Forbes Reports 15 (Pop Cans Exploding)Just Before South Tower Collapse

[Swing Dangler]

U.S. Under Attack; World Trade Center Destroyed (http://www.forbes.com/2001/09/11/0911usattack3.html)

"The first incident happened at about 9 a.m. when an American Airlines passenger jet -- that had been reportedly hijacked on a flight from Boston to Los Angeles -- hit the northern tower of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan's financial district. Shortly afterward, the southern tower was struck by an unmarked plane.

An hour later, the tower collapsed, following what eyewitnesses describe as a series of 15 explosions inside the building. Half an hour after that, the second tower fell, leaving southern Manhattan covered in a pall of smoke and dust."

I'm quite surprised now to learn about more pop cans exploding, this time in the South Tower! I'm starting to think Coca Cola or Pepsi might have been involved with the collapse.;)

Swing, do not start re-doing every issue that has already been examined in the forum, by replacing the terms for explosions with 'pop cans'. If you continue, all threads will be merged into one.

[JimBenArm]

Oh, great, another thread for you to ignore or misrepresent what people say!

[Pardalis]

Didn't we discuss this already?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97635

[Calcas]

This article was written on 9/11/01. The second plane to hit ther towers is described as "unmarked." They still don't even know about FL93 yet.

But we are supposed to believe the author got it right about the unknown explosions.

Right.

[Mooseman]

Mountain Dew Code Red.

[Par]

This is the second thread that Swing Dangler has started about “pop cans”. What on earth are “pop cans”, anyway?

[Par]

U.S. Under Attack; World Trade Center Destroyed (http://www.forbes.com/2001/09/11/0911usattack3.html)

"The first incident happened at about 9 a.m. when an American Airlines passenger jet -- that had been reportedly hijacked on a flight from Boston to Los Angeles -- hit the northern tower of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan's financial district. Shortly afterward, the southern tower was struck by an unmarked plane.

An hour later, the tower collapsed, following what eyewitnesses describe as a series of 15 explosions inside the building. Half an hour after that, the second tower fell, leaving southern Manhattan covered in a pall of smoke and dust."


What follows from this?

[16.5]

Hey Swingy! You totally missed this part of the article:

09.11.01, 11:34 AM ET

NEW YORK - The United States was struck Tuesday by what appeared to be a coordinate series of terrorist (A/k/A THE NWO) attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City that have destroyed the World Trade Center and are feared to have left many thousands dead.

Hey Swingy: explosions do not equal explosives.

But you don't care, you are one of the point men of The FAIL Movement.

[Dave Rogers]

I'm quite surprised now to learn about more pop cans exploding, this time in the South Tower! I'm starting to think Coca Cola or Pepsi might have been involved with the collapse.;)

Don't be silly, Swing, of course they weren't pop cans. You remember that big explosion when flight 175 hit the North Tower? Demolition charges. That's what airliners run on. Your car runs on demolition charges - it's tough getting them into the cylinders so they can explode there, and having to fit a new cylinder every time because the explosion cuts through the steel is tricky too, but it's amazing what technology can do. Ever blown up a paper bag and popped it? I bet you didn't know paper was full of demolition charges, but the paper bag gets blown apart so that proves they were demolition charges. Back when I was a school kid, a man in a road near our school left his gas fire on but unlit, and went to sleep for a couple of hours - I bet he was surprised to find out his house had been rigged with demolition charges! But it must have been, because the whole top floor of the house was blown out, and we all know only demolition charges can do that, right? After all, if there's an explosion, and a building gets blown up, that proves it was demolition charges.

Got to go now, I've got some clearing up to do after firework night. Sorry, I mean demolition charge night.

Dave

[JimBenArm]

This is the second thread that Swing Dangler has started about “pop cans”. What on earth are “pop cans”, anyway?
Aluminum cans that contain carbonated beverages, such as Coca-Cola. It's a regional term in the U.S. Parts of the country refer to carbonated beverages as "soda pop", or just "pop", so the cans are "pop cans".

[pomeroo]

U.S. Under Attack; World Trade Center Destroyed (http://www.forbes.com/2001/09/11/0911usattack3.html)

"The first incident happened at about 9 a.m. when an American Airlines passenger jet -- that had been reportedly hijacked on a flight from Boston to Los Angeles -- hit the northern tower of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan's financial district. Shortly afterward, the southern tower was struck by an unmarked plane.

An hour later, the tower collapsed, following what eyewitnesses describe as a series of 15 explosions inside the building. Half an hour after that, the second tower fell, leaving southern Manhattan covered in a pall of smoke and dust."

I'm quite surprised now to learn about more pop cans exploding, this time in the South Tower! I'm starting to think Coca Cola or Pepsi might have been involved with the collapse.;)


Swingie, are you having a nervous breakdown or simply conceding defeat?

Even for someone as dishonest and uninformed as yourself, being reduced to posting a very early and wildly inaccurate report of the jihadist attacks is embarrassing to the evil cause you serve.

[T.A.M.]

"pop" cans, is Swing's SUPER STRAWMAN argument, because people here, myself included, have shown him that lots of things you can find in office buildings, can go "boom" when damaged or exposed to heat (aeresol cans, elect transformers, oxygen cannisters).

Ignore it.

TAM:)

[Disbelief]

Find the transformers yet?

Anyway, from the link article:

Both the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed after being hit by planes. An aircraft also hit the Pentagon in the Washington, D.C., area, causing serious damage. There are reports of a fourth airliner had been brought down near Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland, by U.S. military fighters. A fifth plane has crashed in Western Pennsylvania. A car bomb exploded outside the State Department, according to State Department sources.

