Oral histories corroborate controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.

[NemesisX]

I have never seen a substantive debunker response to the 503 oral histories gathered by the FDNY in the months after 9/11. Taken together, these long-suppressed witness accounts corroborate controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.

Histories:
graphics8(dot)nytimes(dot)com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

NYT article:
www(dot)nytimes(dot)com/2005/08/12/nyregion/12records.html?ex=1281499200&en=b245bfd8ba497f9a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The New York Times reported on 8/12/05:
A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, will be made public today.

The histories - a mosaic of vision and memory recalling the human struggle against surging fire, confusion, and horror - were compiled by the New York City Fire Department beginning in October 2001, but to this date, no one from the department has read them all or used them for any official purpose.

...

The New York Times sought the records under the freedom of information law in February 2002, but the Bloomberg administration refused to make them public and the newspaper sued the city. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, ordered the city to release most, but not all, of the records.

Do these sound characteristic of a gravity-driven collapse induced by impact damage and fire stress, or of explosive demolition?

"You heard a big boom, it was quiet for about ten seconds. Then you could hear another one. ... It was spaced apart in the beginning, but then it got to just a tremendous roar and a rumble that I will never forget."
--Neil Sweeting, EMS Paramedic, Division 6, interviewed 10/17/01

"You just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions."
--Craig Carlsen, FDNY Firefighter, Ladder 8, interviewed 1/25/02

"It almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came..."
--Thomas Turilli, FDNY Firefighter, Engine 47, interviewed 1/17/02

"I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down."
--Kevin Darnowski, EMS Paramedic, Battalion 20, interviewed 11/09/01

"I heard three loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center."
--Greg Brady, EMS EMT, Battalion 6, interviewed 11/01/01

"That's when [the North Tower] went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down."
--Frank Campagna, FDNY Firefighter, Ladder 11, interviewed 12/04/01

"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."
--Karin Deshore, EMS Captain, interviewed 11/07/01

"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-level 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 ... I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
"[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
"He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
"I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes."
--Stephen Gregory, FDNY Assistant Commissioner, interviewed 10/03/01

"It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down."
--Ed Cachia, FDNY Firefighter, Engine 53, interviewed 12/06/01

"It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that."
--Daniel Rivera, EMS Paramedic, Battalion 31, interviewed 10/10/01

I would additionally like a response to this video, which nicely contextualizes the witness accounts: www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=wDKa1Q1GwTQ

[Bell]

Smack? That you?

[slyjoe]

I have never seen a substantive debunker response to the 503 oral histories gathered by the FDNY in the months after 9/11.
...snip...

Why, haven't you been paying attention?

Do you understand that sounds of explosions do not equal explosives?

Try using the search feature on this forum - then maybe you can resolve your problem.

[Anti-sophist]

People hearing things that can only be described as an explosion is completely consistent with the official story.


Your argument makes the absurd assumption that "sounds like explosion" means it was an explosion created by explosives.

Do these sound characteristic of a gravity-driven collapse induced by impact damage and fire stress, or of explosive demolition?


Both.

[Unsecured Coins]

in a controlled demolition, explosions do not go off once every 10 seconds.

Next!!

[mortimer]

Ah, yet another simile-challenged troofer.

I suppose because several witnesses also report the collapses sounding like freight trains, that choo-choo trains were also involved in the destruction of the buildings, right?

All aboard the troof movement!

[DGM]

Welcome Nemesis:
What exactly should a building that large sound like when it collapses? Could you describe it (you can use similes).

[Redtail]

With all of the audio equipment in the area and at least one mic (Naudet's) that was INSIDE one of the towers, none of them picked up anything that sounded like CD charges.

[Bell]

Welcome Nemesis:
What exactly should a building that large sound like when it collapses? Could you describe it (you can use similes).

I thought you said "you can use smilies"

[Mancman]

"It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit"

I'd love to see some footage corroborating that one.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I have never seen a substantive debunker response to the 503 oral histories gathered by the FDNY blah, blah, blah...

You mean the same firefighters that you claim were in on the plot and have been covering up the deaths of thier friends ever since?

I agree with Bell, BTW. I fully expect to see a "BANNED" along with a single digit post count under your name within 24 hours.

[CHF]

NemesisX,

of all the people you just quoted, how many have you actually talked to in order to find out if they think the WTC was a demolition?

[Bell]

With all of the audio equipment in the area and at least one mic (Naudet's) that was INSIDE one of the towers, none of them picked up anything that sounded like CD charges.

Neither does it at the end of the recording of mr. Cosgrove's phonecall from inside the South Tower.

[FramerDave]

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick! Are you people really that retarded? How dumb can a human being get?

For the last time:

An explosion does not equal explosives.

An explosion does not equal controlled demolition.

When people use words like "like" it's called a simile. Look it up.

Idiot.

[Unfit4Command]

The sounds in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI-ENqgjQXM) corroborate that the crane was brought down with explosives too, correct?

Explosions followed by a collapse? What else could that be? Surely not structural failure of any kind.

[slyjoe]

Just as with the meaning of "momentum", I don't think they understand what "corroborate" means either.

[annexw]

It sounds like people describing what they heard and saw with the best reference terms they had.

If I describe something as having ears like an elephant, its not automatically an elephant. it just means that's the best term I have for it on hand. Or "my boyfriend snores like a freight train". Freight trains are rarely involved. I would go out on a limb and say 'never'.

[Bell]

Explosions explosions explosions explosions!!!
Must be a controlled demolition of the gas station!

jsM7nw-Gx9c

[Corsair 115]

"It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit"

I'd love to see some footage corroborating that one.Considering that the aircraft impacts damaged multiple floors, how would one go about saying with any certainty that only one particular floor was the floor hit.

[NemesisX]

Hmmm about 14 replies in 10 minutes. I guess no one watched the 10-minute video I asked for a response to.



"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-level 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 ... I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
"[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
"He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
"I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes."
--Stephen Gregory, FDNY Assistant Commissioner, interviewed 10/03/01


Explanation for that would be...?

[beachnut]

An OP wrong by not reading. Zen never posted as much source stuff as the new guy who is or is not a ... (truther)

Are you a truther?

Has anyone posted some stuff he could read, but has missed so he can understand why sound likes is not is.

Please debunk some of these yourself by including what they said. Not what you and the truth movement cherry picked. Cherry picker called 2:22 pm, October 25, 2007.

For example, the "rush of air" was from the building falling. Darn, a blast makes your brain explode, nose bleeds, and you die. But crashing building makes a blast of wind. Why not take a poke at debunking some of these yourself? If you can not debunk some of them, you must not be trying too hard. Are you able to research and read the stuff you posted; consider the blast of air debunked. Next you try one. Good luck.

[CptColumbo]

It sounds like people describing what they heard and saw with the best reference terms they had.

If I describe something as having ears like an elephant, its not automatically an elephant. it just means that's the best term I have for it on hand. Or "my boyfriend snores like a freight train". Freight trains are rarely involved. I would go out on a limb and say 'never'.

That is a good way to put it. Sometimes we take the long way to describe why one thing doesn't equal another.

Welcome to the forum annexw, if you haven't been already.

[Pardalis]

Oral histories are what they are, oral histories.

You got to corroborate them with physical proof.

[CHF]

Explanation for that would be...?

Perhaps you should ask those people what they think it was, or better yet, talk to a demolition expert.

That's called "research."

[T.A.M.]

It just never ends does it...

:hb::hb::hb:

TAM:)

[NemesisX]

Perhaps you should ask those people what they think it was, or better yet, talk to a demolition expert.

That's called "research."

And that's called "evasion."

[CHF]

And that's called "evasion."

Of the people you quoted in your opening post, NONE are currently screaming about Demolitions.

Why is that?

Could it be that you're falsely drawing conclusions on their behalf?

[e^n]

"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-level 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 ... I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
"[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
"He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
"I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes."
--Stephen Gregory, FDNY Assistant Commissioner, interviewed 10/03/01


Explanation for that would be...?
I could easily 'explain' this as being windows breaking and reflecting light because that is exactly what you're doing here. There is no firefighter account describing any explosive device or an explosion resulting from one and indeed a lot of people mentioning what they thought in past tense.

Regardless, lets address these quotes specifically. What structural element do you believe these explosions affected, how severely and at what point in or before the collapse?

[NemesisX]

Of the people you quoted in your opening post, NONE are currently screaming about Demolitions.

Why is that?

Could it be that you're falsely drawing conclusions on their behalf?

Could it be you underestimate the efficacy of the cover-up in molding people's perceptions after the attack? Could it be you don't know how susceptible witness accounts are to post-event manipulation?

I'm still waiting for a possible explanation of Mr. Gregory's observation of flashes at the base of the tower.

I'm also still waiting for a substantive response to the video I linked.

[beachnut]

Hmmm about 14 replies in 10 minutes. I guess no one watched the 10-minute video I asked for a response to.



"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-level 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 ... I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
"[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
"He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
"I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes."
--Stephen Gregory, FDNY Assistant Commissioner, interviewed 10/03/01


Explanation for that would be...?
No you failed to read the entire statements of the witnesses to understand what they are talking about. You also failed to debunk some of this BS by yourself. Proving you do not want to research the truth, you are trolling trying to pass on misinformation and lies of 9/11 truth. Or have I missed your intention and just missed the fact you could be reading challenged or unable to use rational or logical thought to solve problems.

You are the one who is not prepared for understanding 9/11. Why, and who has failed you in your education? Most great Americans are self educated, you and I have failed.

[Redtail]

Hmmm about 14 replies in 10 minutes. I guess no one watched the 10-minute video I asked for a response to.



"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-level 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 ... I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
"[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
"He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
"I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes."
--Stephen Gregory, FDNY Assistant Commissioner, interviewed 10/03/01


Explanation for that would be...?

I'm going to ignore the "I thoughts" and the similes, and ask...

If the (silent) charges were going off near the bottom, why did the towers collapse from the top down?

[beachnut]

Could it be you underestimate the efficacy of the cover-up in molding people's perceptions after the attack? Could it be you don't know how susceptible witness accounts are to post-event manipulation?

I'm still waiting for a possible explanation of Mr. Gregory's observation of flashes at the base of the tower.

I'm also still waiting for a substantive response to the video I linked.
Gee, you are just a troll, you failed to debunk stuff already debunked. Why? How come you posted a bunch of junk without even trying to read what has already been posted?

[NemesisX]

I'm going to ignore the "I thoughts" and the similes, and ask...

If the (silent) charges were going off near the bottom, why did the towers collapse from the top down?

