of "truth" do make it suspect, don't you think?

Are you also aware of eyewitnesses including firefighters talking about "bombs" and "explosives".
How did you rule out the possibility of bombs and explosives for the "engulfed fire"?

[Jonnyclueless]

And by his logic we can conclude that the WTC was demolished by locomotives since people said they heard locomotives. If it wasn't trains, then why would they say that?

[Russ_Dalton]

The demolition professionals ruled out the posssibility of explosives when they failed to discover physical evidence--detonator caps, bits of wiring, chemical signatures, etc.

Which demolition expert were on the WTC7 ruling out the evidence you mentioned. May be I missed it, Could you show me the source.

[Russ_Dalton]

Neither are explosives required to generate sounds... what kind of noise do you think an acre of concrete floor makes when it slams down onto another concrete floor with 200,000+ (dynamic load) tons of pressure?

Do you purposefully ignore other sources of sound?
No, sometimes it is preceded by an earthquake, or a tornado, or a hurricane, or by planes flying into the building in question, or by fire, or by large chunks of another building falling on it, or several of those elements in combination or in succession.

How can so many people be so sap-skulled and thick-headed at the same time?

There are eyewitnesses including firefighters talking about "bombs" and "explosives" .

So how did you differentiate sound due to bombs/explosives FROM other causes of sound such as collapse of building.

[Tomblvd]

There are eyewitnesses including firefighters talking about "bombs" and "explosives" .

So how did you differentiate sound due to bombs/explosives FROM other causes of sound such as collapse of building.

As I've been saying, there are also many statements from that day that over 20,000 people died.

Where are the bodies?

[Garb]

Which demolition expert were on the WTC7 ruling out the evidence you mentioned. May be I missed it, Could you show me the source.

You can't prove a negative.

[Elizabeth I]

Are you also aware of eyewitnesses including firefighters talking about "bombs" and "explosives".
How did you rule out the possibility of bombs and explosives for the "engulfed fire"?

Which demolition expert were on the WTC7 ruling out the evidence you mentioned. May be I missed it, Could you show me the source.

There are eyewitnesses including firefighters talking about "bombs" and "explosives" .

So how did you differentiate sound due to bombs/explosives FROM other causes of sound such as collapse of building.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

I know, I know, he's one of the NWO black ops sent out to mislead and deceive the sheeple.

Read it anyway. Just give it a try. You never know.

[zorro99]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

"We are walking back because the building is about to blow up"

How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"?

Why don't you find the man and ask him yourself, particularly if you believe he was "in on it"?

[A W Smith]

After seven years Troofer Trolls are reduced to pulling hyperbole, similes, and Metaphors out of their ass. No evidence. Jones for example is forced to sit on his data less he be exposed as the blatant liar he is. The punks, trolls and socks from Manchester and elsewhere are forced to buzz around here because they have nowhere more visible to go as troother sites have sunk below the horizon of attention. This isn't about truth, It isn't about exposing criminals. It isn't about justice. It is all about troofer ego. And finding a toe hold in a childish "Gotcha" game of winning a debate. And even at that they fail miserably. Those in the original troth movement with brain cells have examined the (lack of) evidence for conspiracy and moved on. Or grown up. And all that are left are the arrogant punks who must win any morsel of an argument at all costs. Keep posting trolls. You have a lot invested in your conspiracy blogs and conspiracy web pages and within your dwindling community of freaks, And we know you cannot let all that work go. You are doing our work for us as you post here to expose yourselves for the childish fools you are.

[tsig]

I fixed your typo there tsig. :D

Reads better that way since I do not wish to burn books.

[TC329]

WTC 7 didn't "blow up." The individual was mistaken, or else you are ascribing a meaning to his words that he never intended.

Very simple.

1) A lot of people say they're going to "blow up" a building when they demo it. Do you disagree with that?

2) He has prior knowledge. This indicates that it was timed. He knew it was coming down and when it was coming down. This is not indicative of a unexpected unpredicted fire induced collapse of a steel skyscraper which there was no precedent for before 9/11. Do you disagree?

3) There is a distinct difference between "blow up" and "collapse". Do you disagree?

[R.Mackey]

There are eyewitnesses including firefighters talking about "bombs" and "explosives" .

So how did you differentiate sound due to bombs/explosives FROM other causes of sound such as collapse of building.

No, there are not. The only eyewitness that talks about bombs and explosives is Mr. William Rodriguez, and his account, if true, would refer to the period before impact, and have no bearing at all on the collapses.

All of the other accounts, if you read them carefully, accurately, and in context, do not describe bombs or explosives at all. As another poster noted, the concept of "simile" is essential here, but evidently lacking in your analysis.

I have also explained to you personally how to differentiate the sounds. Stop asking the same question over and over again.

[Tomblvd]

Princess Di's Death Caused by Bomb! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566393/Diana-witness-crash-was-like-an-explosion.html)

Asked to describe the noise he heard, Mr Anderson said: “It was a very loud noise which sounded like an explosion...we came to a rapid stop and I slumped forward to one side, I saw an object passing in front of us and hit the right side of the tunnel, I immediately turned to see if there were cars coming up.

SUV Crash Caused by Bomb! (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/05/28/police_chase_ends_in_collision_1_killed/)

Neighbors said it sounded like an explosion.

Cruise Ship Bombed, Film at Eleven!!! (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=950CEFD61E3DE633A25754C0A9619C94 6497D6CF)

THE MAJESTIC CREEPS IN WITH ENGINE DISABLED; Cylinder Wrecked by an Accident on the Fourth. ENGINEERS WERE PLUCKY Worked Amid Escaping Steam -- Four Men Scalded -- Passengers Scared by What Sounded Like an Explosion

Bridge Bombed, Horse Dies!!!one!! (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9801E1D71738E433A25752C3A9619C94 699ED7CF)

The rumor current on Friday night that an explosion had occurred on the bridge was explained yesterday by the bridge officials in the statement that a steel stay in the main truss of the bridge buckled with a cracking noise that sounded like an explosion. The buckling occurred at about 6 o'clock. At that hour a horse died on the south roadway and blocked the trolley cars for some time until it could be removed.

(check out the link, the story is from 1898!)

[kookbreaker]

There are eyewitnesses including firefighters talking about "bombs" and "explosives" .


Please stop repeating this lie:

http://911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard

[SezMe]

When my wife came home last night I dropped a bomb on her. She didn't expect the news at all and blew up at me.

Now I've got to spend the whole rest of the weekend cleaning blood and guts off the walls and ceiling.

[Tomblvd]

2) He has prior knowledge. This indicates that it was timed. He knew it was coming down and when it was coming down. This is not indicative of a unexpected unpredicted fire induced collapse of a steel skyscraper which there was no precedent for before 9/11. Do you disagree?

3) There is a distinct difference between "blow up" and "collapse". Do you disagree?

2) The news reports I watched that day were all reporting that WTC7 was leaning dangerously and on the verge of collapse since the middle of the day. Everyone knew it was going down, they just weren't sure when.

3)Not in the middle of the largest emergency situation you've ever been involved in. I'm sure you are completely level-headed and choose your words so completely perfectly in the most dangerous of circumstances that there can be no doubt as to your meaning, but the rest of us are human.

I thought no truther "theory" could be more crazy than holographic planes and laser beams. But this one is close.

[Tomblvd]

When my wife came home last night I dropped a bomb on her. She didn't expect the news at all and blew up at me.


After that, did she collapse? Did her legs give out or did she just fall over?

[bonavada]

There are eyewitnesses including firefighters talking about "bombs" and "explosives"

Have a listen to how firefighter Mickey Kross describes events on 9-11 in this very brief clip below. Why is that most twoofters cannot grasp the concept of a simile or even a simple meataphor?


v_CmZMkvQ_w


BV

[quicknthedead]

If the premise in the OP were true, it would mean these rescue workers, common everyday people like you and me, somehow had been made fully aware and convinced at the time that WTC7 was going to be brought down as a controlled demolition.

If this were true, this would then mean these guys were either...
(1) involved in a WTC7 CD conspiracy, or...
(2) were not involved in a WTC7 CD conspiracy.

If (1) were true and they were IN ON IT, why would these same rescue people casually admit publicly this CD was going to take place in the first place. This does not make sense since criminals try to hide their criminal acts, not advertise them.

However, if (2) were true and they were not involved in a "WTC7 CD conspiracy", and coupled with the common knowledge that CD's require weeks to prepare, why would they admit they knew this CD was about to take place and NOT BE INCREDULOUS from that day until now THAT IT WAS A CD? This also does not make sense.

The above yields the answer to the OP:
"How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"?

Answer: He did not know it was going to "be a controlled demoliton".

[jhunter1163]

This guy would be a Twoofy poster child. He'd be bigger than Willy "F-Rod" Rodriguez. So why don't they go find him?

[jhunter1163]

It occurs to me that maybe some Twoofer DID find him, got told to piss off, and slunk back under the rock from which he came. Maybe this is why this guy isn't out on a lecture tour or something.

[Unsecured Coins]

No, it isn't a figure of speech. Can you find me a single example anywhere, apart from this one, where someone describes the collapse of a building as "blowing up"?

Just to prove you wrong about it not being a figure of speech, here's a reveiw of a popular Rap artist

50 Cent was nominated for the 2004 Grammy Award for Best New Artist. GET RICH OR DIE TRYIN' was nominated for Best Rap Album. "In The Club" was nominated for Best Male Rap Solo Performance and for Best Rap Song. With its inclusion on the mega-successful 8 MILE soundtrack, 50 Cent's "Wanksta" blew up in late 2002, calling out the hypocrisies of wannabe gangstas who boast of criminal exploits that exist only in their imaginations. If anyone has the right to speak it's 50 Cent; he made his mark in the streets (not to mention newspapers) long before Eminem inked.



as for your other request, as of right now, here's one example

http://pittsburgh.about.com/library/weekly/aa010101a.htm

Have you ever secretly dreamed about how it would feel to blow something up? Well, now is your chance to find out first hand. Three Rivers Stadium will come tumbling down within the next month and you could be the one who pushes the ceremonial plunger and sets off the implosion!

