9/11: Is this photo consistent with a progressive collapse?

[Leifer]

Things in a fire that can explode...

Water heaters, transformers, fire extinguishers, solvent cans, "dust off" cans, computer battery back-ups, refrigerator compressors, water/gas lines, fluorescent light ballasts, backdrafts, etc....
...depends how close you are as to decibel/force.

 

[SR1419]

I'm struggling to find where I said I had proof of anything. Please indicate where I said that.

you are too easy...do you even read what you write- or do you just knee-jerk your anger and bitterness with without reading what you previously wrote?


I said there were no eyewitness accounts of a "bomb"- to which you replied:

You are wrong

and

Do I really need to go and find the proof of this for you?

You implied and/or otherwise suggested people hearing "explosions" was proof of bombs.

Its not.

No matter how much you bob and weave and patronize with your definitions...that people heard explosions is not proof of a bomb.

I have asked this questions several times already and you have yet to answer it:

Is it possible an "explosion" could have been caused by something other than a bomb?

 

[lee h oswald]

you are too easy...do you even read what you write- or do you just knee-jerk your anger and bitterness with without reading what you previously wrote?


I said there were no eyewitness accounts of a "bomb"- to which you replied:




and



You implied and/or otherwise suggested people hearing "explosions" was proof of bombs.

Its not.

No matter how much you bob and weave and patronize with your definitions...that people heard explosions is not proof of a bomb.

I have asked this questions several times already and you have yet to answer it:

Is it possible an "explosion" could have been caused by something other than a bomb?

This is the pertinent exchange, I believe.

Originally Posted by SR1419

Actually- there were NO "eyewitness" accounts of a bomb. Lots of people heard loud noises and perhaps explosions that sounded like what they thought was a "bomb"- and given the context of the moment it is easy to understand why they thought that. That does not mean it was a bomb- just that it sounded like that. Explosions and loud reports could have been from many things from combustible materials in the building - oxygen tanks etc..to falling elevators to compressed air shooting out near the speed of sound as the building collapsed.

...but there were no eyewitness accounts of bombs that I am aware of.

Do I really need to go and find the proof of this for you? Aren't you able to do it yourself?

So, the proof you are referring to is relating to the existence of eyewitness accounts of explosions/bombs - yes, some used the word 'bomb' as in - 'sounded like bombs going off' - 'I thought it was a bomb', things like that. Therefore there is proof of eyewitness accounts for bombs going off actually. There is no argument against this; no matter how you try to twist it, the fact remains.

You are strongly implying it with your argument, so presumably you are surely then saying there were no explosives? You're trying to say that all these reported explosions were caused by anything other than explosives, right? Now, how about you answer this one?: As explosives were never tested for by FEMA, NIST et al, then where is your proof, or evidence, that explosives were not used? You can't give an answer because no tests were made.

But how about an answer to this instead: Why didn't they test for explosives given the supposed context of a 'terrorist attack'; the fact that three buildings were collapsed in what looked very much like controlled demolition; the fact that hundreds of eyewitnesses reported explosions? For anyone really wanting to solve the crime, I think the above would give sufficient reason to carry out such tests, do you?

 

[lee h oswald]

Things in a fire that can explode...

Water heaters, transformers, fire extinguishers, solvent cans, "dust off" cans, computer battery back-ups, refrigerator compressors, water/gas lines, fluorescent light ballasts, backdrafts, etc....
...depends how close you are as to decibel/force.

That's very good. There are quite a few other things that can explode in a fire too. But where was the fire?

Did you watch the two firemen video?
​
They were in the lobby and they said there was a massive explosion and the lobby collapsed on the people in it. The lobby should, presumably, not have been on fire - the fires were a bit further up the building, no? Are you trying to say that a light fitting blowing on the 70th floor collapsed the lobby? Or a water heater, transformer, pressurised aerosol tin, laptop battery, fridge, backdraft?

Are you just another apologist for the position that explosives were not tested for? Why direct so much energy to something which is by all logical reckoning a no-brainer in the context of the day of these attacks.