So, are they covering up an airliner brought down by fighters? Did they pay hush money to the families of this mysterious fifth plane? How about the car bomb? Did they cover that up too?

I also like the delayed CD angle again. 30 minute delay between the explosions and the collapse. Next false flag, the NWO should hire a better demo crew.

[Swing Dangler]

Hey Swingy! You totally missed this part of the article:

09.11.01, 11:34 AM ET

NEW YORK - The United States was struck Tuesday by what appeared to be a coordinate series of terrorist (A/k/A THE NWO) attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City that have destroyed the World Trade Center and are feared to have left many thousands dead.

Hey Swingy: explosions do not equal explosives.

But you don't care, you are one of the point men of The FAIL Movement.

Oh I know. Pomeroo originally suggested pop cans about a year ago at SLC Bog. I've accepted that pop cans were most likely the source for the explosions.

However, I will disagree with one point...explosions can equal explosives.

You proved my point from another thread though about debunkers.....explosions equal anything but explosive devices!
The tried and true debunker logic.

[Jonnyclueless]

debunkers.....explosions equal anything but explosive devices!
The tried and true debunker logic.

Yes keep pretending that's what people are claiming so you can pretend you make sense. Why acknowledge that there are 1000s of logical sources for explosion sounds there and the one for demolitions has no physical evidence to back it up, unlike all the others. This way you can just pretend to make claims for the people who shoot your claims down so you don't have to admit how wrong you are.

But...You could just simply provide a quote of anyone at all on the forum making the claim that explosions equal anything BUT explosive devices. That would be a good start. Problem is you would have to get out of denial to do that. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[JimBenArm]

Oh I know. Pomeroo originally suggested pop cans about a year ago at SLC Bog. I've accepted that pop cans were most likely the source for the explosions.

However, I will disagree with one point...explosions can equal explosives.

You proved my point from another thread though about debunkers.....explosions equal anything but explosive devices!
The tried and true debunker logic.
Did I call it, or what? Yes, sir, another misrepresentation, right here on our stage!
Not that he's predictable or anything...

[defaultdotxbe]

You proved my point from another thread though about debunkers.....explosions equal anything but explosive devices!
i dont recall anyone ever saying that except for you

explosions by themselves are not evidence of explosives because of the plethora of more probable explanations that dont require a massive conspiracy, give ockhams razor a try sometime

[Par]

However, I will disagree with one point...explosions can equal explosives.

[...] my point... about debunkers.....explosions equal anything but explosive devices!
The tried and true debunker logic.


You know that no one has made any such claim. You are a very deceitful person.

[Swing Dangler]

Find the transformers yet?

Anyway, from the link article:



So, are they covering up an airliner brought down by fighters? Did they pay hush money to the families of this mysterious fifth plane? How about the car bomb? Did they cover that up too?

I also like the delayed CD angle again. 30 minute delay between the explosions and the collapse. Next false flag, the NWO should hire a better demo crew.

Geez you mis-read the article again or are confused. Read the quote from the article slowly this time. Closely examine the sequence of events from the following:

Shortly afterward, the southern tower was struck by an unmarked plane.
An hour later, the tower collapsed, following what eyewitnesses describe as a series of 15 explosions inside the building. Half an hour after that, the second tower fell, leaving southern Manhattan covered in a pall of smoke and dust.
1. Plane hits South Tower. (Sorry No-Planers!)
2. 15 explosions (of pop cans-sorry CD guys)
3. Following the explosions, South Tower collapsed.

T.A.M. "pop" cans, is Swing's SUPER STRAWMAN argument, because people here, myself included, have shown him that lots of things you can find in office buildings, can go "boom" when damaged or exposed to heat (aeresol cans, elect transformers, oxygen cannisters).

Tam, are you suggesting that lots of things in office buildings that are the targets of terrorist attacks go boom except pop cans and explosive devices?

[Shalamar]

Oh I know. Pomeroo originally suggested pop cans about a year ago at SLC Bog. I've accepted that pop cans were most likely the source for the explosions.

However, I will disagree with one point...explosions can equal explosives.

You proved my point from another thread though about debunkers.....explosions equal anything but explosive devices!
The tried and true debunker logic.

You seem to be ignoring a very very very large point:

People here are not saying that explosions do not equal explosives, they are saying that explosions do not always equal explosives.

In your case, you are arguing that explosions ONLY equal explosives. This is not the case.

In order to make the argument that the explosions were caused by explosives, you have to supply the evidence that there were actually explosives used. Be it residue, eyewitness accounts of large devices strapped to the building, etc etc.

Your argument would be as if whenever you saw a car, you said 'Look! Its a BMW!', people would reply 'No. Its not. Thats not a BMW. JUst because its a car, does not mean its a BMW', where your reply would be 'Ah HA! In your eyes, no cars can be BMWs!' Even if the cars happened to be Hondas.

[Calcas]

With raging fires going on, how close do you think you would need to be to hear exploding soda cans?

[Swing Dangler]

You know that no one has made any such claim. You are a very deceitful person.

I'm deceitful??? Did you not read this quote a few comments down?

16.5-Hey Swingy: explosions do not equal explosives.

Or you can read this comment regarding your deceitful claim..

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3116699&postcount=9 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3116699&postcount=90)0

Your not very good at calling people liars without evidence, are your? Careful, I put Pom on ignore for that same reason.

[Par]

Tam, are you suggesting that lots of things in office buildings that are the targets of terrorist attacks go boom except pop cans and explosive devices?