[Disbelief]

1) A lot of people say they're going to "blow up" a building when they demo it. Do you disagree with that?

So?


2) He has prior knowledge. This indicates that it was timed. He knew it was coming down and when it was coming down. This is not indicative of a unexpected unpredicted fire induced collapse of a steel skyscraper which there was no precedent for before 9/11. Do you disagree?


So, now you are saying that FDNY was complicit. Do your truther buddies agree? Russ, the author, do you agree with this assessment?


3) There is a distinct difference between "blow up" and "collapse". Do you disagree?

Obviously you missed the 5 or so times on how blow up can be defined in firefighter jargon.

[Quad4_72]

"Blow up" is computer science jargon for nonlinear behavior in computer models causing values to increase or diverge so radically as to cause overflows. (Source: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/B/blow-up.html)

So apparently, he was commenting on the difficulty future researchers would have in running accurate computer models of the building collapse that was about to occur.

(Hey, a fireman using computer science jargon makes as much sense as a real estate entrepreneur using demolition jargon -- and in this case, at least the jargon in question really exists.)

Or perhaps there's also a firefighting jargon meaning of the phrase "blow up" that has nothing to do with explosives or explosions? Nah, couldn't be. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fire/glossary.html)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Hmmm. Seems that theauthor has chosen to ignore your post Myriad. I wonder why this is?

[Quad4_72]

When my wife came home last night I dropped a bomb on her. She didn't expect the news at all and blew up at me.

Now I've got to spend the whole rest of the weekend cleaning blood and guts off the walls and ceiling.

Lol

[Jonnyclueless]

I think the stupidity od the claims in this thread are too far below my tolerance level. This is simply too "tin foil nutjob" even for me.

[beachnut]

How do you know this when the final report hasn't been released?
Are you lost in believing the idiot ideas of 9/11 truth? When will you display rational ideas and thought on topics you start?

...
So how did you differentiate sound due to bombs/explosives FROM other causes of sound such as collapse of building.
With a brain, ear, and experience. How do you think people fall for the idiot ideas of 9/11 truth?

[theauthor]

Just to prove you wrong about it not being a figure of speech, here's a reveiw of a popular Rap artist


as for your other request, as of right now, here's one example

http://pittsburgh.about.com/library/weekly/aa010101a.htm

[/I]


Erm that example is a controlled demolition lol Thanks for proving my point.

[Tomblvd]

Erm that example is a controlled demolition lol Thanks for proving my point.


Yet you managed to ignore every other post that proved you wrong.

Are you doing this on purpose, or are you just obtuse?

[Redtail]

Erm that example is a controlled demolition lol Thanks for proving my point.

I figured that would bring you back. lolerskates!

[R.Mackey]

Erm that example is a controlled demolition lol Thanks for proving my point.

See Post #31 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3777643#post3777643), friend. Although I trust you realize that an engineering argument in support of explosives would be vastly more useful than mincing about one individual's candid choice of two words.

[Quad4_72]

Yet you managed to ignore every other post that proved you wrong.

Are you doing this on purpose, or are you just obtuse?

I was wondering the same thing. Proof has been provided IN WRITING demonstrating what this man was describing in the video, but theauthor continues to spout the same nonsense over and over.

[Grizzly Bear]

1) A lot of people say they're going to "blow up" a building when they demo it. Do you disagree with that?

Relevance?

2) He has prior knowledge. This indicates that it was timed.
Baseless assumption.


He knew it was coming down
It was known for hours in advance, they saw the severity of the damage unlike most of us... they would have a reasonable grasp of what was happening.


and when it was coming down.
Incorrect, they anticipated 'a' collapse, they evacuated hours in advance of it.

Tell me, if you 'feared' that a building might collapse would you be standing right underneath it if you didn't know for sure? Would you wait for the collapse to initiate before running? Or would you get the hell out of the way several hours before it if you yourself were unsure of when it would collapse?


This is not indicative of a unexpected unpredicted fire induced collapse of a steel skyscraper which there was no precedent for before 9/11. Do you disagree?


Two points:
A) How many steel buildings in history have been either struck by a jet or damaged by falling debris from a collapse of two of the tallest skyscrapers in the United States 300 ft away? None... Empire State building is the only immediate example however, steel-reinforced concrete construction does not behave the same as steel construction.

B) And the precedents used to prove that the towers should NOT have collapsed are built primarily using steel reinforced concrete construction or steel web construction. Proving a point like that doesn't help when concrete is the primary construction method... :tolleyes: And they all lack one thing that the trade centers shared in common -- impact damage


3) There is a distinct difference between "blow up" and "collapse". Do you disagree?

As has been repeated, context vs. not context. Simile, metaphors vs serious conjecture. There is a difference between all of them. It is human nature to use such context when there is mass chaos from a disaster.

[pomeroo]

Which demolition expert were on the WTC7 ruling out the evidence you mentioned. May be I missed it, Could you show me the source.


Gee, maybe I made it up. Or maybe you're another lazy kid who is new to this conspiracy crap and hasn't read a goddamned thing.

Start with Brent Blanchard's Protec paper and the various sources linked to by Mark Roberts.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction)

[pomeroo]

After that, did she collapse? Did her legs give out or did she just fall over?


She collapsed at free fall speed into her own footprints with a pyroclastic flow of invective issuing from her mouth.

[pomeroo]

Yet you managed to ignore every other post that proved you wrong.

Are you doing this on purpose, or are you just obtuse?


If you understood who he was, you would know that, yes, he is just that obtuse.

[mrbaracuda]

She collapsed at free fall speed into her own footprints with a pyroclastic flow of invective issuing from her mouth.

Whereas she should have just fallen over like a tree! Right guys?


















Guys? Where are you, guys? :tinfoil

[Tomblvd]

If you understood who he was, you would know that, yes, he is just that obtuse.


After reading on a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3775636#post3775636)last nite all the horrible things he wrote about the military, I'm thinking he's got issues.

Scroll down and keep reading. The posts are quite enlightening.

[Hyperviolet]

Okay, so we have:

- A conspirator in the biggest, most secret, plot ever.

- He knows about the bombs in WTC7, and when they'll detonated.

- He is, therefore, in the know of "The Inside-Job."

This conspirator then decides he is going to turn his face to the camera and let the cat right out the bag by announcing to the watching world that they're going to blow the whole building up. Hmmm.
How utterly careless of this NWO operative.

Of course, the more mundane answer is that a lot of people there knew the building's integrity was in serious doubt, and this man is simply using a figure of speech.

Who knows?

[Quad4_72]

Okay, so we have:

- A conspirator in the biggest, most secret, plot ever.

- He knows about the bombs in WTC7, and when they'll detonated.

- He is, therefore, in the know of "The Inside-Job."

This conspirator then decides he is going to turn his face to the camera and let the cat right out the bag by announcing to the watching world that they're going to blow the whole building up. Hmmm.
How utterly careless of this NWO operative.



Don't worry. He has been "dealt with". He was never our brightest operative anyways. When we said "Don't tell ANYONE. Its SOOPER SEKRIT", he took it as "Tell everyone and announce it to all cameras in sight."

[Grizzly Bear]

Don't worry. He has been "dealt with". He was never our brightest operative anyways. When we said "Don't tell ANYONE. Its SOOPER SEKRIT", he took it as "Tell everyone and announce it to all cameras in sight."

Let's PULL it!

[pomeroo]

Let's PULL it!


Please--what do you think "theauthor" has been doing all day? Give the lad a break.

[GreNME]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

"We are walking back because the building is about to blow up"

How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"?

Because you fail to understand both Occam's Razor and Hanlon's Razor.

Actually, that's pretty much my answer to the vast majority of 9/11 conspiracy theory questions that are asked with a forgone conclusion in mind. It's not really a question based on wanting to know if you're only willing to accept a single answer. Instead, it's a quiz meant to promote an idea.

[Brainache]

I've just read this thread and I have a couple of words to say about the OP and all of the posts by the people here trying to suggest that the Firefighter trying to move people along by using emotive language was somehow admitting that WTC7 was rigged with explosives:

TOO STUPID

Thanks, that is all.

[Swing Dangler]

No, there are not. The only eyewitness that talks about bombs and explosives is Mr. William Rodriguez, and his account, if true, would refer to the period before impact, and have no bearing at all on the collapses.
All of the other accounts, if you read them carefully, accurately, and in context, do not describe bombs or explosives at all. As another poster noted, the concept of "simile" is essential here, but evidently lacking in your analysis.
I have also explained to you personally how to differentiate the sounds. Stop asking the same question over and over again.

Ryan, this is an error in your knowledge base or a deceitful statement. The following evidence hopefully will assist you in your knowledge base or expose the deceit in your statement.
1. USA Today and MSNBC both report authorities working hypothesis.
USA Today (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:4424)
MSNBC-Rick Sanchez (http://prisonplanet.com/video/051205explosives.wmv)
To date, there has been no retraction of the reports.

2. The following reporters during the unfiltered time period after impacts refer to bombs or explosives:
MSNBC-the reporter amongst other people is being moved back from WTC 7 because of the fear of additional explosions, other bombs, and concern of gas explosions or gas bomb. (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:1562) The key is "other bombs". She asks the police officer on scene...do we know any more about other bombs.
This aligns nicely with the reports above and the concern of bombs in the WTC complex. In one instance in the clip, the police officer is more worried about the building on the other side of the brown building, WTC 7 falling into 7 not collapsing straight down. Considering the condition of other WTC buildings ie. 6 among others, this would be a legitimate concern. Brian Williams reaffirms the fear of WTC 3 falling into another building.