Here's a question for you too: Why didn't they test for explosives given the supposed context of a 'terrorist attack'; the fact that three buildings were collapsed in what looked very much like controlled demolition; the fact that hundreds of eyewitnesses reported explosions? For anyone really wanting to solve the crime, I think the above would give sufficient reason to carry out such tests, do you?

 

[Mick West]

Those firemen were describing things as they appeared to them, from the lobby, as the buildings were collapsing around them.

Nobody tested for explosives because it's obvious to everyone except conspiracy theorists that explosives were not used. Now I know you'll laugh at that, but unfortunately that's the truth. The explosives theory just makes no sense at all.

 

[SR1419]

T Therefore there is proof of eyewitness accounts for bombs going off

..its actually funny to watch you twist and turn in the wind....

There is no proof that people saw or heard bombs going off.

There is proof that people heard things they thought might have been a bomb.

That is not the same as proof of a an actual bomb

You know that.

But you can't seem to admit it for whatever reason...

Instead try to an argument from ignorance...classic bob and weave.

And they were reports of fires in the lobby (not sure which bldg) as supposedly jet fuel blew down the elevator shafts and blew into the lobby

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/WTC-1---elevator-shafts,-jet-fuel-and-fire-balls_4491.html

 

[SR1419]

That's very good. There are quite a few other things that can explode in a fire too. But where was the fire?

The lobby should, presumably, not have been on fire - the fires were a bit further up the building, no? [/B]

try again:

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/WTC-1---elevator-shafts,-jet-fuel-and-fire-balls_4491.html

 

[lee h oswald]

..its actually funny ....



There is proof that people heard things they thought might have been a bomb.

That is not the same as proof of a an actual bomb

You know that.

But you can't seem to admit it for whatever reason...



And they were reports of fires in the lobby (not sure which bldg) as supposedly jet fuel blew down the elevator shafts and blew into the lobby

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/WTC-1---elevator-shafts,-jet-fuel-and-fire-balls_4491.html

Oh dear. I'll spell it out. What we are trying to pinpoint is whether or not there was proof of the existence of eyewitness accounts of explosions/bombs. You said there was no such proof and I said there was and showed it to you. You were wrong, try to move on and get over it. I've never said there was proof of bombs, only proof of witnesses saying what they witnessed in their own words. Try to understand the distinction if you can. The argument is over as far as that one is concerned.

Supposedly you think it correct that tests for explosives were not made as you haven't/can't/won't answer the question. Well?

Terrorist attack; hundreds of witnesses; 3 enormous buildings completely destroyed - why would you not test for explosives?

 

[lee h oswald]

Those firemen were describing things as they appeared to them, from the lobby, as the buildings were collapsing around them.

Nobody tested for explosives because it's obvious to everyone except conspiracy theorists that explosives were not used. Now I know you'll laugh at that, but unfortunately that's the truth. The explosives theory just makes no sense at all.

I'd expect a bit better than that from you. You've run out of ideas because you can't argue with the fact that in the context of the day it can only be right and proper that tests should have been made to ascertain if any explosives were used. Do you agree tests should have been made and conceed that they were not made?


Wheeling out the old 'conspiracy theorists' as a perjorative is always telling. A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to perform a wrongful, unlawful or subversive act; a conspiracy can also be defined when there is a coming together of interests for mutual benefit, that is also in the terms of the definition. Conspiracy is an everyday occurence in our day to day lives across the full spectrum of society, from bankrobbers plotting crime to politicians covering things up to policemen making up evidence or taking bribes to give newspapers information about so-called celebrities. Conspiracy is everywhere every day.
A theory is a general set of propositions designed to support a hypothesis, isn't it? It's mostly used in science, but it's quite useful for many things - like detective work. Detectives don't just use scientific evidence you see, they use all sorts, everything that might be available. Then they use their ability to sift and decipher all the angles, look for suspects, witnesses, interview them, get more information, build a picture based on all information available - and that includes the knowledge that people will go to great lengths for great gain....no-one got to do that job. I'd like to see that, how about you?

I say: tests for explosives should have been made, what say you?

