Explosions - Split from: An Open Letter to John Schroeder, 9/11 firefighter

[Young Union Square]

Ummm, who here has actually met John Schroeder?..

*raises hand*

I first met the man at a CHANGE wednesday night meeting (yes I am a member of CHANGE). I was late to the meeting and walked in to this guy practically in tears telling everyone how he was lucky to be alive with all the EXPLOSIONS going on. And how he was meant to survive to be there today, with us. The man approached us, nobody knew him before the meeting. He heard of us through a friend, or whatever. And if he's lying, he did a great job of acting because I've never heard anyone sound more sincere. Now you can say what you want about CHANGE, or the Truth Movement, or whatever. But y'all should be ashamed of yourselves whoever's usin John's testimony and trying to twist it around by discrediting the people who interviewed him. My little brother coulda interviewed him, who cares?? Listen to what he's SAYING. Since the truth cant be taken head on, people resort to ad hominem attacks against people that got nothing to do with it. Not one of the people who interviewed John were there when the towers came down. Why attack them? Instead, deal with the TESTIMONY. Discredit Luke, Dylan, I've even seem some attacks towards my good friend Manny who lost an uncle on Sept. 11th. But none of you deal with what was said. The only "debunking" that could be done is using contradictory testimony from other firefighters and/or cops. You're gonna have your share of cops and firefighters who are going to contradict the story. What's the motives? I dunno...I'm not into personal attacks or personal business or anything, give me the facts. There are plenty of firefighters and cops who reported bombs and/or explosions going off in the buildings too. Somehow those testimonies are left out of the paragraphs. I know a few cops, I live in Staten Island where alot of them make their homes. Off the record a majority of the police officers i've spoken to when they are out of uniform all agree with the majority of the facts I kick to them. When they are in uniform, they represent the City of New York, i.e. the government, so they arent free to express themselves fully because things they say can be misenterprited as the point of view of the City, which wholly supports the 9/11 lie. Out of uniform though, believe me or not, alot of them are on board.

Speaking of which, I wonder how many actual New Yorkers are on this message board? Give me the NAMES of the firefighters that contradict the testimony, and when I have free time i'll go to the firehouses themselves and ask my own questions. See, cuz I can do that, cuz I'm not someone in front of a computer screen hundreds of miles away talking nonsense about things I have no knowledge of.

And if you're from NYC, you can come see me every Saturday at Union Square from like 6:30 pm to whenever. I'm out there with the banner with CHANGE its an extension of the PATH station street actions. I'm a respectful dude, I'll answer any questions to the best of my knowledge. I dont got all the answers but dont ever call me or anyone I stand with a liar, because that simply isnt the case. Like I said quit talkin "stuff", and come see us at Union Square whenever you like.

[Pardalis]

How many times are we going to have to tell you that "explosions" don't necessarily mean "bombs"?

The word "explosion" can describe any number of things that can even not be explosions. A loud noise is a loud noise, and without further evidence, you can't conclude that these sounds were in fact demolition charges or bombs.

Geez.

[Young Union Square]

How many times are we going to have to tell you that "explosions" don't necessarily mean "bombs"?


okay, so when firefighters interviewed on live news were saying secondary explosions, most likely by DEVICES PLANTED before, what kind of DEVICE, gets PLANTED, and EXPLODES, thats not a bomb? And I never said once John claimed they were bombs, I said there is testimony in which cops and firefighters reported bombs AND/OR explosions. Thanks for following the wack ass debunking formula by flipping around my words as if you cant read. Now when someone uses the words DEVICE, and PLANTED, and EXPLOSIONS in the same sentence, any human of average intellect would assume bombs. They dont have to say bombs

[Pardalis]

okay, so when firefighters interviewed on live news were saying secondary explosions, most likely by DEVICES PLANTED before, what kind of DEVICE, gets PLANTED, and EXPLODES, thats not a bomb?

They should know better than to speculate in front of television cameras.

And I never said once John claimed they were bombs, I said there is testimony in which cops and firefighters reported bombs AND/OR explosions.

OK, so we are left with the same thing: trying to find out what these sounds were. You can't conclude anything without further evidence. Until you find some, these guys heard loud noises.

[ConspiRaider]

okay, so when firefighters interviewed on live news were saying secondary explosions, most likely by DEVICES PLANTED before, what kind of DEVICE, gets PLANTED, and EXPLODES, thats not a bomb? And I never said once John claimed they were bombs, I said there is testimony in which cops and firefighters reported bombs AND/OR explosions. Thanks for following the wack ass debunking formula by flipping around my words as if you cant read. Now when someone uses the words DEVICE, and PLANTED, and EXPLOSIONS in the same sentence, any human of average intellect would assume bombs. They dont have to say bombs
Seen. Tell me about seen. Did any firefighters actually eyeball "planted explosive devices" in WTC1, 2 or 7? For that matter - did ANYONE actually see a single one? Out of all the pictures snapped at the WTC site, can you point to any that show absolutely undisputed proof of a planted explosive device? That anyone - a 12 year old kid, for example, or an explosives engineer - could readily accept as authentic?

Not heard. Someone - anyone - you or me or a firefighter or cop or custodian - can HEAR something, and then infer what it was. There is quite a lot of subjectivity tied to hearing something.

Which firefighters saw planted explosive devices, how did they describe them, what were the physical characteristics and approximate dimensions. Please provide. It's possible I've missed this.

[Pardalis]

They said 'secondary devices' as a probability they were investigating. No firefighters or police officer that I have read about said they knew specifically about the existence of such devices.

That's why first reports of any given event are not accurate. All kinds of things happen, all kinds of things are said. They prepare for every contingency. It doesn't mean that every contingency was real, it's just that they have to consider them. It's their job.

It's what the investigation learns after they've gathered all the evidence that is important.

[Young Union Square]

Seen. Tell me about seen. Did any firefighters actually eyeball "planted explosive devices" in WTC1, 2 or 7? For that matter - did ANYONE actually see a single one? Out of all the pictures snapped at the WTC site, can you point to any that show absolutely undisputed proof of a planted explosive device? That anyone - a 12 year old kid, for example, or an explosives engineer - could readily accept as authentic?

Not heard. Someone - anyone - you or me or a firefighter or cop or custodian - can HEAR something, and then infer what it was. There is quite a lot of subjectivity tied to hearing something.

Which firefighters saw planted explosive devices, how did they describe them, what were the physical characteristics and approximate dimensions. Please provide. It's possible I've missed this.

See now you're reaching. You sound so damn stupid because if someone SEEN the devices, they were close enough to get blown the hell up by them. And if they could be SEEN on the same day as all the chaos was going on, they should have been seen the weeks and days leading up to the attacks. Your argument sucks, go back to the drawing board.

And im new to these forums so I dunno anyone here, but if your argument looks like this, just dont even reply to me. Period.

[Drudgewire]

And if they could be SEEN on the same day as all the chaos was going on, they should have been seen the weeks and days leading up to the attacks. Your argument sucks, go back to the drawing board.
How about after the attacks? I mean, it's not like bombings are the perfect crime because all the evidence is destroyed.

And im new to these forums so I dunno anyone here, but if your argument looks like this, just dont even reply to me. Period.
You're going to do very well here. :p

[Young Union Square]

How about after the attacks? I mean, it's not like bombings are the perfect crime because all the evidence is destroyed.


You're going to do very well here. :p

so you expect explosives to be found AFTER the attacks?? u mean the duds?? lmao...okay, you'll find the explosives that didnt go off, or remnants of explosives that did, yet the FBI had to lie and say they couldnt recover the black boxes

once again

And im new to these forums so I dunno anyone here, but if your argument looks like this, just dont even reply to me. Period.

[NYCEMT86]

okay, so when firefighters interviewed on live news were saying secondary explosions, most likely by DEVICES PLANTED before, what kind of DEVICE, gets PLANTED, and EXPLODES, thats not a bomb?



You obviously don't know what "fog of war" is. There was so much going on that day and there was so much confusion. They claimed devices and bombs that day...what happened to that testimony afterwards?



And I never said once John claimed they were bombs, I said there is testimony in which cops and firefighters reported bombs AND/OR explosions. Thanks for following the wack ass debunking formula by flipping around my words as if you cant read. Now when someone uses the words DEVICE, and PLANTED, and EXPLOSIONS in the same sentence, any human of average intellect would assume bombs.

*Yawn*

ex·plo·sion
–noun
1. an act or instance of exploding; a violent expansion or bursting with noise, as of gunpowder or a boiler (opposed to implosion).
2. the noise itself: The loud explosion woke them.
3. a violent outburst, as of laughter or anger.
4. a sudden, rapid, or great increase: a population explosion.
5. the burning of the mixture of fuel and air in an internal-combustion engine.
6. Phonetics. plosion.


You mean they could be describing a sound they heard? Or did Websters change the definition of explosion because they were in on 9/11 as well?

They dont have to say bombs

They could also say Fuel Ignited Explosion, Backdraft, Flashover, Elevators crashing into the basement, initial collapse....see where I am going? Non-bomb related explosions...you really have to do better than this.

[Drudgewire]

so you expect explosives to be found AFTER the attacks?? u mean the duds?? lmao...okay, you'll find the explosives that didnt go off, or remnants of explosives that did, yet the FBI had to lie and say they couldnt recover the black boxes
I just want to be sure I'm getting you right here: Every single person investigating at GZ was in on it, correct?

[Alferd_Packer]

so you expect explosives to be found AFTER the attacks?? u mean the duds?? lmao...okay,

If you knew anything about chemistry, you would know that explosive compounds are fairly complex molecules that tend to leave sizable and distinctive chemical signatures behind.

I do believe that they searched for these chemical signatures in the rubble and failed to find any.

[Gravy]

If you knew anything about chemistry, you would know that explosive compounds are fairly complex molecules that tend to leave sizable and distinctive chemical signatures behind.

I do believe that they searched for these chemical signatures in the rubble and failed to find any.I'm not aware of them testing for explosives at Ground Zero, but they certainly did examine steel for blast effects (from the aircraft impacts) and unusual failure modes. And at Fresh Kills, rubble was finely sorted and sifted for evidence. More on that in the "crime scene?" section of this page (http://911stories.googlepages.com/answerstootherquestionsraisedintheinterv2).

[Young Union Square]

If you knew anything about chemistry, you would know that explosive compounds are fairly complex molecules that tend to leave sizable and distinctive chemical signatures behind.

I do believe that they searched for these chemical signatures in the rubble and failed to find any.

thermite was discovered. See Steven Jones evidence at ae911truth.org

[Drudgewire]

thermite was discovered. See Steven Jones evidence at ae911truth.org
:dl:

[Dr Harry Rein]

There are plenty of firefighters and cops who reported bombs and/or explosions going off in the buildings too.

How long before the collapse of the building did they hear those explosions. Because, in any controlled demolition that I've seen, the charges go off in rapid succession, then the building collapses WITHIN SECONDS. I would think that anyone in the buildings that heard explosions seconds before the collapse would have been killed.

[Pardalis]

And I never said once John claimed they were bombs, I said there is testimony in which cops and firefighters reported bombs AND/OR explosions.


Firefighter - "Yes, but I heard explosions! I heard bombs!"

tssk tssk :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

Firefighter - "Yes, but I heard explosions! I heard bombs!"


Please provide exact quote.


Same thing about that woman, April Gallop i believe, from the pentagon, who was swearing up and down she saw no plane,


Please provide exact quote.


but while laying in a hospital was visited repeatedly by FBI agents pounding it into her head "You saw a plane, you saw a plane" and to take the compensation money and "shut up"


Please provide exact quote.

[Alferd_Packer]

I'm not aware of them testing for explosives at Ground Zero,

I beleive that there were a number of explosive detection dogs deployed at ground zero.

http://network.bestfriends.org/newyork/news/7529.html

[NYCEMT86]

so we are in agreement that you can completely disregard any high ranking, or even low ranking, FDNY or NYPD official's accounts of explosions going off inside the towers years AFTER the fact, on 2 counts;

I don't doubt there were explosions. But there are several things that can cause an explosion...not just a bomb.


A) They are not experts on physics and can only explain to the limits of their capacity what they SAW, FELT, HEARD AND EXPERIENCED first hand

So they saw bombs? WTF? You mean they saw fire bombs? They felt and heard an explosion.


and B) since they are NOT experts, they are susceptible to the same pseudo science the rest of the population is when a man who is an expert but obviously on govt payroll explains to them exactly what had happened.


Actually most of these guys are Experts. Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn (ret). Most of their studies have been published into NATIONAL TEXTBOOKS & FIREFIGHTER OPERATIONS. You are know underminding the first responders education and you have some professionalism in knowing exactly what is taught in any academy in the united states?


Firefighter - "Yes, but I heard explosions! I heard bombs!"

NIST 'scientist' - "No you're confused, those were just the floors collapsing."

Same thing about that woman, April Gallop i believe, from the pentagon, who was swearing up and down she saw no plane, but while laying in a hospital was visited repeatedly by FBI agents pounding it into her head "You saw a plane, you saw a plane" and to take the compensation money and "shut up"



Nope I don't think that was a NIST Scientist who said that....actually


I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down. - Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory


"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit." - Firefighter Craig Carlsen

"what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse." - Captain Jay Swithers


Or are they just lying?

[Dr Harry Rein]

Hey Dr. Harry, how you doin'? What do you think of the accounts that people heard them seconds before they collapsed and live to tell about it? i.e. from the ground or close enough to hear the explosions but far enough to get the hell outta there in time.

Lots of things besides bombs can explode in a burning building.

Anyone who believes that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition has to answer the simple questions:

1) How did the perpetrators manage to plant enough charges in both towers (and the WTC7), without any of the 50,000+ people working in this complex noticing it? When did they have enough time to do it?

2) This must have been an enormous undertaking involving hundreds of people (these are big buildings). How is that not a single person has had a crisis of conscience and come forward, admitting his or her part in this crime?

3) Why would the perpetrators blow WTC7? What purpose did it serve, except (and this is debatable) to earn Larry Silverstein a little extra cash? Why expose your plan to the additional risk of being discovered by demo'ing a third building that no one ever heard of? Did it help justify wars in Iraq or Afganistan? Did it help justify Patriot Act?

[TheRedWorm]

Thank you for your response.

[hellaeon]

YUS, I dont want to add to the chorous of fire but research this forum on the jones thermite claim.

Its not a valid claim.

[westprog]

YUS, I dont want to add to the chorous of fire but research this forum on the jones thermite claim.

Its not a valid claim.

I think we can also agree that whatever made the noises that sounded like bombs going off, it wasn't thermite. It wasn't bombs either, but that's another issue.

[Swing Dangler]

How many times are we going to have to tell you that "explosions" don't necessarily mean "bombs"?

The word "explosion" can describe any number of things that can even not be explosions. A loud noise is a loud noise, and without further evidence, you can't conclude that these sounds were in fact demolition charges or bombs.

Geez.

I agree. However, you will need to follow the logical sequence of events using the empirical method to arrive at the 'bomb'/explosive device conclusion.

1. A explosive sound is heard.
2. Damage to the environment is witnessed.
3. Damage to people is observed.
4. First thoughts and past experiences of survivors who state they were reminded of the 1993 truck bombing.
5. Historical tactics of terrorists.
6. Original working theory of the FBI as reported in USA Today's television program.
7. The science behind disproving an explosive device, including the testing of chemical residue, which was not done.
8. Witness statements and experiences that disprove other sources of explosions, most notably jet fuel.
As you examine the entire story, the most likely explanation was the use of explosive devices in the Towers, and with near certainty in the sub-levels of WTC: North Tower.

On a side note, here is an example to people who like to think demolition of buildings does not or cannot begin at the top: Casino Barge CD (http://www.nbc11.com/news/5002599/detail.html) The video and slide show of this destruction is similar in appearance to the towers demise.

[westprog]

I agree. However, you will need to follow the logical sequence of events using the empirical method to arrive at the 'bomb'/explosive device conclusion.

1. A explosive sound is heard.


I think one of the strangest things about the CT movement is the idea that a million ton building should fall down in silence. I'll ask Swing Dangler, as I've asked people who subscribe to the CT's before, whether he's calculated the energy released when the towers fell. It's a simple calculation, and when it's done, it doesn't seem surprising that the collapse was a violent event.


2. Damage to the environment is witnessed.


See above. Is it remotely plausible that the buildings could have collapsed without damaging the immediate environment?


3. Damage to people is observed.


See above.


4. First thoughts and past experiences of survivors who state they were reminded of the 1993 truck bombing.


Yes, it's surprising that anyone surviving a second attack on the WTC would be reminded of the first attack.


5. Historical tactics of terrorists.


Which include kidnapping, assasination, ambush, propaganda, intimidation - and in this case, flying two aircraft into the WTC.


6. Original working theory of the FBI as reported in USA Today's television program.


Why does an original back-of-an-envelope theory misreported at the time outweigh the considered opinion when the evidence is in?


7. The science behind disproving an explosive device, including the testing of chemical residue, which was not done.


That isn't actually evidence of anything at all, is it?


8. Witness statements and experiences that disprove other sources of explosions, most notably jet fuel.


Like the firemen who smelt kerosene? How did people end up on fire, if it wasn't from something flammable?


As you examine the entire story, the most likely explanation was the use of explosive devices in the Towers, and with near certainty in the sub-levels of WTC: North Tower.