CNN The reporter goes into detail about secondary explosions after the plane hits. He speculates that something at the base of the towers was the coup de grâce that brought the towers down.
Granted, he doesn't directly say bomb, but the reasonable person would think that especially in the midst of a terrorists attack and the historical record surrounding the building.

[URL="http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:187"]News reporter discussing chief of safety of the fire department of NYC received word that a secondary device that is another bomb going off... (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:222)

Marlene Cruz states it was a bomb, not "like" a bomb. "Here we go again..." referring to another truck bomb attack as happened in 1993. (http://www.blogger.com/www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0%20-%2099k)

Second interview where Marlene Cruz refers to the bomb that exploded in the basement. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ5q)

Rick Sanchez reports police find a suspicious device that could lead to another explosion and discusses the belief by police that a van was parked in the building that had an explosive device in it. (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:183)


Ryan, please update your knowledge base when trying to debunk something or clean up your moral slate. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you did not know these direct references to bombs and explosive devices
existed in the public domain.
-----
The seismic argument is debunked by the controlled demolition industry itself as they have the technology to CD a building without seismic registration.

Secondly, the 1993 WTC truck bombing did not register on the seismic scale either.
----
WTC 7 silence? Nonsense. This audio interview explains what is heard. (http://216.177.7.126/IMAGES/wtc7_med2.wma)
Lets not forget Barry Jennings and his testimony as well as. He of course states that it wasn't a fuel oil tank that destroyed the 6th floor in WTC 7. He doesn't specifically state bombs but the intelligent person would conclude that would be the only thing to cause that damage int he midst of a terrorist attack...and both towers were still standing.


I'm sure you remember the video where a loud explosion sound is heard, workers look back, and comment the building will be coming down soon. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3472109004864657794&q=wtc+7+&ei=YE1USP2DKZGm4QKTuaC1Dw&hl=en)

Or this video highlighting a huge explosion that sounds like a clap of thunder and the firefighter commenting: "We gotta get back, 7 is exploding" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iroOdvjOK8k)

Silent 7? I think not.

[Tomblvd]

Okay, so we have:

- A conspirator in the biggest, most secret, plot ever.

- He knows about the bombs in WTC7, and when they'll detonated.

- He is, therefore, in the know of "The Inside-Job."

This conspirator then decides he is going to turn his face to the camera and let the cat right out the bag by announcing to the watching world that they're going to blow the whole building up. Hmmm.
How utterly careless of this NWO operative.

Of course, the more mundane answer is that a lot of people there knew the building's integrity was in serious doubt, and this man is simply using a figure of speech.

Who knows?


I just wanted this salient post repeated after SD's blather.

[Quad4_72]

Ryan, this is an error in your knowledge base or a deceitful statement. The following evidence hopefully will assist you in your knowledge base or expose the deceit in your statement.
1. USA Today and MSNBC both report authorities working hypothesis.
USA Today (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:4424)
MSNBC-Rick Sanchez (http://prisonplanet.com/video/051205explosives.wmv)
To date, there has been no retraction of the reports.

2. The following reporters during the unfiltered time period after impacts refer to bombs or explosives:
MSNBC-the reporter amongst other people is being moved back from WTC 7 because of the fear of additional explosions, other bombs, and concern of gas explosions or gas bomb. (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:1562) The key is "other bombs". She asks the police officer on scene...do we know any more about other bombs.
This aligns nicely with the reports above and the concern of bombs in the WTC complex. In one instance in the clip, the police officer is more worried about the building on the other side of the brown building, WTC 7 falling into 7 not collapsing straight down. Considering the condition of other WTC buildings ie. 6 among others, this would be a legitimate concern. Brian Williams reaffirms the fear of WTC 3 falling into another building.

CNN The reporter goes into detail about secondary explosions after the plane hits. He speculates that something at the base of the towers was the coup de grâce that brought the towers down.
Granted, he doesn't directly say bomb, but the reasonable person would think that especially in the midst of a terrorists attack and the historical record surrounding the building.

[URL="http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:187"]News reporter discussing chief of safety of the fire department of NYC received word that a secondary device that is another bomb going off... (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:222)

Marlene Cruz states it was a bomb, not "like" a bomb. "Here we go again..." referring to another truck bomb attack as happened in 1993. (http://www.blogger.com/www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0%20-%2099k)

Second interview where Marlene Cruz refers to the bomb that exploded in the basement. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ5q)

Rick Sanchez reports police find a suspicious device that could lead to another explosion and discusses the belief by police that a van was parked in the building that had an explosive device in it. (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:183)


Ryan, please update your knowledge base when trying to debunk something or clean up your moral slate. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you did not know these direct references to bombs and explosive devices
existed in the public domain.
-----
The seismic argument is debunked by the controlled demolition industry itself as they have the technology to CD a building without seismic registration.

Secondly, the 1993 WTC truck bombing did not register on the seismic scale either.
----
WTC 7 silence? Nonsense. This audio interview explains what is heard. (http://216.177.7.126/IMAGES/wtc7_med2.wma)
Lets not forget Barry Jennings and his testimony as well as. He of course states that it wasn't a fuel oil tank that destroyed the 6th floor in WTC 7. He doesn't specifically state bombs but the intelligent person would conclude that would be the only thing to cause that damage int he midst of a terrorist attack...and both towers were still standing.


I'm sure you remember the video where a loud explosion sound is heard, workers look back, and comment the building will be coming down soon. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3472109004864657794&q=wtc+7+&ei=YE1USP2DKZGm4QKTuaC1Dw&hl=en)

Or this video highlighting a huge explosion that sounds like a clap of thunder and the firefighter commenting: "We gotta get back, 7 is exploding" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iroOdvjOK8k)

Silent 7? I think not.

Fail.

[pomeroo]

Ryan, this is an error in your knowledge base or a deceitful statement. The following evidence hopefully will assist you in your knowledge base or expose the deceit in your statement.
1. USA Today and MSNBC both report authorities working hypothesis.
USA Today (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:4424)
MSNBC-Rick Sanchez (http://prisonplanet.com/video/051205explosives.wmv)
To date, there has been no retraction of the reports.

2. The following reporters during the unfiltered time period after impacts refer to bombs or explosives:
MSNBC-the reporter amongst other people is being moved back from WTC 7 because of the fear of additional explosions, other bombs, and concern of gas explosions or gas bomb. (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:1562) The key is "other bombs". She asks the police officer on scene...do we know any more about other bombs.
This aligns nicely with the reports above and the concern of bombs in the WTC complex. In one instance in the clip, the police officer is more worried about the building on the other side of the brown building, WTC 7 falling into 7 not collapsing straight down. Considering the condition of other WTC buildings ie. 6 among others, this would be a legitimate concern. Brian Williams reaffirms the fear of WTC 3 falling into another building.

CNN The reporter goes into detail about secondary explosions after the plane hits. He speculates that something at the base of the towers was the coup de grâce that brought the towers down.
Granted, he doesn't directly say bomb, but the reasonable person would think that especially in the midst of a terrorists attack and the historical record surrounding the building.

[URL="http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:187"]News reporter discussing chief of safety of the fire department of NYC received word that a secondary device that is another bomb going off... (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:222)

Marlene Cruz states it was a bomb, not "like" a bomb. "Here we go again..." referring to another truck bomb attack as happened in 1993. (http://www.blogger.com/www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0%20-%2099k)

Second interview where Marlene Cruz refers to the bomb that exploded in the basement. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ5q)

Rick Sanchez reports police find a suspicious device that could lead to another explosion and discusses the belief by police that a van was parked in the building that had an explosive device in it. (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:183)


Ryan, please update your knowledge base when trying to debunk something or clean up your moral slate. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you did not know these direct references to bombs and explosive devices
existed in the public domain.
-----
The seismic argument is debunked by the controlled demolition industry itself as they have the technology to CD a building without seismic registration.

Secondly, the 1993 WTC truck bombing did not register on the seismic scale either.
----
WTC 7 silence? Nonsense. This audio interview explains what is heard. (http://216.177.7.126/IMAGES/wtc7_med2.wma)
Lets not forget Barry Jennings and his testimony as well as. He of course states that it wasn't a fuel oil tank that destroyed the 6th floor in WTC 7. He doesn't specifically state bombs but the intelligent person would conclude that would be the only thing to cause that damage int he midst of a terrorist attack...and both towers were still standing.


I'm sure you remember the video where a loud explosion sound is heard, workers look back, and comment the building will be coming down soon. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3472109004864657794&q=wtc+7+&ei=YE1USP2DKZGm4QKTuaC1Dw&hl=en)

Or this video highlighting a huge explosion that sounds like a clap of thunder and the firefighter commenting: "We gotta get back, 7 is exploding" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iroOdvjOK8k)

Silent 7? I think not.



Now, Brad, why on earth would you trot out your silly, thoroughly debunked falsehoods again? AS YOU KNOW, Protec had seismic devices in place throughout the WTC complex. AS YOU KNOW, there isn't a single firefighter who swallows the fantasies of your evil, brain-dead movement. AS YOU KNOW, Barry Jennings turned out to be a tad less than you liars hoped for.

Do you enjoy these beatings?

[Tomblvd]

Ryan, this is an error in your knowledge base or a deceitful statement. The following evidence hopefully will assist you in your knowledge base or expose the deceit in your statement.
1. USA Today and MSNBC both report authorities working hypothesis.
USA Today (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:4424)
MSNBC-Rick Sanchez (http://prisonplanet.com/video/051205explosives.wmv)
To date, there has been no retraction of the reports.

