1. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    Yeah, I see that one beaten out a lot. "Solve the crime with a comprehensive list of perpetrators and their means! Otherwise, no reason to suspect any broader crime was carried out whatsoever, and no reason for further investigation!" Pretty goofy stuff.

    well, try this one, in which firefighters still recovering from a blast-event, one of whom was clearly injured by it, discuss how they experienced first-hand what they describe as secondary explosions within the lobby and AFTER the collision of the planes, when the fires had already been raging. These firefighters seem to have a pretty clear idea of what they're talking about. The blonde didn't break his own nose. These guys aren't alone. There are many reports of secondary explosions in the lobbies of the towers. These are typically blamed on 'jet fuel rushing down the elevator shaft' (a lot of fucking jet-fuel to make such huge explosions so high in the building but then somehow make it down around 100 floors), but that can't possibly account for what these men describe, as they clearly state the fires were already burning above. These men didn't 'just hear' an explosion and get confused, they physically experienced a blast event, and claim to have witnessed resultant injuries and deaths. Shouldn't this testimony alone be enough to warrant a degree of suspicion? I find the last line the injured firefighter, alert and adamantly spoken, is the most telling.
    "You people don't understand..." he says, "...any one of these fuckin' buildings could blow up. This ain't done yet." He firmly believes he experienced a bomb.
     
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Sure he does, and from his limited perspective that was probably what it seemed like. But there were a lot of people there that day, lots of different reports. There was lots of stuff burning, blowing up, falling hundreds of feet. Of course some of them would think there were bombs. They had no idea what was going on. It was noisy chaos.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    Right, right... they were just confused. How would trained firemen know the difference between some debris falling around the building they're in and an explosion impacting the very room they're standing in? Perhaps the building just shook, he slipped and hit his face, and mistook all that for an explosive event which brought the lobby down around him and his team. But maybe not, right? Maybe we should consider investigating their claims in a comprehensive fashion, just in case? Naaaaaahhhhhh, fuck it. What's the big deal, right?
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  4. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    of course, he does- he was under the impression they were under attack- the context driven conclusion would be a "bomb"

    But how does experiencing loud noises and impacts contradict the OS?

    How do random "bombs" in the lobby well before the actual collapses logically contribute to the idea of a CD? is that typical procedure for a CD?

    What do you think the effects of a severed elevator falling 50+ floors would be like?

    Is it possible that there could have been other things in the WTC that exploded but were not "bombs"?

    What typically happens to tall buildings when jet planes are flown into them at 400+ mph?



    Why were there no such concomitant explosions associated with WTC 7?

    Were WTC 1&2 demolished by a different method than WTC7?







    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    They were under attack. Perhaps the context-driven conclusion was reasonable?
    the OS does not account for these testimonies, nor any of the other many testimonials regarding explosives/explosions, other than to dismiss them without addressing them. The use of 'loud noises and impacts' instead of 'explosions' as they were described is an ever-interesting choice. The guy's speaking clearly. Why twist his words?

    Bombing the lobbies would potentially serve to limit/cut off the access of fire-crews/good Samaritans, obstructing escape efforts both for maximum shock-value and minimal material witnesses of the state of the interior, which many survivors suggest was damaged prior to collapse in ways the plane-impact didn't explain.

    perhaps dramatic, but apparently not all that explosive.

    Vaguely, but what would instigate such explosions so far from any source of fire?

    There are reports of hearing/witnessing explosions by civilians/firemen who witnessed/fled from the building 7 collapse. No rescue efforts were taking place in building 7 however, so reports on what was occurring inside the building are scant at best.

    It would certainly appear so.
     
  6. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Lots and lots of eyewitness accounts detailing elevators falling and fireballs traveling via shafts...


    https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/wtcelevatorshafts
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Indeed - reasonable to jump to that conclusion- but doesn't necessarily make it accurate...especially in hindsight given what we know about what did happen and what did explode and cause loud noises.