If there had been explosive devices in the WTC, one would have expected the following -

A highly distinctive noise, clearly distinguishable from the explosions heard as the buildings collapsed.
A symmetrical expulsion of material at all sides of the building which preceded the collapse, rather than followed it.
Identifiable seismographic records.
People tripping over wires, etc, as the buildings were wired for demolition in the weeks before the attacks.The absence of these tell-tale signs is a clear indication that it is not only unlikely that explosives were used, it's impossible.


On a side note, here is an example to people who like to think demolition of buildings does not or cannot begin at the top: Casino Barge CD (http://www.nbc11.com/news/5002599/detail.html)The video and slide show of this destruction is similar in appearance to the towers demise.

Explosive detonation must precede collapse.

[twinstead]

I've seen the video of the Casino Barge CD. The explosions that preceded the collapse were unmistakable.

I saw no such thing on 911. Perhaps I just missed it though.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Executive Summary
The use of "explosive" and "explosion" interchangeably in discussion is erroneous; and the use of "explosions" as evidence of "explosives" is fundamentally flawed.

Loud Noises (aka bangs, booms, cracks, explosions (heard but not seen) etc)
Q. What are loud noises?
A. Within the context of this post I will be defining loud noises as "Sound or a sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/noise (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/noise) (def. #1)

Explosions
Q. What are explosions?
A. Wikipedia defines ExplosionsWP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosions) as "a sudden increase in volume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume) and release of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy) in a violent manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperatures) and the release of gases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas). An explosion causes pressure waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_wave) in the local medium in which it occurs. Explosions are categorized as deflagrations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflagration) if these waves are subsonic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsonic) and detonations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation) if they are supersonic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic) (shock waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_wave))."

Q. What are causes of explosions?
A. The Wikipedia article on ExplosionsWP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosions) lists a number of causes of explosions:
Chemical explosions
Nuclear explosions
Steam boiler explosions
Electrical explosions
Volcanic explosions
Astronomical event explosions and
Exploding animalsExplosives
Q. What are explosives?
A. Wikipedia defines ExplosivesWP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosives) as "a material that either is chemically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry) or otherwise energetically unstable or produces a sudden expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of heat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat) and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion)."

The Logic
Argument 1
P1: If an explosive is detonated then there will be an explosion;
P2: An explosive is detonated;
C: Therefore, there was an explosion.

This is a logically sound argument. P1 is true by definition of what an explosive does and is included in the definition of things that can cause explosions.
This is known as affirming the antecedent (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#affirming_the_consequent) and is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: A;
C: Therefore, B.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument 2
P1: If there is an explosion, then you will hear a loud noise;
P2: There was an explosion;
C: Therefore, it was heard as a loud noise.

This is a logically sound argument. P1 is true as, by definition, explosions create shock-waves. The shock-waves are heard and meet the criteria of being a loud noise.
This is known as affirming the antecedent (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#affirming_the_consequent) and is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: A;
C: Therefore, B.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument 3
P1: If there is an explosion then you will hear a loud noise;
P2: There was a loud noise;
C: Therefore, there was an explosion.

This is not a logically sound argument as there are, by definition of what a loud noise is, causes of loud noises that are not explosions (ex. steel bar snapping, book slamming on the floor, etc).
This is known as affirming the consequent (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#affirming_the_consequent) and is a logical fallacy. It is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: B;
C: Therefore, A.

The generalized expression of why it is fallacious is:
P1: If A then B;
P2: If C then B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

Expressed as such, it is clear why it is not a sound logical argument.

It can be made in to a sound logical argument with the addition of another premise (which must be shown to be true), such that:
P1: If A then B;
P2: Only A can cause B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

Therefore, we would have to be able to say:
P1: If there is an explosion then you will hear a loud noise;
P2: Only explosions can cause loud noises;
P3: There was a loud noise;
C: Therefore, there was an explosion.

This is clearly an untenable argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument 4
P1: If an explosive is detonated then there will be an explosion;
P2: There was an explosion;
C: Therefore, there was an explosive was detonated.

This is not a logically sound argument as there are, by definition of what a loud noise is, causes of loud noises that are not explosions (ex. steel bar snapping, book slamming on the floor, etc).
This is known as affirming the consequent (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#affirming_the_consequent) and is a logical fallacy. It is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: B;
C: Therefore, A.

The generalized expression of why it is fallacious is:
P1: If A then B;
P2: If C then B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

Expressed as such, it is clear why it is not a sound logical argument.

It can be made in to a sound logical argument with the addition of another premise (which must be shown to be true), such that:
P1: If A then B;
P2: Only A can cause B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

This requirement means that for proponent of CD in the WTC to claim that witness reports of explosions are evidence of the use of explosives the following must be true:
P1: If an explosive is detonated then there will be an explosion;
P2: Only explosives can cause explosions;
P3: There was an explosion;
C: Therefore, there was an explosive was detonated.

This clearly runs counter to the definition of what an explosion is, and is shown to not be true by the examples cited for causes of explosions that do not fall in to the category of explosives. Therefore, this is also an untenable argument.

What does this mean for discussion?
It means that...
... if a witness reported hearing a loud noise and called it an explosion we can not conclude it was caused by an explosion
... if a witness reported seeing an explosion we can not conclude it was caused by an explosive
... the term "explosion" and "explosive" can not be used interchangeably

[MarkyX]

I was late to the meeting and walked in to this guy practically in tears telling everyone how he was lucky to be alive with all the EXPLOSIONS going on.

See, this is a big problem. So many witnesses to these explosions, yet they are still alive. If these were bombs meant to take down a huge steel skyscraper down, we wouldn't be hearing these stories. They would've taken it to the grave with them.

"Key Master" Willie is a living contradiction to this. Watch the Landmark Tower demolition and notice the big explosion from the first floor/basement. How could Willie boy survive a bomb like that?

In a controlled demolition, any bombs going off is a signal for the building to collapse almost immediately, not half an hour later or so. In other words, the more people who tell their tales about explosions in the towers, the less likely it was bombs. If they were truly bombs, these people should be dead, and that's a cold hard fact.

[VespaGuy]

lmao...okay, you'll find the explosives that didnt go off, or remnants of explosives that did, yet the FBI had to lie and say they couldnt recover the black boxes

Wait, so the FBI is in on it? I thought one of the truther's favorite arguments was that the FBI doesn't list 9/11 on Bin Laden's most-wanted page.

Can you explain why the FBI lies about one thing, but not another?

[CHF]

In a controlled demolition, any bombs going off is a signal for the building to collapse almost immediately, not half an hour later or so. In other words, the more people who tell their tales about explosions in the towers, the less likely it was bombs. If they were truly bombs, these people should be dead, and that's a cold hard fact.

I love the twoofer idea of how demolitions are done...a bomb here, a bomb there...explosives going off for an hour or so...and then a collapse.

Funny thing is that they also cite "sudden onset of collapse" as proof that the towers and WTC7 were demolished. In that case we'd at least have a few massive explosions as the collapses start...yet we don't.

[Swing Dangler]

See above. Is it remotely plausible that the buildings could have collapsed without damaging the immediate environment?
I'm talking about the damage to the lobby and basement levels before the collapse.


Yes, it's surprising that anyone surviving a second attack on the WTC would be reminded of the first attack.
These would be survivors in the basement before the building collapsed. Their experience which had nothing to do with the plane impact reminded them of the 1993 truck bombing along with the damage to the sub-levels that they witnessed, heard, and felt.

Which include kidnapping, assasination, ambush, propaganda, intimidation - and in this case, flying two aircraft into the WTC.
Yes and bombing the basement of the WTC and numerous other types of vehicle bombs.

Like the firemen who smelt kerosene? How did people end up on fire, if it wasn't from something flammable?
Or the engineer who thought the smell was from a vehicle in the parking garage above him. Were there other items in the basement that could have ignited from the an explosive device in the basement?



If there had been explosive devices in the WTC, one would have expected the following -

A highly distinctive noise, clearly distinguishable from the explosions heard as the buildings collapsed.
A symmetrical expulsion of material at all sides of the building which preceded the collapse, rather than followed it.
Identifiable seismographic records.
People tripping over wires, etc, as the buildings were wired for demolition in the weeks before the attacks.The absence of these tell-tale signs is a clear indication that it is not only unlikely that explosives were used, it's impossible.
Are you an explosive expert or a CD expert? Also, please source the seismic record surrounding the 1993 truck bombing if there was one. Perhaps people did see these things but perished in the collapse? Then again, how many people have access to the core area where the elevator shafts are located? I have no idea personally.

[Undesired Walrus]

And if they could be SEEN on the same day as all the chaos was going on, they should have been seen the weeks and days leading up to the attacks..

Exactly. Bunkedy Debunk.

[twinstead]

Are you an explosive expert or a CD expert?

What difference would it make to you if an actual explosives expert or CD expert said the same thing? Would that make you question your belief that the collapse looked exactly like a CD?

[einsteen]

I love your logic lessons Mr Wolf. You could also summarize it as: If all cars have a steering wheel then not everything with a steering wheel is a car. But on the other hand if we now assume the explosions were caused by explosives there is no way to determine whether they were explosives without looking at the physical evidence, which is gone of course. This makes the crime perfect, I take my hat off for it.

[Pardalis]

But on the other hand if we now assume the explosions were caused by explosives there is no way to determine whether they were explosives without looking at the physical evidence, which is gone of course. This makes the crime perfect, I take my hat off for it.

There are records, like photographs and accounts.


Exploding animals

:eek:

[Apollo20]

Einsteen:

Do you not accept that possibly, just possibly, the Twin Towers could have collapsed after the aircraft impacts and fires WITHOUT the help of explosives?

[uk_dave]

I love your logic lessons Mr Wolf.

I love your logic too, mr teen.

Do you propose that for every building fire which occurs from now on, a detailed investigation into the possibility that explosives were used should be carried out simply because people heard loud bangs? Is that all it needs?

Perhaps the wtc tower investigation should have also studied the possibility that a train was dropped on top of the building, since some people reported hearing a train as it collapsed, though, just as with the mythical bombs, no one actually witnessed a train being dropped onto the building.

What do you think?

[pgwenthold]

I love your logic too, mr teen.

Do you propose that for every building fire which occurs from now on, a detailed investigation into the possibility that explosives were used should be carried out simply because people heard loud bangs? Is that all it needs?


Man, I am worried about the next time I build a campfire. The bangs and explosions aren't huge, but they happen.

Of course, after throwing the can of spray paint in, it gets worse.

[einsteen]

Einsteen:

Do you not accept that possibly, just possibly, the Twin Towers could have collapsed after the aircraft impacts and fires WITHOUT the help of explosives?

Not yet, not yet.

uk_dave, I'm no teen... 30< I'm < 40

[slingblade]

I love your logic lessons Mr Wolf. You could also summarize it as: If all cars have a steering wheel then not everything with a steering wheel is a car.

No. Your conditional, your if/then statement, makes no sense.

Logic is not an esoteric language, mastered only by hoary old men in high, fluted halls of wisdom.

Or, to put it another way: this isn't Gandalf's magic. It isn't Aragorn's kingship. It's Frodo's cabbage patch. You'd do well to get your own feet dirty there once in a while.



But on the other hand if we now assume the explosions were caused by explosives there is no way to determine whether they were explosives without looking at the physical evidence, which is gone of course. This makes the crime perfect, I take my hat off for it.

Time will cure this ill, never fear. :)

[Spins]

Also lets also not forget how einsteen, as with seemingly every other conspiracy theorist, accepts expert opinion only when it suits him and blatantly ignores it when it doesn't. For example he loves quoting DemolitionDave with regards to Brent Blanchard and his ImplosionWorld paper yet ignores his expert opinion when he states that nothing indicates to him that RDX or HMX initiated the collapse.

Einsteen quoting DemolitionDave...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2590430#post2590430 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2590430#post2590430)

My post explaining to him what Brent Blanchard is certainly qualified to comment on...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2590498#post2590498 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2590498#post2590498)

My post explaining to him what DemolitionDave said about the collapse...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2590541#post2590541 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2590541#post2590541)

So einsteen do you agree with DemolitionDave, if not why are you in a better position to comment on explosives being used to bring down the WTC?

BTW DemolitionDave was also involved in the clean up operation at GZ, strange how he never noticed any of the tell-tale signs of a controlled demolition while he was there.

[Gravy]

I'm talking about the damage to the lobby and basement levels before the collapse.Which is a large part of my Rodriguez and Schroeder papers. Many witnesses report the fuel explosions doing damage on multiple floors. Then, the south tower collapsed and devastated the north tower lobby, stairwells, and it blew through windows on upper floors. Since almost no one knew that the south tower had collapsed, they thought this damage was caused by something else.

If you put the witness accounts and the physical, audiovisual, and seismic evidence in perspective, the evidence is overwhelming that no explosives were used. If you take the evidence out of context, you can draw all sorts of erroneous conclusions. This applies to most things in life. Please learn this valuable lesson.

[einsteen]

Spins, the debunkers also do that, when BB tells 95% fell around the footprint they debunk the "completely into its footprint nonsense", but when that leads to a collapse time of 20 seconds they use prof Bazant's estimation that 80% fell into the footprint. And DemolitionDave, I think his comments were quite funny :)

[Swing Dangler]

Which is a large part of my Rodriguez and Schroeder papers. Many witnesses report the fuel explosions doing damage on multiple floors. Then, the south tower collapsed and devastated the north tower lobby, stairwells, and it blew through windows on upper floors. Since almost no one knew that the south tower had collapsed, they thought this damage was caused by something else.

If you put the witness accounts and the physical, audiovisual, and seismic evidence in perspective, the evidence is overwhelming that no explosives were used. If you take the evidence out of context, you can draw all sorts of erroneous conclusions. This applies to most things in life. Please learn this valuable lesson.

As you know, we have hashed this out before here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82498).
I've already read your paper on Rod and a partial critique can be found at the above link.

Do you have a source that states they saw jet fuel and then the jet fuel ignited to cause the damage in the North Tower lobby and basement areas or were they told later that it was the fuel that ignited? If so I would be interested in reading that.
Also can you source the seismic recording from the 1993 truck bombing?
Please also provide the calculations that NIST performed demonstrating the science behind the jet fuel explosions such as fuel/air ratio, amount of fuel, overpressure data, expendable energy, etc.
Can you please provide a graphic tracing the route of the jet fuel and through which shafts the fuel or explosion took to cause the damage in the basement? Also, please consider Arturo's account before responding.

And before you rely on erroneous conclusions, please seek the science behind such conclusions instead of relying on assumption promoted by Federal Agencies.

[T.A.M.]

oh no, not big bad federal agencies.

We only accept evidence from ignorant googleinvestigators, has been professors, and bored teenagers in these parts...

TAM;)

[Spins]

Spins, the debunkers also do that, when BB tells 95% fell around the footprint they debunk the "completely into its footprint nonsense", but when that leads to a collapse time of 20 seconds they use prof Bazant's estimation that 80% fell into the footprint. And DemolitionDave, I think his comments were quite funny :)
That's twice I've asked you if you agree with DemolitionDave or not and you haven't answered the question. Come on it's not difficult, so once again...

Do you agree with DemolitionDave's observation that nothing indicates explosives were used to initiate the collapse?

If not why are you in a better position to comment on explosives being used to bring down the WTC?

[OldSchool]

There were explosions in both basements of the world trade center before either plane hit. Although simliar to firefighters the focus is to discredit wtc maintenance workers. Give a reason these matinance has to lie. Isn't as though there is any profit sharing such details. Firefighters or Police who discredit are the only ones who may be making some kind of profit.

[Alferd_Packer]

Do you have a source that states they saw jet fuel and then the jet fuel ignited to cause the damage in the North Tower lobby and basement areas or were they told later that it was the fuel that ignited? If so I would be interested in reading that.

I have a source that smelled the jet fuel:

Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. "We smelled kerosene," Mike recalled, "I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs", referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working.
source ( http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029)

[Drudgewire]

Firefighters or Police who discredit are the only ones who may be making some kind of profit.
I'm sorry... what? :confused:

[Alferd_Packer]

There were explosions in both basements of the world trade center before either plane hit.

Please provide proof for this claim.

[Swing Dangler]

I have a source that smelled the jet fuel:


source ( http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029)

No your source smelled kerosene that he thought was from a car in the parking garage.
Jet fuel and kerosene are not the same thing as proven over and over in the thread I linked to in my response to Gravy.

oh no, not big bad federal agencies.

We only accept evidence from ignorant googleinvestigators, has been professors, and bored teenagers in these parts...

TAM
Love ya bro! Bad? Who said they were bad? Are you trying to apply moral standards to Federal Agencies?? Why I outta.....;)

[Drudgewire]

No your source smelled kerosene that he thought was from a car in the parking garage.
Jet fuel and kerosene are not the same thing as proven over and over in the thread I linked to in my response to Gravy.
However, they do both smell like gas. Bombs, certainly the kinds needed to demolish the towers, don't smell like either.

So which has the greater liklihood of being what he really smelled?

[Gravy]

As you know, we have hashed this out before here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82498).
I've already read your paper on Rod and a partial critique can be found at the above link.

Do you have a source that states they saw jet fuel and then the jet fuel ignited to cause the damage in the North Tower lobby and basement areas or were they told later that it was the fuel that ignited? If so I would be interested in reading that.Saw the jet fuel? In the fireballs? There were people who saw jet fuel in pools on the floor, who saw what is believed to be fuel, both unignited and ignited, pouring down the outside of the towers, who describe burning jet fuel dripping on them, and who inhaled jet fuel. But it's hard to identify kerosene by sight when it's in a fireball. You should have no trouble understanding that. Or is it that you don't wish to understand?