At this point, Swing Dangler reminds me of a fatigued child who’s just lost at chess and hasn’t taken it very well. He’s started moving some of the pieces in nonsense directions, knocking other pieces over and generally being belligerent and somewhat puerile. In other words, it’s time we put him to bed.

[Disbelief]

Geez you mis-read the article again or are confused. Read the quote from the article slowly this time.

Not confused, I misread the article. See Swing, I can admit to a mistake while you can't.

Anyway, are you going to address the obvious errors in the report that I brought up or just cherry pick something that fits your silly agenda.

[Hellbound]

Actually, I'd go even farther.

Not only is this true:

Explosions <> Explosives.

But additionally:

Sounds like explosion <> explosion.

A snapping steel girder, failure of floor supports and the resulting impacts, a falling elevator hitting the bottom of the shaft, all would make sounds that could easily and reasonably be described as sounding like explosions, yet none of them are explosions.

So we have three types of events:
A--Explosion caused by explosives
B--Explosions caused by non-explosives
C--Events that sound like explosions

So far, Swing, the ONLY thing you've provided ANY evidence of is that one or more of the set [A,B,C] occurred. You keep trying to claim that you've proven the set [A] occurred, but you've so far offered nothing that excludes B or C. Add into the fact that there is no physical evidence that explosives were used, the extreme difficultly that would be involved in wiring the building in secret, the problem of explosives failing during the jet impact, the problem of pre-knowledge of the exact impact point of the planes, etc...and add int he fact that things explode in fires, fires produce numerous effects that can sound like explosions, and failure of structural members, especially steel and concrete structural members, can easily produce sounds similar to explosions, and your case gets even weaker.

What we've been asking for, and what we are still asking for, is how you can rule out cases B and C, both of which are likely in this type of an event. You can't say you've proven explosives until you have some evidence that there were explsoives. TO say these accounts prove explosives you have to rule out cases B and C.

What you've done is like a person who hears a heavy thump in his apartment building and immediately concludes that an elephant stepped on the roof. Could it be? Sure, it could, but without any other evidence, or anything to rule out other, more common and more likely sources of the sound, it's not likely (and definately not proven).

It's a fallacy of the excluded middle, basically. Also known as an Either-Or fallacy. You're trying to limit the possibilities to explosives/sound or no explosives/no sound wihtout consdiering the middle case of no explsoives/sound.

[Par]

I'm deceitful??? Did you not read this quote a few comments down?


Or you can read this comment regarding your deceitful claim..

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3116699&postcount=9 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3116699&postcount=90)0

Your not very good at calling people liars without evidence, are your? Careful, I put Pom on ignore for that same reason.


Nothing in your post has any bearing on the fact that you are a deceitful person. (Incidentally, neither 16.5 nor anyone quoted in the linked post has actually made the claim you’re trying to attribute to them.)

[Swing Dangler]

You seem to be ignoring a very very very large point:

[QUOTE]People here are not saying that explosions do not equal explosives, they are saying that explosions do not always equal explosives.
Well I just showed that not to be true.

In your case, you are arguing that explosions ONLY equal explosives. This is not the case.

No I suggested pop cans.

In order to make the argument that the explosions were caused by explosives, you have to supply the evidence that there were actually explosives used. Be it residue, eyewitness accounts of large devices strapped to the building, etc etc.
I do agree with you about testing for chemical residue that would identify explosive material which was not done by a federal agency.

Your other point, eyewitness accounts of large devices strapped to the building is central to the incompetent terrorist theory. This theory states that terrorists are so incompetent as to leave planted explosives in plain sight so eyewitnesses can see them and prevent their detonation. It is also a play on the debunked 'oxygen theory' that states if you can't see it, it doesn't exist.

[Rika]

He's saying the stuff in the office is more likely than pop cans and explosives, not except pop cans and explosives.

[16.5]

"You proved my point from another thread though about debunkers.....explosions equal anything but explosive devices!
The tried and true debunker logic."

Are you intentionally acting the fool? Seriously, I state that explosions do not equal explosives. Let me take it slowly:

Say:

A + B = explosions.

You claim: A is explosives, and B is more explosives!

We have pointed out that A and B can be a number of things in addition to your hypothetical explosives.

Rather than prove your solution that A + B = explosives!!111!!, I assume that you are going to fire up google and do more quote mining.

Here is another one:

A+B= totally worthless.

Solve that equation!

[Swing Dangler]

At this point, Swing Dangler reminds me of a fatigued child who’s just lost at chess and hasn’t taken it very well. He’s started moving some of the pieces in nonsense directions, knocking other pieces over and generally being belligerent and somewhat puerile. In other words, it’s time we put him to bed.

At this point, you have been reported to the moderators for a violation of rules.

[pomeroo]

Oh I know. Pomeroo originally suggested pop cans about a year ago at SLC Bog. I've accepted that pop cans were most likely the source for the explosions.

However, I will disagree with one point...explosions can equal explosives.

You proved my point from another thread though about debunkers.....explosions equal anything but explosive devices!
The tried and true debunker logic.


You've been caught lying again, Swingie. I've already exposed your characteristic dishonesty on this one. I mentioned vending machines among the many items that would be expected to blow up in a large office fire.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Oh I know. Pomeroo originally suggested pop cans about a year ago at SLC Bog. I've accepted that pop cans were most likely the source for the explosions.

However, I will disagree with one point...explosions can equal explosives.

You proved my point from another thread though about debunkers.....explosions equal anything but explosive devices!
The tried and true debunker logic.
Your willful ignorance has clearly crossed the line into intentional dishonesty. What you have put forth is a strawman fallacy of your constuction. That you continue to intentionally misrepresent what people have posted here; blatently ignoring formal definitions of what has been posted is intellectually dishonest.