2. The following reporters during the unfiltered time period after impacts refer to bombs or explosives:
MSNBC-the reporter amongst other people is being moved back from WTC 7 because of the fear of additional explosions, other bombs, and concern of gas explosions or gas bomb. (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:1562) The key is "other bombs". She asks the police officer on scene...do we know any more about other bombs.
This aligns nicely with the reports above and the concern of bombs in the WTC complex. In one instance in the clip, the police officer is more worried about the building on the other side of the brown building, WTC 7 falling into 7 not collapsing straight down. Considering the condition of other WTC buildings ie. 6 among others, this would be a legitimate concern. Brian Williams reaffirms the fear of WTC 3 falling into another building.

CNN The reporter goes into detail about secondary explosions after the plane hits. He speculates that something at the base of the towers was the coup de grâce that brought the towers down.
Granted, he doesn't directly say bomb, but the reasonable person would think that especially in the midst of a terrorists attack and the historical record surrounding the building.

[URL="http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:187"]News reporter discussing chief of safety of the fire department of NYC received word that a secondary device that is another bomb going off... (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:222)

Marlene Cruz states it was a bomb, not "like" a bomb. "Here we go again..." referring to another truck bomb attack as happened in 1993. (http://www.blogger.com/www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0%20-%2099k)

Second interview where Marlene Cruz refers to the bomb that exploded in the basement. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ5q)

Rick Sanchez reports police find a suspicious device that could lead to another explosion and discusses the belief by police that a van was parked in the building that had an explosive device in it. (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:183)


Ryan, please update your knowledge base when trying to debunk something or clean up your moral slate. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you did not know these direct references to bombs and explosive devices
existed in the public domain.
-----
The seismic argument is debunked by the controlled demolition industry itself as they have the technology to CD a building without seismic registration.

Secondly, the 1993 WTC truck bombing did not register on the seismic scale either.
----
WTC 7 silence? Nonsense. This audio interview explains what is heard. (http://216.177.7.126/IMAGES/wtc7_med2.wma)
Lets not forget Barry Jennings and his testimony as well as. He of course states that it wasn't a fuel oil tank that destroyed the 6th floor in WTC 7. He doesn't specifically state bombs but the intelligent person would conclude that would be the only thing to cause that damage int he midst of a terrorist attack...and both towers were still standing.


I'm sure you remember the video where a loud explosion sound is heard, workers look back, and comment the building will be coming down soon. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3472109004864657794&q=wtc+7+&ei=YE1USP2DKZGm4QKTuaC1Dw&hl=en)

Or this video highlighting a huge explosion that sounds like a clap of thunder and the firefighter commenting: "We gotta get back, 7 is exploding" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iroOdvjOK8k)

Silent 7? I think not.


And I'll repeat my earlier question. Reporters and others on the news coverage during the day and in the time immediately following said that there were at least 20,000 and probably more people killed when the towers collapsed. Since you hold these on the spot reports as gospel, where are all the bodies?

[Bobert]

SD,
If you are going to post links at least make sure they work .
You spent alot of time insulting Ryan and very little checking your links.

[theauthor]

And I'll repeat my earlier question. Reporters and others on the news coverage during the day and in the time immediately following said that there were at least 20,000 and probably more people killed when the towers collapsed. Since you hold these on the spot reports as gospel, where are all the bodies?



Please link to these reports of at least 20,000 people killed. I dont remember this. All the n ews media said they had no ida of numbers

[Jonnyclueless]

Early news reports made guesses of 20,000 based on the number of people normally in the WTC buildings. But of course as a standard twoofer author, you didn't really pay much attention that day, you just started reading conspiracy tabloids later on.

And this is the same kind of thing as when the press announced that the VA miners that were trapped were all alive, only to find out they were actually dead. You kids are going to need a better tactic than taking people's wording and news reports out of context.

[Bobert]

WOW another ball sails right over Theauthor's head.
Is English your secondary language?

[defaultdotxbe]

He was wrong? Why did he say it in the first place? "Blow up" is a very different concept to "collapse"
yes, blow up is very different than collapse, are you claiming WTC 7 blew up? because i thought the truthers claim it collapsed due to explosive demolition (this is also a very different concept than blowing up)

as for why he said it, how should i know? if i was psychic id be a million dollars richer

[leftysergeant]

Ryan, this is an error in your knowledge base or a deceitful statement. The following evidence hopefully will assist you in your knowledge base or expose the deceit in your statement.
1. USA Today and MSNBC both report authorities working hypothesis.
USA Today (http://911truth.ning.com/video/video/show?id=505920:Video:4424)
MSNBC-Rick Sanchez (http://prisonplanet.com/video/051205explosives.wmv)
To date, there has been no retraction of the report.


Nor was there the first hint of a folow up of their first impression, The speculation of a van bomb is based on there being a blast and burn victims in the basement. That does not account for the burn victims on th lobby. Utter FAIL.

Have you ever seen an oxygen genrator? They would look like bombs to a non-bomb-trained technician. No reports of a confirmed bomb from the police. FAIL.

Itr is not even clear whether or not Sanchez is aware, as they show the live footage on the screen, that what he experienced was not a massive bomb, but the collapse of a tower. He was close enough to GZ that he might not yet have seen the big hole in the sky where the south tower was supposed to be.

FAIL.

[theauthor]

Early news reports made guesses of 20,000 based on the number of people normally in the WTC buildings. But of course as a standard twoofer author, you didn't really pay much attention that day, you just started reading conspiracy tabloids later on.

And this is the same kind of thing as when the press announced that the VA miners that were trapped were all alive, only to find out they were actually dead. You kids are going to need a better tactic than taking people's wording and news reports out of context.


You got a link to these reports of 20,000 people killed?

[Tomblvd]

Please link to these reports of at least 20,000 people killed. I dont remember this. All the n ews media said they had no ida of numbers


What, exactly do you want me to link to? These were live reports during the day and following night where talking heads speculated on the large death toll.

Do you seriously mean to tell me you don't recall these reports? It wasn't a suprise that we lost so few people in the collapse of two 110 story skyscrapers?

So you are saying they got the death toll right?

[theauthor]

What, exactly do you want me to link to? These were live reports during the day and following night where talking heads speculated on the large death toll.

Do you seriously mean to tell me you don't recall these reports? It wasn't a suprise that we lost so few people in the collapse of two 110 story skyscrapers?

So you are saying they got the death toll right?

Umm....you do realize that archive.org has archived virtually all of the news coverage of the first few days?

Back up your claim or retract it. i have watched all the coverage and NOBODY claims that at least 20,000 were killed.

[Grizzly Bear]

It wasn't a suprise that we lost so few people in the collapse of two 110 story skyscrapers?

So you are saying they got the death toll right?

Exactly... on any given business day the the two towers would be occupied by up to 50,000 people... in fact, it's fortunate that the plane hit when they did... when the towers were opening up for business...

Considering the usual number of people occupying, i'd say that the death toll WAS surprisingly low compare to what it could have been...

[Bobert]

Theauthor.
I remember hearing similar numbers because the towers could hold ALOT OF PEOPLE.
Besisdes it was a very chaotic event so things got reported that later turned out to not be true.

[Grizzly Bear]

Umm....you do realize that archive.org has archived virtually all of the news coverage of the first few days?

Back up your claim or retract it. i have watched all the coverage and NOBODY claims that at least 20,000 were killed.

There were numerous speculative estimates of over 10,000 people... and it decreased as missing people were found or they corrected the figures as clean up advanced...

I don't know about the 20,000 numbers, but it started significantly higher than it ultimately ended up being...

[Bobert]

Exactly... on any given business day the the two towers would be occupied by up to 50,000 people... in fact, it's fortunate that the plane hit when they did... when the towers were opening up for business...

Considering the usual number of people occupying, i'd say that the death toll WAS surprisingly low compare to what it could have been...

Yes exactly!
I read one report that the numbers may have been so low becaue it was the first day of school so lots of partents went into work late that day.

[Tomblvd]

Umm....you do realize that archive.org has archived virtually all of the news coverage of the first few days?

Back up your claim or retract it. i have watched all the coverage and NOBODY claims that at least 20,000 were killed.

Look, if you want to play dumb, fine, I'll play along.

I hereby retract my statement (reserving the right to revise the numbers if I get bored enough later to find a clip).

However, the NY Police expertly said that somewhere between 6500-7000 people died in the WTCs A WEEK LATER.

Now, given they are the experts, and they had a week to get it right, where are the bodies?

[Tomblvd]

There were numerous speculative estimates of over 10,000 people... and it decreased as missing people were found or they corrected the figures as clean up advanced...

I don't know about the 20,000 numbers, but it started significantly higher than it ultimately ended up being...


I vividly recall the first numbers I heard late morning, the "running out of the debris as the building was falling so they have to be right" numbers, were 20-25,000. Almost immediatly they were revised down as people realized it was too early for the buildings to be fully occupied.

But my point still stands. All the media and experts were wrong. Not because they were incompetent, but becuase it was a tremendously stressful situation and anything said at the time needs to be taken with a rather large grain of salt.

[theauthor]

Look, if you want to play dumb, fine, I'll play along.

I hereby retract my statement (reserving the right to revise the numbers if I get bored enough later to find a clip).

However, the NY Police expertly said that somewhere between 6500-7000 people died in the WTCs A WEEK LATER.

Now, given they are the experts, and they had a week to get it right, where are the bodies?


Link to the NYPD saying this?

[Jonnyclueless]

You got a link to these reports of 20,000 people killed?

I watched it live on TV. You saying I am wrong?

[Grizzly Bear]

I vividly recall the first numbers I heard late morning, the "running out of the debris as the building was falling so they have to be right" numbers, were 20-25,000. Almost immediatly they were revised down as people realized it was too early for the buildings to be fully occupied.

But my point still stands. All the media and experts were wrong. Not because they were incompetent, but becuase it was a tremendously stressful situation and anything said at the time needs to be taken with a rather large grain of salt.

The figures may have been speculative, however I agree with your point nonetheless

[theauthor]

I watched it live on TV. You saying I am wrong?