What many of those witnessed do describe is the smell of kerosene accompanying those fireballs. High explosives detonate at high velocity and do not produce kerosene fireballs that produce flash burns. Here's a video that demonstrates what high explosives are like: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2083421624495848233&hl=en

Also can you source the seismic recording from the 1993 truck bombing?Please contact Brent Blanchard of Protec or the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory if you wish to learn about how and why explosives can leave seismic signals, and what variables are involved.

Please also provide the calculations that NIST performed demonstrating the science behind the jet fuel explosions such as fuel/air ratio, amount of fuel, overpressure data, expendable energy, etc. The wheel need not be reinvented. The science has been demonstrated for many years. In my Rodriguez paper I cite some studies.

Can you please provide a graphic tracing the route of the jet fuel and through which shafts the fuel or explosion took to cause the damage in the basement? In my Rodriguez paper I provided diagrams and descriptions of the elevator shafts that run from the impact zones to the basement levels. You know this. Do not waste my time by feigning ignorance.

Also, please consider Arturo's account before responding. It is immature of you to feign ignorance.

And before you rely on erroneous conclusions, please seek the science behind such conclusions instead of relying on assumption promoted by Federal Agencies.Since you have pointed out no erroneous conclusions, no mistaken testimonies, no flawed science, and no explanation of an alternative that fits the observed effects, we're done.

[Spins]

No your source smelled kerosene that he thought was from a car in the parking garage.
Jet fuel and kerosene are not the same thing as proven over and over in the thread I linked to in my response to Gravy.
Kerosoene is obtained from the fractional distillation of petroleum and for your information its main use today is as jet fuel, in fact most modern jet fuels are kerosene based.

[Swing Dangler]

Saw the jet fuel? In the fireballs? There were people who saw jet fuel in pools on the floor, who saw what is believed to be fuel, both unignited and ignited, pouring down the outside of the towers, who describe burning jet fuel dripping on them, and who inhaled jet fuel. But it's hard to identify kerosene by sight when it's in a fireball. You should have no trouble understanding that. Or is it that you don't wish to understand?

So you are lumping the experience of those nearest impact with those furtherest away from impact to prove jet fuel caused both. Unacceptable logically and scientifically.

Please contact Brent Blanchard of Protec or the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory if you wish to learn about how and why explosives can leave seismic signals, and what variables are involved.\
Dodge noted as you can not produce the seismic signal from the 1993 bombing because there wasn't one recorded. But you and others insist that for an explosive device to be present, there must have been a seismic signal. The 1993 bombing proves otherwise.


In my Rodriguez paper I provided diagrams and descriptions of the elevator shafts that run from the impact zones to the basement levels. You know this. Do not waste my time by feigning ignorance.
It is immature of you to feign ignorance.
Dodge noted again along with the moderators request to not attack the person but the argument.
You did not trace the route of the jet fuel in your paper as NIST to my knowledge did not do so either. You know very well Arturo's account disproves the jet fuel theory explosion in the sub-levels of WTC North Tower.

You cannot prove the science behind the jet fuel conspiracy theory but only grasp at the assumption. I suspect the alternative is a bit too uncomfortable to entertain. I hope you are done because we have hashed this out already in the thread I linked to in my previous response to you. Kudos to your research but it is vain trying to support a theory NIST didn't not even attempt to prove through the scientific method.

Kerosoene is obtained from the fractional distillation of petroleum and for your information its main use today is as jet fuel, in fact most modern jet fuels are kerosene based.
Are kerosene and jet fuel the same thing? Yes or no will suffice.

[Drudgewire]

Are kerosene and jet fuel the same thing? Yes or no will suffice.
Did they find containers marked "kerosene" and take a whiff or smell something that smelled like kerosene? One or the other will suffice.

[Spins]

Are kerosene and jet fuel the same thing? Yes or no will suffice.
No but you could argue yes in the case of kersosene based jet fuel because that is the major constituant. Also I didn't say that it was I said most modern jet fuel is kerosene based. A number of additives are added to improve performance in certain areas and conditions, such as antioxidants to prevent gumming and corrosion inhibitors etc.

In the case of those eye-witness statements when they say kerosene they are referring to the smell of jet fuel. You aren't exactly going to say it smelt like Jet A1 or JP-5 are you.

[Norseman]

Are kerosene and jet fuel the same thing? Yes or no will suffice.

This should answer your question:

http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/aviationfuel/1_at_fuel_intro.shtm

http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/aviationfuel/4_at_fuel_comp.shtm#basefuel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene

Yes, jet fuel should definitely smell like kerosene.

[peteweaver]

See now you're reaching. You sound so damn stupid because if someone SEEN the devices, they were close enough to get blown the hell up by them. And if they could be SEEN on the same day as all the chaos was going on, they should have been seen the weeks and days leading up to the attacks. Your argument sucks, go back to the drawing board.

And im new to these forums so I dunno anyone here, but if your argument looks like this, just dont even reply to me. Period.

Young Union Square, when bombs go off in the sense of bombs being used to destroy buildings, explosives are used to cause structural damage which immediately disrupts load bearing capability and brings a building down rapidly.

You will not see explosives charges repeatedly going off for a prolonged period of time before a collapse.

There is also the fact that explosives are flammable. Had there been explosives planted in the towers, in each case an airliner would have ploughed right through the middle of a rigged set of explosives, spraying burning fuel over and around the detonators.

Had there been a rigged explosive sequence pre arranged, those towers would have instantly come down.

The collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2, began at the exact areas damaged by plane crashes and further weakened by fire.

I think it would be a good idea to look at information about steel and fire:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

About bending moments:
http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Beams/Shear_Bending.html

And about metal fatigue
http://materials.open.ac.uk/mem/mem_mf.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material)

Btw, my best friend's uncle was at WTC2 when it was hit, he was injured by a piece of falling debris and was nearly killed.

[Spins]

Dodge noted as you can not produce the seismic signal from the 1993 bombing because there wasn't one recorded. But you and others insist that for an explosive device to be present, there must have been a seismic signal. The 1993 bombing proves otherwise.

I missed this little nugget of woo previously, are you seriously trying to tell me that a circa 1,500-lb nitrate bomb wouldn't leave a seismic signal yet seismographs are so sensitive they routinely pick up the vibrations caused by a sonic boom from the shuttle, and I think you'll find that's a whole heap less energy than the bomb used in 1993 that was already under the ground. Seismographs even back in the 70s were capable of picking up the vibrations caused by sonic booms.

http://www.sonicbooms.org/ReferenceTechPapers/seismicboom.pdf (http://www.sonicbooms.org/ReferenceTechPapers/seismicboom.pdf)

No wait let me guess, you think the 1993 bomb was silent?

Are you also trying to tell me that the seismographs picked up the first pieces of debris hitting the ground during the collapse yet somehow failed to pick up the 1993 bomb?

BTW just because Gravy can't present you with the or a seismic analysis of the 1993 bombing doesn't mean it doesn't exist, back then it wasn't even an issue because there was ample evidence as to what happened.

[Concept]

This might prove useful to the discussion:

A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away.


Go to the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Home Page, search for "Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City", and you will find the source :)

[Gravy]

This might prove useful to the discussion:


Go to the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Home Page, search for "Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City", and you will find the source :)Welcome Concept. The reasons I encouraged Swing Dangler to contact experts are:

1) Because understanding why some things leave a seismic record at a distance and some don't is a very complex subject. For instance, you need to understand the difference in seismic effects between an explosive that's attached to a column that's rooted in bedrock and an explosive that directs its energy into floors and walls.

2) Because the 1993 data don't include local seismographs, the type that Protec had in place in the area in 2001. As Blanchard says, "Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale 'spike' or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument."

Swing Dangler apparently doesn't understand why I use the 1993 bombing as an analogy: because about 1,000 lbs TNT equivalent did not destroy a single column but did destroy a large part of several floors. Conspiracist claims that explosives were used before the planes hit, to bring the towers and building 7 down, and to throw hundreds of tons of steel great distances, are unsupportable, which you'll find out if you persist in asking Swing to justify his statements. :)

[Spins]

This might prove useful to the discussion:

Go to the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Home Page, search for "Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City", and you will find the source :)
Well all you've got to do now is prove the 1993 bomb didn't appear on any portable seismographs monitoring construction or demolition sites within the New York area to prove that the bomb was silent and didn't produce a seismic signal. Remember Swing Dangler made this claim (emphasis mine)…


Dodge noted as you can not produce the seismic signal from the 1993 bombing because there wasn't one recorded. But you and others insist that for an explosive device to be present, there must have been a seismic signal. The 1993 bombing proves otherwise.


…he should have said "there wasn't one recorded at a (Lamont-Doherty) seismograph station 16km away, but I don't know about other portable seismographs in the New York area."

[Norseman]

This Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflagration#Damaging_deflagration_events) describes the effects of rapid combustion of fuel within enclosed spaces:
When a low-speed deflagration occurs within a closed vessel or structure, pressure effects can produce damage due to expansion of gases, as a secondary effect. The heat released by the deflagration causes the combustion gases and excess air to try to expand thermally as well. The net result is that the volume of the vessel or structure needs to either expand/fail to accommodate the hot combustion gases, or build internal pressure to contain them.

Like when jet fuel rains down elevator shafts, that were ripped open by aircraft debris and fuel smashing into the core of the WTC towers, and then ignited.

[Young Union Square]

Mr. Roberts, once again, nobody cares about your damn letter. Nobody of importance is going to read it, especially John Schroeder. Face it, nobody acknowledges your "research", you're irrelevant. I know it hurts, but just stop, and try something constructive. Like coming out to Union Square this Saturday. :)

I'll be looking forward to it.

[Drudgewire]

Mr. Roberts, once again, nobody cares about your damn letter. Nobody of importance is going to read it, especially John Schroeder. Face it, nobody acknowledges your "research", you're irrelevant.

You're going to do very well here. :p

I'll be taking that million bucks now, Randi. :cool:

[twinstead]

Mr. Roberts, once again, nobody cares about your damn letter. Nobody of importance is going to read it, especially John Schroeder. Face it, nobody acknowledges your "research", you're irrelevant. I know it hurts, but just stop, and try something constructive. Like coming out to Union Square this Saturday. :)


LOL the only people who don't acknowledge his research are those who are exposed by it. Namely, the fools who make up the truth movement.

[Young Union Square]

nahh, the only people who acknowledge it are internet clowns.

[Drudgewire]

:popcorn1

[twinstead]

nahh, the only people who acknowledge it are internet clowns.

Oh my, perhaps when the truth movement goes ANYWHERE other than the internet you may have a point.

Oh, I forgot. There's those twelve man marches you have planned. Never mind.

[Young Union Square]

Oh my, perhaps when the truth movement goes ANYWHERE other than the internet you may have a point.

Oh, I forgot. There's those twelve man marches you have planned. Never mind.

If you would get off the internet for one second of your life and walk outside you will see in Cleveland, there is a We Are CHANGE group. They even flew out to NYC 3 Saturdays ago and participated in a street action with us. All over the country there are CHANGE groups. We Are CHANGE: Florida, South and Central Florida, Hawaii, Cleveland, Philly, Jersey City, Long Island, Albany, San Diego, Detroit, and a bunch of other cities. CHANGE Minnesota just confronted Al Franken, CHANGE Central Florida confronted Obama. Both videos are on wearechange.org. You clown.

[prewitt81]

Stop the personal attacks. Attack issues, not members.

[Drudgewire]

Confronted Al Franken? You mean even guys who will jump at any opportunity to call everyone in the current administration spawns of Satan has to be confronted by you guys?

Oh wait, he's in on it too. :rolleyes:

[NDBoston]

If you would get off the internet for one second of your life and walk outside you will see in Cleveland, there is a We Are CHANGE group. They even flew out to NYC 3 Saturdays ago and participated in a street action with us. All over the country there are CHANGE groups. We Are CHANGE: Florida, South and Central Florida, Hawaii, Cleveland, Philly, Jersey City, Long Island, Albany, San Diego, Detroit, and a bunch of other cities. CHANGE Minnesota just confronted Al Franken, CHANGE Central Florida confronted Obama. Both videos are on wearechange.org. You clown.

We Are Change- South Florida - 5 members

http://9-11.meetup.com/348/

Wow.

[Young Union Square]

They just started on the 26th of this month. Wow. Content removed.

Young Union Square, please heed the general warning to stop the name-calling. It does nothing to help your case.

[twinstead]

I think I will take the high road and take the admin's advice.

YUS, do you have any specific evidence to discuss? Perhaps you could start with things about the event that, in your words, defy all the laws of physics?

[Drudgewire]

This makes me wonder: Is there a Clowns for Truth group? I mean, those guys have SERIOUS lobbying power.

Plus bicycle horn > bullhorn in any street debate.

[NYCEMT86]

Maybe you should stop turning this forum into your own breeding ground for personal attacks YUS. If you want to debate us, than do so. If not than don't bother posting here.

[HyJinX]

They just started on the 26th of this month. Wow. Content removed.

I call death by mod on this one. Reported.

[NDBoston]

They just started on the 26th of this month. Wow. Content removed.

I'm a clown? Unlike yourself, I was there on 9-11 and worked at 7WTC for 3 years. I especially liked being accused of being a CIA operative by your fellow truthers down at Ground Zero when they didn't like what I had to say.

"26th of this month". It's been 6 YEARS since it happened. Your movement is a joke.

[Spins]

They just started on the 26th of this month. Wow. Content removed.
Sorry YUS I've just checked all your posts and the only ones that even remotely try to provide evidence for an inside job are this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2909892#post2909892) one (unfortunately his work has already been talked about at great lengths here before) and this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2909706#post2909706) one (which was totally ridiculous), the rest are just personal attacks and hot air.

So do you have anything at all to add to the debate?

[twinstead]

Sorry YUS I've just checked all your posts and the only one's that even remotely try to provide evidence for an inside job is this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2909892#post2909892) one (unfortunately his work has already been talked about at great lengths here before) and this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2909706#post2909706) one (which was totally ridiculous), the rest are just personal attacks and the like.

So do you have anything at all to add to the debate?

I concur. YUS, start a thread about something about 911 that defies the laws of physics. mmmkay?

Unless you prefer to bait people into flame wars. Then carry on until you get banned and then claim you were silenced because you tried to bring the 'truth' to the sheeple instead of the fact you simply broke the forum rules.

Rules which, by the way, make it so people like you can come here and debate the issues freely as long as those rules are upheld (unlike some conspiracy forums that shall remain nameless)

[Young Union Square]

Are you saying they didn't lie, but it could have been a possibility that they might have?

Read my quote again, with some intelligence this time. And not on an angle of hoping to catch me in saying something you can use to misquote me. I can say, OJ Simpson was found innocent, but its not within the realms of impossibility that he actually slashed his wife's throat. Further investigations would be needed to determine if anyone was knowlingly putting out falsehoods, or were just repeating falsified information they were given without knowing the actual truth because they trusted their sources. The only definitive statement I ever made in regards to this subject was my opinion, which is "I DONT THINK ANY FIREFIGHTER OR FDNY OFFICIAL OUTRIGHT LIED ABOUT 9/11". Like all opinions, its possible I could be wrong. But for the millionth time, if you want my personal opinion with the knowledge I possess at this point, then its no, I dont think firefighters lied. Now end this topic already.

[VespaGuy]

Read my quote again, with some intelligence this time. And not on an angle of hoping to catch me in saying something you can use to misquote me.

Ok I'll bite. Here's the original again [emphasis mine]:

It's not within the realms of impossibility, however, that they would put out false information to protect their jobs and livelihood.

So you are saying that it is a possibility that the fireman are lying to protect their jobs, correct?

[Young Union Square]

Ok I'll bite. Here's the original again [emphasis mine]:



So you are saying that it is a possibility that the fireman are lying to protect their jobs, correct?

Isn't that what I've said? There's nothing wrong with what I said. Firefighters arent gods, they're human. Alot of them are heroes. However any human being is susceptible to be influenced for nefarious purposes. Your weak attempts to exhalt firefighters beyond human status and beyond human faults arent going to work, nor will your subsequent attempts to make me look like a slanderer of firefighters or being insensitive to first responders draw me into a discussion any further about this topic. If you were investigating a crime, you investigate ALL possibilities. The truth has no sentimental value, if ITS POSSIBLE, then it should be considered, and thus investigated. This fact, once again for the BILLIONTH time now, doesnt change my OPINION AT THIS POINT with the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY that firefighters didnt outright lie. Still, since I have to keep repeating myself like you're a bunch of children, it doesnt change the fact that its not impossible. Capice??

[HyJinX]

So you think the fire fighters might be lying? Yes or no?

[Young Union Square]

So you think the fire fighters might be lying? Yes or no?

my OPINION AT THIS POINT with the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY (is) that firefighters didnt outright lie.

So you can shut up now about it.

[HyJinX]

So...they just kinda lied then. Got it.

[VespaGuy]

Isn't that what I've said? There's nothing wrong with what I said. Firefighters arent gods, they're human. Alot of them are heroes. However any human being is susceptible to be influenced for nefarious purposes. Your weak attempts to exhalt firefighters beyond human status and beyond human faults arent going to work, nor will your subsequent attempts to make me look like a slanderer of firefighters or being insensitive to first responders draw me into a discussion any further about this topic. If you were investigating a crime, you investigate ALL possibilities. The truth has no sentimental value, if ITS POSSIBLE, then it should be considered, and thus investigated. This fact, once again for the BILLIONTH time now, doesnt change my OPINION AT THIS POINT with the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY that firefighters didnt outright lie. Still, since I have to keep repeating myself like you're a bunch of children, it doesnt change the fact that its not impossible. Capice??