The multiple explosions heard/seen before the final collapse would have been intended to sever core columns, likely using thermite cutter charges (if not ONLY such), and the firecracker/gunshot/derailed-freight-train rapid succession of booms (DESCRIBED IN THE VIDEO I LINKED) would be the top-down demolition via high explosive meant to give the impression that the extreme pulverization of the building was caused by the plane crash since it started from the crash zone.

[Pardalis]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/88864575c0f4e7e34.gif

[e^n]

The multiple explosions heard/seen before the final collapse would have been intended to sever core columns, likely using thermite cutter charges (if not ONLY such), and the firecracker/gunshot/derailed-freight-train rapid succession of booms (DESCRIBED IN THE VIDEO I LINKED) would be the top-down demolition via high explosive meant to give the impression that the extreme pulverization of the building was caused by the plane crash since it started from the crash zone.
There's no such thing as a 'thermite cutter charge', there are devices designed to cut through steel columns using thermite but no such device could have been reasonably hidden within the towers.

How many core columns do you believe were severed before collapse initiation? Does this apply to both towers or only WTC2?

edit: Also I asked you some questions above if you'd be so kind.

[ElMondoHummus]

I have never seen a substantive debunker response to the 503 oral histories gathered by the FDNY in the months after 9/11.

Then you haven't looked here:

http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm
http://911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

The "sounds of explosions" CT was debunked quite a while ago. It's actually a rather old myth.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

ZENNSMACK89 is a giant frakking idiot. He is a retard, wrapped in a moron, tied up in a halfwit.

Since ZENNSMACK89 has been banned from JREF, I can say that about him now since I am not attacking someone who is a member of the JREF forum community.

Wouldn't you agree, NemesisX?

[leftysergeant]

"I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes."
--Stephen Gregory, FDNY Assistant Commissioner, interviewed 10/03/01


Explanation for that would be...?

Lights from emergency vehicles. Windows vibrating to xatch the light differently. Relections from glass falling out of windows in the collapse zone, all sorts of things like that can cause flashes to appear on glass or polished metal surfaces.

Important thing is the they did not HEAR explosions or see explosive ejecta.

[DGM]

I'm still waiting for you to describe what the collapse should have sounded like.

[T.A.M.]

Do these sound characteristic of a gravity-driven collapse induced by impact damage and fire stress, or of explosive demolition?

Yes they all do...next!

but seriously,


"You heard a big boom, it was quiet for about ten seconds. Then you could hear another one. ... It was spaced apart in the beginning, but then it got to just a tremendous roar and a rumble that I will never forget."
--Neil Sweeting, EMS Paramedic, Division 6, interviewed 10/17/01

Here is a more complete version...


I remember when we heard abandon the
site , I said , wow, this would be really good to
keep with us. So I started pushing this cart,
and I got stuck in the doorway with it, when we
started hearing this rumble. I can remember -- I
specifically remember this like twisting sound of
metal. We were probably about half a block away
from the complex at this point .
You heard a big boom, it was quiet for
about ten seconds. Then you could hear another
one. Now I realize it was the floors starting to
stack on top of each other as they were falling .
It was spaced apart in the beginning, but then it
got to just a tremendous roar and a rumble that I
will never forget .


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Please reproduce the quotes in full next time, so we can see them in the proper context...poor form.

TAM:mad:

[Gravy]

Welcome to the forums, Nemesis. Please read this and let me know what you think:

What They Heard: WTC First Responder Accounts In & Around the Towers (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1997183&postcount=1)

I think it's important for you to keep in mind that none of the people cited in that link have ever gone on record stating that they actually think explosives were used in the towers.

[beachnut]

The multiple explosions heard/seen before the final collapse would have been intended to sever core columns, likely using thermite cutter charges (if not ONLY such), and the firecracker/gunshot/derailed-freight-train rapid succession of booms (DESCRIBED IN THE VIDEO I LINKED) would be the top-down demolition via high explosive meant to give the impression that the extreme pulverization of the building was caused by the plane crash since it started from the crash zone.
You OP is wrong. False before you even post is your title. Next time you want to discuss tripe from people like you and 9/11 truth, try not putting a big lie in the OP.

Why lie about stuff? When did you think up the thermite charges? It has been 6 years, and the collapse of the WTC had not one single thermite charge. You need to show me the evidence. So me a thermite charge available on 9/11. Hurry. You do understand Jones made up the thermite stuff 4 years after 9/11? When did you jump on the nut wagon ideas of Jones?

There were no multiple explosions heard. The blast from RDX travels for miles, the sound of floor impacting floors does not. Must be something to do with the blast.

The extreme pulverization, as you call it, of the building was due to the energy of gravity; the falling building; energy of 240 tons of TNT just one tower falling. Do you understand physics and energy? Your posts sure ignore them.

For the more rational approach; which you and I have avoided! ^SEE ABOVE^

[T.A.M.]

"You just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions."
--Craig Carlsen, FDNY Firefighter, Ladder 8, interviewed 1/25/02

And a little more complete...


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.
We then realized the building started
to come down. At that point everybody at the
command post took off into...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Please reproduce the quotes in full next time, so we can see them in the proper context...poor form.

TAM:mad:You said it. A classic case of cherry-picking to serve an agenda.

Nemesis, why did you do that?

[annexw]

Thanks for the welcome, CptColumbo. I'm a lurker but I'm trying to be more active. This was finally a thread I could contribute to. :)

[T.A.M.]

"It almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came..."
--Thomas Turilli, FDNY Firefighter, Engine 47, interviewed 1/17/02

and once again a more complete quote...


They went up. I actually had the control
that day and 22 Engine went up. The elevator came back
down, 13 got on and said, listen, if you guys want the
elevator, we're not coming back with it. You've got to
send somebody up. The officer actually said for me to
give my radio to a senior guy there, Louie Cacchioli,
and he took the radio off of me and he went up. We
were waiting in I guess like a little almost like a
cutout area of the lobby, an elevator bank. One
elevator was only working out of like four elevators in
that bank.

The door closed, they went up, and it just
seemed a couple seconds and all of a sudden you just
heard like it almost actually that day sounded like
bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or
eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came and my
officer just actually took all of us and just threw us
down on the ground and kind of just jumped on top of
us, laid on top of us. There were rocks falling and
all that. The lights were still on at that point and
all of a sudden the lights went out and you couldn't
see anything.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

hmmm...sounds to me like a pretty good description of the collapse of the south tower from within the North Tower...what do you think?? Loud noises, LIKE (see there is Dylan's least favorite word again) bombs, LIKE 7 or 8, just prior to the collapse....hmmm, could it have been the start of the collapse...hmmm, I dunno.

TAM:)

[NemesisX]

TAM and Gravy that's the same crappy non-debunk used by that debunking911 link. No attempt to offer a serious explanation for what the witness could be describing, just "oh derr look the quote was presented out of context!" because the witness's self-editorializing comments were left out. The NYT reported that the accounts "were originally gathered on the order of Thomas Von Essen, the city fire commissioner on Sept. 11, who said he wanted to preserve those accounts before they became reshaped by a collective memory." It's obvious that that reshaping process was already well underway in late 2001 and early 2002, enough that many witnesses said something completely contradictory to what should have happened but then tried to explain it away like the floors pancaking (though the pancake theory has been discarded) or something else. You seem to like hearing the witness's scientific editorializations because they (appear to) back up the official story, as if those remarks cancel out what they said they observed.

As for explanations for those flashes -- witnessed, and thought to be strange, by two high-ranking FDNY officials -- so far we have: "Lights from emergency vehicles. Windows vibrating to xatch the light differently. Relections from glass falling out of windows in the collapse zone, all sorts of things like that can cause flashes to appear on glass or polished metal surfaces." The first two are absurd, the latter would have occurred many seconds into the collapse, which is contradicted by a thorough reading of Mr. Gregory's witness account.

And no I'm not going to attempt to describe "what the collapse should have sounded like", because the building should NOT have collapsed like it did, were it a natural collapse. With the South Tower as an example... that 30ish story chunk that started falling downward at an angle... how did that NOT reach the ground TOTALLY or MOSTLY intact? How was that chunk supposed to act as a pile driver when it completely disappeared into the debris clouds which were fountaining like a banana peel?

[Gravy]

hmmm...sounds to me like a pretty good description of the collapse of the south tower from within the North Tower...what do you think?? Loud noises, LIKE (see there is Dylan's least favorite word again) bombs, LIKE 7 or 8, just prior to the collapse....hmmm, could it have been the start of the collapse...hmmm, I dunno.
Note that he says "There were rocks falling."

OMG! Teh NWO thru rox at teh FDNY!

Or was he using a metaphor? What do you think, Nemesis?

[Dr Adequate]

You know, I just had to read the thread title to know that the actual story was "oral histories corroborate that loud noises happen when buildings fall down ... duh".

Actually reading the thread was something of a formality.

[e^n]

And no I'm not going to attempt to describe "what the collapse should have sounded like", because the building should NOT have collapsed like it did, were it a natural collapse. With the South Tower as an example... that 30ish story chunk that started falling downward at an angle... how did that NOT reach the ground TOTALLY or MOSTLY intact? How was that chunk supposed to act as a pile driver when it completely disappeared into the debris clouds which were fountaining like a banana peel?

I've asked you some very specific questions as to what you think these quotes imply, could you be so kind as to answer them? Thanks.

[Pardalis]

TAM and Gravy that's the same crappy non-debunk used by that debunking911 link. No attempt to offer a serious explanation for what the witness could be describing, just "oh derr look the quote was presented out of context!" because the witness's self-editorializing comments were left out. The NYT reported that the accounts "were originally gathered on the order of Thomas Von Essen, the city fire commissioner on Sept. 11, who said he wanted to preserve those accounts before they became reshaped by a collective memory." It's obvious that that reshaping process was already well underway in late 2001 and early 2002, enough that many witnesses said something completely contradictory to what should have happened but then tried to explain it away like the floors pancaking (though the pancake theory has been discarded) or something else. You seem to like hearing the witness's scientific editorializations because they (appear to) back up the official story, as if those remarks cancel out what they said they observed.

As for explanations for those flashes -- witnessed, and thought to be strange, by two high-ranking FDNY officials -- so far we have: "Lights from emergency vehicles. Windows vibrating to xatch the light differently. Relections from glass falling out of windows in the collapse zone, all sorts of things like that can cause flashes to appear on glass or polished metal surfaces." The first two are absurd, the latter would have occurred many seconds into the collapse, which is contradicted by a thorough reading of Mr. Gregory's witness account.