Your posts serve as a perfect example of the results of someone abandoning formal logic and scientific methodology in favor of doing whatever is necessary to support their claim. You follow in the footsteps of some "great minds" such as M. Behe, K. Hovind, and others of their ilk. Congratulations on being an embarrassment to whatever educational system you grew up in.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm deceitful??? Did you not read this quote a few comments down?


Or you can read this comment regarding your deceitful claim..

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3116699&postcount=9 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3116699&postcount=90)0

Your not very good at calling people liars without evidence, are your? Careful, I put Pom on ignore for that same reason.
You are being deceitful, by intentionally and continually stating people are saying, "explosions can not be caused by explosives" when they are in fact saying "explosions do not automatically imply explosives". The difference has been explained to you and you willfully ignore it in order to keep posting your lie.

[pomeroo]

I'm deceitful??? Did you not read this quote a few comments down?


Or you can read this comment regarding your deceitful claim..

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3116699&postcount=9 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3116699&postcount=90)0

Your not very good at calling people liars without evidence, are your? Careful, I put Pom on ignore for that same reason.


You are an egregious liar, Swingie. I have exposed many of your lies on SLC. You put me on ignore for the same reason frauds like Max Photon ignore me: I ask you questions that are very inconvenient to your fantasies. You and Max, we have noticed, have put Apathoid's paper on ignore as well.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And I have to add, the only other individual I've seen on this forum that so stubbornly continued to ignore the formal logic and scientific methodology critiques of their statement would be Lyte Trip.

[Dave Rogers]

Or you can read this comment regarding your deceitful claim..

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3116699&postcount=9 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3116699&postcount=90)0


I see what you're getting at, and I have to say it's extremely damning for the NWO. One or two posters on this forum have used the phrase "does not equal" to mean "does not necessarily imply", which is a subtly different concept to "does not equal". That's enough proof for me; some posters on JREF used language rather loosely, therefore 9-11 was an inside job. Case closed - put me down for membership of AE911T.

Dave

[Par]

I see what you're getting at, and I have to say it's extremely damning for the NWO. One or two posters on this forum have used the phrase "does not equal" to mean "does not necessarily imply", which is a subtly different concept to "does not equal".


Indeed; Swing Dangler is taking quotations, like this one from Arkan_Wolfshade:

... if a witness reported hearing a loud noise and called it an explosion we can not conclude it was caused by an explosion.


Which, quite clearly, means something like this:

... [in the event that] a witness reported hearing a loud noise and called it an explosion, [it is not epistemologically safe to] conclude it was caused by an explosion.


However, Swing Dangler is trying to claim that he is saying something like this:

... if a witness reported hearing a loud noise and called it an explosion we [must discount the conclusion that] it was caused by an explosion


This is a kind of deceitfulness absolutely emblematic to Swing Dangler.

[Swing Dangler]

Actually, I'd go even farther.

Not only is this true:

Explosions <> Explosives.

But additionally:

Sounds like explosion <> explosion.

A snapping steel girder, failure of floor supports and the resulting impacts, a falling elevator hitting the bottom of the shaft, all would make sounds that could easily and reasonably be described as sounding like explosions, yet none of them are explosions.

So we have three types of events:
A--Explosion caused by explosives
B--Explosions caused by non-explosives
C--Events that sound like explosions

[QUOTE]What we've been asking for, and what we are still asking for, is how you can rule out cases B and C, both of which are likely in this type of an event.
I've never ruled out B and C as my suggestion of pop cans and the possibility of transformers.

No, what I have done through analysis is take the sequential events prior to and after the sounds of explosions (in general not in this specific case or in the case of the basement regions at this point)

1. Terrorist attacks on the building.
2. The history of terrorists attacks on WTC.
3. The historical tactics of terrorists worldwide.
4. The sound of explosions are heard.
5. The sounds remind eyewitnesses, first responders, firefighters (who have the most experience with things exploding in fires), media of bombs, the 1993 truck bomb attack, explosive devices, etc.
6. The fear of collapse after the explosions are heard.
7. The physical impact on people following the explosions.
8. The collapse of the buildings following the explosions.
9. The working theory of the FBI, the first thoughts of experts, etc.

Now is there anything in B and C in your comment that follow the logical sequential order listed above?

I don't think aerosol cans fit the bill, nor oxygen canisters, or transformers for that matter.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I don't think aerosol cans fit the bill, nor oxygen canisters, or transformers for that matter.
Then the onus is on you to categorically prove that they are not possible causes.

[beachnut]

U.S. Under Attack; World Trade Center Destroyed (http://www.forbes.com/2001/09/11/0911usattack3.html)

"The first incident happened at about 9 a.m. when an American Airlines passenger jet -- that had been reportedly hijacked on a flight from Boston to Los Angeles -- hit the northern tower of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan's financial district. Shortly afterward, the southern tower was struck by an unmarked plane.

An hour later, the tower collapsed, following what eyewitnesses describe as a series of 15 explosions inside the building. Half an hour after that, the second tower fell, leaving southern Manhattan covered in a pall of smoke and dust."

I'm quite surprised now to learn about more pop cans exploding, this time in the South Tower! I'm starting to think Coca Cola or Pepsi might have been involved with the collapse.;)
he have been hit again by a can of SPAM

grow up and learn how to think (6 years and what do you want to bet, Swing will be spewing these lies until he is old; no competent research here)

[16.5]

"No, what I have done through analysis is take the sequential events prior to and after the sounds of explosions (in general not in this specific case or in the case of the basement regions at this point)

1. Terrorist attacks on the building.
2. The history of terrorists attacks on WTC.
3. The historical tactics of terrorists worldwide.
4. The sound of explosions are heard."