Capice. You've taken the "anything's possible" approach to problem solving.

Now take the next step, in your opinion, is it probable that the firefighters are lying to protect their jobs?

[Young Union Square]

Capice. You've taken the "anything's possible" approach to problem solving.

Now take the next step, in your opinion, is it probable that the firefighters are lying to protect their jobs?

I've already said im done with this topic. Regardless of what people are going to believe, its their beliefs. If anybody from any Truth organization believes firefighters lied, thats their personal beliefs. Your useless and downright cheap tactics of trying to play the sentimental card by making someone feel bad about their beliefs isnt going to accomplish anything. If anything, its going to PERPETUATE that belief because it doesnt even matter if the FDNY lied or not, because the Truth Movement's overall agenda is to get a new independent investigation. An independent investigation will discover whether ANYONE lied, whether it was the FDNY, NYPD, President Bush, the Pope, your mother, anyone that had anything to do with 9/11...So the simple fact that you keep pressing the issue of a small minority of truthers who may or may not believe firefighters lied, claims no one has still yet to back up with video evidence or audio recordings, means you're trying your best to divert attention away from the overall goal of the Movement, which is to uncover the biggest lie of them all. Lies by firefighters if they were made or not are inconsequential when looking at the big picture, and I think you should stop being tools of the FOX propaganda machine and stop repeating the same old rhetoric of making people feel guilty for asking questions. Cuz thats all anyone is doing, and if people are making ACCUSATIONS its probably only because their questions havent been answered. In that case, they would be ASSUMPTIONS, which is still not anything to stand by, but its only human nature to make assumptions when you feel you've been betrayed by your own government. So, in conclusion, your nonsense doesnt work on me. Rule 12 violation removed

[VespaGuy]

I've already said im done with this topic. Regardless of what people are going to believe, its their beliefs. If anybody from any Truth organization believes firefighters lied, thats their personal beliefs. Your useless and downright cheap tactics of trying to play the sentimental card by making someone feel bad about their beliefs isnt going to accomplish anything. If anything, its going to PERPETUATE that belief because it doesnt even matter if the FDNY lied or not, because the Truth Movement's overall agenda is to get a new independent investigation. An independent investigation will discover whether ANYONE lied, whether it was the FDNY, NYPD, President Bush, the Pope, your mother, anyone that had anything to do with 9/11...So the simple fact that you keep pressing the issue of a small minority of truthers who may or may not believe firefighters lied, claims no one has still yet to back up with video evidence or audio recordings, means you're trying your best to divert attention away from the overall goal of the Movement, which is to uncover the biggest lie of them all. Lies by firefighters if they were made or not are inconsequential when looking at the big picture, and I think you should stop being tools of the FOX propaganda machine and stop repeating the same old rhetoric of making people feel guilty for asking questions. Cuz thats all anyone is doing, and if people are making ACCUSATIONS its probably only because their questions havent been answered. In that case, they would be ASSUMPTIONS, which is still not anything to stand by, but its only human nature to make assumptions when you feel you've been betrayed by your own government. So, in conclusion, your nonsense doesnt work on me. Enjoy the rest of your evening, you scum

That's a heckuva long non-answer. I'm not talking about other truthers. I'm asking you.

Simple question. Do you think that it's probable that the firefighters are lying? A yes or no is fine.

[Par]

Nice glasses.


Unfathomable. Heheh.

[beachnut]

I'm a clown? Unlike yourself, I was there on 9-11 and worked at 7WTC for 3 years. I especially liked being accused of being a CIA operative by your fellow truthers down at Ground Zero when they didn't like what I had to say.

"26th of this month". It's been 6 YEARS since it happened. Your movement is a joke.
I second that motion.

[chillzero]

Challenges to moderation action, or how to conduct yourself in this forum should be discussed in Forum Mgt, where I have split the derail from this thread.

[Swing Dangler]

Welcome Concept. The reasons I encouraged Swing Dangler to contact experts are:

1) Because understanding why some things leave a seismic record at a distance and some don't is a very complex subject. For instance, you need to understand the difference in seismic effects between an explosive that's attached to a column that's rooted in bedrock and an explosive that directs its energy into floors and walls.

2) Because the 1993 data don't include local seismographs, the type that Protec had in place in the area in 2001. As Blanchard says, "Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale 'spike' or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument."

Swing Dangler apparently doesn't understand why I use the 1993 bombing as an analogy: because about 1,000 lbs TNT equivalent did not destroy a single column but did destroy a large part of several floors. Conspiracist claims that explosives were used before the planes hit, to bring the towers and building 7 down, and to throw hundreds of tons of steel great distances, are unsupportable, which you'll find out if you persist in asking Swing to justify his statements. :)

Come on now Gravy, there is no need to include WTC 7 at this point. False analogy, I believe.
And what type of how much of the explosives might be used to cut a column? I have no idea. I've read tons of it and I've read from an expert it wouldn't take much at all. I'm not talking about thermite or thermate either.
The problem with using the seismic excuse is that no one has any idea how the ed's would have been coupled to the structure or arranged to assist in the destruction. No one knows what size or type of device may have been used. Therefore to use the "no seismic spike" is indeed erroneous as an excuse.

Here is the problem debunks use: they narrow there thinking to one particular type of explosive to determine that no explosive device could be used because they didn't leave a seismic spike or didn't have this particular type of characteristic associated with it, or the logistics could not have been possible without detection, etc. And their final fallacy, the explosions could be anything...except a device.
I'm not an expert, but I would imagine there are 100's maybe even 1000's of types of explosive devices that could be used to cut columns.
As you know I'm not discussing the time frame of the detonations of the explosive devices, simply that they did exist.

Did they find containers marked "kerosene" and take a whiff or smell something that smelled like kerosene? One or the other will suffice.
Dodge noted.

When a low-speed deflagration occurs within a closed vessel or structure, pressure effects can produce damage due to expansion of gases, as a secondary effect. The heat released by the deflagration causes the combustion gases and excess air to try to expand thermally as well. The net result is that the volume of the vessel or structure needs to either expand/fail to accommodate the hot combustion gases, or build internal pressure to contain them.
Like when jet fuel rains down elevator shafts, that were ripped open by aircraft debris and fuel smashing into the core of the WTC towers, and then ignited.
I do not dispute this fact at impact level.
Again, support this event in the towers with hard data including the overpressure numbers, fuel/oxygen ratio, etc, etc in relation to the basement/lobby damage. Again, how did the elevator shafts themselves survive the overpressure but parts of the sub-level, including a parking garage and a Platform did not?
Also, I'm still waiting for the route the fuel/explosion took to cause the damage in the sub-structure. No one, not even NIST, has attempted to show this route simply because it doesn't exist...it was an assumption. In order for this to occur, please explain Mr. Arturo's account of survival within the context of the elevator shaft he was in.

[twinstead]

As you know I'm not discussing the time frame of the detonations of the explosive devices, simply that they did exist.

It also appears to me that you don't care if no evidence exists for CD, or that you don't really know what kind would be used, because you KNOW they existed; if there's no evidence it just means They used a type of explosive that doesn't leave any evidence.

Perhaps I misunderstood.

[funk de fino]

A great example of an explosion not caused by bombs or HE is the Stockline Plastics factory in Glasgow

A gas leak occured which ignited and cause a huge explosion which destroyed the factory and killed several employees

If you google it, every single page comes up with "Explosion" or "blast" in the title yet no explosives were used

if you look at the pictures the place is destroyed

[Swing Dangler]

It also appears to me that you don't care if no evidence exists for CD, or that you don't really know what kind would be used, because you KNOW they existed; if there's no evidence it just means They used a type of explosive that doesn't leave any evidence.

Perhaps I misunderstood.

One, I qualified it with the empirical method.
Second, to my knowledge no one searched or tested for evidence.
Three, since no one scientifically disproved the use of ED's, the theory remains a valid theory open to discussion, consideration, and evaluation.

[Gravy]

Come on now Gravy, there is no need to include WTC 7 at this point. False analogy, I believe. You believe incorrectly. The same seismometers were in place when the towers were hit and fell.

And what type of how much of the explosives might be used to cut a column? I have no idea. I've read tons of it and I've read from an expert it wouldn't take much at all. I'm not talking about thermite or thermate either.What you need to do is explain what type of high explosives could cause all the effects seen, heard, and otherwise sensed when the fireballs went through the towers, which is your main claim. I have repeatedly asked you to do this. You have repeatedly failed.

The problem with using the seismic excuse is that no one has any idea how the ed's would have been coupled to the structure or arranged to assist in the destruction. No one knows what size or type of device may have been used. Therefore to use the "no seismic spike" is indeed erroneous as an excuse. I suggest, for the second time, that you take the subject up with Brent Blanchard.

Here is the problem debunks use: they narrow there thinking to one particular type of explosive to determine that no explosive device could be used because they didn't leave a seismic spike or didn't have this particular type of characteristic associated with it, or the logistics could not have been possible without detection, etc. And their final fallacy, the explosions could be anything...except a device.

I'm not an expert, but I would imagine there are 100's maybe even 1000's of types of explosive devices that could be used to cut columns.
As you know I'm not discussing the time frame of the detonations of the explosive devices, simply that they did exist.

Dodge noted. See my first response. Your claim, your burden of proof.

I do not dispute this fact at impact level.
Again, support this event in the towers with hard data including the overpressure numbers, fuel/oxygen ratio, etc, etc in relation to the basement/lobby damage. Again, how did the elevator shafts themselves survive the overpressure but parts of the sub-level, including a parking garage and a Platform did not?

Also, I'm still waiting for the route the fuel/explosion took to cause the damage in the sub-structure. No one, not even NIST, has attempted to show this route simply because it doesn't exist...it was an assumption. In order for this to occur, please explain Mr. Arturo's account of survival within the context of the elevator shaft he was in.I suggest that you study the issue to your brain's content. I am content that jet fuel caused the fireballs, injuries, and building damage after the planes hit, because that's what all the evidence says. When you develop a theory that is backed by more evidence, I'll be glad to read it. As is, you've just been repeating yourself for months. You haven't progressed an inch. It's your subject of interest. So study it. This is my last communication with you on this subject until you develop that new theory.

[twinstead]

Three, since no one scientifically disproved the use of ED's, the theory remains a valid theory open to discussion, consideration, and evaluation.

Well. If no one scientifically disproves the use of green alien unicorns, does the theory remain a valid theory open to discussion?

I always thought claims like yours are the ones that require the proof.

[uk_dave]

And what type of how much of the explosives might be used to cut a column? I have no idea. I've read tons of it and I've read from an expert it wouldn't take much at all.

And here is where 'truthers' get dangerously close to the truth. For their CT to really work, they need tons of explosives, on every column, because the alternative is...... that it didn't require very much damage to cause the structural failure...and.... if it didn't require...very much damage..... to the buildings.... to cause structural failure....... then......well....... then perhaps the aircraft and fires could have taken down the towers and the impact from the collapsing tower one plus fires could have taken down wtc7.

Shhhhhhh don't tell anyone! Stick with the tons of explosives. Then you only have to explain how, when, where and why. Easy!

[Spins]

Again, support this event in the towers with hard data including the overpressure numbers, fuel/oxygen ratio, etc, etc in relation to the basement/lobby damage. Again, how did the elevator shafts themselves survive the overpressure but parts of the sub-level, including a parking garage and a Platform did not?...and because nobody has provided you with "hard data" on these events that means ... ?

[dirtywick]

And what type of how much of the explosives might be used to cut a column? I have no idea. I've read tons of it and I've read from an expert it wouldn't take much at all. I'm not talking about thermite or thermate either.
The problem with using the seismic excuse is that no one has any idea how the ed's would have been coupled to the structure or arranged to assist in the destruction. No one knows what size or type of device may have been used. Therefore to use the "no seismic spike" is indeed erroneous as an excuse.

I don't know that I'd call it erroneous. I'd definately consider it superflouous and unnecessary. The biggest problem any CD theory faces is that the conditions in any of the towers are much too volatile for any explosives to have existed and operated in. So I don't think your problem that no one knows anything about it (it didn't happen is why no one knows, by the way) is a problem at all, high temperatures and extreme impacts rule out virtually all explosives from being even feasible. Most secondary explosives run risks of being ignited by dropping them a few feet on the ground or bumping them the wrong way, and can be melted or even ignited in a household oven. Primary explosves are much more volitile in all but the most controlled circumstances, and even then they are high risks to handle. Thermite and thermate are the most common because it's nearly impossible to ignite with all but the highest temperatures, and safe from detonation from shock (like a plane impact). Of course, the detonators are a completely different story, which is why thermite is also stupid.

[Swing Dangler]

You believe incorrectly. The same seismometers were in place when the towers were hit and fell.
Different buildings, different structures, different floor plans, different damage two with plane impacts, one without impact. False analogy, plain and simple.
I'm discussing the WTC: North Tower, not 7,6,5, or 2 at this point.

I suggest, for the second time, that you take the subject up with Brent Blanchard.
See my first response. Your claim, your burden of proof.
Wrong. Your claim is any explosive device used in the destruction of the North Tower would register a seismic impact. There was no seismic recording therefore, no explosive device on 9/11. I countered with the 1993 attack that did far greater damage it appears than the 9/11 bombing of the basement and neither had a seismic impact. The same fallacy applies to Brent's assumption.
.
The claim is jet fuel/fireball dispersed through the elevator shafts and caused the destruction throughout the tower and into the sub-basement...in areas farthest away from impact. We don't see multiple floors destroyed by the fuel explosion do we? Sure, hanging floors and floors damaged by the impact itself.
How did Mr. Stanley if I recall correctly survive the fuel explosion at the impact site itself?

How can anyone reason that the areas farthest away from impact receive more damage than those areas nearest impact?

The burden of proof is upon supporters of the official story to prove this. NIST did not prove this, they assumed it without any scientific calculations and data. Any retort by you must prove this theory correct without assumptions. Please take into consideration those people in the elevator who survived this assumed fireball.

I am content that jet fuel caused the fireballs, injuries, and building damage after the planes hit, because that's what all the evidence says.
The evidence does not state that. That is your interpretation of the evidence without scientific proof. Proof that should show the route of the fireball, the elevator shaft or shafts it traveled along with the explanation of how people in the elevator shaft survived when a parking garage, equipment, PATH Plaza did not. Not only that, the OS should provide hard scientific data to prove this theory.
When you develop a theory that is backed by more evidence, I'll be glad to read it. As is, you've just been repeating yourself for months. You haven't progressed an inch. It's your subject of interest. So study it. This is my last communication with you on this subject until you develop that new theory.
Mark, as I said before, I appreciate your research. And as I asked in our months old thread to point out errors in what I posted. You did not do that. However, I did read your paper on Willie R and if you recall I pointed out errors.
From what I remember, you asked what I would be doing with this theory. From my understanding, you may not accept the theory, but it was not proven wrong. I have asked repeatedly for someone to trace the route of the jet fuel or fireball from impact to the sub-levels of WTC: North Tower. The only response I get is a no-response, false analogies, and redirects. I thought for sure you of all people would accept this task but alas, you have not. You have relied on NIST and even they have not done this. Nor have they provided any type of hard science behind their fireball theory. The first error I noted in their work was the self-contained oxygen level of 4 floors was the only available oxygen for the initial blast which in turn was used to calculate the remaining fuel levels. This of course leaves out the gaping hole in the side as well as the holes from broken windows. This NIST assumption is key to their figures of remaining jet fuel and its dispersion along with the assumption that a fireball did the damage throughout the tower and into the sub-basement.
Gravy, I'm not asking to communicate with me on this. I did that months ago. You can support your position and I will support mine.
An explosive device theory has far more eyewitness support than a jet fuel fireball theory causing the damage.

Anyway back to those seismic waves....
Is it possible to CD a building and have little to no seismic spikes? Absolutely as this quote from CD Inc. shows:
CDI’s design called for the 17 structures to fail asymmetrically to one another, across the site, to help dampen vibration from the fall of debris. This, coupled with CDI’s carefully timed detonation sequence, would allow the vibration “waves” created by the fall of the individual structures to “cancel one another out” to the extent possible. CDI’s design proved successful, and no damage was caused as a result of CDI’s operations. During the 19 second implosion sequence, the highest seismic readings recorded (less than 100’ away at adjacent properties to remain) were less than ½” per second peak particle velocity.Read more here (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7)

Am I saying CDI did it? Of course not. Am I using this as example to refute that the claim of little to no seismic spike equals no CD? Absolutely.

This next story of course might be called a false analogy per se, but it is relevant to the topic. Jet fuel, pipelines, explosions, etc.

Alleged plot's damage would have been limited
Jet fuel doesn't explode easily, experts say, and fire would not have spread along airport pipelines.
By Megan Garvey, Times Staff Writer
June 3, 2007

The premise is right out of a disaster movie: Ignite the massive fuel tanks required to keep an international airport up and running each day, stand back, and watch a chain reaction of explosions throughout the labyrinth of pipelines running underneath the tarmac.

But aviation experts cautioned Saturday that the alleged plot targeting John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York would have faced many hurdles, not least of which is the fact that jet fuel does not easily explode.