No, im saying you are lying.

[Tomblvd]

Link to the NYPD saying this?

Here: (http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usatcov-wtcsurvival.htm)

• The number of dead was overestimated. The actual death toll is about 2,800, including rescue workers and the 157 people on the two jets. The New York Police Department's official estimate has fallen from 6,659 on Sept. 24 to 3,011 on Dec. 18. It continues to decline as police remove duplicate and inaccurate missing-persons reports. The initial estimates led to claims that Sept. 11 was the bloodiest day in U.S. history. According to USA TODAY's current count, the death toll from all four hijackings is 3,040, excluding the 19 hijackers. That's more than the 2,388 who died at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, but fewer than the 3,654 who died Sept. 17, 1862, in the Civil War battle at Antietam, Md.

_____________________________________________


You should read the rest of the article. It makes my case that the number of deaths were greatly exaggerated in the early hours of the attack.

______________________________________________

Now answer my damn question. Where are the rest of the bodies that I was told about?

[abenja1]

And what would this rescue worker possible gain from being "in on it" oh self-proclaimed wise one?

[Elizabeth I]

Posted by Hemos on Tue Sep 11, 2001 12:38 PM
from the things-are-gonna-change dept.
United States
I'm trying to get stuff together, and post an update: The Pentagon, which evidently has partly collapsed with a chasm 200-300 feet across, and fires on six stories, has ordered the USS JFK and George Washington into NYC. PLEASE GIVE BLOOD. Over 200 firemen are reported missing, and reports of 50,000 dead in the WTC collapse are being bandied about. Dick Cheney has assumed control of the White House, and is in the situation room there. GWB is not returning to the White House until things have calmed down -- and has gone evidently to an undisclosed location. The [CDC] in Atlanta has largely evacuated but has activated their bioterrorism units. American Airlines flight 11, the first to crash into the WTC, was going from BOS -> LAX. There are rumors of Akamai's founder being onboard on Flight 11, As well, the rumor is that the pilot of United Flight 193 flew it in into the ground, outside Pittsburgh, rather then fly into the USX building, which if true, makes him a better person then I -- but there are also rumors that it was shot down by a F-16. United Flight 175 also crashed into the WTC, according to Boston.com, and originated from Boston -- so the WTC was both Boston flights. Reports of a car bomb that was supposed to have gone off int front the State Department have been denied. In a statement, the Taliban government of Afghanistan has denied any involvement, and Yassar Arafat has denounced the attack. Remember: No one knows who did this yet, so don't make any assumptions -- remember what people first thought about the OKC attack. In other news, the US - Mexico/Canada borders are being heavily screened; all air traffic has been grounded; nationwide federal buildings are being evacuated; NATO personnel in Brussells have been sent home, Israeli embassies worldwide have been evacuated, all U.S. Disney parks shut down; major parts of European cities, Britain in particular, are being shut down; stock trading is shut down in all major European and American exchanges. There are 50 flights still in the air, with 2 international flights that have yet to respond. F16s from the US Air Force has been instructed to shoot down flights in a no fly zone over NYC & DC - an AVI of the WTC plane or mpeg here. More as we know.Update: 09/11 18:10 PM GMT by H :I've heard on NPR that all flights and planes are now accounted for -- but that a fifth crash has occurred in an undisclosed location. As well, a car bomb did go off in front of the State Department, and there was a crash near Camp David. There's a well done timeline - we also had a report from someone who lives 3 miles away from the PA crash. Evidently the plane veered several times, and then smashed into an abandoned strip mine - which was luckily not near any people or anything.

http://slashdot.org/index.pl?issue=20010911

[Tomblvd]

http://slashdot.org/index.pl?issue=20010911

For a spawn of Henry VIII, you're a pretty good gal.

You can bet you post will be dismissed because I said 20,000, and your post says 50,000.

ta, I hereby retract my retraction and patiently await the answer to my question.

[Tomblvd]

What are the odds we see ta on this thread ever again?

[fitzgibbon]

What are the odds we see ta on this thread ever again?

Pretty good. Just don't be counting on him/her/it to address any facts that have been/ will be presented

[Walter Ego]

What are the odds we see ta on this thread ever again?


Why should he come back? 160 replies in less than 8 hours. This was one of his more successful trolls. He's out doing a cakewalk.

[Tomblvd]

Why should he come back? 160 replies in less than 8 hours. This was one of his more successful trolls. He's out doing a cakewalk.


No. He is usually able to just snark and run, but he got nailed bad on this thread. And after the embarrassment last nite where he insulted everyone in the military, I'd say things aren't looking good for ta.

[Bobert]

Why should he come back? 160 replies in less than 8 hours. This was one of his more successful trolls. He's out doing a cakewalk.

EXACTLY!

[Tomblvd]

I think we're all agreed that he won't slither back here.

I'm just amazed that some people somehow get a kick from getting the snot kicked out of them like this.

I guess it beats paying good money to have Mistress Wanda spank you silly.

NTTAWWT

[~enigma~]

What are the odds we see ta on this thread ever again?
I think the chances of seeing ta again are pretty good :)

[pomeroo]

You got a link to these reports of 20,000 people killed?


Yawn. Here you are again--breathless, red in the face, hands waving frantically, and all because you've been caught for the thousandth time. Your deranged devotion to your evil cause is weirdly fascinating, but, really, you can be tiresome.
As everyone who on that terrible day sat transfixed in front of the TV, casualty guesses were all over the place and wildly pessimistic: 10,000, 20,000, 30,000--nobody had the slightest idea. Weeks after the attacks, the death toll was estimated 6,000.

Where are you going with this approach?

[pomeroo]

No, im saying you are lying.


You ridiculous fraud! A mindless troll who does nothing but tell lies is accusing a rationalist of lying for stating something that is completely true. Here is what 911Research.com, a site that caters to you evil morons, has to say:

"Estimates of the dead gradually declined in the years after the attack, eventually settling to a number around 2,750. On the day of the attack, news anchors speculated that the dead might number in the tens of thousands."

[1337m4n]

(1) and (2) Go to imlplosionworld.com > click "Cinema explosif". Explain to me why every controlled demolition is different from each other. Why are the sounds in those controlled demolitions different from the video you posted.


Um, different sizes, different positioning, different distance, different recording devices, different compiling method, different video delivery, etc.

There were lots of differences, but let me ask you: what did they all have in common?

Or better yet: how many of them (that had audio at all) were silent?

(3) Does every explosion record a seismic data?

This question is so horribly written that I can't even guess at what you're trying to ask, and I don't want to give you a response in the traditional sense so much as I want to shove a middle school grammar and vocabulary textbook in your face. Try writing that again.

[Jonnyclueless]

No, im saying you are lying.

So you say that the witness who's testimony you use isn't lying, and that I AM lying.

So basically your evidence of an inside job is dictated by whatever opinion you make up. And you wonder why people laugh at you?

It must be just so exhausting walking around with that huge brain of yours....

[Elizabeth I]

For a spawn of Henry VIII, you're a pretty good gal.

You can bet you post will be dismissed because I said 20,000, and your post says 50,000.

ta, I hereby retract my retraction and patiently await the answer to my question.

I prefer to think I got all my best qualities from Mom.

I remembered hearing the 50,000 estimate first, because that was how many people the newscasters said worked in the towers, and thinking that sounded like a lot of people for just two buildings, even buildings as large as WTC 1 and 2.

[gc051360]

A rescue worker being in on it?

Isn't that kind of like trying to drown someone, but then giving them CPR?

Seems counterintuitive.

And, yes. Absolutely. "Blow up" can mean nothing else, except in reference to controlled demolition charges. There is no way that he could mean anything else by that statement.

Why even try to give a serious answer to any of theauthor's claims? The guy is a clown.

[Mangoose]

No, it isn't a figure of speech. Can you find me a single example anywhere, apart from this one, where someone describes the collapse of a building as "blowing up"?

I have a video in my collection (only aired once on TV, AFAIK) that was shot by a woman in her apartment building of a crowd of people stampeding from the South Tower collapse, and then the dust cloud hitting her open window, glass breaking, and her scrambling out of her room and up the staircase to higher floors to find breathable air, yelling for people to keep their doors closed if they have good air. After going up one or two floors, another woman comes out of her apartment crying, "What's happening?" And the woman with the video camera said, "The World Trade Center's blown up."

She saw the building come down and her building was caught in the enveloping dust cloud. In that traumatic moment, she had no knowledge of how the building came down, whether by explosives or a collapse. But to her, it was blown up. The building was all over the place, in the air they breathed.

[OldTigerCub]

Yawn. Here you are again--breathless, red in the face, hands waving frantically, and all because you've been caught for the thousandth time. Your deranged devotion to your evil cause is weirdly fascinating, but, really, you can be tiresome.
As everyone who on that terrible day sat transfixed in front of the TV, casualty guesses were all over the place and wildly pessimistic: 10,000, 20,000, 30,000--nobody had the slightest idea. Weeks after the attacks, the death toll was estimated 6,000.

Where are you going with this approach?

You make a very good point, Ron. With communications disrupted, air traffic shut down nationwide, New York City in a state of utter chaos...everyone was trying to find friends and relatives that might have been in the area. The estimated death toll came down slowly over the following days and weeks as communication was restored and many that were presumed missing were accounted for. It took time to figure out what the real damage was in terms of lives lost, and it was months before the identities of all of the dead were known for sure.
Edit: Bolding mine for emphasis

[bio]

The demolition professionals ruled out the posssibility of explosives when they failed to discover physical evidence--detonator caps, bits of wiring, chemical signatures, etc.

Of course, uneducated conspiracy liars know so much more than professionals in all relevant fields.

please provide reference, that demolition professionals were searching after chemical signatures etc.