Well that is absurd, Swing-y. Where in the hell did you even try to fit into your analysis the following: Two jet liners striking the building? Where do those fit into your analysis of the "2. The history of terrorists attacks on WTC. 3. The historical tactics of terrorists worldwide."?

[Dave Rogers]

No, what I have done through analysis is take the sequential events prior to and after the sounds of explosions (in general not in this specific case or in the case of the basement regions at this point)

1. Terrorist attacks on the building.
2. The history of terrorists attacks on WTC.
3. The historical tactics of terrorists worldwide.
4. The sound of explosions are heard.
5. The sounds remind eyewitnesses, first responders, firefighters (who have the most experience with things exploding in fires), media of bombs, the 1993 truck bomb attack, explosive devices, etc.
6. The fear of collapse after the explosions are heard.
7. The physical impact on people following the explosions.
8. The collapse of the buildings following the explosions.
9. The working theory of the FBI, the first thoughts of experts, etc.

Now is there anything in B and C in your comment that follow the logical sequential order listed above?

Insofar as I can follow your rambling mess of a question, I would say that airliners striking the Twin Towers causing fuel deflagrations both at the site of impact and elsewhere following leakage of unburnt fuel elsewhere in the building, unprecedentedly large and unfought contents fires started by the initial deflagration and accelerated by an abundant supply of aviation fuel, secondary explosions of various types that are to be expected by any fireman in any large building contents fire, deformation of the structural elements of the building, and finally global collapse of the building, fit that logical sequential order very well, considering that 1, 2 and 3 are undisputed, 4 is a matter of interpretation by witnesses under extreme psychological stress, 5 and 6 are comments not on the progress of thhe attack but on the state of mind of its victims, 7 includes large numbers of burn injuries yet few or no pure blast injuries, 8 has been analysed by several different engineering studies and found to be reasonable and 9 again concerns near-term responses by people not in possession of a complete set of facts concerning events known to have happened.

Dave

[Hellbound]

No, what I have done through analysis is take the sequential events prior to and after the sounds of explosions (in general not in this specific case or in the case of the basement regions at this point)

1. Terrorist attacks on the building.
2. The history of terrorists attacks on WTC.
3. The historical tactics of terrorists worldwide.
4. The sound of explosions are heard.
5. The sounds remind eyewitnesses, first responders, firefighters (who have the most experience with things exploding in fires), media of bombs, the 1993 truck bomb attack, explosive devices, etc.
6. The fear of collapse after the explosions are heard.
7. The physical impact on people following the explosions.
8. The collapse of the buildings following the explosions.
9. The working theory of the FBI, the first thoughts of experts, etc.

Now is there anything in B and C in your comment that follow the logical sequential order listed above?

I don't think aerosol cans fit the bill, nor oxygen canisters, or transformers for that matter.

However, the failure of support members and individual floors before the insuing global collapse (events which would sound like explosions, and which would occur close to collapse time) would fit.

Let's take your 9 points 1 at a time though:
1. Terrorist attacks on the building.
Applies equally to the explosives theory and hte plane theory. Both are terrorist attacks. Not conclusive.
2. The history of terrorists attacks on WTC.
Again, both were terrorist attacks, applies equally to both theories. Not conclusive.
3. The historical tactics of terrorists worldwide.
Actually, this supports the no explosives idea much better than your theory. Terrorist attacks tend to be simple, direct, single-action attacks. The nultiple hijackings used on 9/11 were already a large deviation on the basic tactic. Terrorist tactics are simple, which makes them easier to hid and pull off: drive a truck bomb close/into the building. Hit it with a plane. Leave a suitcase bomb in the airport. The intricacy and extreme detail needed to plant explosive devices (even avoiding the numerous problems with this being able to be done in any reasonable time frame without being detected) would make this a terrorist attack that breaks the pattern of pretty much every other terrorist attck in history. For that matter, despite Bond movies and Clancy novels, it wouldn't even be a move that fit the pattern for any type of CIA/Black ops type operation. It's too complicated, with too high a risk of discovery, too higha risk of failure, and too little gain. Weighs in on the side of no demolitions.
4. The sound of explosions are heard.
Fits with fire, failure of structure, and numerous other things besides just explosives. Not conclusive.
5. The sounds remind eyewitnesses, first responders, firefighters (who have the most experience with things exploding in fires), media of bombs, the 1993 truck bomb attack, explosive devices, etc.
I've worked with explosives professionally in the military, and I couldn't tell if something was an explosive or not by sound alone. This is, again, incolclusive, as things exploding that are not explosives would sound very similar, as would many types of failure for various steel and concrete structural members. Not conclusive.
6. The fear of collapse after the explosions are heard.
The fear of collapse was present from the beginning, and was based on a lot more than the sound of explosions. Additionally, the failure of support members (a likely explanation, IMHO) would explain this as well. However, it doesn't really support either side. Not conclusive.
7. The physical impact on people following the explosions.
Source? I've yet to see any evidence of blast damage, which is one of the most telling arguments against explsive devices. If you are saying there were blast injuries present that could be positively correllated with explosion sounds, I'd like to see that evidence.
8. The collapse of the buildings following the explosions.
Again, this would fit with either theory. NOt conclusive.
9. The working theory of the FBI, the first thoughts of experts, etc.
Actually, this was not their working theory. Nor was this the first thought of experts. IN fact, even on the news coverage that day, people were talking about the possibility of collapse from the impacts alone, not regarding any additional damage from explosives.
However, even giving you the point that this may have been a "first thought", that goves it no validity at all. First thoughts are, as often as not, wrong, and are never proof in and of themselves. First thoughts are base don impressions, not evidence. Once these first thoughts were examined in light of the available evidence and the full information availabel later, they were discarded. This point would again weigh in against the idea of explosives.