 

[SR1419]

Oh dear. I'll spell it out. What we are trying to pinpoint is whether or not there was proof of the existence of eyewitness accounts of explosions/bombs.

Oh dear indeed...move the goalpost as they say.

I always knew and admitted that people heard loud noises...and what they thought were explosions.

You said there were eyewitness accounts of bombs...

there are not.

People saying they heard loud noises that sounded like a "bomb" is not the same as an eyewitness account of a bomb going off.

try again.

 

[Mick West]

I say: tests for explosives should have been made, what say you?

I say there was no reason to test for explosives. Even with hindsight there's no solid indication explosives were used. And it make zero sense to have used them. Plane, fire, collapse. That's what appears to have happened.

 

[lee h oswald]

Those firemen were describing things as they appeared to them, from the lobby, as the buildings were collapsing around them.

Nope. If you actually listen to what the guy on the left says, it's pretty unequivocal. He says that there was definitely a secondary explosion and then adds that there were further secondary explosions. He said words to the effect of: Then the whole fucking thing just collapsed.
You're badly misrepresenting the content of this video, they are not talking about the building collapsing on them at all, I would doubt they'd still be around to tell that story, don't you? The testimony is clear and specific and the guy is saying there was definitely a secondary explosion - what are you saying? That you are in a better position to judge than him?

 

[lee h oswald]

I say there was no reason to test for explosives. Even with hindsight there's no solid indication explosives were used. And it make zero sense to have used them. Plane, fire, collapse. That's what appears to have happened.

Unbelievable to the point of banality.

 

[lee h oswald]

I say there was no reason to test for explosives.

But imagine, what if you were a detective charged with investigating the affair? Try and imagine that you are not biased. Would you, the detective charged with getting to the heart of the matter, order a test for explosives, even if only as a means of a process of elimination?

 

[lee h oswald]

Oh dear indeed...move the goalpost as they say.

I always knew and admitted that people heard loud noises...and what they thought were explosions.

You said there were eyewitness accounts of bombs...

there are not.

People saying they heard loud noises that sounded like a "bomb" is not the same as an eyewitness account of a bomb going off.

try again.

The goalposts never moved. Like I said, get over it.

 

[lee h oswald]

Oh dear

You said there were eyewitness accounts of bombs...

there are not.

People saying they heard loud noises that sounded like a "bomb" is not the same as an eyewitness account of a bomb going off.

You said there were eyewitness accounts of bombs...

there are not. Yes there are; that's what I showed you.

People saying they heard loud noises that sounded like a "bomb" is not the same as an eyewitness account of a bomb going off.
Yes it is; it is exactly the same. An eyewitness account is just what it says on the tin. It's the account of someone who was present at the event, it's not your version, actually.

 

[Mick West]

But imagine, what if you were a detective charged with investigating the affair? Try and imagine that you are not biased. Would you, the detective charged with getting to the heart of the matter, order a test for explosives, even if only as a means of a process of elimination?

JFK's head appeared to explode. Did they test that for explosives?

I know you think otherwise, but there's no indication explosives were used. It's very, very obvious what happened - KFL was shot, the WTC has planes fly into it. The ONLY reason to test is to shut up the conspiracy theorists, and since it won't work (they will just cry cover-up) there's really no reason.

There's plenty of bits of the WTC still existing. Plenty of dust. Surely the pro-explosives crowd have done some tests? What have those tests revealed?

 

[Mick West]

I'm thinking this thread might be forked into "Is there evidence of explosives causing the collapse of the WTC?" is that a reasonable title?

 

[lee h oswald]

JFK's head appeared to explode. Did they test that for explosives?

no, but if they did they'd likely find that al qaeda did it.

 

[Unregistered]

You said there were eyewitness accounts of bombs...

there are not. Yes there are; that's what I showed you.

People saying they heard loud noises that sounded like a "bomb" is not the same as an eyewitness account of a bomb going off.
Yes it is; it is exactly the same. An eyewitness account is just what it says on the tin. It's the account of someone who was present at the event, it's not your version, actually.

No, it's not even close to the same thing. These people heard noises....that doesn't mean they heard "bombs" exploding! I can't believe someone would even attempt such an argument.