    Not true:




    Simply pointing out how the loud impact of a falling elevator might be misconstrued as a "bomb".
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, how would he? Do they train them in "how to recognize what a bomb is like"?

    Unless he's previous experience both of:

    A) A bomb going off
    B) A ton of debris hitting the ground at 100 mph

    Then how would he know the difference, especially if it knocks him off his feet and stuns him?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    The quote you included does not address the testimonies of these firemen, which cannot be explained by jet-fuel in the elevator shaft. Additionally a previous post detailed why a falling elevator, even one with all of its cables cut, wouldn't be responsible for the extensive damage observed.

    The above testimonies do not describe a falling elevator, though. The 'falling elevator + jet-fuel' scenario, even with the problems surrounding it, doesn't apply to the event described by these men.

    A ton of debris hitting the ground outside had the power to smash the interior of the WTC lobby, injuring and killing? The force of high-speed car impacts don't tend to blow out the windows of all the cars on the road around them. I've never heard of a non-explosive collision instigating a shock-wave with a wide destructive range.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Why can't they be explained by jet fuel in the shaft? Seems like pretty much the only thing that could set people on fire inside a moving elevator.

    Falling debris can throw up lots of shrapnel when if hit, shattering windows.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member


    What?? They described waiting in the lobby and then an explosion "collapsed the whole lobby" - that sounds almost identical to the other descriptions of damage done to the lobby by falling elevators fireballs of jet fuel:

    How do you KNOW they are not describing a falling elevator and/or fireball of jet fuel bursting forth into the lobby? They do not know what they are describing- only an "explosion'- so, how do YOU know.

    You really seem to be ignoring/dismissing ALL the numerous accounts of falling elevators and fireballs of jet fuel in the lobby levels...instead cling to vague descriptions of "explosions".

    Why?

    Can you tell what the impact of an elevator free-falling 100 stories would be like?

    Can you tell us what would the effect of a fireball of jet fuel traveling down an elevator shaft have on the lobby? What would it be like to experience it if you were in the lobby?



    You seem to put so much stock in the quotes of those 3 firemen in the heat of the moment...are these accounts not equally compelling?

    Why do not give as equal weight to this man's account?

     
  12. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Do you really think that elevators fall down a lift shaft in this day and age or even in the 60's or 70's? Maybe in the 30's but they have all sorts of safety features on them now.

    Not only that, the lifts did not go all the way up. They were staggered.

    [​IMG]

    So how do you account for that? Are you suggesting the fuel took the lift down, changed elevators 2 or 3 times and exploded just before arriving at the lobby?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Like Like x 3
  14. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Interesting comment from Mr. Jones:

     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    Any idea what causes this at about 1:00 into the video?

    It seems to be a pretty strong force. No, it's probably not a bomb...

    Viewer discretion is advised.
     
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Most likely a floor collapsing. The air has to go somewhere.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    That's not just air.
     
  18. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    What is it then?
    Air can push things.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread on this? It's hardly an eyewitness account. You can draw diagrams, explain why you think the compressed air+debris explanation is impossible.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    You mean that NIST told you there were no reports of sounds of explosives.

    Errrrr -


    Mark 2:03. That came from the WTC7 vicinity. Its a long vid - because there were so many reports of explosive events that it takes 2 hrs to list them.

    All ignored by the official report.

    These people all testified to the official investigations. All of their reports were dismissed, and not even mentioned in the final report, which is why you can now ask that question.

    Of course people in here would seek to 'explain' the multiple sounds as being car gas tanks, or propane tanks, or pools of jet fuel, in fact anything except what the victims report experiencing. A Firefighter inside a building that is thrown aside like a rag doll might give you an argument there. But was ignored.

    And worse still, you claim that there were no sounds at all, so that you don't need to even postulate an alternative explanation.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  21. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Actually if you continue to listen beyond 2:03 up to 2:30 you here the reporter explaining the situation on the ground from the field office, and he states that "what the people (reporters) on the ground don't realize is one of the twin towers has collapsed". There was an incredible amount of confusion on that day and ordinary people lived through extremely horrifying events on that day. We can clearly see that the first tower had collapsed and that these people "who heard explosions" were simply explaining what they heard and "smelled" while the tower was dropping. It had nothing to do with explosions going off and more to do with the sounds of a giant sky scraper collapsing on itself and the typical sounds associated with that.
     