And no I'm not going to attempt to describe "what the collapse should have sounded like", because the building should NOT have collapsed like it did, were it a natural collapse. With the South Tower as an example... that 30ish story chunk that started falling downward at an angle... how did that NOT reach the ground TOTALLY or MOSTLY intact? How was that chunk supposed to act as a pile driver when it completely disappeared into the debris clouds which were fountaining like a banana peel?

So much wrong, so little time.

As Regnad Kcin would say...

Dear Conspiracy Theorist:

You are 100% wrong.

[Bell]

With the South Tower as an example... that 30ish story chunk that started falling downward at an angle... how did that NOT reach the ground TOTALLY or MOSTLY intact?

:dl:

ETA: Oh, hell... stundied!

MORE ETA: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6826183855763154244

[beachnut]

TAM and Gravy that's the same crappy non-debunk used by that debunking911 link. No attempt to offer a serious explanation for what the witness could be describing, just "oh derr look the quote was presented out of context!" because the witness's self-editorializing comments were left out. The NYT reported that the accounts "were originally gathered on the order of Thomas Von Essen, the city fire commissioner on Sept. 11, who said he wanted to preserve those accounts before they became reshaped by a collective memory." It's obvious that that reshaping process was already well underway in late 2001 and early 2002, enough that many witnesses said something completely contradictory to what should have happened but then tried to explain it away like the floors pancaking (though the pancake theory has been discarded) or something else. You seem to like hearing the witness's scientific editorializations because they (appear to) back up the official story, as if those remarks cancel out what they said they observed.

As for explanations for those flashes -- witnessed, and thought to be strange, by two high-ranking FDNY officials -- so far we have: "Lights from emergency vehicles. Windows vibrating to xatch the light differently. Relections from glass falling out of windows in the collapse zone, all sorts of things like that can cause flashes to appear on glass or polished metal surfaces." The first two are absurd, the latter would have occurred many seconds into the collapse, which is contradicted by a thorough reading of Mr. Gregory's witness account.

And no I'm not going to attempt to describe "what the collapse should have sounded like", because the building should NOT have collapsed like it did, were it a natural collapse. With the South Tower as an example... that 30ish story chunk that started falling downward at an angle... how did that NOT reach the ground TOTALLY or MOSTLY intact? How was that chunk supposed to act as a pile driver when it completely disappeared into the debris clouds which were fountaining like a banana peel?
Your whole post is a pile of wrong stuff.

"intact"? Please - take a physics course before you post more garbage. You are showing your total lack of knowledge on all subjects that apply to 9/11 and the WTC.

[Gravy]

TAM and Gravy that's the same crappy non-debunk used by that debunking911 link.No, it's putting in context what you have taken out of context to serve a pernicious agenda.

And no I'm not going to attempt to describe "what the collapse should have sounded like", because the building should NOT have collapsed like it did, were it a natural collapse. Um, that makes no sense, but it does make for a nice Stundie nomination.

With the South Tower as an example... that 30ish story chunk that started falling downward at an angle... how did that NOT reach the ground TOTALLY or MOSTLY intact? How was that chunk supposed to act as a pile driver when it completely disappeared into the debris clouds which were fountaining like a banana peel?This will explain that.
Why didn't the upper part pivot about it's base? See Bazant & Zhou (2001) Appendix II (http://www.911-strike.com/BazantZhou.htm)

It's linked on this page (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist%2Cfemareports%2C911structuralengineerin), along with many other papers and articles by experts and knowledgeable amateurs. Take all the time you need to read for comprehension.

You are new at this and are in way over your head. I hope you will try to understand the material that's presented here, and if not, ask questions until you do.

[RedIbis]

Can someone clear up for me why when oral accounts support the official story they're valid?

And when oral accounts report the signs of controlled demolition, they're out of context and invalid?

This in fact the problem with eyewitness testimony without physical evidence, contradictory accounts will cancel each other out.

[NemesisX]

Your whole post is a pile of wrong stuff.

"intact"? Please - take a physics course before you post more garbage. You are showing your total lack of knowledge on all subjects that apply to 9/11 and the WTC.

Please enlighten me.

1) Top of building begins angular descent
2) ???
3) Vast majority of building is pulverized

[T.A.M.]

"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."
--Karin Deshore, EMS Captain, interviewed 11/07/01

and with a little more of the quote around it...


Somewhere around the middle of the world
trade center there was this orange and red flash
coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then
this flash just kept popping all the way around the
building and that building had started to explode. The
popping sound, and with each popping sound it was
initially an orange and then red flash came out of
the building and then it would just go all around the
building on both sides as far as i could see these
popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger
going both up and down and then all around the
building.

I went inside and i told everybody that the
other building or there was an explosion occurring up
there and i said i think we have another major
explosion. i don't know if we are all going to be safe
here. I told them i can't force you, but i don't know
if we are going to be safe here. i'm going to try to
get as far away from this building as possible.
Unbeknown to me a half a block down was the water.
Now we are picking up this injured fireman.


So all these alleged "Demolition Charge Explosions", and then what??? it didn't collapse then...how come? Every Demolition I have ever seen the building falls within seconds of the explosions going off...yet not here...strange these NWO demolitions...

TAM:)

[beachnut]

Can someone clear up for me why when oral accounts support the official story they're valid?

And when oral accounts report the signs of controlled demolition, they're out of context and invalid?

This in fact the problem with eyewitness testimony without physical evidence, contradictory accounts will cancel each other out.
When the physical evidence supports it. Silly kid.

A body hits the ground, it sounds like an explosion. Yep, the fireman heard an explosion sound, and sure enough the it was a body. But the truth movement takes those quotes out of context and says explosion.

BTW, if you understood physics, you would not ask such a truthy question. Did the entire truth movement mess up and not take high school physics and chemistry? Cs and Ds in physics could be an indicative of problems understanding 9/11.

[ElMondoHummus]

I'm also still waiting for a substantive response to the video I linked.


No offense, NemesisX, but everything in that video are long, debunked myths. Just search the archives here for proof of that.
Anyway, to answer your protest about not seeing any substantive debunking, I'll tackle some of the video, specifically some of the text panels at the end. This is an example of just how old these claims are. I won't take the time to show you each and every place the video is wrong; I'll merely provide resources, and you can use them to further research on your own. Okay? Let's begin:



Skyscrapers have never collapsed from any cause other than controlled demolition.



These skyscrapers were also hit by jetliners and had raging fires that weakened the structure. Links from engineering and architectural journals discussing the various aspects of the towers collapses can be found near the bottom of this page:


http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm




The Twin Towers were designeed to survive the jet impacs of the type that happened on 9/11.



Actually, that's incorrect. The scenario spelled out by one of the towers designers was for a jet flying at approach speeds, low on fuel, being lost in the fog and impacting. And he also bluntly admitted that they had not taken into consideration the possibility of widespread fires from such an impact; this unfortunately has haunted the poor man since 9/11. Anyway, links on this myth:


http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/impact.htm
http://911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=214
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstrea...1/WTCpaper.pdf




The cores were obliterated. No gravity collapse scenario can account for the complete leveling of the massive columns of the towers' cores.


and


Explosive ejections of dust, known as squibs, occurred well below the mushrooming region in both of the tower collapses



Gravity collapse addressed here:

http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm
http://911myths.com/html/pulverised_concrete.html
Squibs:
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76025 (scroll down to "squibs" section)
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-3#world-trade-center-explosions
http://911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html
... and other general issues regarding the towers collapse can be found at those pages.



Nearly all the concrete was pulverized in mid-air, so finely that it blanketed parts of Lower Manhattan with inches of dust.



http://911myths.com/html/pulverised_concrete.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...zed+concre te
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76025



The tops fell at near the rate of free fall, indicating that nearly all resistance to the downward acceleration of the tops had been eliminated ahead of them



This one's a very old myth.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-3#free-fall
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76025

.. and also the issue of "all resistance... eliminated" has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum. Refer to Dr. Frank Greening's works linked here:
http://911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html


I think you get the point. Most of that video is not only flawed or suggests things beyond the scope of the quotes, but it referes to some very old myths. Most have been dealt with quite a few times here and elsewhere; it's a good idea to use the search function above and read those old posts.

Also: Note that many of the sites I linked above are used over and over again. It's not a bad idea to just go through the various other links at those sites for more information. See those, or the sticky links at the top of the CT forum here.

----

For everyone else, the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDKa1Q1GwTQ video he's referring to is really no different from every other video pitched to us here: Many people saying what the explosions sounded like interspersed with commentary links to sites like "journalof911studies.com" (it tries to claim that there are "Peer reviewed" articles there) and text quotes repeating the witness interviews. And you can see what I've excerpted up above in this post. It's all the same stuff we've all seen before.

Also, lurkers and new folks: You'll see a lot of this. Someone presents a video with some very old information in it and challenge us to debunk it, ignoring the fact that the points in the video have been answered before. Some of these videos, like this one, are no more than simple rehashes of arguments seen time and time again in this forum. Anyway, just take note of the age of these claims, and how conspiracy fantasists like to act as if it's all new information.

[T.A.M.]

Can someone clear up for me why when oral accounts support the official story they're valid?

And when oral accounts report the signs of controlled demolition, they're out of context and invalid?

This in fact the problem with eyewitness testimony without physical evidence, contradictory accounts will cancel each other out.

Show me an example of each and I will attempt an explanation...

In general...

Witness: "I saw a jet airliner hit the building"...I think that is pretty valid...

Witness: "I heard a loud noise, LIKE an explosion"....I think that is a description of a loud noise.

But please Red, provide me with example that urk you...

TAM:)

[NemesisX]

This will explain that.
Why didn't the upper part pivot about it's base? See Bazant & Zhou (2001) Appendix II


Three paragraphs of advanced calculus that I can't read. Care to translate it to English? Or did you link it because it sounds authoritative and seems to back up your point?

[dudalb]

TAM and Gravy that's the same crappy non-debunk used by that debunking911 link. No attempt to offer a serious explanation for what the witness could be describing, just "oh derr look the quote was presented out of context!" because the witness's self-editorializing comments were left out.
:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

That is the most pitiful example of excusing an almost total distortion of what an eyewitness said to fit an agenda I have seen.
In fact, my mind boggles that someone would do that and expect they would not be caught.
Your credibility is now zero .

[CptColumbo]

Can someone clear up for me why when oral accounts support the official story they're valid?Usually, they have physical evidence to back it up and/or they are coroborated by many other eyewitnesses.