[bio]

Ryan, this is an error in your knowledge base or a deceitful statement. The following evidence hopefully will assist you in your knowledge base or expose the deceit in your statement.
.

perhabs Ryan wanted to say: "Nobody was able to find a bomb"

[bio]

Nor was there the first hint of a folow up of their first impression, The speculation of a van bomb is based on there being a blast and burn victims in the basement. That does not account for the burn victims on th lobby. Utter FAIL.

Have you ever seen an oxygen genrator? They would look like bombs to a non-bomb-trained technician. No reports of a confirmed bomb from the police. FAIL.


interesting - please provide better explanation in thread " Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099).

Looking forward to your contributions.

[TraneWreck]

Why did he say it was about to blow up?

Perhaps because he'd been in other fires where things "blew up." Perhaps he was merely using the term in a non-technical sense; someone else in the video says, "it's about to come down." Perhaps he knew quite a bit about the building and thought the fuel tanks were going to go.

But you're arguing that this fireman was told that the building was loaded with explosives? Curious. He had just watched as 300 of his brothers were killed in the collapse of the other towers, he's standing close enough to a CNN camera that they can overhear his conversation, and he calmly says, "it's about to blow up."

I believe that's called grasping at straws.

[Alt+F4]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

"We are walking back because the building is about to blow up"

How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"?


He was referring to Stuyvesant High School. Firefighters and cops said their was a bomb in the school that morning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Us6hwc5EY

Note in the video you posted we don't see the person who said, "this building is about it blow up", it's a voice over.

[CptColumbo]

What do you think someone means when they say they're going to "break a shotgun?"

What does a boss mean when he is going to "fire" someone?

Does a "boom box" or "ghetto blaster" contain explosives?

When a person has "a [rule 10]-eating grin" is that what they were just doing?

What do people mean when they are going to "blow up" a balloon or a picture?

I realize it would be clearer if the person had said that "the building was, based on [his] experience and the information given to him by higher ranking more experienced officials, going to collapse in accordance with the laws of physics and gravity, due to the structural damage and corresponding fires," but wouldn't that be just as suspicious?

[boloboffin]

I have a video in my collection (only aired once on TV, AFAIK) that was shot by a woman in her apartment building of a crowd of people stampeding from the South Tower collapse, and then the dust cloud hitting her open window, glass breaking, and her scrambling out of her room and up the staircase to higher floors to find breathable air, yelling for people to keep their doors closed if they have good air. After going up one or two floors, another woman comes out of her apartment crying, "What's happening?" And the woman with the video camera said, "The World Trade Center's blown up."

She saw the building come down and her building was caught in the enveloping dust cloud. In that traumatic moment, she had no knowledge of how the building came down, whether by explosives or a collapse. But to her, it was blown up. The building was all over the place, in the air they breathed.

I think the person saying that 7 World Trade was about to "blow up" was invoking the image of the towers collapsing in order to move people along. This video clip verifies that it was perfectly natural to describe the collapses of the towers as "blowing up." Thanks.

[Myriad]

Hmmm. Seems that theauthor has chosen to ignore your post Myriad. I wonder why this is?


I believe it's for the same reason he chooses to ignore all my other posts. This drawing illustrates the general principle involved:

http://hometown.aol.com/masterslyceum/images/worm-maze.jpg

Just think of the left branch as "attempt usual smart-ass rebuttal" and the right branch as "completely ignore Myriad's point." The rest of the analogy is self-evident, I think.

However, whether he addresses the point or not, the fact is that "blow up" is firefighting jargon for a particular type of event that very well might have threatened to happen at WTC7 at that time. It's also used metaphorically by firefighters and others (I've heard it used by economists, for example) to refer to a deteriorating situation presenting increasing danger.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Tomblvd]

I think the last few posts of ta illustrates his mindset perfectly. His entire thinking of 9-11 revolves around conspiracy, he doesn't even recall the incredible chaos and confusion of those first hours and days and how nothing was certain. Out of that carnage he cherry picks sentence fragments from people in the process of being attacked as some sort of evidence of a conspiracy.

[Elizabeth I]

I think the last few posts of ta illustrates his mindset perfectly. His entire thinking of 9-11 revolves around conspiracy, he doesn't even recall the incredible chaos and confusion of those first hours and days and how nothing was certain. Out of that carnage he cherry picks sentence fragments from people in the process of being attacked as some sort of evidence of a conspiracy.

It's been seven years since 9-11, so it's quite possible TA was too young at the time to remember what it was like. If he's even fourteen or fifteen, that would make him seven or eight on 9/11/01, old enough to remember that the grown-ups were all upset, but not to really absorb the details.

[Tomblvd]

It's been seven years since 9-11, so it's quite possible TA was too young at the time to remember what it was like. If he's even fourteen or fifteen, that would make him seven or eight on 9/11/01, old enough to remember that the grown-ups were all upset, but not to really absorb the details.


It has been a while, hasn't it? Although I should point out that he claims in an earlier post "i have watched all the coverage and NOBODY claims that at least 20,000 were killed."

He is a unapologetic liar.

[nicepants]

It has been a while, hasn't it? Although I should point out that he claims in an earlier post "i have watched all the coverage and NOBODY claims that at least 20,000 were killed."

He is a unapologetic liar.

Indeed. "All the coverage" would have to include every second of coverage from every network. So just picking the majors: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, as well as CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc...either TA had 7 tvs going prior to the first tower being hit, or he/she has the most complete recorded collection of news coverage of any single event in history.

I'm with you, Tom, I smell BS. I don't expect TA to be back to explain it.

[Tomblvd]

Indeed. "All the coverage" would have to include every second of coverage from every network. So just picking the majors: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, as well as CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc...either TA had 7 tvs going prior to the first tower being hit, or he/she has the most complete recorded collection of news coverage of any single event in history.

I'm with you, Tom, I smell BS. I don't expect TA to be back to explain it.

Let's not forget that some networks not normally broadcasting news (and I don't remember which ones) showed the BBC and SkyNews coverage.

For some reason I spent a lot of time watching their coverage.

[theauthor]

He was referring to Stuyvesant High School. Firefighters and cops said their was a bomb in the school that morning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Us6hwc5EY

Note in the video you posted we don't see the person who said, "this building is about it blow up", it's a voice over.

The high school bomb thing was befor the towers came down. Have you got any proof?

[bio]

Now, Brad, why on earth would you trot out your silly, thoroughly debunked falsehoods again? AS YOU KNOW, Protec had seismic devices in place throughout the WTC complex. AS YOU KNOW, there isn't a single firefighter who swallows the fantasies of your evil, brain-dead movement. AS YOU KNOW, Barry Jennings turned out to be a tad less than you liars hoped for.

Do you enjoy these beatings?

Brad said: "The seismic argument is debunked by the controlled demolition industry itself as they have the technology to CD a building without seismic registration."

How can you debunk him, when you say: "Protec had seismic devices in place throughout the WTC complex".

Wheater there were devices or not is irrelevant, because the controlled demolition industry has the technology to CD a building without seismic registration.

Am I evil, brain-dead, too?;) Perhabs you have more information, instead...

[twinstead]

Wheater there were devices or not is irrelevant, because the controlled demolition industry has the technology to CD a building without seismic registration.


Perhaps Implosionworld is in on the plot?

[Tomblvd]

The high school bomb thing was befor the towers came down. Have you got any proof?

Why bother?

You keep asking for proof, keep getting it, and then keep ignoring it.

Are you going to apologize to Jonnyclueless
for calling him a liar?

Are you going to admit you were wrong?

[jhunter1163]

Wheater there were devices or not is irrelevant, because the controlled demolition industry has the technology to CD a building without seismic registration.

I smell a new product.... CUSHABOOM™! It destroys your building, but gently lays the pieces on the ground with NO SEISMIC SIGNATURE! Great for sinister uses! Easily planted by only a few minions in a few hours' time!

CUSHABOOM™ is available at NWO Supply Central and online at eviloverlord.com.

[Russ_Dalton]

Um, different sizes, different positioning, different distance, different recording devices, different compiling method, different video delivery, etc.

There were lots of differences, but let me ask you: what did they all have in common?

Or better yet: how many of them (that had audio at all) were silent?



This question is so horribly written that I can't even guess at what you're trying to ask, and I don't want to give you a response in the traditional sense so much as I want to shove a middle school grammar and vocabulary textbook in your face. Try writing that again.

(1) Do you notice a difference in location of explosives ? Do you see differences in flashes? Do you notice a difference in sounds ?

(2) What was your point on seismic recordings you made earlier?

[Russ_Dalton]

Gee, maybe I made it up. Or maybe you're another lazy kid who is new to this conspiracy crap and hasn't read a goddamned thing.

Start with Brent Blanchard's Protec paper and the various sources linked to by Mark Roberts.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction"]http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

So there are 2 controlled demolition experts. One says WTC7 is a CD and other says its not.
Why would I want to believe one over another?
Shouldn't they all agree on one opinion?

[jhunter1163]

So there are 2 controlled demolition experts. One says WTC7 is a CD and other says its not.
Why would I want to believe one over another?
Shouldn't they all agree on one opinion?

Wrong. Every demolition expert in the world EXCEPT ONE says WTC7 was not a CD. And the one who DID say it was a CD was misled by Twoofers and will not now discuss the matter at all.

[Russ_Dalton]

As I've been saying, there are also many statements from that day that over 20,000 people died.

Where are the bodies?

So whats the criteria for trusting an eyewitness?

[Russ_Dalton]

Wrong. Every demolition expert in the world EXCEPT ONE says WTC7 was not a CD. And the one who DID say it was a CD was misled by Twoofers and will not now discuss the matter at all.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

I know, I know, he's one of the NWO black ops sent out to mislead and deceive the sheeple.

Read it anyway. Just give it a try. You never know.

So a CD "expert" can be misled?
Shouldn't all CD experts agree on one opinion?