"The level of catastrophe that may be created is much more limited than most people would expect," said Rafi Ron, former head of security at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport. "The fuel that we are talking about is mostly jet fuel, which, unlike the gasoline most people put into their cars, is not that susceptible to explosion."

That difficulty apparently concerned one of the alleged plotters — an engineer who, federal authorities said in their complaint, explained to his associates that the tanks at JFK would probably require two explosions to provide enough oxygen to ignite the fuel.

But even then, aviation security experts said, fire would not have spread through the pressurized pipelines that bring fuel out to airplanes parked at gates.

"The probability that an explosion would travel through the pipeline and destroy targets along the tarmac is almost nil," said Ron, now president of New Age Security Solutions in Rockville, Md. "The exception would be pipelines that are not in use and contain vapor."



Well. If no one scientifically disproves the use of green alien unicorns, does the theory remain a valid theory open to discussion?
I always thought claims like yours are the ones that require the proof.
The proof is in the pudding and no one tested the pudding. The fireball claim also requires proof but we don't see any of that now do we. Proof in the form of calculations, overpressure numbers, fuel/oxygen ratio, etc. Speaking of making a claim and not backing it up, isn't that the whole premise with NIST's fireball theory?
Second, I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion about a viable theory using the empirical method based upon past terrorists attacks, eyewitness accounts, descriptions of physical damage to the environment as well as to survivors in the sub-level of WTC: North Tower, and finally NIST's assumptions.
If you want to discuss green alien unicorns I suggest visiting the SLC blog or the LC forums. I appreciate you mudding the waters with silliness.

[Norseman]

......................
But even then, aviation security experts said, fire would not have spread through the pressurized pipelines that bring fuel out to airplanes parked at gates.

"The probability that an explosion would travel through the pipeline and destroy targets along the tarmac is almost nil," said Ron, now president of New Age Security Solutions in Rockville, Md. "The exception would be pipelines that are not in use and contain vapor."


My bolding.

Just to make it clear. The pressurized pipelines were of course completely filled with fuel, no air. Therefore no oxygen to sustain a fire or explosion in the pressurized pipeline. A pipeline not in use containing a mix of fuel vapor and air would be a different story, a story quiet similar to an elevator shaft with jet fuel raining down inside it mixing with a lot of air.

You actually found a news story that supports the fireballs in the elevator shafts.

[Gravy]

Mark, as I said before, I appreciate your research. And as I asked in our months old thread to point out errors in what I posted. You did not do that. However, I did read your paper on Willie R and if you recall I pointed out errors.Aaaaand another repetitive liar gets put on ignore.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2630550&postcount=68
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2630668&postcount=81
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2630749&postcount=95
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2630881&postcount=107
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2630910&postcount=108
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2632158&postcount=119
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2633578&postcount=138
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2634640&postcount=139
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2636316&postcount=151
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2637783&postcount=191
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2641173&postcount=251
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2641219&postcount=253
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2642071&postcount=265
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2645613&postcount=282
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2646191&postcount=290
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2651273&postcount=297
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2655134&postcount=332
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2655439&postcount=338
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2655450&postcount=339
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2658093&postcount=353
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2659332&postcount=359

[Mince]

If you would get off the internet for one second of your life and walk outside you will see in Cleveland, there is a We Are CHANGE group. They even flew out to NYC 3 Saturdays ago and participated in a street action with us. All over the country there are CHANGE groups. We Are CHANGE: Florida, South and Central Florida, Hawaii, Cleveland, Philly, Jersey City, Long Island, Albany, San Diego, Detroit, and a bunch of other cities. CHANGE Minnesota just confronted Al Franken, CHANGE Central Florida confronted Obama. Both videos are on wearechange.org. You clown.


There were (and still are) KKK and other neo-Nazi sects all over America also. That doesn't give them legitimacy; and it does not indicate the majority of Americans support them. Clearly they do not.


ETA: Oops. Just noticed the ban.

[Corsair 115]

Well. If no one scientifically disproves the use of green alien unicorns, does the theory remain a valid theory open to discussion?I always prefer the alternative theory that, somewhere in the asteroid belt, there is a particularly delicious piece of chocolate cake floating around. Can anyone disprove it?

[Swing Dangler]

Gravy, you put me on ignore? Excellent. That again provides remarkable empirical proof of how when confronted with the science needed to explain an event or the facts needed for an event to occur are not present. Tis better to ignore than to confront.

Notice the following issues that were ignored or detracted from:

1. The route the fireball or fuel took to cause the basement damage yet still explain how Arturo is still alive in the North Tower.
2. The lack of an explanation of how a person can survive at the floors of impact and fuel explosion (Stanley), yet a similar explosion destroys or damages areas farthers away from impact and in the NT the parking garage, Path plaza, machine shop, people, elevators, etc.
3. Religious faith in NIST's assumptions without scientific support.
4. An explanation how the areas farthest away from impact and explosion receive more damage than those areas nearest impact.
5. An explanation showing that just because a seismic signal isn't present doesn't mean explosive devices were not used.
6. The elevator shafts survived the overpressure from the blast but levels in the sub-basement did not

Mark, you didn't point out errors in my past post, you simply tried to explain away my points, not point out errors. And if you re-read the thread, I countered everything you tried to point out as an error. Thank you for ignoring me though, I believe it proves my point that an explosive device is more viable and probable theory than a fireball. But I suspect you will ignore the above points and cling to the fireball theory.


Norsemen excellent point...but you left this part out...
The level of catastrophe that may be created is much more limited than most people would expect," said Rafi Ron, former head of security at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport. "The fuel that we are talking about is mostly jet fuel, which, unlike the gasoline most people put into their cars, is not that susceptible to explosion."
Also, I posted this information to lead you to this point: the OS states that fuel cascaded down the shafts, not vapor. Not only that, the above points, especially 2,3, and 6 have not or in my opinion can not be proven by a fireball itself but can certainly be explained by explosive devices. Lets not forget that I pointed out the entire article is an example of a false analogy which you would be in error to compare the pipeline with an elevator shaft as you did. So the article itself proves nothing in comparison to the WTC.

[Spins]

Gravy, you put me on ignore? Excellent. That again provides remarkable empirical proof of how when confronted with the science needed to explain an event or the facts needed for an event to occur are not present. Tis better to ignore than to confront.
No it's not, you are demanding evidence that you know he can't provide (for example the Lamont Doherty seismic analysis of the 1993 bombing), that doesn't prove anything.

You've not used science to back up anything you've said on this thread, all you do is just demand it and if the person you are debating can't provide it (for whatever reason) you think that's proof of something, ridiculous.

You keep demanding calculations to events we know happened through eye-witness testimony, why don't you do the calculations yourself to disprove what happened?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I always prefer the alternative theory that, somewhere in the asteroid belt, there is a particularly delicious piece of chocolate cake floating around. Can anyone disprove it?

I have proof that the CIA launched that piece of cake. I researched it from 1980's declassified CIA docs while I was in school i the 90s... But then the CIA stole my research paper and all copies. /OldSchool

[Mercutio]

Also, I posted this information to lead you to this point: the OS states that fuel cascaded down the shafts, not vapor. Not only that, the above points, especially 2,3, and 6 have not or in my opinion can not be proven by a fireball itself but can certainly be explained by explosive devices. Lets not forget that I pointed out the entire article is an example of a false analogy which you would be in error to compare the pipeline with an elevator shaft as you did. So the article itself proves nothing in comparison to the WTC.

So...fuel cascading hundreds of feet down a shaft, splashing off walls, hitting the bottom...will somehow not vaporize? (I don't mean completely, I mean enough to saturate the air with fumes.) Basically, you are speaking of the ideal conditions for jerry-rigging a fuel-air bomb.

Do you really think this? Stand on a ladder and pour a couple of gallons of kerosene from that height onto the pavement near a lit candle. If you are right, you are in no danger at all.

[Spins]

Anyway back to those seismic waves....
Is it possible to CD a building and have little to no seismic spikes? Absolutely as this quote from CD Inc. shows:

Am I saying CDI did it? Of course not. Am I using this as example to refute that the claim of little to no seismic spike equals no CD? Absolutely.

What an earth has that got to do with what happened on 9/11?

In the text you quoted they said that they brought down the structures asymmetrically to one another so that the vibration waves cancelled each other out, did this happen on 9/11, no. The vibrations (on 9/11) from each collapse were recorded on seismographs 100s of miles away; the vibrations from the plane impacts were also recorded.

They even mention in the text you quoted that the vibrations were recorded on the seismographs but the spikes were less than what would have been expected if they had not brought the structures down as they did.

To say that bombs going off in the WTC on 9/11 (you claim there should have been tons of explosive) wouldn't have shown up on seismographs in the New York area is ridiculous. In fact you wouldn't have needed seismographs you'd have bloomin' heard it...

vzZBXuyIE28
Swing did the collapse start at the impact zone? If yes was it a natural collapse (damage and fire) or initiated by explosives?

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE=Spins;2918137][COLOR=black]What an earth has that got to do with what happened on 9/11?

In the text you quoted they said that they brought down the structures asymmetrically to one another so that the vibration waves cancelled each other out, did this happen on 9/11, no. The vibrations (on 9/11) from each collapse were recorded on seismographs 100s of miles away; the vibrations from the plane impacts were also recorded.

They even mention in the text you quoted that the vibrations were recorded on the seismographs but the spikes were less than what would have been expected if they had not brought the structures down as they did.

To say that bombs going off in the WTC on 9/11 (you claim there should have been tons of explosive) wouldn't have shown up on seismographs in the New York area is ridiculous. In fact you wouldn't have needed seismographs you'd have bloomin' heard it...


ROFLMAO...apparently you failed to read my post. The lack of seismic waves is not proof that explosive devices were not used. That is the point. I stated I've read claims tons of explosives should have been used and I've read expert statements that it would take very few explosives. If you noticed, the seismic spikes were 100feet away from a traditional CD than and were very very small. Again, the point being the lack of seismic waves from an explosive device is not proof that explosive devices were not used.

In fact you wouldn't have needed seismographs you'd have bloomin' heard it...
Well I didn't hear it, but you may want to revisit the statements and accounts of people who were there on that day.

[Spins]

ROFLMAO...apparently you failed to read my post. The lack of seismic waves is not proof that explosive devices were not used. That is the point.
I fully understand what you are trying to say, the example you quoted had nothing to do with it, CDI said they managed to reduce the seismic waves produced by the collapse by bringing down the structures asymmetrically. They didn't even mention anything about explosives.

You said "Is it possible to CD a building and have little to no seismic spikes?", for a start this is a ridiculous thing to say because you don't even know how bad the vibrations were. All you know is that according to CDI they were less than what would have been expected if they had brought the buildings down in a conventional manner. The vibrations were still picked up.

Anyways are you going to answer my question, did the collapse start at the impact zone? If so in your opinion what caused the initial collapse, was it a natural event, or initiated by explosives?

[Spins]

If you noticed, the seismic spikes were 100feet away from a traditional CD than and were very very small.
How do you know? Neither you nor I are experts in seismic analysis so how can you make such a claim from the text you quoted?

CDI didn't even mention anything about the seismic analysis picking up the vibrations from the explosives; they talked about how they brought the buildings down asymmetrically so the vibrations from the collapsing structures would cancel each other out. They then make the claim that the vibrations were less than what would have been expected if the demolition was conducted in a conventional manner.

Brent Blanchard, who is an expert in seismic analysis, specifically states that he (Protec) had several portable seismographs in Manhattan and Brooklyn, monitoring construction sites for liability purposes, on 9/11. In no instance were any sudden independent vibration spikes recorded that would indicate explosives were used to initiate the collapse. In fact all the seismic recordings of the collapse are of a single waveform that gradually ascends then descends during the final moments of the collapse.

He also specifically states that the explosives would have been detected on one of the seismographs in the area that were sensitive enough to record structural collapses and vibrations.

As Gravy mentioned if you have any problems with this conclusion take it up with Brent Blanchard, he's the expert and made the claim.

[Spins]

Well I didn't hear it, but you may want to revisit the statements and accounts of people who were there on that day.
Really?

I always thought it was strange how the video shot by Bob and Bri picked up the sirens of the emergency responders very clearly yet you couldn't hear any explosives going off either before or during the collapse of the North Tower. Can you explain this?

[Swing Dangler]

I fully understand what you are trying to say, the example you quoted had nothing to do with it, CDI said they managed to reduce the seismic waves produced by the collapse by bringing down the structures asymmetrically. They didn't even mention anything about explosives.

You said "Is it possible to CD a building and have little to no seismic spikes?", for a start this is a ridiculous thing to say because you don't even know how bad the vibrations were. All you know is that according to CDI they were less than what would have been expected if they had brought the buildings down in a conventional manner. The vibrations were still picked up.

Anyways are you going to answer my question, did the collapse start at the impact zone? If so in your opinion what caused the initial collapse, was it a natural event, or initiated by explosives?

If you get what I'm saying there is no need to try to explain it away.
As far as where the collapse initiated, I believe in Tower 1 it began with the central core as the antennae began to move downwards before the roof line at a fraction of a second before other parts of the structure failed.
If it started as a natural occurrence with pure vertical movement (I'm not an expert ;) )I think Nist would have reported bowing on all four sides instead of only on the South face, storeys 94 - 100. For WTC2 bowing only on the East face, storeys 77 - 83. Therefore, I think it was initiated by explosive devices.

[Swing Dangler]

[COLOR=black]How do you know? Neither you nor I are experts in seismic analysis so how can you make such a claim from the text you quoted?

[QUOTE]CDI didn't even mention anything about the seismic analysis picking up the vibrations from the explosives; they talked about how they brought the buildings down asymmetrically so the vibrations from the collapsing structures would cancel each other out. They then make the claim that the vibrations were less than what would have been expected if the demolition was conducted in a conventional manner.
Wrong. Read the quote below that I posted:
During the 19 second implosion sequence, the highest seismic readings recorded (less than 100’ away at adjacent properties to remain) were less than ½” per second peak particle velocity-CDI
You can research that issue to determine if those are small peaks or large peaks.

Brent Blanchard, who is an expert in seismic analysis, specifically states that he (Protec) had several portable seismographs in Manhattan and Brooklyn, monitoring construction sites for liability purposes, on 9/11. In no instance were any sudden independent vibration spikes recorded that would indicate explosives were used to initiate the collapse. In fact all the seismic recordings of the collapse are of a single waveform that gradually ascends then descends during the final moments of the collapse.

And the whole point of the CDI article is to prove that just because seismic spikes are recorded doesn't mean explosives weren't used.
He also specifically states that the explosives would have been detected on one of the seismographs in the area that were sensitive enough to record structural collapses and vibrations.
See the 1993 seismic spikes for my response to this.

Why are you going around in circles when I've already used CDI and the 1993 attack to show Blanchard isn't 100% correct in his analysis of seismic spikes and explosives?

Can you source the video that your referenced, please?

[DavidJames]

I think Nist would have reported bowing on all four sides instead of only on the South face, storeys 94 - 100. For WTC2 bowing only on the East face, storeys 77 - 83. Therefore, I think it was initiated by explosive devices.Please share your expertise, education or practical experience, which makes you believe what you “think” would have any basis in reality.

[Spins]

Can you source the video that your referenced, please?
-5370762387415552903
...or...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903

...near the beginning you can clearly hear the sirens yet at about 19:30 when the North Tower collapses you can't hear any evidence of explosives, they even have the window wide open.

Can you explain this please?

[Swing Dangler]

-5370762387415552903
...or...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903

...near the beginning you can clearly hear the sirens yet at about 19:30 when the North Tower collapses you can't hear any evidence of explosives, they even have the window wide open.

Can you explain this please?
You realize what she says at the opening of the video? "I just heard a loud boom." But no plane on the video and the video is already filming the tower after impact...what do you suppose that loud boom was after the plane already and an already smoking tower?
Thanks, I forgot about this video and her comment. It also sounds like her windows are closed in the beginning.
One I'm unaware of the distances from the tower.
Two has the video been independently verified by experts as well as the make and model of the camera, tape, etc?
Three are there other sounds that might be masking the sound correct sirens, voices in the background etc?
At 11:43 it appears to have a break in the video as the scene shifts and then shows a fireball heading up. What might explain that break in the video tape? Also you realize she describes the next impact of a plane as a military plane? Interesting.

You will also notice a large amount of white smoke coming from the base of the tower complex which leads to a fade in shot of the collapsing tower. This obviously shows a non-continuous filming of an event. Then of course we have another break in the film and distorted audio so much so that it is hard to make out the collapse itself.
The smoke at the base of the tower prior to impact of course would time up with some of the accounts of the heroes referenced below...
Finally yet another break in the audio and the film when the next tower collapses.
I don't think this is an explanation for a non-explosive device scenario. But I appreciate the film I had forgotten about that.

Can you explain the sound heard by these heroes as referenced or are they lying? Readhere (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html)

[Spins]

Why are you going around in circles when I've already used CDI and the 1993 attack to show Blanchard isn't 100% correct in his analysis of seismic spikes and explosives?
He's the expert not you, why would he claim such a thing, is he just wrong or is he lying for some reason?

As far as I'm concerned if explosives were used to initiate the collapse and then also destroy the building floor by floor (because remember you guys claim the building shouldn't have collapsed completely and also the reason the building collapsed so quickly) it would have shown up on the seismographs. Nothing you have posted here has proven otherwise.