And when oral accounts report the signs of controlled demolition, they're out of context and invalid?What oral accounts are you writing about? The ones in the OP, as has been shown, were taken out of context and do not say what the poster claims.

[beachnut]

Please enlighten me.

1) Top of building begins angular descent
2) ???
3) Vast majority of building is pulverized
Yes, the top of the building was destroyed as it fell into the rest of the building. It is called gravity, and as the structure fell the energy released was equal to 240 tons of TNT for each tower. Do you understand energy? That is like 240 2,000 pound bombs plastering the building as it falls! Gravity acts all the time on all the building. You are unable to grasp simple physics?

The building destroyed itself after an big impact and fire. The result is due to the energy release as the building fell; like 240 tons of TNT in each tower. Your stuff is wrong and you do not understand why. Not my fault, it is your lack of education on the subject and physics.

Now, tell me how much energy was due to the impact of each flight?

What amount of heat energy was in the fuel of each jet?

Come on, these are simple things you must know to understand why your posts are cherry picking tripe.

[Gravy]

Please enlighten me.

1) Top of building begins angular descent
2) ???
3) Vast majority of building is pulverizedYou missed my link above, and you fail to understand that the entire top was falling vertically as it was tipping. Here's the link again. Please do not raise this point until you've read the material for comprehension.
Why didn't the upper part pivot about it's base? See Bazant & Zhou (2001) Appendix II (http://www.911-strike.com/BazantZhou.htm)

[BenBurch]

The human ear cannot differentiate between loud concussive sounds. No matter how much training we have it is not a human ability, so this is a worthless claim.

[Dr Adequate]

TAM and Gravy that's the same crappy non-debunk used by that debunking911 link. No attempt to offer a serious explanation for what the witness could be describing, just "oh derr look the quote was presented out of context!" because the witness's self-editorializing comments were left out. In Troofworld, putting quotes into context is not just unnecessary --- it's wrong.

[Bell]

Edit: sorry bout the all caps, but when I copied it from the source, that is how it came out...anyone wanna tell me a SHORT way to fix it??

T.A.M. I send you a PM.

[Gravy]

Three paragraphs of advanced calculus that I can't read. Care to translate it to English? Or did you link it because it sounds authoritative and seems to back up your point?You need not understand the math to understand the concept that the top wasn't pivoting on a solid fulcrum and could not have fallen free of the building. From that paper:

From this we further conclude that the reaction at the base of the upper part of South Tower must have begun shearing the columns plastically already at the inclination (2.8 degrees).Do you understand that much?

Perhaps this will help.

A simple graphic explanation of why the top of the south tower didn't fall to the side. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2243709&postcount=1243)

[Pardalis]

The human ear cannot differentiate between loud concussive sounds. No matter how much training we have it is not a human ability, so this is a worthless claim.

I would also add that echo and reverberation are often factors that hinders the witnesses' hability to precisely pinpoint where they think the sound came from.

[Dr Adequate]

Can someone clear up for me why when oral accounts support the official story they're valid?

And when oral accounts report the signs of controlled demolition, they're out of context and invalid? No-one has said that the oral accounts are invalid; none of them is in fact "reporting the signs of controlled demolition"; and the reason that they're out of context is that thery're being quoted by a halfwitted conspiracy theorist trying to pretend that they've said something they haven't.

Is there anything else very obvious that you'd like me to explain to you?

[DGM]

Three paragraphs of advanced calculus that I can't read. Care to translate it to English? Or did you link it because it sounds authoritative and seems to back up your point?
Place a bowling ball on your head. No problem right? Pick-up said ball 5 feet over your head and drop it. Major problem. Same thing as towers. Do you understand now?

[NemesisX]

You missed my link above, and you fail to understand that the entire top was falling vertically as it was tipping. Here's the link again. Please do not raise this point until you've read the material for comprehension.
Why didn't the upper part pivot about it's base? See Bazant & Zhou (2001) Appendix II

See post #61.

[Hyperviolet]

So much wrong, so little time.

As Regnad Kcin would say...


Hahahaha. Abrupt.

[WildCat]

Can someone clear up for me why when oral accounts support the official story they're valid?

And when oral accounts report the signs of controlled demolition, they're out of context and invalid?

This in fact the problem with eyewitness testimony without physical evidence, contradictory accounts will cancel each other out.
It does support the accepted account. Did you find someone reporting bombs going off? Didn't think so. :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

Hahahaha. Abrupt.

No, concise. ;)

[Bell]

It does support the accepted account. Did you find someone reporting bombs going off? Didn't think so. :rolleyes:

Be careful what you wish for! :covereyes

[CptColumbo]

Three paragraphs of advanced calculus that I can't read. Care to translate it to English? Or did you link it because it sounds authoritative and seems to back up your point?

See post #61.
Do you know what Argument from Personal Incredulity is?

[T.A.M.]

T.A.M. I send you a PM.

Thanks it helped, as you can now see...

TAM:)

[WildCat]

many witnesses said something completely contradictory to what should have happened but then tried to explain it away like the floors pancaking (though the pancake theory has been discarded) or something else.
The floors did pancake after the collapse initiated. However, it was not pancaking that initiated the collapse, so it cannot properly be called a pancake collapse. But truthers can't seem to ever understand that, among many, many other things.

[beachnut]

See post #61.
It has been 6 years, enough time for you to get a masters degree in engineering to prove to yourself what happen on 9/11; you have choose the easy road and decided to repeat the failures of 9/11 truth.

You could get someone in the tuth movement to help you understand.

No, I was wrong! No one in 9/11 truth understands this stuff.

[Pardalis]

This always reminds me of this:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060930/overpass_collapse_060930/20060930/
he was painting his house when he heard a loud bang that sounded "like the explosion of a 50-kilogram bomb."Nope, no bombs there.

[Bell]

Thanks it helped, as you can now see...

TAM:)

Great!

Watch for text that doesn't need to be 'lower cased' (that a word?), for example i instead of I. The technique I told you, does need some proof reading (forgot to mention that).

[Gravy]

See post #61.See post 69. I really think you need to take some time to absorb the material that's being presented to you. Are you interested in learning, or in spewing nonsense?

[RedIbis]

A body hits the ground, it sounds like an explosion. Yep, the fireman heard an explosion sound, and sure enough the it was a body.

This must be what you guys call a "stundie."

Is there a special name for the poorly proofread stundie?

[WildCat]

The multiple explosions heard/seen before the final collapse would have been intended to sever core columns, likely using thermite cutter charges
Thermite is not an explosive. Here's a soldier in Iraq goofing off with a thermite grenade, do you hear an explosion Nemesis? You really should educate yourself before you post such nonsense.

oiRJj2oRWnM

[Bell]

This must be what you guys call a "stundie."

Is there a special name for the poorly proofread stundie?

Oh, I dunno, because making a typo or spelling mistake is only human?

But maybe the person pointing it out can be called Grammar Police? Grammar Nazi?

ETA: Typo. No, really!

[Dr Adequate]

Three paragraphs of advanced calculus that I can't read. Care to translate it to English? No, we cannot invent a special sort of physics just for you which doesn't involve any math, and no, it is not going to start raining candy sprinkles and naked ladies.

In particular, explaining the motion of bodies under gravity requires what you are pleased to call "advanced calculus", and what I would call "the stuff I learned in high school".

[Gravy]

I'm going to bow out of this thread for now. Nemesis is obviously brand new at this and hasn't reviewed the rational and scientific answers to the conspiracists' questions.

Nemesis, at the site linked in my signature you'll find resources to answer all the questions you've asked here. Please start to take this seriously, and please reflect on what has caused you to misuse first responder testimony.

You're welcome to PM me with any questions.

[WildCat]

This must be what you guys call a "stundie."

You think so Red? This is the most disgusting thing you've claimed to date.

pg8FQiJ-Rcw

[Pardalis]

This must be what you guys call a "stundie."

Is there a special name for the poorly proofread stundie?

You obviously haven't seen the Naudet brothers film?

[CptColumbo]

Oh, I dunno, because making a typo or spelling mistake is only human?

But maybe the person pointing it out can be called Grammar Police? Grammar Nazi?

ETA: Typo. No, really!

That is the first time I've seen Godwin appear in a thread, and I see you corrected your spelling before I could be a "spelling Nazi."

Which is dumb, because I am a horrible speller. I blame spell-checker.

[MikeW]

Here's another one. What NemesisX told us:

"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-level 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 ... I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

And in full:

"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.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Gregory_Stephen.txt

Here's what Gregory said about the flashes, that the inside job movement doesn't consider relevant:

No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever. But it's just strange that two people sort of say the same thing and neither one of us talked to each other about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Gregory_Stephen.txt

[beachnut]

This must be what you guys call a "stundie."

Is there a special name for the poorly proofread stundie?
I am challenge to get my thoughts out, at least I do not fall for the lies of 9/11 truth. My whole life is a stundie, it pays okay.

I doubt I was able to get up to stundie standards, a lot of people are able to read beachnut bs and translate – I owe them all tons of beer, soda, or preferred poison, and I will make good on that as the occasion arises.

[Dr Adequate]

This must be what you guys call a "stundie."

Is there a special name for the poorly proofread stundie? According to the Stundie rules, typos are not eligible.

The sight of a Twoofer wetting his pants because he's managed to find a debunker making a typo, however, does have a sort of ludicrous charm.

Yes, folks, it's another Flaw In The Official Story!

Is this really the best you guys can do? If so, why don't you hang up your Magical Hat of Truth and spend your time on something that isn't completely futile?

[RedIbis]

According to the Stundie rules, typos are not eligible.

The sight of a Twoofer wetting his pants because he's managed to find a debunker making a typo, however, does have a sort of ludicrous charm.

Yes, folks, it's another Flaw In The Official Story!

Is this really the best you guys can do? If so, why don't you hang up your Magical Hat of Truth and spend your time on something that isn't completely futile?

Deleting my message. I'm not feeding this distateful conflation of experiences.

[Bell]

You think so Red? This is the most disgusting thing you've claimed to date.

pg8FQiJ-Rcw

:(

I'm shocked everytime I see that scene and hear those sounds.

[Redtail]

The multiple explosions heard/seen before the final collapse would have been intended to sever core columns, likely using thermite cutter charges (if not ONLY such),

Ok, As mentioned before there are no such thing as thermite cutter charges.


and the firecracker/gunshot/derailed-freight-train rapid succession of booms (DESCRIBED IN THE VIDEO I LINKED) would be the top-down demolition via high explosive meant to give the impression that the extreme pulverization of the building was caused by the plane crash since it started from the crash zone.