So, even with your 9 point, we get 6 that are inconclusive or could apply to either theory equally, 1 that (if true, but with no evidence provided) would offer some support to explosives, and 2 that support the no demolition theory.

To add to that we have:
10. The majority of experts in relevent fields conclude that there is no additional need for demolitions to explain the collapse. IN fact, the majority of CD experts agree that CD is not a reasonable explanation.
11. No evidence of explosives or explsoive residues was found.
12. No verified reports of any unusual activity, such as would be needed to rig a CD, have been uncovered.
13. The time needed to rig for CD would be enormous, necesitating a pre-placement. Such a pre-placement would have been obvious to building occupants, and would have opened the explsoives to the possibility of failure from the impact and fire damage.
14. The amount of explosives necessary to perform a CD of the Twin Towers building would be measured in the tons, not pounds. No such quantity of explosives was reported as missing from anywhere, and such a quantity would be extremely unlikely to be brought in and impaced wihtout notice.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I see what you're getting at, and I have to say it's extremely damning for the NWO. One or two posters on this forum have used the phrase "does not equal" to mean "does not necessarily imply", which is a subtly different concept to "does not equal". That's enough proof for me; some posters on JREF used language rather loosely, therefore 9-11 was an inside job. Case closed - put me down for membership of AE911T.

Dave
I would argue that both are valid criticisms, and for different reasons. An analogy to demonstrate:
A car does not equal and engine revving.
An engine revving does not necessarily imply a car.

SD's problem is a refusal to recognize the unsaid, but implied:
but the source of the engine revving may be a car.

I leave that unsaid, but implied, because if it is explicitly stated then you will probably need to clarify with:
but it may also be a motorcycle, or a truck, or a lawnmower, or a movie (with a sound generator in it), etc.

And you end up with a thorough explanation that few people will have read until the end. It's selective reading. When I used to work floor-sales at a sporting goods shop and someone wanted to order something we didn't have in stock, my standard response was, "If our wholesalers have it in stock we can have it here in 3-4 days; otherwise it will take 6-8 weeks." Probably 75% of the time, all they heard (based upon their follow-up actions) was "3-4 days".

[Drudgewire]

:explode

[Hokulele]

Explosions generally equal explosives when other evidence for explosives are found. Lack of any physical evidence in this particular case suggests that explosions <> explosives.

[CHF]

Swing,

you really are embarrassing yourself with this sarcastic childish act of yours.

I don't think you realize just how pathetic you sound by continuously playing this "explosion = explosive" card. No one but YOU said it could by anything BUT explosives. The problem for you is that the noises were too quite to have been bombs and there is no evidence to corroborate your half-arsed CD theory.

Want to do something productive?

Show us what kind of demolition charges would have been used to account for the sounds that were heard.

[Dave_46]

This is the second thread that Swing Dangler has started about “pop cans”. What on earth are “pop cans”, anyway?

Cans that go pop?

As an example I was involved in a test reconstructing a fire scene. The fire started in a cupboard containing cleaning materials. We lit the fire in the reconstruction, with aerosol cans in the cupboard. The subsequent explosion damaged the test rig. There were no "explosives" used, just materials bought from a local shop.

Dave

[chillzero]

Please note the warning in the OP. The topics of what happened on 911 are well discussed here, and should not be used to spam the forum by making one small change of 'perception' such as this change to 'pop cans'. Any further threads started along these lines (whether pop cans or some other similar pretence) will all be merged into one thread.

[Swing Dangler]

However, the failure of support members and individual floors before the insuing global collapse (events which would sound like explosions, and which would occur close to collapse time) would fit.

Let's take your 9 points 1 at a time though:

Applies equally to the explosives theory and hte plane theory. Both are terrorist attacks. Not conclusive.

Again, both were terrorist attacks, applies equally to both theories. Not conclusive.

Actually, this supports the no explosives idea much better than your theory. Terrorist attacks tend to be simple, direct, single-action attacks. The nultiple hijackings used on 9/11 were already a large deviation on the basic tactic. Terrorist tactics are simple, which makes them easier to hid and pull off: drive a truck bomb close/into the building. Hit it with a plane.
Hijacking a plane is simple?? I have to completely disagree with you. Successfully getting weapons on to a plane, commandeering the plane, overcoming the crew and passengers, and then avoiding air defense systems is not simple. Driving a truck bomb into a target, however, is.
.
Leave a suitcase bomb in the airport. The intricacy and extreme detail needed to plant explosive devices (even avoiding the numerous problems with this being able to be done in any reasonable time frame without being detected) would make this a terrorist attack that breaks the pattern of pretty much every other terrorist attck in history.


Actually, this was not their working theory.
Actually it was the FBI's original working theory. See USAToday news broad cast. Jack Kelly: "Um, apparently what appears to happen was that at the same time 2 planes hit the building, that there ... that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings, which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down."
Lauren Ashburn: "Now that's the first time were hearing that, so 2 planes and explosives that were in the building, is that correct?"
Jack Kelley: "That is the working theory at this point, that is still unconfirmed but that is what the FBI is going on at this point."
Nor was this the first thought of experts. IN fact, even on the news coverage that day, people were talking about the possibility of collapse from the impacts alone, not regarding any additional damage from explosives.
Wow, then the mainstream media lied during their broadcasts from ground zero or you are deficient in your knowledge regarding the media reports of that day. Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology says the collapse of the twin towers resembled those of controlled implosions used in planned demolition.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.
And yes, I am fully aware he changed his tune later on. But the example is used to support my statement that expert originally thought explosive devices were used.