 

[Spongebob]

I thought this obvious troll had been ignored?

Most, if not all, of it`s recent 'tiredness' has been answered adequately and nothing is coming back except further trolling.

Stop feeding this ineptitude.

Clown shoes still has no explanation for this:

[video=youtube_share;fMibXJjx_DE]http://youtu.be/fMibXJjx_DE[/video]

Keep avoiding Lee, then once in a while dodge...

 

[SR1419]

You said there were eyewitness accounts of bombs...

there are not. Yes there are; that's what I showed you.

People saying they heard loud noises that sounded like a "bomb" is not the same as an eyewitness account of a bomb going off.
Yes it is; it is exactly the same.

No. It's not.

What you have is people on the scene who heard loud noises...the fact that that they said it sounded like a bomb does not even mean they thought it was a bomb....just that it sounded like a bomb...

It is not an account of a bomb going off.

My apologies if the subtly is lost on you.

 

[George B]

That's very good. There are quite a few other things that can explode in a fire too. But where was the fire?





Did you watch the two firemen video?
​
They were in the lobby and they said there was a massive explosion and the lobby collapsed on the people in it. The lobby should, presumably, not have been on fire - the fires were a bit further up the building, no? Are you trying to say that a light fitting blowing on the 70th floor collapsed the lobby? Or a water heater, transformer, pressurised aerosol tin,
laptop battery, fridge, backdraft?

Are you just another apologist for the position that explosives were not tested for? Why direct so much energy to something which is by all logical reckoning a no-brainer in the context of the day of these attacks.

Here's a question for you too: Why didn't they test for explosives given the supposed context of a 'terrorist attack'; the fact that three buildings were collapsed in what looked very much like controlled demolition; the fact that hundreds of eyewitnesses reported explosions? For anyone really wanting to solve the crime, I think the above would give sufficient reason to carry out such tests, do you?

Lee,

You are most correct. . . Any investigation that did not include the obvious testing for explosives is simply incomplete and incompetent. . . .my only conclusion is the avoidance of this common sense, logical, checklist required step in the investigation was intentional. . . They are either very stupid or motivated by a desire to avoid the obvious. . ..

 

[lee h oswald]

What incredible arrogance you all show when you can't be bothered to read what real people, people with experience of dealing with burning buildings of all sorts, who were present at the scene of the crime had to say. And if you do read it, dismiss it as something other than what it is. You're all so pathologically entrenched in your positions that you think you know what happened and you definitely know what didn't happen - and you won't even listen to people who were there. Not one of you has agreed that explosives should have been tested for as part of a perfectly normal process of elimination. I hardly need say more; you're all doing a perfectly good job without my help.

But, how about some snippets of eyewitness (yes, that's what it's called) testimony from the FDNY oral history?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

[ex=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110295.PDF]Christopher Fenyo, 9110295
South Tower:
About a couple minutes after George came back to me is when the south tower from our
perspective exploded from about midway up the building. We all turned and ran... [p. 5]
...
At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it
had been taken out with charges...
North Tower
There was an explosion at the top of the Trade Center anda piece of Trade Center flew across
the West Side Highway and hit the Financial Center... [p. 3]
[/ex][ex=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110256.PDF]
Brian Fitzpatrick, 9110256
Journal of 9/11 Studies 79 August 2006/Volume 2
North Tower:
...wind, debris, heat. I
remember falling down, getting back up, and the guys were just falling all over each other. [pp.
3-4]
...We just thought it was debris or an explosion or a secondary explosion or another
bomb inside the building or another plane.
I looked up, and the building exploded, the building that we were very close to, which was one
tower. The whole top came off like a volcano...I thought
the terrorists planted explosives...South Tower:
I got up, I got into the parking garages, was knocked down by the percussion. I thought there had
been an explosion or a bomb
I never turned around because a sound came from somewhere
that I never heard before...I can’t explain it, what it was. All I know is--and a force started to
come hit me in my back. I can’t explain it. You had to be there. All I know is I had to run
because I thought there was an explosion.
... a major explosion.
South Tower [Experienced while low in the NT.]:
With that, all a sudden the tower went completely -- a horrendous noise, a very, very tremendous
explosion, and a very heavy wind came through the tower. The wind almost knocked you down.
[/ex][ex=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110179.PDF]
Frank Cruthers, 9110179
And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was
what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all
four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay
before you could see the beginning of the collapse.
We heard a rumbling noise, and it appeared that that first tower, the south tower, had exploded,
the top of it. That's what I saw, what a lot of us saw. [p. 5]
...
I remember asking Ray Downey was it the jet fuel that blew up. He said at that point he thought
there were bombs up there because it was too even.
...
We didn't know the building came down. We just knew the top of the building exploded and
didn't know what happened to the rest of the building. You just couldn't see anything. [p. 7][/ex]