So high explosive CD charges were used, yet no audio equipment in the area picked up said charges? Highly unlikely.

Now how many of the FDNY who were in the vid you linked come forward and said they believe that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition?

[Bell]

That is the first time I've seen Godwin appear in a thread, and I see you corrected your spelling before I could be a "spelling Nazi."

Which is dumb, because I am a horrible speller. I blame spell-checker.

I've seen it used before, but what or who is Godwin?

[RedIbis]

You think so Red? This is the most disgusting thing you've claimed to date.

pg8FQiJ-Rcw

You had me poised to apologize, for I might have made a rash comment.

But once I viewed the video both you and Beachnut are conflating two entirely different experiences.

The "crashing sounds" are clearly identified as the falling bodies. The reports of explosions throughout the building are NOT the sounds of falling bodies.

I find this conflation disgusting. Next you'll tell me that every sound of repetitive explosions were falling bodies.

[Pardalis]

According to the Stundie rules, typos are not eligible.

The sight of a Twoofer wetting his pants because he's managed to find a debunker making a typo, however, does have a sort of ludicrous charm.

Yes, folks, it's another Flaw In The Official Story!

Is this really the best you guys can do? If so, why don't you hang up your Magical Hat of Truth and spend your time on something that isn't completely futile?

RedIbis seems to think the bodies of the people who jumped didn't sound like explosions when they hit the ground. :(

[CptColumbo]

I've seen it used before, but what of who is Godwin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[MarkyX]

If these explosions were bombs, why hasn't the majority of NYFD has come forward about it? Why no evidence of bombs inside the rubble? Why didn't the building collapse immediately, much like a real controlled demolition?

Just asking questions.

[Bell]

You had me poised to apologize, for I might have made a rash comment.

But once I viewed the video both you and Beachnut are conflating two entirely different experiences.

The "crashing sounds" are clearly identified as the falling bodies. The reports of explosions throughout the building are NOT the sounds of falling bodies.

I find this conflation disgusting. Next you'll tell me that every sound of repetitive explosions were falling bodies.

You obvious don't understand what beachnut intended with his post. I'm not surprised.

[WildCat]

I've seen it used before, but what of who is Godwin?
Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law): Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:
“ As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. ”

[Dr Adequate]

Deleting my message. I'm not feeding this distateful conflation of experiences. I heard something that sounded like a chicken. But it turned out to be an Ibis.

[Bell]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Ah, haha, thanks! :o

[RedIbis]

I heard something that sounded like a chicken. But it turned out to be an Ibis.

Absolutely not, that would mean I'd run from the thread instead of confronting you on your flippant remarks.

I found a completely illogical sentence in Beach's post. Too casually I called it a stundie.

I was presented with a video which was supposed to back up Beach's logic.

In no way is the description given by the firefighter similar to the reports of explosions, multiple flashes, repetitive booming sounds.

Call me whatever name you want, you have my undivided attention.

[Slayhamlet]

You had me poised to apologize, for I might have made a rash comment.

But once I viewed the video both you and Beachnut are conflating two entirely different experiences.

The "crashing sounds" are clearly identified as the falling bodies. The reports of explosions throughout the building are NOT the sounds of falling bodies.

I find this conflation disgusting. Next you'll tell me that every sound of repetitive explosions were falling bodies.

No one said said that all the explosions that were heard throughout the building were from bodies hitting the ground. Of course this isn't true. The point is that people described the sounds of bodies hitting the ground, cars, etc. as explosions.

[RedIbis]

No one said said that all the explosions that were heard throughout the building were from bodies hitting the ground. Of course this isn't true. The point is that people described the sounds of bodies hitting the ground, cars, etc. as explosions.

Not in that video, the phrase used is "crashing sounds" and an unbeliveably loud sound.

That's not the same as what the OP quotes are describing.

[beachnut]

Deleting my message. I'm not feeding this distateful conflation of experiences.


Originally Posted by beachnut http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3091344#post3091344)
"A body hits the ground, it sounds like an explosion. Yep, the fireman heard an explosion sound, and sure enough the it was a body. "

This must be what you guys call a "stundie."

Is there a special name for the poorly proofread stundie?


sounds good to me, the the the.

You could say more about the OP; and the flagrant cherry picking.

[Dr Adequate]

Absolutely not, that would mean I'd run from the thread instead of confronting you on your flippant remarks. Twoofers --- Boldy Confronting Flippancy Wherever It May Arise.

[einsteen]

Ok, As mentioned before there are no such thing as thermite cutter charges.


They exist. I can prove it. And even if I cannot prove it then that is no reason to assume they don't exist. You can not prove that something does not exist only because you think there are technical limitations, using your own world as a reference. As long as there are no physical limitations, i.e. the laws don't rule it out, but only apparent technical limitations, then there is no reason to be sure that it doesn't exist.

[MarkyX]

They exist. I can prove it. And even if I cannot prove it then that is no reason to assume they don't exist.


Nominated.

http://www.ufosrus.50megs.com/images/red_sky_ufo.jpg

[Dr Adequate]

Not in that video, the phrase used is "crashing sounds" and an unbeliveably loud sound.

That's not the same as what the OP quotes are describing. And what it sounds like is an explosion, like a small bomb going off.

I'd never have guessed that it was a falling body. Would you?

[Dr Adequate]

They exist. I can prove it. And even if I cannot prove it then that is no reason to assume they don't exist. You can not prove that something does not exist only because you think there are technical limitations, using your own world as a reference. As long as there are no physical limitations, i.e. the laws don't rule it out, but only apparent technical limitations, then there is no reason to be sure that it doesn't exist. Well, that's the best argument I've heard for the existence of magic pixies for a long time.

Wait, was that not your delusion?

Oh well, it's a great all-round way of protecting any daydream from the facts. One size fits all, you might say.

[CptColumbo]

They exist. I can prove it. And even if I cannot prove it then that is no reason to assume they don't exist. You can not prove that something does not exist only because you think there are technical limitations, using your own world as a reference. As long as there are no physical limitations, i.e. the laws don't rule it out, but only apparent technical limitations, then there is no reason to be sure that it doesn't exist.bolding mine

Nominated.

http://www.ufosrus.50megs.com/images/red_sky_ufo.jpg

That didn't make enough sense for me to consider it stundie or TLA worthy.

[Bell]

They exist. I can prove it. And even if I cannot prove it then that is no reason to assume they don't exist.

I thought you were smarter than this, einsteen.

[einsteen]

Sick to post an UFO, I even didn't think about it because of the theoretical limitations. If you think about space beams and other nonsense you see the energy picture is incorrect, but we were talking about the thermite cutter, there is even a working one online. What's so difficult about it.

[einsteen]

I thought you were smarter than this, einsteen.
Then not today, it must be the "kruidenbitter', you know what it is ;-)

[Slayhamlet]

Not in that video, the phrase used is "crashing sounds" and an unbeliveably loud sound.

Witness Jeff Birnbaum:

“I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 feet from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.

“I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode like a paint ball.”

http://ewweb.com/mag/electric_scene_wtc/

That's not the same as what the OP quotes are describing.

No one said they were. It was an example of something that was described as being an explosion which was not an explosive.

[CptColumbo]

Sick to post an UFO, I even didn't think about it because of the theoretical limitations. If you think about space beams and other nonsense you see the energy picture is incorrect, but we were talking about the thermite cutter, there is even a working one online. What's so difficult about it.
bolding mine.

Link?...or will it cause my computer to collapse from the top down?

[Bell]

Then not today, it must be the "kruidenbitter', you know what it is ;-)

:)

[Disbelief]

Don't know why everyone gets their panties in a bunch, as this is obviously a sock or a hit and run. Nemesis will never give a straightforward answer, dodge questions and then pat himself on the back like he proved something.

[CptColumbo]

Don't know why everyone gets their panties in a bunch, as this is obviously a sock or a hit and run. Nemesis will never give a straightforward answer, dodge questions and then pat himself on the back like he proved something.

I knew how it was going to end when I took Molly into the costume room. I still went.

[Disbelief]

I knew how it was going to end when I took Molly into the costume room. I still went.

Molly is better looking and more fun.

[CptColumbo]

Molly is better looking and more fun.True, but those opportunities present themselves less every year.

[T.A.M.]

NemesisX:

FLASHES AND EXPLOSIONS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkDCS8xeobg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsY0joNv-y4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba7gxguITnU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu7G348rPIw

MORE, DIFFERENT SOURCE....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43tM1zPvJTI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOYaXBRnd_M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj2qC12GViQ

AND YET ANOTHER SOURCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP2PyyWn1QE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnJ6ceVoZgg

TAM:)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

. . .using your own world as a reference.


Err... and what world do you live in?

[bonavada]

Ah, yet another simile-challenged troofer.

I suppose because several witnesses also report the collapses sounding like freight trains, that choo-choo trains were also involved in the destruction of the buildings, right?

All aboard the troof movement!

and meteors:-

v_CmZMkvQ_w

BV

[Redtail]

They exist. I can prove it.

Ok, please do.

And even if I cannot prove it then that is no reason to assume they don't exist. ... What?

You can not prove that something does not exist only because you think there are technical limitations, using your own world as a reference.What if that world includes having used thermite?

As long as there are no physical limitations, i.e. the laws don't rule it out, but only apparent technical limitations, then there is no reason to be sure that it doesn't exist.But I though you said you could prove it.

[NemesisX]

You need not understand the math to understand the concept that the top wasn't pivoting on a solid fulcrum and could not have fallen free of the building. From that paper:

Do you understand that much?

Perhaps this will help.

A simple graphic explanation of why the top of the south tower didn't fall to the side.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks. The pictures clarify that you are trying to resurrect the pile-driver theory. Okay man, let's say I grant this point: "The fulcrum breaks, and the upper mass smashes straight downward, with all the resultant damage:" Which I'm happy to grant, cause I'm not denying that that fulcrum couldn't support all the weight. But LOL at "resultant damage". HUH? How do 30 floors DESTROY 80 OTHER FLOORS? They obviously DIDN'T, since you can see that top chunk completely disappear into the fountain of debris.

Let's say one perimeter wall of floor #80 acts as a fulcrum to the 30 floors above. Top chunk can't be supported by floor 80's perimeter wall, some MUSHY MUSHY occurs, now our fulcrum is floor #79. Mmkay. Maybe more mushy mushy, now our fulcrum is floor #78. But that upper mass can only "smash straight downward" so far because it can't magically pass through the 80 lower floors, and it doesn't have enough energy to destroy the 80 floors below it.