To add to that we have:
10. The majority of experts in relevent fields conclude that there is no additional need for demolitions to explain the collapse. IN fact, the majority of CD experts agree that CD is not a reasonable explanation.
Source? How many CD experts in the world read the NIST report and offered a public statement agreeing with it?

11. No evidence of explosives or explsoive residues was found.
Can you source the tests that any Federal Agency preformed in order to qualify this statement?

12. No verified reports of any unusual activity, such as would be needed to rig a CD, have been uncovered.
This is a segment of the "Incompetent Terrorists" theory that states terrorists are so incompetent as to draw attention to their activities so that they might be discovered and their plot prevented. Rejected.

13. The time needed to rig for CD would be enormous, necesitating a pre-placement. Such a pre-placement would have been obvious to building occupants, and would have opened the explsoives to the possibility of failure from the impact and fire damage.
Source? Sakher 'Rocky' Hammad had a pass to the underground levels of the WTC, stated he was working on the sprinkler system, and apparently the authorities had no idea who he was working for (most likely a private tenant) and even stated the PA did its own sprinkler work. Rocky and his friends were busted in a fraudulent drivers license scheme. The point being in a place where 1000's of people worked, a maintenance worker going about his business isn't going to draw a lot of attention.

14. The amount of explosives necessary to perform a CD of the Twin Towers building would be measured in the tons, not pounds. No such quantity of explosives was reported as missing from anywhere, and such a quantity would be extremely unlikely to be brought in and impaced wihtout notice.
Not necessarily. If explosives were used, the amount could be relatively small. Granted this source does not believe CD took place now, but his expertise on how it could have happened is relative to the discussion.
The detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.Albuquerque Journal


Now do transformers, oxygen canisters, pop cans, etc match the following criteria better or explosive devices:
1. Terrorist attacks on the buildings.
2. The history of terrorists attacks on WTC.
3. The historical tactics of terrorists worldwide.
4. The sound of explosions are heard.
5. The sounds remind eyewitnesses, first responders, firefighters (who have the most experience with things exploding in fires), and media of bombs, the 1993 truck bomb attack, explosive devices, etc.
6. The fear of collapse after the explosions or if additional explosions are heard by the media, first responders, firefigthers, etc.
7. The physical impact on people following the explosions.
8. The collapse of the buildings following the explosions.
9. The working theory of the FBI, the first thoughts of experts, etc.

I think explosive devices best fit all of the criteria above.

[T.A.M.]

Now do transformers, oxygen canisters, pop cans, etc match the following criteria better or explosive devices:
1. Terrorist attacks on the buildings.
2. The history of terrorists attacks on WTC.
3. The historical tactics of terrorists worldwide.
4. The sound of explosions are heard.
5. The sounds remind eyewitnesses, first responders, firefighters (who have the most experience with things exploding in fires), and media of bombs, the 1993 truck bomb attack, explosive devices, etc.
6. The fear of collapse after the explosions or if additional explosions are heard by the media, first responders, firefigthers, etc.
7. The physical impact on people following the explosions.
8. The collapse of the buildings following the explosions.
9. The working theory of the FBI, the first thoughts of experts, etc.

I think explosive devices best fit all of the criteria above.

1. Terrorist attack WITH AIRPLANES that resulted in massive destruction to multiple floors of an office building, and fires on those and many others...yes, Aeresol cans and Transformers would be more plausible.

2. The history of any terror attack, of course would favor explosives.

3. ditto.

4. The sounds of explosions is equally possible to be any in the list.

5. the collapse also reminded people of trains, thunder, do you think it was thunder or trains that they heard, or the building collapsing.

6. I would suspect it was the HUGE JET AIRLINERS CRASHING INTO THE BUILDINGS that made them fear collapse, regardless of the explosions.

7. The physical impact after explosions is specific to a couple of instances, the vast majority reporting "explosions" did not have any direct physical impact from the account...outside of running or leaving in a hurry.

8. The collapse of the building does not favor explosives, but does favor the same cause, that would have resulted in the transformer/aeresol explosions, namely large amounts of physical trauma (impacts) combined with large fires.

9. This working theory was reported by a man with a history of lying about his sources and what they had to say...As for experts thinking this, of course, BEFORE THEY KNEW PLANES HAD STRUCK THE BUILDING, they would have thought standard explosives. As for the collapse, show me the money.

TAM:)

[eeyore1954]

Do you know of any video where these 15 explosions are heard? Aside from ones doctored for 9/11 mysteries.

[Sabrina]

You're leaving out one important element though, Swing.

Terrorists had attempted to bomb the WTC before and failed to do much damage then. What makes you think they'd want to use a method that failed in the past again, when there were other alternatives that could work just as well or better? Why use a failed method that has beefed up the security measures in the building you are attempting to strike in such a manner that you have about a quarter or less (note: that's a total guesstimate) of the likelihood that you could emplace the device to begin with?

You're also forgetting that terrorism, by definition, is impossible to predict (which is one of the main reasons why the IC failed to realize the danger posed by Al Qaeda in the first place). We planned for explosives. We did not plan for planes hitting the building. End of story. You lose.

[Hellbound]

Let's see.