[DGM]

So there are 2 controlled demolition experts. One says WTC7 is a CD and other says its not.
Why would I want to believe one over another?
Shouldn't they all agree on one opinion?
Because according to you guy's the one that thinks it is was is only right 1/3 of the time.

[Tomblvd]

So whats the criteria for trusting an eyewitness?


Corroborating evidence.

[Russ_Dalton]

No, there are not. The only eyewitness that talks about bombs and explosives is Mr. William Rodriguez, and his account, if true, would refer to the period before impact, and have no bearing at all on the collapses.

All of the other accounts, if you read them carefully, accurately, and in context, do not describe bombs or explosives at all. As another poster noted, the concept of "simile" is essential here, but evidently lacking in your analysis.

I have also explained to you personally how to differentiate the sounds. Stop asking the same question over and over again.

Incorrect.
Copy paste the link below to see a fireman say bomb in the building (I cannot add URLs yet)
youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE

or google.video.com - "Fireman: Bomb In The Building"

[jhunter1163]

*sigh*

Danny Jowenko was shown the WTC7 collapse video without any other information at all, and agreed that it did appear to be a CD. When he found out the truth of the matter, he refused (and still refuses) to discuss the matter any further, I suspect out of embarrassment.

As DGM also pointed out, Jowenko does not believe either WTC1 or 2 were CDs.

[Myriad]

Incorrect.
Copy paste the link below to see a fireman say bomb in the building (I cannot add URLs yet)
youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE

or google.video.com - "Fireman: Bomb In The Building"


And what building is the firefighter referring to?

Can you point out any of the WTC buildings in that video?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[mrbaracuda]

Incorrect.
Copy paste the link below to see a fireman say bomb in the building (I cannot add URLs yet)
youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE

or google.video.com - "Fireman: Bomb In The Building"

Hm,

dZ8K_HwQjPY
o2Us6hwc5EY

Next!

[Bobert]

So a CD "expert" can be misled?
Shouldn't all CD experts agree on one opinion?
sorry what is your point?

[Drs_Res]

And guess what else, there was NO bomb in the building.

[R.Mackey]

And what building is the firefighter referring to?

Can you point out any of the WTC buildings in that video?


... and did the firefighter actually see a bomb?

This is just like Swing who attempted to refute with newspaper articles, speculating that one possible theory, early on, involved secondary explosives. There is an enormous difference between this an an eyewitness to bombs or explosives.

Please pay attention.

[Russ_Dalton]

Corroborating evidence.

Eyewitnesses talk about bombs, firefighters talk about bombs, building collapses similar to a CD. Stephen Jones results about thermate. Strong history of elements US govt being involved in clandestine operations and strong history of elements of US govt to go to significant extent to justify war. And a careless alleged confession by KSM.

Its a pretty strong evidence to re-investigate, considering that trillions of dollars are being spent based on 911.

[Russ_Dalton]

sorry what is your point?

Why would CD experts disagree on any of the WTC collapses?

[Elizabeth I]

:p Well, tomblvd called it when he said TA wouldn't be back:

theauthor has been banned as a sockpuppet of
pdoherty76.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115998

ETA: you must admit he had a pretty good run, though...

[DGM]

Eyewitnesses talk about bombs, firefighters talk about bombs, building collapses similar to a CD. Stephen Jones results about thermate. Strong history of elements US govt being involved in clandestine operations and strong history of elements of US govt to go to significant extent to justify war. And a careless alleged confession by KSM.

Its a pretty strong evidence to re-investigate, considering that trillions of dollars are being spent based on 911.
Steven Jones has no results that I'm aware off (lots of speculation and interruption). Care to show results?

[mrbaracuda]

:p Well, tomblvd called it when he said TA wouldn't be back:



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115998

ETA: you must admit he had a pretty good run, though...

Quick answer to "Who is this pdoherty?" please? I noticed the name coming up over and over again. Is there something special (heh, yea, apart from that) about him or is that just his original nick name?

[Tomblvd]

Eyewitnesses talk about bombs, firefighters talk about bombs, building collapses similar to a CD. Stephen Jones results about thermate. Strong history of elements US govt being involved in clandestine operations and strong history of elements of US govt to go to significant extent to justify war. And a careless alleged confession by KSM.

Its a pretty strong evidence to re-investigate, considering that trillions of dollars are being spent based on 911.

People saw bombs? Where?

Can you point to a building collapse that didn't "look like a CD"?

What are Stephen Jones' results about thermate?

If this was a false-flag operation to invade Iraq, why not directly implicate Iraq?

What is a "careless alleged confession"? What does that even mean?

Its a pretty strong evidence to re-investigate

Please look up the definition of corroborating evidence. I don't think it means what you think it does.

[Elizabeth I]

Quick answer to "Who is this pdoherty?" please? I noticed the name coming up over and over again. Is there something special (heh, yea, apart from that) about him or is that just his original nick name?

Others on the board know more about him than I do - my membership started about the time his was ending for (I think) the first time. I think that he has attempted the sock puppet tactic several times since then, and generally been caught sooner than this time.

[Minadin]

Please--what do you think "theauthor" has been doing all day? Give the lad a break.


Given that your suspicions were correct (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115998), is it safe to assume that he wasn't exactly straining himself?



That is all.

[Russ_Dalton]

Hm,

Next!

The firefighter says: "area of the school". He wasn't sure where the bomb was. He was told by his supervisors to clear the area.

Also google :
"Police Found Suspected Bombs In WTC On 9/11"

youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related

[pomeroo]

Brad said: "The seismic argument is debunked by the controlled demolition industry itself as they have the technology to CD a building without seismic registration."

How can you debunk him, when you say: "Protec had seismic devices in place throughout the WTC complex".

Wheater there were devices or not is irrelevant, because the controlled demolition industry has the technology to CD a building without seismic registration.

Am I evil, brain-dead, too?;) Perhabs you have more information, instead...


I gotta admit, a fantasist in 2008 who has never heard of Brent Blanchard's Protec paper is a novelty. Conspiracy liars usually try pretending that the paper has been "refuted," although, for obvious reasons, they never get around to explaining exactly how:

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

[mrbaracuda]

The firefighter says: "area of the school". He wasn't sure where the bomb was. He was told by his supervisors to clear the area.

And?

Also google :
"Police Found Suspected Bombs In WTC On 9/11"

youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related

No. Why?
And answer Myriad (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3779836&postcount=202).

[Redtail]

The firefighter says: "area of the school". He wasn't sure where the bomb was. He was told by his supervisors to clear the area.

Also google :
"Police Found Suspected Bombs In WTC On 9/11"

youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related

Did the bomb go off? Was it deactivated? What ever happened to that bomb?

[mrbaracuda]

Others on the board know more about him than I do - my membership started about the time his was ending for (I think) the first time. I think that he has attempted the sock puppet tactic several times since then, and generally been caught sooner than this time.

So he's not some of the crazy head figures of the twoof movement like that Haupt guy or uh, whatever his name was. Luke.. something.

[Russ_Dalton]

People saw bombs? Where?

Can you point to a building collapse that didn't "look like a CD"?

What are Stephen Jones' results about thermate?

If this was a false-flag operation to invade Iraq, why not directly implicate Iraq?

What is a "careless alleged confession"? What does that even mean?



Please look up the definition of corroborating evidence. I don't think it means what you think it does.

Google earthquaqe collapses.

WTC debris showed thermate. Thats corroborative

Iraq was just part of the whole war plan. Read PNAC, where they talk about continued US military presence, Oil control etc.

KSM arrested in 2003 claims to confess to attack plaza bank among other buildings in his confession when the plaza bank itself was given its name in 2006.

Show me your corroborative evidence implicating the 19 arabs, KSM and Bin laden. May be I`l get a better understanding of corroborative evidence.

[Russ_Dalton]

Did the bomb go off? Was it deactivated? What ever happened to that bomb?

Do we know if explosive sounds that went off on 911 were those bombs?

[Tomblvd]

The firefighter says: "area of the school". He wasn't sure where the bomb was. He was told by his supervisors to clear the area.

Also google :
"Police Found Suspected Bombs In WTC On 9/11"

youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related


Do you realize how many bomb scares there were on 9-11? Not just in Manhattan, but all over the country?

Were they all bombs?

Are they "corroborating evidence"?

[DGM]

The firefighter says: "area of the school". He wasn't sure where the bomb was. He was told by his supervisors to clear the area.

Also google :
"Police Found Suspected Bombs In WTC On 9/11"

youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related
You should be able to post links. You only need 15 post or more.

[Redtail]

So he's not some of the crazy head figures of the twoof movement like that Haupt guy or uh, whatever his name was. Luke.. something.

AFAIK he does little more than post in forums. He came here, got all of his arguments crushed by Gravy & others (mainly Gravy) and became obsessed with him and this forum. He's been reduced to trying to score "gotcha" points by playing semantics games and such. Kinda sad really... Still funny due to his pric....er... male-sex-organ-ness mind you but in a sad kinda way.

[MarkyX]

Eyewitnesses talk about bombs.

No, they don't.


firefighters talk about bombs


Nope, that's why they are not part the 9/11 denier movement or said they found any bombs. You think the FDNY would've stayed quiet, considering what happened to 300 of their members?


building collapses similar to a CD


According to physical evidence, no. Seismic readings, lack of explosive devices found in the debris, or even expert testimony all point out to no CD.


Stephen Jones results about thermate


A complete contradiction to your previous statements. You said it looks like a CD, but no CD has ever used thermite before. BTW, Steven Jones has yet to point out any controlled demolitions events where they used thermite. Thermite doesn't make any explosive sounds, so the firefighters and eyewitnesses shouldn't be "hearing" bombs if it was truly thermite.


Strong history of elements US govt being involved in clandestine operations and strong history of elements of US govt to go to significant extent to justify war.