[Spins]

One I'm unaware of the distances from the tower.
They are 500 yards away from the North Tower, it even says that at the beginning of the video.

[Disbelief]

Can you explain the sound heard by these heroes as referenced here (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html)

So, if they weren't heroes, then their descriptions would be meaningless?

Anyway, I believe that what they possibly heard has been explained ad nauseum on this forum. Once again, just because they heard an excplosion does not mean it was a bomb or explosive device. One example would be steam and water pipes would cause explosions (proven by the one that blew up in NYC recently).

[Spins]

Two has the video been independently verified by experts as well as the make and model of the camera, tape, etc?
I don't know, who cares it's real.

Has Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, and 9/11 Eyewitness been independently verified by experts?

Why all the sudden rigorous interest in scientific analysis of the footage, because it doesn't contain any audible evidence explosives were used?

[DavidJames]

Why all the sudden rigorous interest in scientific analysis of the footage, because it doesn't contain any audible evidence explosives were used?Indeed. Yet, he's perfectly fine reaching conclusions simply because of what he "thinks" should happen.

I note he (so far) has ignored my question regarding his "thinking"
I think Nist would have reported bowing on all four sides instead of only on the South face, storeys 94 - 100. For WTC2 bowing only on the East face, storeys 77 - 83. Therefore, I think it was initiated by explosive devices.

Please share your expertise, education or practical experience, which makes you believe what you “think” would have any basis in reality.

[Swing Dangler]

Please share your expertise, education or practical experience, which makes you believe what you “think” would have any basis in reality.

Is what I think applicable or not? If not, please explain why not.

[Swing Dangler]

So, if they weren't heroes, then their descriptions would be meaningless?

Anyway, I believe that what they possibly heard has been explained ad nauseum on this forum. Once again, just because they heard an excplosion does not mean it was a bomb or explosive device. One example would be steam and water pipes would cause explosions (proven by the one that blew up in NYC recently).

:big: Yes, explained as anything but explosives devices right? Logic check.

So, if they weren't heroes, then their descriptions would be meaningless? Terrible assumption on your part. Why so?

[twinstead]

I suspect the only descriptions that are meaningless in the eyes of many 911 CTs are those that support the official story.

[DavidJames]

Is what I think applicable or not? If not, please explain why not.You can “think” whatever you want. But if you expect anyone to take what you “think” seriously, it would helpful if people knew what expertise you drew upon to arrive at those thoughts. For example, if you have a relevant engineering and demolitions background you could draw upon that experience to support your thoughts.

Otherwise you could preface your comment like this:Despite the fact that I have no experience and no clue, I think Nist would have reported bowing on all four sides instead of only on the South face, storeys 94 - 100. For WTC2 bowing only on the East face, storeys 77 - 83. Therefore, I think it was initiated by explosive devices.

[Disbelief]

:big: Yes, explained as anything but explosives devices right? Logic check.

No, extremely logical when you look at the nature of fires and the descriptions of explosions at other fires.


Terrible assumption on your part. Why so?

Then why add the word "heroes" to your description? Appeal to emotion maybe? We are not supposed to question heroes?

[Swing Dangler]

You can “think” whatever you want. But if you expect anyone to take what you “think” seriously, it would helpful if people knew what expertise you drew upon to arrive at those thoughts. For example, if you have a relevant engineering and demolitions background you could draw upon that experience to support your thoughts.

Otherwise you could preface your comment like this:

Can you tell me if my thinking on this issue is wrong or right? If I'm wrong, please explain to me why I might be wrong so that I may change my thinking. If I'm right, perhaps you can elaborate further on why I might be correct in my thinking.

[Swing Dangler]

No, extremely logical when you look at the nature of fires and the descriptions of explosions at other fires.



Then why add the word "heroes" to your description? Appeal to emotion maybe? We are not supposed to question heroes?
Perhaps an appeal, but in reality no just calling a spade a spade.
I just get tired of calling them firefighters. Heroes is much faster on the keyboard anyway. I could also add news broadcasters, first responders, witnesses, victims etc. etc.

[tacodaemon]

Swing, I was wondering what exactly you think that quote from Skilling in your signature is supposed to prove...

[T.A.M.]

A brief list of things that can, when put under heat, pressure, or damaged, sound like "explosions":

1. Explosives
2. Aeresol Cans
3. Electrical Transformers
4. Batteries
5. Oxygen Canisters
6. Fuel Containers
7. Crashing Elevators
8. Falling Debris
9. Human bodies hitting the ground.

I am sure you can add to the list.

Now in an office building fire, list in decending order, what would MOST LIKELY cause "explosions" sounds.

TAM:)

[DavidJames]

Can you tell me if my thinking on this issue is wrong or right? If I'm wrong, please explain to me why I might be wrong so that I may change my thinking. If I'm right, perhaps you can elaborate further on why I might be correct in my thinking.Nice try. You have a disagreement with NIST, it's incumbent upon you to articulate, with at least as much specificity as NIST, why you disagree.

[Swing Dangler]

A brief list of things that can, when put under heat, pressure, or damaged, sound like "explosions":

1. Explosives
2. Aeresol Cans
3. Electrical Transformers
4. Batteries
5. Oxygen Canisters
6. Fuel Containers
7. Crashing Elevators
8. Falling Debris
9. Human bodies hitting the ground.

I am sure you can add to the list.

Now in an office building fire, list in decending order, what would MOST LIKELY cause "explosions" sounds.

TAM:)
Hey TAM!
Let me change one thing if you will afford me that opportunity:
Now in a "terrorist attack", lis in decending order what would most likely cause "explosions" sounds. Makes a tad bit of difference doesn't it? ;)
Oh TAM you left out pop machines in your list too. Aerosol cans, TAM? Come on now....

You forgot to add the logical sequence of events after the explosion: explosive sound is heard, people damaged, surroundings damaged (sub basement, cave-ins, etc.), first thoughts of survivors who were reminded of the 1993 attack, first theory of the FBI, the historical record regarding terrorists tactics, ..

After all in previous office fires, how many people including authorities thought that bombs were in the building or that a bomb went off, reminded people of a previous terrorist attack, or were reminded of a controlled demolition after hearing such sounds?
I would think in common office fires people would be reminded of bombs, think bombs were going off or believe terrorists were attacking the respective building. Why didn't firefighters report of bombs going off in Madrid, Venezuela, and other buildings that had suffered an office fire?

[Swing Dangler]

Nice try. You have a disagreement with NIST, it's incumbent upon you to articulate, with at least as much specificity as NIST, why you disagree.

So you can't tell me if I'm right or wrong in my thinking? If you can't assist me in my thinking why bother posting?
My discussion wasn't with NIST on this matter it was with you.

[T.A.M.]

Swing:

go to youtube and plug into the search function Aeresol can explosion. Watch some of the videos, and tell me what you think. Do the same for electrical transformers and Oxygen canisters.

And I am ok with your correction, but change it to "planes as weapons terrorist attacks".

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

How many witnesses actually used the words "bombs" without the word in the form of a similie such as "like bombs going off". How many actually said "I heard bombs going off"?

I know you, unlike Dylan Avery, knows what a similie is and how it is used.

As for your suggestion about circumstances, I agree, that given the planes had just hit the buildings, and those on hand knew it was a terrorist attack, that their hearing of explosions would make them more likely to think of bombs...;)

TAM:)

[Swing Dangler]

Swing, I was wondering what exactly you think that quote from Skilling in your signature is supposed to prove...

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-Seattle Times 1993[/QUOTE]

I'm not trying to prove anything with his quote. ;) What do you take from his comments?

[tacodaemon]

I'm not trying to prove anything with his quote. ;) What do you take from his comments?


Same thing you did. But I don't think any debunkers ever claimed the Twin Towers were inherently impervious to demolition, just that it wouldn't have been possible in the circumstances some Truthers would have us believe.

[DavidJames]

My discussion wasn't with NIST on this matter it was with you.This was your original quote, it was not directed at me (I did bold the words I then questioned)I think Nist would have reported bowing on all four sides instead of only on the South face, storeys 94 - 100. For WTC2 bowing only on the East face, storeys 77 - 83. Therefore, I think it was initiated by explosive devices.It's clear you don't have a clue about what you're talking about, fair enough. I will lump you in with all the others in "IA" category of CTists. That is those that are Ignorant of the subject matter yet are Arrogant enough to reject the conclusions, without providing any analysis or evidence, provided by those with the education and experience.

[Swing Dangler]

Swing:

go to youtube and plug into the search function Aeresol can explosion. Watch some of the videos, and tell me what you think. Do the same for electrical transformers and Oxygen canisters.

And I am ok with your correction, but change it to "planes as weapons terrorist attacks".

TAM:)
So much detail TAM! LOL. It was a terrorist attack versus an office fire.
I've blown up cans in fires before. Yes they are loud. It didn't remind me of a bomb. You also left out the logical sequence of events after the explosion. As I often said, the sound of an explosion does not prove an explosive device was detonated. This is of course why I follow the logical sequence of events and the empirical method.

[T.A.M.]

please provide me with the quotes from witnesses who (A) heard an "explosion" then (B) immediately saw injured people in the area the explosion came from, and (C) and detailed the structural damage seen IN THE AREA they heard the "explosion" come from....since this is the "logical sequence of events" you referred to.

Thanks

TAM:)

[Drudgewire]

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

[I]"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-Seattle Times 1993
Well, imagination does deserve the same weight as the actual top demolition experts in the world who don't dispute the "official version." :rolleyes:

[Swing Dangler]

please provide me with the quotes from witnesses who (A) heard an "explosion" then (B) immediately saw injured people in the area the explosion came from, and (C) and detailed the structural damage seen IN THE AREA they heard the "explosion" come from....since this is the "logical sequence of events" you referred to.

Thanks

TAM:)

Anytime! Here is the location including links of testimony that helped me to arrive at the logical sequence conclusion.
Here (http://dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com/2007/03/case-for-explosives-at-world-trade.html)

[NYCEMT86]

Eyewitness accounts...about fires at buildings other than the WTC on 9/11

"The circumstance suggest that the collapse occurred totally without warning. Some of the personnel outside reported that they heard a loud cracking noise or a "pop" just before the heat and smoke conditions began to change rapidly" - "Floor collapse claims two firefighters, Pittston, Pennsylvania. USFA Technical Report, page 17."


"In an instant the interior erupted in a rush of smoke, followed by a fire ball, blowing out the doorway and shattering the ground floor front windows.

The eruption pushed firefighters into the street and knocked several of them off their feet. (pg.13)

0613: C5 (Assistant Chief) advises C50 (Fire Chief) that he can hear the fire building up in the basement.

C5 can hear fire crackling and small explosions (possibly aerosol cans exploding). Smoke conditions become dark and heavy.(pg.32)" - "Four Firefighters Killed, Trapped by Floor Collapse. Brackenridge, Pennsylvania." USFA Technical Report.



"MADRID, Spain Feb 12, 2005 — A raging fire swept through the upper levels of a 32-story office building in downtown Madrid early Sunday, melting it like a candle and collapsing the top floors in a shower of flaming debris.

Bright orange flames shot out the sides of the Windsor Building, which is believed to be empty and is near one of Madrid's main boulevards.

The fire started around 11:30 p.m. Saturday and was still burning out of control about three hours later. At least nine upper stories were on fire and muffled explosions could be heard in the building." - Fire Engulfs Office Building in Madrid, By Harold Heckle, Associated Press


If you want, I can keep going.

[Swing Dangler]

Well, imagination does deserve the same weight as the actual top demolition experts in the world who don't dispute the "official version." :rolleyes:

Lets see, the head structural engineer and the comments about his own buildings including what would happen with a plane impact or the top experts who watched videos?
I'm going to have to go with the head structural engineer on this one. A matter of choice I guess.

t's clear you don't have a clue about what you're talking about, fair enough. I will lump you in with all the others in "IA" category of CTists. That is those that are Ignorant of the subject matter yet are Arrogant enough to reject the conclusions, without providing any analysis or evidence, provided by those with the education and experience.
Excellent. And I will put you on the roster as the 1st baseman for the Dodgers, unless of course you can explain to me why my thinking is wrong.

[Swing Dangler]

Eyewitness accounts...about fires at buildings other than the WTC on 9/11

"The circumstance suggest that the collapse occurred totally without warning. Some of the personnel outside reported that they heard a loud cracking noise or a "pop" just before the heat and smoke conditions began to change rapidly" - "Floor collapse claims two firefighters, Pittston, Pennsylvania. USFA Technical Report, page 17."


"In an instant the interior erupted in a rush of smoke, followed by a fire ball, blowing out the doorway and shattering the ground floor front windows.

The eruption pushed firefighters into the street and knocked several of them off their feet. (pg.13)

0613: C5 (Assistant Chief) advises C50 (Fire Chief) that he can hear the fire building up in the basement.

C5 can hear fire crackling and small explosions (possibly aerosol cans exploding). Smoke conditions become dark and heavy.(pg.32)" - "Four Firefighters Killed, Trapped by Floor Collapse. Brackenridge, Pennsylvania." USFA Technical Report.



"MADRID, Spain Feb 12, 2005 — A raging fire swept through the upper levels of a 32-story office building in downtown Madrid early Sunday, melting it like a candle and collapsing the top floors in a shower of flaming debris.

Bright orange flames shot out the sides of the Windsor Building, which is believed to be empty and is near one of Madrid's main boulevards.

The fire started around 11:30 p.m. Saturday and was still burning out of control about three hours later. At least nine upper stories were on fire and muffled explosions could be heard in the building." - Fire Engulfs Office Building in Madrid, By Harold Heckle, Associated Press


If you want, I can keep going.

Can you please provide the links where news reporters, authorities (both local and Federal) and survivors thought there were bombs planted in the Madrid, Windsor, etc buildings and where they were reminded of a previous terrorist attacking involving a bomb along with the destruction of the substructure that reminded survivors of a past truck bombing? There is no need to keep going if you can't provide the criteria.

[DGM]

Swing:
Excellent. And I will put you on the roster as the 1st baseman for the Dodgers, unless of course you can explain to me why my thinking is wrong.

Why didn't any of the people involved in the clean-up report seeing explosive cut steel? It's obvious to spot you know.

[johnny karate]

Can you please provide the links where news reporters, authorities (both local and Federal) and survivors thought there were bombs planted in the Madrid, Windsor, etc buildings and where they were reminded of a previous terrorist attacking involving a bomb along with the destruction of the substructure that reminded survivors of a past truck bombing? There is no need to keep going if you can't provide the criteria.


Can you please provide the line of reasoning that dictates "sounds like bombs" and "reminds me of bombs" automatically equals "definitely bombs"?

[NYCEMT86]

Can you please provide the links where news reporters, authorities (both local and Federal) and survivors thought there were bombs planted in the Madrid, Windsor, etc buildings and where they were reminded of a previous terrorist attacking involving a bomb along with the destruction of the substructure that reminded survivors of a past truck bombing? There is no need to keep going if you can't provide the criteria.

ROFL


How about this one

"Carol Bergendale, who witnessed the blast, told WABC that people immediately feared a terror attack. She said there was a loud noise that lasted more than 10 minutes, and people started driving in the wrong direction to get away."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/18/new.york.explosion/index.html

[Drudgewire]

Lets see, the head structural engineer and the comments about his own buildings including what would happen with a plane impact or the top experts who watched videos?
I'm going to have to go with the head structural engineer on this one. A matter of choice I guess.
His comments include the word "imagine." Oh wait, I forgot. That's what all the evidence twoofers have is built upon.

Carry on. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/redface.gif

[Swing Dangler]

Can you please provide the line of reasoning that dictates "sounds like bombs" and "reminds me of bombs" automatically equals "definitely bombs"?

Sound heard-people injured-damage to sub-structure-first thoughts of survivors-thoughts of authorities. There is nothing that equates to "definitely bombs" as the empirical evidence was not examined or tested for said materials, hence the empirical method.


How about this one

"Carol Bergendale, who witnessed the blast, told WABC that people immediately feared a terror attack. She said there was a loud noise that lasted more than 10 minutes, and people started driving in the wrong direction to get away."
After the WTC attack, I can understand why. Any office fires prior to 9/11 bring up suspected bombs, terrorist attacks, etc?
BTW, you left out the bomb part in your article. Loud noise that lasted 10 minutes?

[NYCEMT86]

After the WTC attack, I can understand why. Any office fires prior to 9/11 bring up suspected bombs, terrorist attacks, etc?
BTW, you left out the bomb part in your article. Loud noise that lasted 10 minutes?

My mistake.


At first everyone thought it was a bomb and it was a terrorist attack. You should have heard the FDNY radios that day. All you heard was 10-30s (Explosion) and 10-60s (Major Response).


After the WTC attack, I can understand why. Any office fires prior to 9/11 bring up suspected bombs, terrorist attacks, etc?

After the 93 bombing of the WTC, I can understand why people thought there bombs in the WTC.

[Swing Dangler]

My mistake.


At first everyone thought it was a bomb and it was a terrorist attack. You should have heard the FDNY radios that day. All you heard was 10-30s (Explosion) and 10-60s (Major Response).




After the 93 bombing of the WTC, I can understand why people thought there bombs in the WTC.

Hey now you switched it on me...I thought we were talking about office fires in buildings in Madrid and elsewhere?

BTW, if you truly are an EMT thank you for all of your hard work and your choice to save lives as a career in that wonderful city.

[NYCEMT86]

I thought we were talking about office fires in buildings?