Argument from Personal Incredibility. Also, plane hijackings are relatively simple, or at least were before 9/11. You don't have to overpower anyone...the standard practice was to cooperate with terrorists at least until the plane was landed. Additionally, this is a standard tactic they'd used before and were comfortable with. Again, your ignorance and personal disbelief doesn't really change how simple it is. Note also that simple does not mean easy...just uncomplicated.

Your source of the FBI's working theory is what a newscaster thinks it is.

THe mainstream media reported a lot, most of it incorrect and much based on "man-on-the-street" information rather than expert opinion. And quite frankly, asking someone to give an opinion based on incomplete evidence is, at best, disingenious. Why do you think his opinion changed after he learned more? Hmm? But in any case, can you catually source that quite? Date, time, etc? I'd like to see it in context, instead of the typical truther "sound-bite" sourcing you're giving.

Controlled Demolitions, Inc. for one.

Ah, now you may claim they didn't test enough or test properly. I say no evidence was found. However, even visual instpection showed dmaage inconsistent with explosives, video taken during the fires and collapse were inconsistent with explosives, witness statements were inconsistent with explosives, etc, etc, etc. No evidence of explosives beyond conjecture.

No, it isn't "Incompetent Terrorists" theory. It's "I'm a realist, and also someone who understands more about explosives and demolitions than what I see in movies". Given the amount of explosives needed to cause collapse, the timing that would need to be involved, the access to internal structures that would need to be involved, etc, it COULD NT be done by anyone, competent or incompetent, without leaving a trace. Tell me, what do you think would be required, in terms of the amount of explosvies and placement? Please provide numbers, and source your work, thanks!

A maintenence worker is not going to be able to carry anywhere close to enough explosives. He's also going to draw attention when he strts cutting holes in walls. You clearly don't understand what it would take to bring these buildings down.

Please give me the original source of your quotes from Romano. I don't beleive you're giving full context, and since you haven't provided enough information for them to be found I'm going to have to assume that you're chery-picking your quotes. Quite frankly, if that was his statement regarding a CD of the Twin Towers, then I'd immediately question his expertise in CD or explosives in general. Does he have any facts or figures to back that up?

And no, terrorist attacks still don't fit.

So, do you have any evidence beyond speculation? That's still all I'm seeing. And I really don't give much weight to the Romano quotes considering, as you've stated, he changed his tune later, when he was able to examine the full facts of the situation (rather than quick sound-bites and snippets of info). Seems rather telling to me.

[16.5]

Swing sez:

"Now do transformers, oxygen canisters, pop cans, etc match the following criteria better or explosive devices:"

Are you serious Swing? Is this some kind of parody? The "transformers, oxygen canisters, pop cans, etc" were already in the building and the suggestion is that they were damaged and exploded as the result of the fires.

Are you intentionally acting obtuse?

[Drudgewire]

A Coke can exploded in my car this summer. It was parked in my driveway at the time. I didn't hear it.

Damn, Swing's right. 9/11 clearly WAS an inside job.

[hellaeon]

At this point I think its safe to assume that you, swing, have no intention of learning or understanding reality. Is it that bad that your wrong swing? Christ get over yourself. Be humble.

Explosions != Explosives.

Gee how hard is that to understand. God mate, get a life.

[hellaeon]

Explosives dont fit any criteria Swing

Who put them there? how come they went off at random times in random places? How did they anticipate the floors the plane it and not to place explosives there? How come 'they' demolished the building from the top? Why has no one been seen or busted placing explosives, why is there no evidence of timer devices etc needed to have bombs go off at random times....or did someone run around the building placing them during the choas? Why has no one since come forward?

Only in the mind of an idiot can such a scenario work.

Welcome to ignore

[DGM]

Hijacking a plane is simple?? I have to completely disagree with you. Successfully getting weapons on to a plane, commandeering the plane, overcoming the crew and passengers, and then avoiding air defense systems is not simple. Driving a truck bomb into a target, however, is.

Swing:
Your not thinking very hard.

Weapons on the plane? Utility knifes not bazookas. These a Small easy to hide things.

Commandeering the plane? Stand up and say you have a bomb. Who's' going to argue?

Overcoming the crew? Your armed and have the element of surprise. Not a tough task for someone that's determined

Avoiding air defense system? Would that be the one that is prepped and ready at a moments notice to shoot down one of a thousand commercial planes in the air at any one time?

Your slipping Swing! This was not one of your better arguments. Lets put a little more effort in next time.:)

[CHF]

The detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.Albuquerque Journal

Van Romero?

Wow, you're that desperate, huh?

Sad.

[Redtail]

Not necessarily. If explosives were used, the amount could be relatively small. Granted this source does not believe CD took place now, but his expertise on how it could have happened is relative to the discussion.



Now do transformers, oxygen canisters, pop cans, etc match the following criteria better or explosive devices:
1. Terrorist attacks on the buildings.
2. The history of terrorists attacks on WTC.
3. The historical tactics of terrorists worldwide.
4. The sound of explosions are heard.
5. The sounds remind eyewitnesses, first responders, firefighters (who have the most experience with things exploding in fires), and media of bombs, the 1993 truck bomb attack, explosive devices, etc.
6. The fear of collapse after the explosions or if additional explosions are heard by the media, first responders, firefigthers, etc.
7. The physical impact on people following the explosions.
8. The collapse of the buildings following the explosions.
9. The working theory of the FBI, the first thoughts of experts, etc.

I think explosive devices best fit all of the criteria above.

You left out the fact that none of the audio equipment in the area recorded these explosive devices. Why?