This is the same argument I hear from racists.

Some black people are criminals, therefore all black people should go to jail.

Some governments are evil, therefore all governments should go to jail.


And a careless alleged confession by KSM.


You mean when he was bragging to the Al-Jazeera reporter?

[DGM]

Russ:

Please don't try to sell the idea that the Iraq war is in keeping with the PNAC. Nothing could be further from the truth. Try reading for comprehension.


ETA Read the letters to Bush. The PNAC did not think much of his policies.

[Redtail]

Do we know if explosive sounds that went off on 911 were those bombs?
Are all explosive sounds bombs?

[mrbaracuda]

AFAIK he does little more than post in forums. He came here, got all of his arguments crushed by Gravy & others (mainly Gravy) and became obsessed with him and this forum. He's been reduced to trying to score "gotcha" points by playing semantics games and such. Kinda sad really... Still funny due to his pric....er... male-sex-organ-ness mind you but in a sad kinda way.

Yea, rather sad. Thanks for answering, Redtail and the others. :)
Anyway, why can't I put Russ_Dalton on ignore? The option doesn't even come up! Invincible twoofer? :eek::D

[Russ_Dalton]

And?



No. Why?
And answer Myriad (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3779836&postcount=202).

The point is the school is so close to the WTCs (you can see the reporter say it in the video) and they wanted to evacuate it.
The fireman wasn't sure where the bomb was, he says its in the area of the school and he was asked to evacuate the area.

Did you willfully ignore OTHER eyewitness accounts in my earlier link of people saying bombs, detonations, explosives, van with explosives?

[Russ_Dalton]

Are all explosive sounds bombs?

How did you 100% rule out there were no bombs?

[MarkyX]

How did you 100% rule out there were no bombs?

Easy, did the FDNY find any bomb debris like detention cord in the debris? No.

Hence, no bombs.

[Tomblvd]

Google earthquaqe collapses..

I did. I didn't see anything of use.

WTC debris showed thermate. Thats corroborative.

Corroborative of WHAT?


Iraq was just part of the whole war plan. Read PNAC, where they talk about continued US military presence, Oil control etc.

Here's a clue about conspiracies, they don't usually publish postion papers on their evil plans.

KSM arrested in 2003 claims to confess to attack plaza bank among other buildings in his confession when the plaza bank itself was given its name in 2006.

You do realize he "confessed" to al-Jazerra, don't you? Are they torturing their interviewees now?

Show me your corroborative evidence implicating the 19 arabs, KSM and Bin laden. May be I`l get a better understanding of corroborative evidence.

No you won't. Everything you've posted is almost cut-and-paste from conspiracy websites. I doubt evidence means much to you.

[uruk]

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been brought up, but couldn't the firman have been aware of the diesle or kerosene generator resevior in the building?

I also noticed that the audio seems to be a voice over it does not lipsynch to any of the people on the video. It may be a fake like that other video with the added explosion sounds.

The truth movement is peetering out, someone could be getting desparate.

[A W Smith]

:p Well, tomblvd called it when he said TA wouldn't be back:



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115998

ETA: you must admit he had a pretty good run, though...

What makes you think he ever left? He may have posted in this thread already after he was banned. As a recent or new sock. Ron and I have believed for quite some time that theauthor was pdoh76.

[Russ_Dalton]

Russ:

Please don't try to sell the idea that the Iraq war is in keeping with the PNAC. Nothing could be further from the truth. Try reading for comprehension.


ETA Read the letters to Bush. The PNAC did not think much of his policies.

PNAC think-tank do talk about wanting to have an Iraq war.

[abenja1]

Why I am not surprised the truthers on this thread haven't answered my question. I'll post again because it seems truthers don't understand the first time you tell them. What did this rescue worker gain from being "in on it?"

[Drs_Res]

I think it's an interesting progression that you have made here Russ.

We went from a video of a fireman clearing the area around a school.
A bomb was mentioned, singular.

You then expand that to bombs, plural.

On top of that you phrase your post in a way that makes an assumption that the sound of an explosion is a bomb without directly saying so, by saying:
Do we know if explosive sounds that went off on 911 were those bombs?Bolding mine to show my point.

So now we have that single bomb becoming all explosive sounds heard on 9/11/01. Nice

NOT

[Russ_Dalton]

I did. I didn't see anything of use.

What did u ask for?

Corroborative of WHAT?
Corroborative of possible explosive devices, in accordance with the many eyewitnesses




Here's a clue about conspiracies, they don't usually publish postion papers on their evil plans.
Google gulf of tonkin, 1976 cuban plane bombing, Iran contra, 1993 WTC bombing.
Some of the documents are declassified which do tell about their evil plans.


You do realize he "confessed" to al-Jazerra, don't you? Are they torturing their interviewees now?
al-Jazerra..So?
How did he know in 2003 about the plaza bank which was going to be named in 2006?



No you won't. Everything you've posted is almost cut-and-paste from conspiracy websites. I doubt evidence means much to you.
You failed to provide corroborative evidence implicating Binladen, KSM and the 19 arabs.

[Redtail]

How did you 100% rule out there were no bombs?

What MarkyX said. Also if a bomb was powerful enough to take out WTC either 1, 2 or 7 there would be a lot of evidence that it had done so.

[DGM]

PNAC think-tank do talk about wanting to have an Iraq war.
Wrong!!!!!! Start a new thread and attempt to prove your assertion. Doing it here is off topic. (but I look forward to shooting you down in a new thread)

[Elizabeth I]

:p Well, tomblvd called it when he said TA wouldn't be back:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115998

ETA: you must admit he had a pretty good run, though...

What makes you think he ever left? He may have posted in this thread already after he was banned. As a recent or new sock. Ron and I have believed for quite some time that theauthor was pdoh76.

Oh, I don't doubt that you may be right. As I said earlier, I don't have enough familiarity with his posting style to develop a suspicion one way or another, and didn't care enough about it to read some of his earlier "contributions," :p so I probably never will.

I was just talking about his run as ta.

[Slayhamlet]

The firefighter says: "area of the school". He wasn't sure where the bomb was. He was told by his supervisors to clear the area.

Stuyvesant High School, which is 4 blocks from the WTC (that's 4 blocks from the entire complex, including WTC 7) was set up as a base for rescue and recovery operations on 9/11. It is well known and documented that there was a serious bomb-threat at the school that disrupted these operations on the day of 9/11, a threat which later turned out to be false. This is exactly what the firefighter is describing in the video you posted above; he can't possibly be referring to any of the buildings of the WTC. You cannot deny this.

Please be honest, Russ.

[Redtail]

Corroborative of possible explosive devices, in accordance with the many eyewitnesses
Thermate isn't an explosive.





You failed to provide corroborative evidence implicating Binladen, KSM and the 19 arabs.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linkstoterrorism%2Calqaedainfo

[Russ_Dalton]

I think it's an interesting progression that you have made here Russ.

We went from a video of a fireman clearing the area around a school.
A bomb was mentioned, singular.

You then expand that to bombs, plural.

On top of that you phrase your post in a way that makes an assumption that the sound of an explosion is a bomb without directly saying so, by saying:
Bolding mine to show my point.

So now we have that single bomb becoming all explosive sounds heard on 9/11/01. Nice

NOT

Watch the video. Use of the word another bomb

[Slayhamlet]

The point is the school is so close to the WTCs (you can see the reporter say it in the video) and they wanted to evacuate it.
The fireman wasn't sure where the bomb was, he says its in the area of the school and he was asked to evacuate the area.

Did you willfully ignore OTHER eyewitness accounts in my earlier link of people saying bombs, detonations, explosives, van with explosives?

No Russ, Stuyvesant High School is 4 blocks from the WTC. There was a known bomb threat that was very specific to Stuyvesant HS, which was serving as a makeshift base for search and rescue operations on 9/11. Admit your mistake as an honest and thoughtful person would. Please.

[Russ_Dalton]

Wrong!!!!!! Start a new thread and attempt to prove your assertion. Doing it here is off topic. (but I look forward to shooting you down in a new thread)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22I9klFUuTQ

[pomeroo]

Google gulf of tonkin, 1976 cuban plane bombing, Iran contra, 1993 WTC bombing.
Some of the documents are declassified which do tell about their evil plans.


Why do you liars pretend that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was some sort of conspiracy? Nobody believes you. LBJ was a cynical pol who exploited the sailors' confusion to ram through legislation he desired. He stated in private that "those dumb sons-of-bitches were probably shooting at flying fish." There was no conspiracy, and no one thinks there was.

Iran-Contra was covert diplomacy, a small-scale version of Lend-lease. What FDR did was blatantly unconstitutional and unquestionably the right thing to do, morally and strategically. The 1993 WTC bombing was done by Islamic terrorists--sorry.



al-Jazerra..So?
How did he know in 2003 about the plaza bank which was going to be named in 2006?


How many times do you need the explanation?




You failed to provide corroborative evidence implicating Binladen, KSM and the 19 arabs.


No, you fail to comprehend bin Laden's and KSM's own words. The nineteen jihadists were identified at airports, their names and seating positions appeared on flight manifests, their DNA was discovered at crash sites, and the Saudis' intelligence confirmed our findings.

[Russ_Dalton]

No Russ, Stuyvesant High School is 4 blocks from the WTC. There was a known bomb threat that was very specific to Stuyvesant HS, which was serving as a makeshift base for search and rescue operations on 9/11. Admit your mistake as an honest and thoughtful person would. Please.

Firefighter was told bomb in the area of the school. He was told by his supervisor.

[DGM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22I9klFUuTQ
Wow a youtube video from some know nothing to support your assertion. Care to think for yourself? Start a thread.

[Russ_Dalton]

Wow a youtube video from some know nothing to support your assertion. Care to think for yourself. Start a thread.

Watch the video. Attack the message.