I was talking about the Steam pipe explosion....not 9/11



ETA:

Yes I am truly an EMT in NYC and thank you. YUS, a member of WeAreChange and fellow New Yorker said he would never want me to work on him because I don't believe in conspiracies. Which is funny.

[johnny karate]

Sound heard-people injured-damage to sub-structure-first thoughts of survivors-thoughts of authorities. There is nothing that equates to "definitely bombs" as the empirical evidence was not examined or tested for said materials, hence the empirical method.

Regarding the portions I have bolded, what do any of those people think now?

[NYCEMT86]

I am trying to prove a point. Explosions can be heard...but it doesn't have to be a bomb.

When you said:
After the WTC attack, I can understand why. Any office fires prior to 9/11 bring up suspected bombs, terrorist attacks, etc?

You brought up a great point. It is understandable to believe that it could have been a terrorist attack, when talking about eyewitnesses describing the steam pipe burst. Now when you start to refer to eyewitnesses in the WTC on 9/11 as saying there is bombs in the buildings, Like I said before, "After the 93 WTC bombing, I can undestand why."

[Swing Dangler]

I was talking about the Steam pipe explosion....not 9/11



ETA:

Yes I am truly an EMT in NYC and thank you. YUS, a member of WeAreChange and fellow New Yorker said he would never want me to work on him because I don't believe in conspiracies. Which is funny.

Wow. Some people take their political beliefs to the extreme. If I'm in need of emergency service I don't think I would be willing to die because of someone else's belief system. I will :newlol with you on that guys statement.

[Spins]

You realize what she says at the opening of the video? "I just heard a loud boom." But no plane on the video and the video is already filming the tower after impact...what do you suppose that loud boom was after the plane already and an already smoking tower?
She's talking about the plane hitting the building with the lady in the room with her. In fact they continue to talk about the incident for the next few minutes. Prove me wrong!

Are you seriously trying to tell me she's referring to an explosion that had just occurred, separate to the plane impact? :boggled:


Also you realize she describes the next impact of a plane as a military plane? Interesting.
Yes, and what does this prove?

I'll tell you, it proves that single eye-witness testimony can be inaccurate that's why ideally you need to gather as much evidence as possible and verify what the eye-witnesses (ideally as many as possible) are saying corresponds with the physical evidence. This is certainly what happened after 9/11 and it all proves that the Twin Towers were not brought down in a controlled demolition.

If you think she was correct and that the plane that hit the South Tower was a military plane prove it!


At 11:43 it appears to have a break in the video as the scene shifts and then shows a fireball heading up. What might explain that break in the video tape? Also you realize she describes the next impact of a plane as a military plane? Interesting.

You will also notice a large amount of white smoke coming from the base of the tower complex which leads to a fade in shot of the collapsing tower. This obviously shows a non-continuous filming of an event. Then of course we have another break in the film and distorted audio so much so that it is hard to make out the collapse itself.
The smoke at the base of the tower prior to impact of course would time up with some of the accounts of the heroes referenced below...
Finally yet another break in the audio and the film when the next tower collapses.
I don't think this is an explanation for a non-explosive device scenario. But I appreciate the film I had forgotten about that.

Ah the conspiracy mind at work is a beautiful thing.

[T.A.M.]

Swing:

Thanks for the link...when I get home from clinic I will peruse it. Any idea if the time the events occured, in relation to the collapse, for each of the quotes. I recall reading somewhere that ALOT of the alleged "explosions" were actually the collapse of the south tower heard by others in the north tower, etc...

Thanks

TAM:)

[NYCEMT86]

Most of everyone here watched this happen on TV. I was in Washington Square Park, skipping class because it was a nice day and I didn't want to be in school. Mind you I was 16 at the time. I heard and saw the first plane hit and my first thought was OH ****! That plane must have been in some real trouble. I didn't know what the hell was going on even after the second plane hit, it wasn't until after I watched the news on TV that I really understood what was going on. I knew it wasn't any accident after the second plane hit, but I still didn't know what was going on. Major incidents cause Major confusion and chaos. Its the number one rule to an Mass Casualty Incident.

Chief Pfifer said it best, the people who were watching the news, knew more than us.



How many times have you seen the news after a major event has happened that the facts are always screwed up. Columbine and Virginia Tech are perfect examples. The number of shooters ranged. In Columbine there was a shooter on the roof. People at first thought the shooters had paintball guns or that they were setting off firecrackers. How about the number of injured or dead? They never get the number correct.

[NYCEMT86]

Swing:

Thanks for the link...when I get home from clinic I will peruse it. Any idea if the time the events occured, in relation to the collapse, for each of the quotes. I recall reading somewhere that ALOT of the alleged "explosions" were actually the collapse of the south tower heard by others in the north tower, etc...

Thanks

TAM:)

I know I have posted a few of those. I think in this same exact thread.



"I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down." - Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory


"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit." - Firefighter Craig Carlsen

"what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse." - Captain Jay Swithers


debunking911.com and 9/11myths do have a bunch of them on there.

[T.A.M.]

The first guy, Mike Pecoraro, was not witness to anything visually or audibly at the time of the explosion. His co-worker told him of the light flickering. His co-worker relayed to him that there was a shift of the building and an explosion.

The two men then saw White smoke, and smelled Kerosene (a MAJOR component in JET FUEL, not standard explosives or Thermite). When they went up they witnessed debris and damage that would be consistent with a fireball coming down an elevator shaft and exploding outward upon reaching the bottom, along with the elevator car.

So your first witness was witness to nothing directly, but indirectly was witness to white smoke, the smell of KEROSENE, and alot of debris thrown about, along with two badly burned people, likely from the elevator shaft in the lobby.

There is NOTHING in his testimony incompatible with the Jet Airliner striking the tower, the jet fuel pouring down through the building, etc...

TAM:)

Edit: Oh, and before it gets brought up, quite a few of the elevator SHAFTS ran almost the entire length of the building. They cars only stopped on certain floors, that they serviced, but the shafts themselves, in most cases, ran almost all of the building...

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE=Spins;2919008]She's talking about the plane hitting the building with the lady in the room with her. In fact they continue to talk about the incident for the next few minutes. Prove me wrong!
No need to be so aggressive as everything is civil thus far.

Are you seriously trying to tell me she's referring to an explosion that had just occurred, separate to the plane impact? :boggled:
The reason I bring this up is that she is filming the plane after impact and then comments on the explosion. It is unclear in what time frame the woman is speaking of. I found it interesting that she was filming the plane after impact and then comments on hearing an explosion.


If you think she was correct and that the plane that hit the South Tower was a military plane prove it!

What does it prove? The NWO used military planes with reptilian space alien robots as drone pilots to issue in the new age... that and the chief alien used a beam weapon too!.:newlol

It doesn't prove anything. I just found it interesting she thought it was a military plane. Try not to let yourself dive into conspiracy theories too much.



I'll tell you, it proves that single eye-witness testimony can be inaccurate that's why ideally you need to gather as much evidence as possible and verify what the eye-witnesses (ideally as many as possible) are saying corresponds with the physical evidence. This is certainly what happened after 9/11 and it all proves that the Twin Towers were not brought down in a controlled demolition.

One, it wasn't an eyewitness account it was a video tape account. Two, I never said a military plane hit the tower, she did. If you have a problem with that statement, I suggest contacting her and letting her have it!

Do you have empirical evidence that explosive devices were not used? If not, then it remains a valid theory.

In your conspiratorial mind, what is your explanation for all that white smoke coming from the ground level prior to the global collapse? And remember if you think it was jet fuel, you have just as much conspiracy in your mind as I do...the only difference is mine is a more valid theory based upon the empirical method. Cheers for the day.

Tam The accounts I researched were mostly from the sub-levels of WTC: North Tower either moments before or right after impact and way before the collapse of the South Tower. I could not determine the exact time but it was well before the 2nd plane impact.
I do agree that some of the accounts of explosions were from the South Tower. This is why I narrowed by examination to the sub-basement of the North Tower specifically. I have also read accounts of 3 massive explosions occurring just before the collapse of the South tower.

Good evening to all as I must retire for the evening. BTW, nice chatting with you again TAM. Thanks again for your career decision. IMHO, there is nothing more noble than choosing to help people and save lives as a profession, you and NYCEMT have chosen to do.

[Gravy]

Edit: Oh, and before it gets brought up, most of the elevator SHAFTS ran almost the entire length of the building. They cars only stopped on certain floors, that they serviced, but the shafts themselves, in most cases, ran almost all of the building...A correction, there, TAM. Most of the shafts didn't run from top to bottom. In both towers the #50 freight elevator ran from the 107th floor into bedrock, and the #6 and 7 express elevators ran from the top to the 4th sublevel. In the south tower, the express elevators ran from the impact zone to the B2 level. Diagrams here (http://911stories.googlepages.com/wtcelevatorshafts).

[Swing Dangler]

The first guy, Mike Pecoraro, was not witness to anything visually or audibly at the time of the explosion. His co-worker told him of the light flickering. His co-worker relayed to him that there was a shift of the building and an explosion.

The two men then saw White smoke, and smelled Kerosene (a MAJOR component in JET FUEL, not standard explosives or Thermite). When they went up they witnessed debris and damage that would be consistent with a fireball coming down an elevator shaft and exploding outward upon reaching the bottom, along with the elevator car.

So your first witness was witness to nothing directly, but indirectly was witness to white smoke, the smell of KEROSENE, and alot of debris thrown about, along with two badly burned people, likely from the elevator shaft in the lobby.

There is NOTHING in his testimony incompatible with the Jet Airliner striking the tower, the jet fuel pouring down through the building, etc...

TAM:)

Re-read Mike's account. He was a direct witness to the white smoke in his work area. He doesn't see black smoke and burn marks from jet fuel. He also thought the kerosene smell was from a vehicle in the parking garage.
TAM, you need to look at the big picture including the route the mythological fireball had to take in order to cause the damage which it couldn't have taken and still left Arturo Griffith alive.
Not only that you left out the description of the damage. Destroyed walls, a parking garage destroyed, and his first thoughts about the 1993 attack. Next explain how people and floors nearest impact were able to survive while areas farthest away were destroyed?
Remember, TAM, I arrived at my conclusion based upon the entire body of circumstances, including the implausibility of a fireball.

[T.A.M.]

Thanks Swing:

Now, regarding #2 - Sanchez:

1. Preface: account is 3rd hand, via reporter for Arctic Beacon, via a tape recording given to William Rodriguez, from Sanchez.

2. Remember our discussion of similies.


Jose Sanchez, 45, of New Jersey in a never-released tape recorded statement made in early 2002 to William Rodriguez, the first WTC maintenance man to claim a bomb exploded in the north tower basement, said he heard what sounded like a "huge bomb,"


"It sounded like a bomb and the lights went on and off," said Sanchez in the tape recording. "We started to walk to the exit and a huge ball of fire went through the freight elevator. The hot air from the ball of fire dropped Chino to the floor and my hair got burned," said Sanchez in the tape recording. "The room then got full of smoke and I remember saying out loud 'I believe it was a bomb that blew up inside the building.'

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/12-Jul-2005.html

SO in a nutshell, a person who heard an explosion, and then was witness to a FIREBALL in the FREIGHT ELEVATOR...that is what we have here.

TA<:)

[Swing Dangler]

TAM at the bottom of the blog entry you are reading, assuming it is the one I linked to, you will see an examination and diagram of the elevator shafts and what had to have happen for the fireball theory to remain viable.

Or see it here: 8284 and here: 8285

[Swing Dangler]

Thanks Swing:
Now, regarding #2 - Sanchez:
1. Preface: account is 3rd hand, via reporter for Arctic Beacon, via a tape recording given to William Rodriguez, from Sanchez.2. Remember our discussion of similies.
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/12-Jul-2005.html
SO in a nutshell, a person who heard an explosion, and then was witness to a FIREBALL in the FREIGHT ELEVATOR...that is what we have here.
TA<:)

Uhh you left out he thought it was a bomb. And the source of the fire in the elevator is either from jet fuel or an explosive device. Then you have to determine which shaft he was in to determine the validity of a fireball from the impact zone.

[T.A.M.]

Re-read Mike's account. He was a direct witness to the white smoke in his work area. He doesn't see black smoke and burn marks from jet fuel. He also thought the kerosene smell was from a vehicle in the parking garage.
TAM, you need to look at the big picture including the route the mythological fireball had to take in order to cause the damage which it couldn't have taken and still left Arturo Griffith alive.
Not only that you left out the description of the damage. Destroyed walls, a parking garage destroyed, and his first thoughts about the 1993 attack. Next explain how people and floors nearest impact were able to survive while areas farthest away were destroyed?
Remember, TAM, I arrived at my conclusion based upon the entire body of circumstances, including the implausibility of a fireball.

I read the account quite thoroughly. The analysis on your blog has at least one error. He did not witness the lights flicker, his companion did.

He is not an explosives export, nor a car mechanic. His speculation on where the kerosene smell was coming from is useless.

Have you confirmed that the elevator shaft that they saw the fireball come out of COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN the elevator Arturo was in? As well, If Arturo was in the elevator car, and IF THIS WAS the same shaft, could he (I am asking) have been partially protected by the car itself?

What I have left out is anything he gave an "Opinion" on, and tried to focus on the factual elements of his testimony.

The BIG PICTURE of that day was complete Chaos, from the get go, and that is why I look at the BIG PICTURE very little...

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

TAM at the bottom of the blog entry you are reading, assuming it is the one I linked to, you will see an examination and diagram of the elevator shafts and what had to have happen for the fireball theory to remain viable.

Or see it here: 8284 and here: 8285

Got Blueprints...the first link is from "How stuff works" where did they get their info from? Where is the second diagram from, and what source did they base it on?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Uhh you left out he thought it was a bomb. And the source of the fire in the elevator is either from jet fuel or an explosive device. Then you have to determine which shaft he was in to determine the validity of a fireball from the impact zone.

No I didnt leave it out...I bolded the text where he says he "believed it" was a bomb....that is uneducated opinion based on the noise he heard and the fireball.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Got Blueprints...See my link above.

[NYCEMT86]

you need to look at the big picture including the route the mythological fireball had to take in order to cause the damage which it couldn't have taken and still left Arturo Griffith alive.


What were Arturo Griffith's injuries? Did he suffer any internal damage, broke bones? Anything that would indicate a bomb as the mechanism of injury? The trauma from a blast would have left him with more than just burns or would have killed him, depending on how close he was to the device. If that is so, how did his passenger escaped injury.

[T.A.M.]

Gravy I am at your links now (thanks)...


In this way, the local elevators within a zone were placed on top of one another within a common shaft.

from NISTNCSTAR 1-1 pg 39

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I love this quote...


For an elevator’s cables to be cut and result in dropping the car to the bottom of the shaft, the cables would need to have been in the aircraft impact debris path, floors 93 through 98 in WTC 1 or floors 78 through 83 in WTC 2.

Inspection of the elevator riser diagram and architectural floor plans for WTC 1 shows that the following elevators met these criteria:

cars 81 through 86 (Bank B) and 87 through 92 (Bank C),
local cars in Zone III;
car 50,
the freight elevator,
and car 6,
the Zone III shuttle. …

Cars 6 and 50 could have fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement level, and car 50 in WTC 1 was reported to have done so. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf(PDF pg. 160)

From Gravy's Links...

TAM:)

[Spins]

No need to be so aggressive as everything is civil thus far.

I wasn't so quit trying to take the moral high ground.


The reason I bring this up is that she is filming the plane after impact and then comments on the explosion. It is unclear in what time frame the woman is speaking of. I found it interesting that she was filming the plane after impact and then comments on hearing an explosion.
It's perfectly obvious what you were saying, do you need me to quote it again...

You realize what she says at the opening of the video? "I just heard a loud boom." But no plane on the video and the video is already filming the tower after impact...what do you suppose that loud boom was after the plane already and an already smoking tower? ...you even asked what the loud boom (she was reffering to) was and specifically said it was after the plane had already hit the tower insinuating that she was commenting on another event separate from the plane impact.

So naturally I replied with the answer and said prove me wrong, the reason I said that is not because I was being combative it's because I know I'm right.

I love the way you always try to wriggle and squirm out of what you said when you realize you've said something stupid, which happens a lot.

What I find interesting is you started questioning these aspects of the video within minutes of watching it, along with questioning its validity almost straight away (it was only later you edited your post), that's why later I said ... "Ah the conspiracy mind at work is a beautiful thing."


What does it prove? The NWO used military planes with reptilian space alien robots as drone pilots to issue in the new age... that and the chief alien used a beam weapon too!.

It doesn't prove anything. I just found it interesting she thought it was a military plane.
Yes and I found it interesting too, that's why I told you why it's a perfect example of how eye-witness testimony can be inaccurate. If she was interviewed at that point she may have said she thought it was a military plane, in fact this is what happened when a lot of people were interviewed immediately after or during the event.


Try not to let yourself dive into conspiracy theories too much.
Not me that's your job, you're the one with the loony theories.


One, it wasn't an eyewitness account it was a video tape account. Two, I never said a military plane hit the tower, she did.
Good I'm glad to hear that.


If you have a problem with that statement, I suggest contacting her and letting her have it!
Do you really think I think it was a military plane based on what she said? I bloomin' talk about exactly what happened to Flight 11 and Flight 175 on this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2917961#post2917961) thread if you'd like to check it out.


Do you have empirical evidence that explosive devices were not used? If not, then it remains a valid theory.
Yes, for a start you just watched a video with absolutely no audible evidence that explosives were used. I won't bother mentioning the NIST investigation because it's obvious you've already written the whole thing off as disinfo.