Each floor that 30-floor chunk had to smash through would have SLOWED IT DOWN, agree? To the point that it should have STOPPED falling straight down, and instead should have taken the path of least resistance, which is DOWNWARD and OUTWARD?

Note that NIST's mandate was to find out what initiated the collapse. They didn't and couldn't explain how it underwent total collapse. If any of you think you can fully explain the Towers' total collapse, perhaps you should apply for a job at NIST.

[Slayhamlet]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks. The pictures clarify that you are trying to resurrect the pile-driver theory. Okay man, let's say I grant this point: "The fulcrum breaks, and the upper mass smashes straight downward, with all the resultant damage:" Which I'm happy to grant, cause I'm not denying that that fulcrum couldn't support all the weight. But LOL at "resultant damage". HUH? How do 30 floors DESTROY 80 OTHER FLOORS? They obviously DIDN'T, since you can see that top chunk completely disappear into the fountain of debris.

Let's say one perimeter wall of floor #80 acts as a fulcrum to the 30 floors above. Top chunk can't be supported by floor 80's perimeter wall, some MUSHY MUSHY occurs, now our fulcrum is floor #79. Mmkay. Maybe more mushy mushy, now our fulcrum is floor #78. But that upper mass can only "smash straight downward" so far because it can't magically pass through the 80 lower floors, and it doesn't have enough energy to destroy the 80 floors below it.

Each floor that 30-floor chunk had to smash through would have SLOWED IT DOWN, agree? To the point that it should have STOPPED falling straight down, and instead should have taken the path of least resistance, which is DOWNWARD and OUTWARD?

Note that NIST's mandate was to find out what initiated the collapse. They didn't and couldn't explain how it underwent total collapse. If any of you think you can fully explain the Towers' total collapse, perhaps you should apply for a job at NIST.

:dl:

Is mushy-mushy the new clunkity-clunk?

[beachnut]

Each floor that 30-floor chunk had to smash through would have SLOWED IT DOWN, agree? To the point that it should have STOPPED falling straight down, and instead should have taken the path of least resistance, which is DOWNWARD and OUTWARD?
No. The top floors had enough energy to destroy each floor below; they never stopped anything! The fall accelerated, only the acceleration was slowed by lost energy to destroy building; 10 or 20 percent increase in the time it takes to fall 1300 feet. You should take physics, it would cure your lack of knowledge.

You do not understand energy and physics get some help from a teacher. You can model the collapse on a piece of paper. Find a physics teacher and get help on this. You are showing your lack of knowledge on this topic.

[NemesisX]

No. The top floors had enough energy to destroy each floor below; they never stopped anything!

Are you asserting that the top floors remained intact to destroy, say, floors 10-30?

[ElMondoHummus]

Each floor that 30-floor chunk had to smash through would have SLOWED IT DOWN, agree? To the point that it should have STOPPED falling straight down, and instead should have taken the path of least resistance, which is DOWNWARD and OUTWARD?


Dr. Frank Greening addressed the specific issues of energy and timing issues in his work. You can find links to his work here:
http://911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html (http://911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html)

Regarding "path of least resistence": Read Brent Blanchard's work (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf); he addresses this.

Again, these are old myths. You can research within this forum, or at the links I provided in an earlier post for answers to the issues you bring up.


Note that NIST's mandate was to find out what initiated the collapse. They didn't and couldn't explain how it underwent total collapse. If any of you think you can fully explain the Towers' total collapse, perhaps you should apply for a job at NIST.

What do you mean? How did they fail to find what initiated the collapse? Could you explain further? What did they get wrong? Could you identify even just a few examples of the mistakes that lead you to that conclusion?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Each floor that 30-floor chunk had to smash through would have SLOWED IT DOWN, agree?


Nope. Gravity is an accelerating force. How have you come to the conclusion that whatever resistance the remaining structure offered was enough to overcome the acceleration of gravity?

To the point that it should have STOPPED falling straight down, and instead should have taken the path of least resistance, which is DOWNWARD and OUTWARD?


I think PhantomWolf covers this pretty well:

Finally lets look at this one:

through the path of maximum (and greatly increasing) resistance

This makes the assumption that things should always take the path of least resistance. This is untrue as well. Objects take the path of least ENERGY change. Think about it for a moment. If you get hit by a bullet, does it follow the path of least resistance? Surely the path of least resistance is to divert around you through the air, not to pass through your body. Why does it pass through you if that is higher resistance? The answer is because it would require more enegy to deflect the bullet around you that it does to cause a plastic deformation and fracture of your body components. In the same way there is less energy reqyuired to plastically deform and fracture the building below the collapsing top that it would take to deflect that mass off to one side. Thus it is more energy effiecent to crush the building below, and it does. Simple 101 physics, I suggest you get a text book and start reading it.


Note that NIST's mandate was to find out what initiated the collapse. They didn't and couldn't explain how it underwent total collapse. If any of you think you can fully explain the Towers' total collapse, perhaps you should apply for a job at NIST.


If you think that global collapse wasn't assured, what purpose would completely destroying the towers have served for the alleged conspirators?

[beachnut]

Are you asserting that the top floors remained intact to destroy, say, floors 10-30?
You need to take some physics courses.

The mass of the top floors destroyed the lower sections, once the failure started each area of resistance failed to stop the mass! The mass accelerates; never stops on a global sense, except where the core was still standing; Then the core unable to take any real lateral loads (the job of the shell) fell to the ground in a light wind or as disturbed by the shifting load near the base (do you understand lateral loads; like wind). You can use math and physics to a rough model. That model show an acceleration of the upper mass as it destroys the lower sections, modulated only by the energy lost to destroying resistance and the total new mass; Physics. I reality we see some sections fell out side the edge of the building. If you would study the building and how it was put together; everything we see on 9/11 makes sense you can see in the collapse. This is a collision so stop the grade school BS. I a collision with another car what happens to your car? But this is in the vertical. Gravity is driving the collisions. Once the top floors fall and the lower floors fail to hold them back, the collapse accelerates. There is no stopping once the mass above has more energy than the lower section. Only the idiots of 9/11 truth come up with each floor stopping the upper collapsing mass; they are liars or just dumb.

A rough model based on energy, shows the collapse would be rapid. Those who are in truth movement say too fast; they have chosen not to use rational thought and get help to understand reality, and physics.

You refuse to take my advice; go back to school and obtain knowledge and the judgment to apply that knowledge. You will not be disappointed except for your failed 9/11 fantasy can be gone.

[CHF]

NemesisX,

Do you plan on contacting any of the witnesses you quoted?

[Slayhamlet]

Are you asserting that the top floors remained intact to destroy, say, floors 10-30?

Why would they have to remain intact to destroy the other floors? Make sense, please.

[Blender Head]

Explosions explosions explosions explosions!!!
Must be a controlled demolition of the gas station!

jsM7nw-Gx9c

I love this video, with the black smoke and all. Destroys the 'black smoke=oxygen starved/low temperature fire' myth.

lawl @ 'mushy-mushy'!

[leftysergeant]

Are you asserting that the top floors remained intact to destroy, say, floors 10-30?Why would they have to remain intact? A hundred pounds of moving slabs or a hundred pounds of moving gravel, what difference does it make? It is moving mass that transfers energy to what is ahead of it. AIR moving in one direction moves stuff out of its way.

You do not have a passively falling mass at each floor. You have a mass of energy building up as more stuff comes down. Crumbling concrerte is releasing water as steam, contributing to a local over-pressurization.

The floors were not passively dropped onto the floors below. They were driven into them. You are not starting from zero at each floor.

[Gravy]

WTC Pre-Collapse Explosions

"Sounded like bombs." Murphy, Keith (FDNY)

"A huge explosion." Gorman, Gerard (FDNY)

"Sound of popping and exploding." Monchery, Alwish (E.M.T. E.M.S.)

"Explosions" Burns, William (Lt. PAPD)

"Kept hearing these large boom, boom." Terranova, Rosario (Lieutenant E.M.S.)

"Sounded like explosions." Fitzgerald, Anthony (Lt. PAPD)

"Like a shotgun going off." Meier, Mark (P.O. PAPD)

"Sounded like explosions." Barriere, Wilfred (Det. PAPD)

"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters." Murray, John (Fire Marshall FDNY)

"You could hear explosions." Smiouskas, Richard (Lieutenant FDNY)

"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were." Pearson, Tim, (Captain, NYPD)

"Sounds like a shotgun" (Eric Ronningen)

"Sounded like an explosion." Morabito, John (Firefighter, FDNY)

"There were lots of explosions." Birnbaum, Jeff (Chief, Point Lookout, NY FD)

"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." Rodriguez, Andrew (PAPD)

"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." Hayden, Peter, (Deputy Chief, FDNY)


All of these people were describing impacts of bodies from the towers.

[16.5]

Hey, mushy-mushy (has that been Stundied yet?) what happened to the mass of the 78Th floor? And then the 77th, the 76th, the 75th etc?

Mushy-Mushy v. Clunkity-Clunk.

I say we keep them both!

Mushy mushy!

[leftysergeant]

Speaking of oral histories, seems to be we should have a whole bunch of them from janitorial staff who would have been aware of extensive work involving a power-down over the weekend.

[hellaeon]

Nemesis, if you dont understand a scientific response or explanation this does in no way invalidate it, in fact a normal person would understand that it means they dont understand the complexity of the science probably involved.
I would highly suggest you step back, take a deep breath, stop being so damn paranoid about adults, read slowly and refer to occams razor where possible. In fact, you should not even need any form of science to understand why your wrong on this particular topic.

Respect

Hellaeon

[Slayhamlet]

WTC Pre-Collapse Explosions

"Sounded like bombs." Murphy, Keith (FDNY)

"A huge explosion." Gorman, Gerard (FDNY)

"Sound of popping and exploding." Monchery, Alwish (E.M.T. E.M.S.)

"Explosions" Burns, William (Lt. PAPD)

"Kept hearing these large boom, boom." Terranova, Rosario (Lieutenant E.M.S.)

"Sounded like explosions." Fitzgerald, Anthony (Lt. PAPD)

"Like a shotgun going off." Meier, Mark (P.O. PAPD)

"Sounded like explosions." Barriere, Wilfred (Det. PAPD)

"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters." Murray, John (Fire Marshall FDNY)

"You could hear explosions." Smiouskas, Richard (Lieutenant FDNY)

"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were." Pearson, Tim, (Captain, NYPD)

"Sounds like a shotgun" (Eric Ronningen)

"Sounded like an explosion." Morabito, John (Firefighter, FDNY)

"There were lots of explosions." Birnbaum, Jeff (Chief, Point Lookout, NY FD)

"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." Rodriguez, Andrew (PAPD)

"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." Hayden, Peter, (Deputy Chief, FDNY)


All of these people were describing impacts of bodies from the towers.