And this represents the tip of the eyewitness iceberg in relation to explosions, explosives, charges, blasts, eruptions and other such words as used to describe what the witnesses saw, heard and felt. Oh yes, and not forgetting bomb.
Presumably you still all think the idea of testing for explosives unnecessary? That position tells anyone reading this something about you. My advice would be to stop digging your hole on this one and conceed; if it is a simple choice between tests and no tests - what is your answer?

 

[George B]

Lee, Don't be silly. . . The investigators obviously didn't have the funds, samples or time to do the testing. . . You act as though the investigators had the full weight and resources of the US government and this was the crime of the year. . . Please, you are just over reacting and grasping for straws. . .

 

[lee h oswald]

. . . Any investigation that did not include the obvious testing for explosives is simply incomplete and incompetent. . . .my only conclusion is the avoidance of this common sense, logical, checklist required step in the investigation was intentional. . . They are either very stupid or motivated by a desire to avoid the obvious. . ..

Well put. One can understand, if not support, such behaviour from those who might stand to gain from it. What I find harder to understand is the people here having such aversion to agree that tests should have properly been made as a part of any normal investigation. What can one deduce or surmise from such behaviour?

 

[lee h oswald]

Lee, Don't be silly. . . The investigators obviously didn't have the funds, samples or time to do the testing. . . You act as though the investigators had the full weight and resources of the US government and this was the crime of the year. . . Please, you are just over reacting and grasping for straws. . .

Perhaps you're right, everyone was far too busy doing interviews for Fox, CNN and NBC to deal with such trivia. To demand testing for explosives is completely out of order now I stop to reflect on it. What was I thinking, that they'd cut into the PR budget just for some stupid 'explosives test'? I mean, it's not a bottomless pit is it? I see things much clearer now. Thanks for putting me straight George.

 

[George B]

Results from a conspiracy forum. . . People who don't use the scientific method to come to conclusions. . .


[ex=http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1408247/pg1]POLL: What technology brought down WTC Buildings (1,2 & 7)?
WTC Demolition - Thermate and Thermobaric Weapons cutting main supports? **51.6% (98)
Directed energy weapon &/or SCALAR ELECTROMAGNETIC WEAPONS? **16.8% (32)
Nuclear explosions on foundation and thermate used on superstructure? **15.3% (29)
NIST's & 911 Commission's fire metal fatigue pancake theory? **9.5% (18)
Micro or mini nuclear explosions throughout including foundation? **4.2% (8)
Massive nuclear underground detonations that dissolved the towers? **2.6% (5)
Blank (View Results) (31)
Non-Blank Votes: 190
[/ex]

[ex=http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1408252/pg1]POLL: What was the motive to bring down the WTC Buildings (1,2 &7)?[/
Major step in NWO script to gain worldwide control? **40.5% (64)
Pearl Harbor (false flag) event to allow US attacks on Oil rich countries? **24.7% (39)
Muslim extremists revenge Al Qaeda? **13.3% (21)
Major banking houses civil war to control wealth and Stock Markets? **8.2% (13)
Other motive not yet explained . . . please post your thoughts? **7.0% (11)
Government (black hats) need to restrict freedom & declare Martial Law? **6.3% (10)
Blank (View Results) (26)
Non-Blank Votes: 158
[/ex]