  22. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    Of course. What was I thinking ? Thanks for explaining it to me.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  23. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Please resist the urge to respond sarcastically, it doesn't achieve much. If you disagree, explain your reasons.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Actually, I misunderstood you and fast forwarded to the 2hr and 3 minute mark, no the 2 minute and 3 second mark. There does appear to be the sound of an explosion or some kind of loud noise.
     
  25. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    I will resist. It's hard when you don't also ask @Jason to explain his reasons for 'handwaving' away that video evidence. But you require me to fully explain why I disagree with his armchair conclusion that all those witnesses were imagining things. He just asserts that " It had nothing to do with explosions going off " - zero evidence for that bare assertion but he isn't challenged to provide credible reasons to support his assertion. But I am required to explain fully why I challenge his bare assertion. That's par for the course in here and one reason that I left many months ago.
     
  26. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    It's not 'handwaving' away video evidence. I noted that I mistook your time reference and fast forwarded to 2hrs and 3minutes instead of 2minutes and 3 seconds. It is important however to note that what people were hearing in the streets or while in the buildings could have easily been misunderstood, as evidenced in the 2hr 3minute portion of the video you attached where people and reporters were saying they heard explosions but were corrected by the field office because they didn't know the towers fell (which most people probably never thought would've happened at the time). Point being, it was easy to be mistaken on such a tragic day for those on the ground.
     
  27. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    I don't think he made a bare assertion, he provided his reference for the comment.
    You could have just challenged what you saw as the bare assertion, and explained why you thought it was wrong and yours was right. The conversation didn't advance.
    (not that debate on these topics ever really do, but still...)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    You handwave away the evidence as a result of listening to the media handwaving it away. You are just repeating what you have been told rather than properly investigating on your own behalf and deciding for yourself whether these numerous witnesses heard massive explosions or not.

    My time reference was correct at 2 minutes 3 seconds onwards. That huge explosion that so startled the Firemen was nothing to do with the fall of a tower. It came from the direction of WTC7 as can be determined from plotting the location of that phone station. Another vid shows that location after it was plotted, and plays the same clip of that huge explosion. This vid is only 7 mins long. It records many explosions heard. Another interesting interview is made near the end of this 7 minute vid. None of these reports made it into the official reports.

     
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, I mean the audio record on multiple videos tells us there were no explosions.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 3
  30. Mackdog

    Mackdog Active Member

    The explosion sound could be either a floor collapsing or a transformer exploding. Wouldn't make sense that a bomb would be planted in the tower if they flew planes into it. I mean, why would they plant a bomb in there? What would the point be?
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  31. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    The other day, several people in Saginaw, MI reported an explosion on Bay Road near Boardwalk Liquor Store. My business was outside the evacuation zone, but a bunch of people who had to leave their jobs for the bomb squad to investigate were milling around my parking lot for a half hour or so. In reality, a truck's diesel engine catastrophically failed due to oil and coolant leaks, which can be a fairly loud event with lots of smoke and fire, but is not an explosion. The fact that the majority of witnesses described it as an explosion does not make it an explosion.

    Many building collapses are accompanied by reports of explosions from eye witnesses, most of which turn out to be people not actually knowing what a real explosion looks like, and assuming a loud noise with an expanding cloud of smoke and debris must be an explosion because that's how it works in the movies.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  32. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    You know what else can be determined from plotting that location? The time of day.

    Murray street runs on an azimuth of 120°/300°. See attached kmz file. At 1:40 you can see the shadows of the firemen. The shadows appear to be from about 130°. That corresponds to about 10:34 AM.