Where'd you get these from, Gravy?

[T.A.M.]

I imagine you could find it in here, but it is a lot of reading...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

TAM:)

[Slayhamlet]

I imagine you could find it in here, but it is a lot of reading...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

TAM:)

Thanks. I didn't know such a site existed. Fascinating.

[Reality Believer]

....
Mushy mushy!

Konichiwa :)

[Gravy]

Where'd you get these from, Gravy?The FDNY and FDNY-EMS accounts are from the oral histories. The few others are from various articles.

[Gravy]

Speaking of oral histories, seems to be we should have a whole bunch of them from janitorial staff who would have been aware of extensive work involving a power-down over the weekend.They and the maintenance engineers, the entire security staff, and the Port Authority Police were given the weekend off and were relieved by Marvin Bush.

[The Doc]

NemesisX. Here's what you should do.

You claim to have 503 firefighter accounts that refute the official story. So I pose a challenge to you. Go out and find me 503 FDNY personnel who will agree to go on the record and state that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives. Go and and confirm with every one of those 503 that they believe they heard bombs going off in the buildings.

Until then, stop using misquotes and using the good names of the men and women of the FDNY to further your insane agenda. Believe me, I've talked to many of them, and they hate you for what you're doing.

[Dr Adequate]

Sick to post an UFO, I even didn't think about it because of the theoretical limitations.

They exist. I can prove it. And even if I cannot prove it then that is no reason to assume they don't exist. You can not prove that something does not exist only because you think there are technical limitations, using your own world as a reference. As long as there are no physical limitations, i.e. the laws don't rule it out, but only apparent technical limitations, then there is no reason to be sure that it doesn't exist.

:dl:

[holycanoli]

in a controlled demolition, explosions do not go off once every 10 seconds.

Next!!

Dude--that was surgical.

[FramerDave]

*snip*
Let's say one perimeter wall of floor #80 acts as a fulcrum to the 30 floors above. Top chunk can't be supported by floor 80's perimeter wall, some MUSHY MUSHY occurs, now our fulcrum is floor #79. Mmkay. Maybe more mushy mushy, now our fulcrum is floor #78. But that upper mass can only "smash straight downward" so far because it can't magically pass through the 80 lower floors, and it doesn't have enough energy to destroy the 80 floors below it.

Each floor that 30-floor chunk had to smash through would have SLOWED IT DOWN, agree? To the point that it should have STOPPED falling straight down, and instead should have taken the path of least resistance, which is DOWNWARD and OUTWARD?



It's been quite a while since freshman physics, so if I'm wrong someone please correct me.

Wouldn't it have remained a 30-floor chunk for only a short period of time? As it collapsed each floor below it, wouldn't the mass of that floor be added to it? So as the collapse progressed you'd have a 31, 32, 33 and so on chunk of building falling onto the floors below? Of course some of that mass would have fallen to the sides in the plume of debris seen in the photos, videos, eyewitness reports and in the aftermath.

And mass is mass, right? Whether it's in the form of a solid structure or a pile of debris, 50 pounds is still 50 pounds, correct?

[holycanoli]

Ah, yet another simile-challenged troofer.

I suppose because several witnesses also report the collapses sounding like freight trains, that choo-choo trains were also involved in the destruction of the buildings, right?

All aboard the troof movement!

Post of the year--right there ladies and gentlemen.:D

[holycanoli]

It's been quite a while since freshman physics, so if I'm wrong someone please correct me.

Wouldn't it have remained a 30-floor chunk for only a short period of time? As it collapsed each floor below it, wouldn't the mass of that floor be added to it? So as the collapse progressed you'd have a 31, 32, 33 and so on chunk of building falling onto the floors below? Of course some of that mass would have fallen to the sides in the plume of debris seen in the photos, videos, eyewitness reports and in the aftermath.

And mass is mass, right? Whether it's in the form of a solid structure or a pile of debris, 50 pounds is still 50 pounds, correct?

Been a huge amount of time since physics for me too but I seem to remember you being PRECISELY CORRECT.

It brought up horrible memories. The carnage. The terror. The absolute disbelief of what I saw. Then I withdrew from the course and all was good.

[Dr Adequate]

It's been quite a while since freshman physics, so if I'm wrong someone please correct me.

Wouldn't it have remained a 30-floor chunk for only a short period of time? As it collapsed each floor below it, wouldn't the mass of that floor be added to it? So as the collapse progressed you'd have a 31, 32, 33 and so on chunk of building falling onto the floors below? Of course some of that mass would have fallen to the sides in the plume of debris seen in the photos, videos, eyewitness reports and in the aftermath.

And mass is mass, right? Whether it's in the form of a solid structure or a pile of debris, 50 pounds is still 50 pounds, correct? You're quite right, except that I believe that you're trying to explain basic physics to a Truther.

Well, yeah, like that's going to work.

[CptColumbo]

If mass didn't matter, why would anyone run from an avalanche or tidal wave?

[Reality Believer]

You're quite right, except that I believe that you're trying to explain basic physics to a Truther.

Well, yeah, like that's going to work.

My signature.

[LashL]

Speaking of oral histories, seems to be we should have a whole bunch of them from janitorial staff who would have been aware of extensive work involving a power-down over the weekend.

Indeed. Not only with regard to the power down itself but also with regard to all the thick dust that Forbes claims was all over the place for a week before 9/11. It appears that nobody else in the entire building noticed it, except for Forbes. Had it actually existed, it would be reasonable to expect that the janitorial staff would have been made aware of it and called upon to deal with it.

Perhaps Rodriguez will come up with yet another variation of his story in the near future to accommodate Forbes' story, although it might be dependent upon how much Rodriguez can sell Forbes' story for...

[CurtC]

....
Mushy mushy!Konichiwa :)Domo!

[Slayhamlet]

Okay, I looked through the testimony on the NYT Oral Histories (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html) site, and some of the quotes Gravy gives can be found on there, but not all of them. So for RedIbis I will indicate those which he can check there for himself.

-Under Gerard Gorman is the exact quote Gravy gives. Same deal with Rosario Terranova and Richard Smiouskas. I've already shown him the Jeff Birnbaum quote, but it's on there as well.

-The exact quote given by Gravy can't be found under Alwish Moncherry, but he uses the same words "popping" and "exploding" to describe the impacts of falling people. Under John Murray again not the exact quote, but both the words "bombs" and "block buster" are used for the falling people. Gravy probably got the exact quotes from another source, but these are sufficient.

-Keith Murphy, John Murray, and Peter Hayden are all listed, but the testimonies on the site don't contain the quotes given by Gravy.

-William Burns, Anthony Fitgerald, Mark Meier, Wilfred Barriere, Tim Pearson, Eric Ronningen, and Andrew Rodriguez are not listed on the site.

-There's a John Moribito on there as well, but no John Morabito as Gravy gives. There is a Michael Morabito listed, however, adding to the confusion. Neither one has the given quote.

[buka001]

Did you see a train running by the towers somewhere?

Was there a storm? Lightning and thunder?

No?

Well, some witnesses have said things like - "Sounded like a train" and "Sounded like thunder".

Does that prove there was a train at the WTC?

Your logic implies it does.

[Mobyseven]

This must be what you guys call a "stundie."

Is there a special name for the poorly proofread stundie?

Typos and spelling mistakes are ineligible for Teh Stundies.

[Dave Rogers]

Please enlighten me.

1) Top of building begins angular descent
2) ???
3) Vast majority of building is pulverized

2a) Top of building hits next bit of building down.
2b) Next bit of building breaks, as does bottom of falling bit.
2c) Forces needed to break these bits slow down the falling bit very slightly, but not much because the supports break very quickly.
2d) Top of building (what's left) plus all broken bits carry on falling.
2e) Some of the broken stuff falls over the side. However, as long as it isn't all the broken stuff plus some more, there's still more stuff falling than in step 1.
2f) Repeat 2a to 2e. Not only are there more falling bits, but the falling bits are falling faster than before due to gravity so they hit harder this time. Repeat 2a to 2e lots more times until the ground gets in the way.

That's about it - hope it helps. Sorry I had to use some two-syllable words (and two three-syllable, but I don't know a two-syllable word for "gravity" or "syllable").

Dave

[twinstead]

2a)
That's about it - hope it helps. Sorry I had to use some two-syllable words (and two three-syllable, but I don't know a two-syllable word for "gravity" or "syllable").



Gravity: Big Earth Pull
Syllable: Little word bit

[Mancman]

Let's say one perimeter wall of floor #80 acts as a fulcrum to the 30 floors above. Top chunk can't be supported by floor 80's perimeter wall, some MUSHY MUSHY occurs, now our fulcrum is floor #79. Mmkay. Maybe more mushy mushy, now our fulcrum is floor #78. But that upper mass can only "smash straight downward" so far because it can't magically pass through the 80 lower floors, and it doesn't have enough energy to destroy the 80 floors below it.

Ermmm...no. When the 'mushy mushy' occurs and the fulcrum breaks, the top section seperates.
You now have a 30 story, 100,000 ton chunk of building with no vertical support in motion above the rest of the building.
Since the top sections both leant, the columns of the upper section would have come down on the floorslabs of the lower section, 100psf floorslabs designed to support office furniture and people. They would not handle the vertical load of the building at rest, never mind in motion.
Once they are gone the perimeter walls will just topple to the side. The core will be trashed by the core of the upper section.

[MetalPig]

Then not today, it must be the "kruidenbitter', you know what it is ;-)
The stuff my American friends describe as 'licorice-flavored ham', hence 'ham shots'.

[Belz...]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It's nice to see you take this subject seriously.

But LOL at "resultant damage". HUH? How do 30 floors DESTROY 80 OTHER FLOORS?

In physics 101, we learned about kinetic energy. Did you ?

They obviously DIDN'T, since you can see that top chunk completely disappear into the fountain of debris.

Read that aloud to yourself again, Nemesis. How do you know it didn't if you can't see it ?

Let's say one perimeter wall of floor #80 acts as a fulcrum to the 30 floors above. Top chunk can't be supported by floor 80's perimeter wall, some MUSHY MUSHY occurs, now our fulcrum is floor #79. Mmkay. Maybe more mushy mushy, now our fulcrum is floor #78. But that upper mass can only "smash straight downward" so far because it can't magically pass through the 80 lower floors, and it doesn't have enough energy to destroy the 80 floors below it.