In your conspiratorial mind, what is your explanation for all that white smoke coming from the ground level prior to the global collapse? And remember if you think it was jet fuel, you have just as much conspiracy in your mind as I do...the only difference is mine is a more valid theory based upon the empirical method. Cheers for the day.
Use the search feature on the forum it's been talked about before.

[firecoins]

Let me add to this nonsense. There was NO bomb. NONE. There is no debate. Anyone who takes up the argument of a bomb is wrong to start. There is NO evidence of a bomb.

As mentioned ad nauseum, an explosion does not equal a bomb.

The body reacts differently to fire than an explosion. The people burned in the elevators had no injuries consistent with explosions of any kind much less a bomb.

Nobody saw a military plane. Some people said they did. They may believe they did. They didn't. Parts from 2 jetliners were found. DNA from passengers on said planes were also found. Recorded phone calls were made from these planes. And they were extensively videotaped. No military planes were missing on 9/11. Sorry but your wrong. There is no arguing differently. Your simply wrong. No "rebuttals" exists.

The damage at the Pentagon was consistent with a 757. The parts of the plane were found. DNA from passengers were found. No evidence exists that contradicts this. Again any rebuttal offered is wrong. I don't even need to read it. Save your time. You're wrong. Still disagree? Your still wrong.

[Gravy]

Gravy I am at your links now (thanks)...

In this way, the local elevators within a zone were placed on top of one another within a common shaft.

from NISTNCSTAR 1-1 pg 39

TAM:)Yes, but to be clear, the three local zones were separated by mechanical floors through which the local shafts did not pass. The graphics I made illustrate the shaft discontinuities.

[Swing Dangler]

Let me add to this nonsense. There was NO bomb. NONE. There is no debate. Anyone who takes up the argument of a bomb is wrong to start. There is NO evidence of a bomb.


No evidence? Of course until you can prove empirically there was no bomb or explosive device, the theory remains a valid theory to examine and study. And considering no agency tested for said chemical residue or even investigated that means of a terrorist attack, the theory remains valid.

What I find interesting is you started questioning these aspects of the video within minutes of watching it, along with questioning its validity almost straight away (it was only later you edited your post), t
Is this entire site, the JREF site, a skeptic site? Yet when skeptical of a video I come under character attack? Now why would you do such a thing to a fellow skeptic?
Not me that's your job, you're the one with the loony theories.
A loony theory? Lets see terrorists used an explosive device in 1993. Check!
It was a working FBI theory during that morning. Check!
Experts in many types of fields first raised that suspicion. Check!,
Yet because I study it and defend it it is a loony theory. Yet you believe in something that requires miracles and is based upon an assumption. Now explain to me which is more loony?

Yes, for a start you just watched a video with absolutely no audible evidence that explosives were used.
I watched a video that has cuts and breaks in the filming that could have left out the audible evidence. Re watch the video as you can tell from the video and the sound track that the stop/record button was pressed or it was edited.

I won't bother mentioning the NIST investigation because it's obvious you've already written the whole thing off as disinfo.
Excellent assumption, however, wrong. What I did do is read a section of the report that is relevant to this topic. And if you anything about the report, you would know NIST left out the gaping hole and busted windows as sources of oxygen for the fire. This of course was used to determine the amount of jet fuel which has a direct bearing on the 'fuel' cascading down the shafts along with a mythical fireball causing massive damage furthest away from impact. See a problem with that? Holes in buildings are not sources of oxygen. I find that a problem.

What were Arturo Griffith's injuries? Did he suffer any internal damage, broke bones? Anything that would indicate a bomb as the mechanism of injury? The trauma from a blast would have left him with more than just burns or would have killed him, depending on how close he was to the device. If that is so, how did his passenger escaped injury.
Here is one account from USA Today:
They were both operating elevators in the north tower on Sept. 11. Arturo was running 50A, the big freight car going from the six-level basement to the 108th floor. When American Airlines Flight 11 struck at 8:46 a.m., Arturo and a co-worker were heading from the second-level basement to the 49th floor.

Like his wife, who had just closed the doors on a passenger elevator leaving the 78th floor, Arturo heard a sudden whistling sound and the impact. Cables were severed and Arturo's car plunged into free fall. (Obviously from the impact of the plane)

"The only thing I remember saying was 'Oh, God, Oh, God, I'm going to die,' " he says, recalling how he tried to protect his head as the car plummeted.

The emergency brakes caught after 15 or 16 floors. (Notice not hitting the basement.) The imploding elevator door crushed Arturo's right knee and broke the tibia below it. His passenger escaped injury."

Now in order for the official fireball myth to be reality, a huge fireball traveled down this shaft with enough overpressure to destroy a parking garage, Path Plaza, offices, machine shops etc. all without impact, burning, or harming Arturo Griffith and his passenger!

Now if you will examine Arturo's wife's account. Notice her injuries are what you would expect from someone so close to the impact zone, yet she survives. Now remember this fireball had enough overpressure and energy to cause the damage in the sub- basement furtherest away from the impact zone but yet not kill people nearest the impact zone.

All that morning, Carmen had been carrying hundreds of passengers from the 78th-floor sky lobby to the bond-trading offices of Cantor Fitzgerald on the 101st to 105th floors and the Windows on the World restaurant above that.

"They were so packed (in the elevators) — like sardines," she says.

A full elevator had just left the 78th floor, and Carmen was about to carry up six or seven stragglers. The plane struck as the doors of her elevator closed. They could hear debris smash into the top of the car; then the elevator cracked open, and flames poured in. Carmen jammed her fingers between the closed doors, pulled them partly open and held them as passengers clambered over and under her 5-foot-6 frame to escape.

Before finally throwing herself out onto the lobby floor, she glanced back to be sure the elevator was empty. That was when fire scorched her face with second- and third-degree burns, and literally welded her hooped right earring to her neck. Her hands were badly burned.

Carmen was helped down the 78 floors to an ambulance just as her husband was carried out of the basement on a piece of plywood and a hand truck, each certain — after seeing the burning buildings from the street outside — that the other was dead.
Source: USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/2002-09-10-surivivor-griffiths_x.htm)
A closer examination of those pesky elevator shafts...

The following excerpt comes again from NIST NCSTAR 1-7, page 34 (page 72 of the PDF file).
In addition to the passenger elevators, there were seven freight elevators in each tower; most served a particular zone, while Car 50 served every floor.
• Car #5: B1-5, 6, 9-40, 44
• Car #6: B1-5, 44, 75, 77-107 (Dual-use express, see below)
[…]
There were two express elevators (#6 and #7) to Windows on the World (and related conference rooms and banquet facilities) in WTC 1 and two to the observation deck in WTC 2. There were five local elevators in each building: three that brought people from the subterranean levels to the lobby, one that ran between floors 106 and 110, and one that ran between floors 43 and 44, serving the cafeteria from the skylobby. All elevators had been upgraded to incorporate firefighter emergency operation requirements.
So we see that another elevator, Car 6, ran from the impacted floors of WTC1 to sublevel B1, but no further.

From page 122 of the same document (page 160 of the PDF file):
For an elevator’s cables to be cut and result in dropping the car to the bottom of the shaft, the cables would need to have been in the aircraft impact debris path, floors 93 through 98 in WTC 1 or floors 78 through 83 in WTC 2. Inspection of the elevator riser diagram and architectural floor plans for WTC 1 shows that the following elevators met these criteria: cars 81 through 86 (Bank B) and 87 through 92 (Bank C), local cars in Zone III; car 50, the freight elevator, and car 6, the Zone III shuttle. … Cars 6 and 50 could have fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement level, and car 50 in WTC 1 was reported to have done so.


Here, NIST states explicitly that elevator Car 6, along with Car 50, were the sole elevators of WTC1 with access to the basements from the impacted floors of WTC1. And as noted in the previous excerpt from NCSTAR 1-7, Car 6 only reached sub level B1, the uppermost basement level, while explosions and other destructive events were observed on B1 as well as below B1, on B2 and possibly lower (see the testimonies of Rodriguez and Pecoraro).

All of the above information should bring us to the logical conclusion that a fuel-air explosion did not travel hundreds of feet down the main freight elevator shaft of WTC1, from the impacted floors to the basements, to cause structural damage to the basement floors and lobby. Car 50 was the only elevator with access from the impacted floors of WTC1 to the sub levels B6 and below, and its operator survived, having experienced no explosions or fireballs down the main freight shaft.
That such a fireball could have traveled down Car 6 has not specifically been ruled out by the above information, but it could not have extended beyond sub level B1, whereas explosive events caused much destruction on lower floors.

And one last repeated point..explain how people closest to impact and the fuel explosion on impact survived but areas in the basement and the parking garage were destroyed?

TAM
You did notice that the quote that you love said "reported to have done so" without a single source or reference point

TAM as you seem to be a believer in the fireball myth, could you please trace the route of this fireball including what elevator shaft or shafts it descended on the way to the sub-levels past B-1. Nobody seems to be able to do this. Perhaps you are up for the challenge?
BTW, thanks for the critique but Mike does see the smoke as this passage from the original source states:They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke.

Nobody saw a military plane. Some people said they did. They may believe they did. They didn't. Parts from 2 jetliners were found. DNA from passengers on said planes were also found. Recorded phone calls were made from these planes. And they were extensively videotaped. No military planes were missing on 9/11. Sorry but your wrong. There is no arguing differently. Your simply wrong. No "rebuttals" exists.
You are late to the game, sir. I'm not wrong as I'm not arguing for military planes or anything else outside of the current topic. No need to lump a heap of crap into meaningless comment.

[ref]

Swing, why oh why would they want to blow up the basement?

[Swing Dangler]

Swing, why oh why would they want to blow up the basement?

I suspect the same reason they tried in 1993.

[T.A.M.]

I theorize it was Leprachauns. Of course, until you prove empirically that it was not Leprachauns, it remains a valid theory.

TAM;)

[ref]

I suspect the same reason they tried in 1993.

So are you saying, that they first tried to make the building fall with basement bombs, but then settled on demolitions from the impact point, because the towers just wouldn't fall?

[Swing Dangler]

Got Blueprints...the first link is from "How stuff works" where did they get their info from? Where is the second diagram from, and what source did they base it on?

TAM:)

Tam you can find the Master Plan layout from 1963 as viewed here (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10006/thumb_WTC_elevator_plan_draft.png&imgrefurl=http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/thumbnails.php%3Falbum%3Dsearch%26search%3Ddraft&h=100&w=78&sz=2&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=dTakBQVmIQD0VM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=64&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc%2Belevator%2Blayout%26gbv%3D2%26s vnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG)

[Swing Dangler]

So are you saying, that they first tried to make the building fall with basement bombs, but then settled on demolitions from the impact point, because the towers just wouldn't fall?

To be honest, I have no idea as to the terrorists motives.

I suspect it was a three pronged attack on the structure...the basement to assist in damaging the core or at the least sub-structure, two, devices strategically placed throughout the building, and finally the plane's impact.
If I'm not mistaken, even OBL didn't expect the towers to fall from plane impacts alone. I suppose it never hurts to have redundancy in a terrorist attack in case one part of the attack fails.

Do you know why they attacked the basement in '93? I haven't been able to find a motive other than the obvious attempted but failed collapse of the tower.

[Spins]

A loony theory?Yes that's my opinion.

Lets see terrorists used an explosive device in 1993. Check!
It was a working FBI theory during that morning. Check!
Experts in many types of fields first raised that suspicion. Check!,
Yet because I study it and defend it it is a loony theory. Yet you believe in something that requires miracles and is based upon an assumption. Now explain to me which is more loony?Nope...

1993 was a truck bomb, and after the event the physical and eye-witness evidence and expert opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of this, it was definitely not a hijacked airplane that caused the damage.

2001 was a hijacked airplane (and concurrent multi-floor fires), and after the event the physical and eye-witness evidence and expert opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of this, it was definitely not a bomb that caused the damage.

Do you understand? Also don't take what I said literally like you always do, I was only making a point.


I watched a video that has cuts and breaks in the filming that could have left out the audible evidence. Re watch the video as you can tell from the video and the sound track that the stop/record button was pressed or it was edited.
What, so she's not allowed to stop and then re-start the filming?

Why was the video, in your opinion, edited at those points, why no explosions (from bombs) just before and during the collapse, that is after all what you guys are saying happened?

I say again why no audible evidence of RDX etc like at the Landmark Tower demolition, are you trying to insinuate they used silent explosives on 9/11?

A controlled demolition at the WTC would have been a cacophony of noise, rebounding off all the other buildings in the area, exactly like the Landmark Tower demolition.

[T.A.M.]

I am guessing they attacked in the basement in 1993 because they used a TRUCK Bomb, and it is hard to get those darn trucks up into main floors of the skyscraper...but thats just me.

TAM;)

[ref]

To be honest, I have no idea as to the terrorists motives.

I suspect it was a three pronged attack on the structure...the basement to assist in damaging the core or at the least sub-structure, two, devices strategically placed throughout the building, and finally the plane's impact.
If I'm not mistaken, even OBL didn't expect the towers to fall from plane impacts alone. I suppose it never hurts to have redundancy in a terrorist attack in case one part of the attack fails.

Do you know why they attacked the basement in '93? I haven't been able to find a motive other than the obvious attempted but failed collapse of the tower.

The problem with your theory is, that they had the demolition charges in place all the time, from top to bottom. There would be no need for extra efforts in the basement. It would not assist in top-down demolition and would only be suspicious, if the towers would fail from the base.

[Swing Dangler]

1993 was a truck bomb, and after the event the physical and eye-witness evidence and expert opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of this, it was definitely not a hijacked airplane that caused the damage.
And what were the first thoughts after the global collapse:
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

Lets examine what some of the first opinions of that day were:

The detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.
Yes, I know he changed his mind for whatever reason, the point being the first thought of experts was not a gravity driven collapse but a controlled type of demolition.
So much for those trucks needed up inside the towers eh, Tam?
What is fascinating to me is what this expert thought it would take to bring them down. And before you type, I know he changed his mind, but the opinion of what it would take to do it is key. A small amount of explosive in strategic points.

More on those opinions....

CBS News' Dan Rather-"For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."

Yes, I know not an expert, but the first thoughts again remain clear.

NBC's Pat Dawson reported the working hypothesis of the FDNY in the immediate aftermath of the towers' collapse.

"The chief of safety of the Fire Department of New York City told me he received word of a possibility of a secondary device -- that is another bomb going off. He tries to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place and according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building."
Again first thoughts are very clear.
MSNBC news anchor Rick Sanchez reported that police had found suspicious devices in and around the WTC area and that the secondary explosions, which were reported by numerous survivors, were thought by police to be bombs.
"Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion."
"I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center aside the ones caused by the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked on the building that may have had an explosive device in it."
This same theory was considered by the FBI as learned via USA Today news report.

During an exchange between ABC's Peter Jennings and reporter Don Dahler following the collapse of the north tower, the first assumption is again that controlled demolition must have been used to take down the building.

"Yes Peter its Don Dahler down here. I'm four blocks north of the World Trade Center. The second building that was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed."

"The entire building has just collapsed as if a demolition team set off....when you see the old demolition of these old buildings. It just folded in on itself and it is not there anymore."

Peter Jennings: "If you wish to bring, if anyone has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows, that you're going to do this you have to get at the, at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down."

Again, first thoughts.
I could list more including on the scene news reports, etc. displaying what people on the scene thought. Not only that, more expert opinion on the event, but I won't.



What, so she's not allowed to stop and then re-start the filming?
She is allowed to do whatever she wants, however, if she stops, then you know full well that a sound could be missed as well. Are you stating that everyone else who did hear three loud explosions and numerous others are lying because one stop/start or edited video did not pick up the explosions?

Why was the video, in your opinion, edited at those points, why no explosions (from bombs) just before and during the collapse, that is after all what you guys are saying happened?

Great question. Perhaps she accidentally hit the stop button. Maybe for file size for the internet. Who knows why she may have edited it. Or worse yet, the lizard leaders of the NWO captured the upload and edited it before it could be posted for all to see.
I say again why no audible evidence of RDX etc like at the Landmark Tower demolition, are you trying to insinuate they used silent explosives on 9/11?
And again, can you state what type of explosives were used if they were used the Towers? How much background noise was present at the Landmark Tower?
Second, this point is a false analogy by trying to compare two distinct different events to disprove the possible use of explosives in one of the events. Fallacy, sir, plain and simple. Besides, you are aware of the environmental sounds taking place that day..sounds of the city, emergency sirens, etc. I would ask you to reject the video as evidence supporting a non-explosive device theory as it is superseded by numerous eyewitness and other video accounts.

[Swing Dangler]

The problem with your theory is, that they had the demolition charges in place all the time, from top to bottom. There would be no need for extra efforts in the basement. It would not assist in top-down demolition and would only be suspicious, if the towers would fail from the base.

And the problem with your analysis of the the basement theory in your retort:

You expect the terrorists to know for complete certainty that the a collapse would ensue after impacts and explosive devices were used. Of course this assumes that the basement goal was to weaken the base to assist in the collapse. It could have been to divert some of the attention and rescue efforts to the basement area, or perhaps to knock out the mechanics of the building be it elevators, power supply, or the Path train, etc or to simply kill more people.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Here is a three dimensional drawing of the elevator shafts.

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ardoucette/WTC-Elevators-3d.jpg