    You can check the azimuth of the Sun using Heavens-above for Manhattan. Enter the date and time and it will calculate the azimuth of the Sun.

    http://www.heavens-above.com/sun.aspx?lat=40.7903&lng=-73.9597&loc=Manhattan&alt=26&tz=EST

    If the explosion was the sound of controlled demolition why did it take another 7 hours for the building to collapse?
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Sep 11, 2014
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Useful Useful x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    That sun azimuth exercise was done many years ago. I would agree that the huge explosion heard on that vid was late morning - after the second tower's demise and after dust clearance. I would think it would be a while later than your estimate of 10:34 because all the second tower's dust had settled.The firefighters were checking in to report that they had survived. That explosion we hear on that video was after 10:30 and before 11:00.

    But don't forget that Barry Jennings reported being trapped inside WTC7 much earlier by a huge explosion, and that whilst there he heard numerous explosions in the building. He said that he was trapped by a huge explosive event inside WTC7 that demolished a stairway he was actually descending. Crucially, before 9:59 which was when the first tower fell. And that when he and Hess then went back up higher to break a window to shout for help - he saw both towers still there as he did that.

    As you infer, that particular explosion wasn't responsible for WTC7 falling down. Perhaps it contributed. Who knows. But this thread is about 'eyewitness accounts of explosives' - and as such the vid must be considered as such evidence.
     
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Please don't paraphrase. Quote what he said, and when he said it.
     
  35. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    Yet you posted it with absolutely no reference to the time? Interesting.
     
  36. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    I would have thought that Barry Jenning's testimony had been covered multiple times in here. Seems not. So here is him telling it as it was - in his own words - on camera. No paraphrasing. He gives the timeline himself. And the timing of that interview was well after 9/11.

    Note that in the intro of that vid it is said that Barry was very wary about speaking like this. Not long after that interview he mysteriously died aged 52. His wife and kids fled and havn't been heard of since. When a 9/11 researcher commissioned a private detective to fully investigate Barry's death that person came back after a few days to return the retainer fee and said that he refused to continue. No explanation was given.

    Note that Barry's narrative in this video is exactly what related in my earlier post.

    Large explosion inside WTC7 that demolished a stairway he was descending- before any tower fell- but after the second plane had struck. Multiple explosions heard after he was trapped. Could it be that those were what was discussed in post #20. Timings would seem to match.

     
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So how do we know it's accurate, and he's not just remembering the effects of the first collapse?

    Eyewitness accounts often conflict. Should we then just pick the ones that match a particular theory?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  38. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    What is interesting ? The time was irelevent. It was purely posted to show that there was video evidence of massive explosions. Explosions that are being denied.

    You decided to leap to the conclusion that I was claiming it was when WTC7 fell. I made no such claim. Go back and re-read my entry. What I wrote was - " Mark 2:03. That came from the WTC7 vicinity ".

    It is far more likely that it was one of the explosions that Barry Jennings refers to in my post #36. Most likely at around 11:00 am.
     
  39. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    Barry Jennings was filmed on the street soon after he was released from WTC7 having just lived through that traumatic experience. That tends to sear the information in the brain. And there is nothing better than a contemporaneous narrative- on film - with it confirmed by a witness who was one of those who rescued him.

    Until hes untimely death he related that identical information many times. He was trapped by an explosion BEFORE any tower fell. And when he broke a window to yell for help both towers were still stood there.

    Interestingly, Hess, who was with him on that destroyed stairway, and at the window, confirmed that there was an explosion that caused that. After Jenning's mysterious death he suddenly completely changed his story. Go figure.

    So, to answer your question. No we can't pick and choose what narrative to select that suits a particular theory. But isn't that exactly what you are doing ? The official conspiracy theory cannot survive if there were large explosions inside WTC7 before any tower fell. So why do you seek to chose a narrative that supports the official conspiracy theory, written after the passage of much time to ponder on its content, rather than a contemporaneous narrative delivered minutes after the event.
     
  40. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Do you know which side of the building's window he broke to yell for help? Just trying to ascertain if he could see the towers from the window he called for help from.