A lot of people have done the calculations and they disagree with you. Where are YOUR numbers ?

Each floor that 30-floor chunk had to smash through would have SLOWED IT DOWN, agree?

Not significantly, no. You don't seem to grasp how much kinetic energy a 30-floor mass has.

To the point that it should have STOPPED falling straight down, and instead should have taken the path of least resistance, which is DOWNWARD and OUTWARD?

It DID take the path of least resistance.

Note that NIST's mandate was to find out what initiated the collapse. They didn't and couldn't explain how it underwent total collapse.

Speculation. Since their mandate wasn't to model the whole collapse, they didn't go into much detail. How do YOU know they "couldn't" explain it ?

Do you have ANYTHING to go on besides your gut feelings, here ?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

*yawn*

Another "Sounds Like" = "Is" truther.

[westprog]

Do you know what Argument from Personal Incredulity is?

An object can only topple sideways if it is able to maintain its own structure, and if the pivot point is able to support its weight. Neither is applicable in this case.

[PixyMisa]

Well, that's the best argument I've heard for the existence of magic pixies for a long time.
So what am I, chopped liver? :mad:

[firecoins]

My signature.
My dog is named Einstein. He falls down alot. Its all relative.

[16.5]

"A body hits the ground, it sounds like an explosion. Yep, the fireman heard an explosion sound, and sure enough the it was a body."

RedIbis sez: "This must be what you guys call a 'stundie.' Is there a special name for the poorly proofread stundie?"

Umm, Red-y, try to focus, perhaps the sentence could have used some additional punctuation, but it was perfectly clear:

"A body hits the ground, it sounds like an explosion. Yep, the fireman heard an explosion sound, and sure enough the "it" was a body."

[BigAl]

Why, haven't you been paying attention?

Do you understand that sounds of explosions do not equal explosives?




Why can Twoofers think it's OK to take the words of NY firemen literally and out of context and claim that when a fireman says "explosion" he means man-made explosives yet when a few dozen firemen are on record as saying clearly and unambiguously that WTC7 was on fire all day and beginning to collapse even before noon because of those fires, their words can be dismissed.

[Gravy]

Okay, I looked through the testimony on the NYT Oral Histories (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html) site, and some of the quotes Gravy gives can be found on there, but not all of them. So for RedIbis I will indicate those which he can check there for himself.

-Under Gerard Gorman is the exact quote Gravy gives. Same deal with Rosario Terranova and Richard Smiouskas. I've already shown him the Jeff Birnbaum quote, but it's on there as well.

-The exact quote given by Gravy can't be found under Alwish Moncherry, but he uses the same words "popping" and "exploding" to describe the impacts of falling people. Under John Murray again not the exact quote, but both the words "bombs" and "block buster" are used for the falling people. Gravy probably got the exact quotes from another source, but these are sufficient.

-Keith Murphy, John Murray, and Peter Hayden are all listed, but the testimonies on the site don't contain the quotes given by Gravy.

-William Burns, Anthony Fitgerald, Mark Meier, Wilfred Barriere, Tim Pearson, Eric Ronningen, and Andrew Rodriguez are not listed on the site.

-There's a John Moribito on there as well, but no John Morabito as Gravy gives. There is a Michael Morabito listed, however, adding to the confusion. Neither one has the given quote.Ah, some of those are from Fire Engineering's online edition. I've got URLs for all of the quotes, but RedIbis will learn more by doing his own search. If I found these quotes without knowing what they were, he can certainly find them with the information he has.

[Myriad]

Here's what explodes my irony meter in the OP:

I have never seen a substantive debunker response to the 503 oral histories gathered by the FDNY in the months after 9/11. Taken together, these long-suppressed witness accounts corroborate controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.

(emphasis added)

... followed by thirteen cherry-picked partial quotes mentioning explosions or sounds of explosions.

So, 13 partial quotes is the end result of 503 oral histories "taken together"? What a mockery of historianship.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[firecoins]

how come nobody saw any explosives? 50,000 plus evacuated the buildings and no one saw a thing. Hmmm.

[T.A.M.]

Here is an example of the type of cherry picking we see by the truthers, and how easy it is to do, and mislead people with it...

From the testimony of Faisel Abed, EMT:


And he just --
the tower blew. So my partner said stop the freaking bus,
stop the freaking bus. The building's going to fall.
The building's going to fall on us. It was coming --
the force -- you see like the -- ****, the whole top of
the building go off and just the junk that was coming
out of there and the explosion was...

Sounds like the building is about to collapse, and there was an explosion at the time, right...must be CD right???

Here is the full quote, in context....


But then we are driving and now we are like,
we are about a half mile out, halfway from the World
Trade Center and we see this shiny object coming and me
and my partner are going, what the hell, what's wrong
with that plane. What is wrong with that plane. There
is something not right with that plane. And he just --
the tower blew.
So my partner said stop the freaking bus,
stop the freaking bus. The building's going to fall.
The building's going to fall on us. It was coming --
the force -- you see like the -- ****, the whole top of
the building go off and just the junk that was coming
out of there and the explosion was -- I thought it was
Hollywood.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

See, now it becomes clear they are describing the second plane hitting the south tower, it will be 50 plus minutes before it falls...

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Interesting account from Richard Banaciski, Firefighter wrt Building 7...

Time period, a short while after North Tower Collapse:


"So we kind of -- same thing, there was a time
period where people were kind of in shock, not knowing
what to do. I just remember we finally said we got to
go somewhere now. We got to figure out what's going
on.

I remember going back up Vesey to West and
then they were telling us to go north. Go north up on
West Street, because there is a foot bridge north, like
an arched foot bridge. Had everybody going north of
that. We will regroup up there.

I just remember that's when I started seeing
all the guys coming in from home, all the guys from the
company and we actually -- everybody from this house,
we stuck together and we actually from there, a little
bit of time, maybe an hour or so, they actually started
telling us to go here, go there. They moved us from
one spot, they moved us on to Vesey again. Because
then they were worried about -- we actually searched
the Verizon building, because there was reports of
firemen there. Basically our whole house searched that
building.

They told us to get out of there because they
were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right
behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors
of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just
see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone.
We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers
were because we were that high up. Looking over the
smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous,
tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all
right, get out of that building because that 7, they
were really worried about. They pulled us out of there
and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street,
between the water and West Street. They put everybody
back in there.

Finally it did come down. From there -- this
is much later on in the day, because every day we were
so worried about that building we didn't really want to
get people close. They were trying to limit the amount
of people that were in there. Finally it did come
down. That's when they let the guys go on. I just
remember we started searching around all the rigs."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

TAM:)

[portlandatheist]

NemesisX,
Aren't you forgetting the oral histories that suggest a train was involved? Who benefited from the attacks? Amtrak! That's who! Follow the money!

http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

Nicholas Borrillo -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) on 23rd floor of North Tower:
Then we heard a rumble. We heard it and we felt the whole building shake. iIt was like being on a train, being in an earthquake. A train is more like it, because with the train you hear the rumbling, and it kind of like moved you around in the hall.

Paul Curran -- Fire Patrolman (F.D.N.Y.) North Tower:
I went back and stood right in front of Eight World Trade Center right by the customs house, and the north tower was set right next to it. Not that much time went by, and all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet.

Joseph Fortis -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) The ground started shaking like a train was coming. You looked up, and I guess -- I don't know, it was one that came down first or two? Which one?

Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47] At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118] You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.

[T.A.M.]

Anyone have any idea what, if anything, came of this...

From testimony of Fireman Brian Becker, as he decented from the stairwell of the North Tower, into the Lobby:


We got to the lobby, and we saw things. We
saw an arrest being made of some Arab-looking type
guy. I think he had a blue uniform type World Trade
Center type maintenance type person. It was my
impression. It didn't seem important to me. It seemed
like he was being arrested by a Port Authority type
policeman. That's my impression. I remember them
putting cuffs on him, and I remember one of the firemen
saying, "Look, they're arresting the guy," and I said,
"Never mind that. Never mind that."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

Ah, some of those are from Fire Engineering's online edition. I've got URLs for all of the quotes, but RedIbis will learn more by doing his own search. If I found these quotes without knowing what they were, he can certainly find them with the information he has.

I'm supposed to confirm quotes that you didn't identify? No thanks. How about presenting them in full, sourced, and documented in the first place.

SlayHamlet did a good enough job of pointing out where you need to revise your list and improve your research.

[16.5]

I'm supposed to confirm quotes that you didn't identify? No thanks. How about presenting them in full, sourced, and documented in the first place.

Huh, when we were pointing out that the OP's quotes were wildly out of context and misleading, you jumped to the OP posters defense saying:

"Can someone clear up for me why when oral accounts support the official story they're valid? And when oral accounts report the signs of controlled demolition, they're out of context and invalid?"

How come you didn't tell the OP to present them in full, sourced, and documented in the first place? Never mind, I know why, I just don't understand in what Universe you would ever think that such silly quote mining does anything other than destroy what ever credibility you might be able to muster.

[Dr Adequate]

I'm supposed to confirm quotes that you didn't identify? No thanks. How about presenting them in full, sourced, and documented in the first place.

SlayHamlet did a good enough job of pointing out where you need to revise your list and improve your research. Gravy did identify the posts. Slayhamlet has also told you exactly where you can find some of the quotes. How many do you need?

I agree with 16.5's remarks about your blatant hypocrisy. Why didn't you make the same demands of NemesisX?

What's source for the goose is source for the gander.

[Elizabeth I]

Ah, yet another simile-challenged troofer.

I suppose because several witnesses also report the collapses sounding like freight trains, that choo-choo trains were also involved in the destruction of the buildings, right?

All aboard the troof movement!

I think you're on to something here. People who have gone through tornados often describe the storms as sounding like a freight train coming straight at them. Given the sound and the destruction associated with so-called "tornados," it's obvious that the railroad companies are engaged in a massive cover-up to disguise the fact that trains are constantly jumping the tracks and plowing through defenseless communities. Tornados? Yeah, right.

How was that chunk supposed to act as a pile driver when it completely disappeared into the debris clouds which were fountaining like a banana peel?

"Fountaining like a banana peel"? This deserves some kind of nomination for weirdest simile ever. Or most awkward. Or least comprehensible.

A lot of people have done the calculations and they disagree with you. Where are YOUR numbers?

Ah, but that would require education, research, calculation and...work.