[ex=http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1380294/pg1]POLL: CNN & BBC announced the Collapse of WTC#7 before it happened . . . WHY?
They are part of the Conspiracy and screwed up on their timing? **36.5% (109)
They were forewarned that WTC#7 was going to fall and jumped the Gun? **27.8% (83)
They were told by some official the building had or was just collapsing? **20.1% (60)
They got all the information messed up . . . simply confusion? **10.7% (32)
I don’t think there is enough information to vote . . . **3.7% (11)
I don’t have an opinion . . . **1.3% (4)
Blank (View Results) (41)
Non-Blank Votes: 299
[/ex]

 

[lee h oswald]

Most, if not all, of it`s recent 'tiredness' has been... etc

[admin: removed irrelevant comment]

 

[George B]

'its' is the possessive pronoun - it modifies the noun; 'it's' is a contraction where the apostrophe substitutes and abbreviates 'it is' or 'it has'.

Here's a site for gcse english students in the 14-16 age group that might help:
[h=3]GCSE English: it's its not it's![/h]www.gcse.com/english/its_confused.htm

Lee, just curious . . . If I may ask . . . What is your education and/or experience background? . . . You need not answer if you feel the question is inappropriate. . . .

 

[Nighthawk]

Just a couple of quick observations here:

First, "Secondary Explosions" does NOT mean that there was a bomb used. Just that they heard explosions which would be expected in such a building that is on fire.

Second, A big deal is being made that they didn't test for explosives. If they really did use explosives why not simply state that they tested for them and say the tests were negative? After all, this is a 'cover up' isn't it?

 

[George B]

Just a couple of quick observations here:

First, "Secondary Explosions" does NOT mean that there was a bomb used. Just that they heard explosions which would be expected in such a building that is on fire.

Second, A big deal is being made that they didn't test for explosives. If they really did use explosives why not simply
state that they tested for them and say the tests were negative? After all, this is a 'cover up' isn't it?

Except someone might ask for the samples that were used to test and retest them. . . .or ask for the chain of custody for the samples or God forbid ask the testers to testify. . . .etc . . .

 

[Spongebob]

[admin: removed irrelevant comment]

Interesting that you choose to ignore the video which clearly demonstrates that no explosives were used to initiate the collapse.

[Admin: politeness snip, sorry]

 

[George B]

Interesting that you choose to ignore the video which clearly demonstrates that no explosives were used to initiate the collapse.

Seems the most recent issue on the table . . .is why testing was not done to detect for the possible use of explosives. . . A very interesting oversight. . . .what is your explanation for this omission?

 

[lee h oswald]

Lee, just curious . . . If I may ask . . . What is your education and/or experience background? . . . You need not answer if you feel the question is inappropriate. . . .

Not inappropriate at all, but thank you for the consideration. Education is eclectic, one might say - a collection of both formal and informal learning environments; thankfully not too many in the formal column. Disciplined minds emerge from that system; they also defend that system as if life depended. Background? working class parents with middle class jobs - journalist/sales manager - grammar school education - intellectually challenging home environment. Experience/area of expertise? As an integral part of either the removal, preparation and/or replacement of structures and their performance usually for human habitation - I have my own business in this area. Twenty five years on and off. I have other areas one might call 'of expertise', but they might not be so pertinent to this discussion, so I'll omit.

 

[Mick West]

And this represents the tip of the eyewitness iceberg in relation to explosions, explosives, charges, blasts, eruptions and other such words as used to describe what the witnesses saw, heard and felt. Oh yes, and not forgetting bomb.

Yes indeed, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Selectively picked from the THOUSANDS of pages of testimony. Have you read it all? All 498 files available on the NYT site?

And it's not even just cherry picking which of the 498 reports to show, it's just showing the sentences, or even fragments of sentences, that support the idea of there being explosive charges.

For example, you quote:

At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it
had been taken out with charges...

Content from External Source

But here's that in context:

[EX=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110295.PDF]At that point there was a lot of confusion.
There was heavy ash in the air and on the ground. We
made our way over towards the river. At that point
there were a lot of guys cut up, some broken bones, a
lot of civilians getting on the ferries. We helped
some of the civilians get on the ferries.
At that point a debate began to rage because
the perception was that the building looked like it had
been taken out with charges. We had really no concept
of the damage on the east side of 2 World Trade Center
at that point, and at that point many people had felt
that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade,
and officers were gathering companies together and the
officers were debating whether or not to go immediately
back in or to see what was going to happen with 1 World
Trade at that point. The debate ended pretty quickly
because 1 World Trade came down.[/EX]

So you note that people thought charges had been used. But omit the context that it was during a time of "great confusion", and that they had "no concept" of the full extent of the damage.

Please, do read through the actual full transcripts. Don't just rely on cherry picked quotes. Load up the full text, and search for "bomb" and "explosion". Lots of people heard explosions, lots of people thought there might have been bombs. But see what the actual context is. Don't cherry pick.

[EX=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110215.PDF] Visibly from where we were standing, I
estimate that I probably saw about a hundred people
jumping to their death. Some looked like they were in
pairs, but most of them were singly, free falling, to
such a degree that they were doing tumblesalts in the
air and forcibly landing to the ground, or very
impactly landing on top of that glass canopy, which
seemed to be like almost like individual skylights that
were -- they were breaking through. Very noticeably
you could hear them like pounding, almost like a bomb
going off, a small bomb, like paum, paum. And so there
was a lot of glass breaking and a lot of hearts being
shattered by watching that thing.[/EX]

The individual transcripts are available here:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

I've combined them all into one large pdf file here (right click and save, too big for browser viewing):
https://www.metabunk.org/files/911 NYT ORAL HISTORY COMBINED.PDF

And a more manageable 7MB text file here:
https://www.metabunk.org/files/911 NYT ORAL HISTORY COMBINED.txt

 

[Mick West]

Just a polite reminder of my one rule:

Be polite. Impolite posts may be edited or removed

I'm generally fairly relaxed in my enforcement, but this thread is in danger of slipping into flaming. Let's stick to the facts.

 

[lee h oswald]

Interesting that you choose to ignore the video which clearly demonstrates that no explosives were used to initiate the collapse. [Admin: politeness snip, sorry]

Yes, the question is: Seems the most recent issue on the table . . .is why testing was not done to detect for the possible use of explosives. . . A very interesting oversight. . . .what is your explanation for this omission?

 

[George B]

Not inappropriate at all, but thank you for the consideration. Education is eclectic, one might say - a collection of both formal and informal learning environments; thankfully not too many in the formal column. Disciplined minds emerge from that system; they also defend that system as if life depended. Background? working class parents with middle class jobs - journalist/sales manager - grammar school education - intellectually challenging home environment. Experience/area of expertise? As an integral part of either the removal, preparation and/or replacement of structures and their performance usually for human habitation - I have my own business in this area. Twenty five years
on and off. I have other areas one might call 'of expertise', but they might not be so pertinent to this discussion, so I'll omit.

Would it be appropriate to conclude you have experience in the structure and demolition (piece by piece at least) of buildings? And have an understanding of how weight bearing structures are built and may be demolished?

 

[George B]

Yes, the question is: Seems the most recent issue on the table . . .is why testing was not done to detect for the possible use of explosives. . . A very interesting oversight. . . .what is your explanation for this omission?

Lee,

Do you think that if a building had been bombed in the recent past . . . And was recently demolished by what appeared to be a related process . . . Would a competent investigator not test for explosives. . . .?



[ex=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center]
February 26, 1993 bombing
Main article: 1993 World Trade Center bombing


Underground bombing.
On February 26, 1993, at 12:17 p.m., a Ryder truck filled with 1,500 pounds (680 kg) of explosives, planted by Ramzi Yousef, detonated in the underground garage of the North Tower.[93] The blast opened a 100 foot (30 m) hole through five sublevels with the greatest damage occurring on levels B1 and B2 and significant structural damage on level B3.[94] Six people were killed and 50,000 other workers and visitors were left gasping for air within the 110 story towers. Many people inside the North Tower were forced to walk down darkened stairwells that contained no emergency lighting, some taking two hours or more to reach safety.[95][96]

[/ex]