Explosions in WTC lobbies? [Was: Nothing to see here?]

Eddie

Member
I'd be curious to know how many have you seen this evidence? jump to 42.20
I'm referring to the evidence of the workers who had fake IDs in order to get access to the WTC days before 911 to do 'maintenance'.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I would suggest watching the video segment first
I did. I'm accustomed to watching such videos.

Present your claims, one-by-one, in text form, so that they be addressed serially. Then we will have a discussion.
 

Eddie

Member
I don't understand what you want me to say. I've given you a link. I don't need to regurgitate the whole case. I just wanted to hear your opinions on it.
 

Eddie

Member
I post this because I personally believe that bombs were in the basements of the towers. and there is just one piece of evidence which I think is overlooked. People always ask "How could they get through security blah blah blah. Of course these were not the only ones.

There is also videos of the lobbies of the WTC in pieces with broken windows and blown off panels BEFORE either tower collapsed. How could the impact of the plane above do that to the lobbies? There were eye witnesses of how the lobbies were burnt and there were burn victims pulled out of the basements of the towers. The beams on the towers flew sideways. Police found explosive devices and they reported this live. Firemen also concluded explosive devices were planted in the buildings. The entire New York Subway was filled with smoke all BEFORE the tower fell.

How does one explain this without there having been explosives?
Watch the video from the beginning to see much of this evidence:

And flaming jet fuel blows out the windows in the lobbies? Seriously?
 
Last edited:

Eddie

Member
Evidence of bombs planted in the buildings... where to start then... Explain how windows in the lobby were blown out from a plane about a hundred floors above?
 

Eddie

Member
Elevator shafts which presumably fell to the basement?

And what about all the other evidence?
 

Met Watch

Moderator
Elevator shafts which presumably fell to the basement?

And what about all the other evidence?
List out your points, one by one. Otherwise I'm going to assume you're just trolling and you'll face a ban. Search the forum as well. Chances are a lot of your points have already been sufficiently addressed.
 

Eddie

Member
List out your points, one by one. Otherwise I'm going to assume you're just trolling and you'll face a ban. Search the forum as well. Chances are a lot of your points have already been sufficiently addressed.
I am not trolling. I will list them tomorrow. It's late where I am so off to bed.

However i'd just like to add that we also have an eyewitness account on video of a lady who seemed quite sure that a bomb went off in the lobby before the first plane hit! See first video above.
 

Met Watch

Moderator
I am not trolling. I will list them tomorrow. It's late where I am so off to bed.

However i'd just like to add that we also have an eyewitness account on video of a lady who seemed quite sure that a bomb went off in the lobby before the first plane hit! See first video above.
Where is the concrete evidence of a bomb going off in the lobby. "Seemed quite sure" is not good evidence.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I post this because I personally believe that bombs were in the basements of the towers. ...
Well if there were bombs in the basements then you obviously aren't claiming they were there to collapse the towers as the towers observably collapse from the top down.
So what was the point of the bombs? Did they fail in their intended purpose of bring the buildings down, or was it just to cause some extra damage and casualties? (the building's actually coming down being unintended)
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Where is the concrete evidence of a bomb going off in the lobby. "Seemed quite sure" is not good evidence.
There are photographs of the lobby looking rather bombed out prior to collapse, and several witness accounts of explosions experienced in the lobby/basement levels, most of which are featured, as you likely know, in other threads.
I think I've managed to demonstrate in a previous thread on this topic why the 'plummeting elevator' explanation doesn't compute, as modern elevators, even with all their cables cut, are specifically designed not to be able to plummet.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
There are photographs of the lobby looking rather bombed out prior to collapse, and several witness accounts of explosions experienced in the lobby/basement levels, most of which are featured, as you likely know, in other threads.
I think I've managed to demonstrate in a previous thread on this topic why the 'plummeting elevator' explanation doesn't compute, as modern elevators, even with all their cables cut, are specifically designed not to be able to plummet.
What was the purpose of having bombs detonate in the basement or lobby?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
What was the purpose of having bombs detonate in the basement or lobby?
Cut off key access/exit points? Obstruct rescue efforts? Conceal evidence/prevent tampering? Weaken the structure? Maybe just cause a bit more death and destruction? No idea. The thing that strikes me as highly odd about these debates is how often I see people demanding the thorough who, how, and why of a scenario where explosives were involved... either ridiculing the attempts to speculate/theorize, or dismissing the possibility when someone admits "I don't know.", as if their lack of broad investigative powers refutes all discrepancies in the official account. Why is "It doesn't matter" not an acceptable answer, when the investigation of the greatest crime of the new century is a declared failure?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Cut off key access/exit points? Obstruct rescue efforts? Conceal evidence/prevent tampering? Weaken the structure? Maybe just cause a bit more death and destruction? No idea. The thing that strikes me as highly odd about these debates is how often I see people demanding the thorough who, how, and why of a scenario where explosives were involved... either ridiculing the attempts to speculate/theorize, or dismissing the possibility when someone admits "I don't know.", as if their lack of broad investigative powers refutes all discrepancies in the official account. Why is "It doesn't matter" not an acceptable answer, when the investigation of the greatest crime of the new century is a declared failure?
Of course I'm asking why explosives would be involved. There was not any evidence of any and you are making the claim that there were explosives. So the onus is on you to explain WHY.
What evidence do you have that acess/exit points were blocked, or there were any more deaths in the lobby or basement? Saying "i don't know why" kind of shows you are just throwing stuff against the wall to see if it will stick.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Cut off key access/exit points? Obstruct rescue efforts? Conceal evidence/prevent tampering? Weaken the structure? Maybe just cause a bit more death and destruction? No idea. The thing that strikes me as highly odd about these debates is how often I see people demanding the thorough who, how, and why of a scenario where explosives were involved... either ridiculing the attempts to speculate/theorize, or dismissing the possibility when someone admits "I don't know.", as if their lack of broad investigative powers refutes all discrepancies in the official account. Why is "It doesn't matter" not an acceptable answer, when the investigation of the greatest crime of the new century is a declared failure?
Where was the investigation declared a failure?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
There are many multiple eye-witness accounts of explosions JR, some from firemen who claim to be in the lobbies when the explosions took place. They specifically stated this happened during their efforts to start evacuating the building. You must be aware of this, as I'm pretty certain you've participated in discussions on the topic in the past. Eye-witness accounts, especially from pertinent professionals, constitute evidence. Not the best evidence, but evidence none the less... often enough to convict on, depending on the circumstances.
That aside, as we've been through it all before, I go back to my last post:
Why is "It doesn't matter" not an acceptable answer, when the investigation of the greatest crime of the new century is a declared failure?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Where was the investigation declared a failure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission
The two co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, believe that the government established the Commission in a way that ensured that it would fail. In their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission describing their experience serving, Hamilton listed a number of reasons for reaching this conclusion, including: the late establishment of the Commission and the very short deadline imposed on its work; the insufficient funds (3 million dollars), initially allocated for conducting such an extensive investigation (later the Commission requested additional funds but received only a fraction of the funds requested and the chairs still felt hamstrung); the many politicians who opposed the establishment of the Commission; the continuing resistance and opposition to the work of the Commission by many politicians, particularly those who did not wish to be blamed for any of what happened; the deception of the Commission by various key government agencies, including the Department of Defense, NORAD and the FAA; and, the denial of access by various agencies to documents and witnesses. "So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
There are many multiple eye-witness accounts of explosions JR, some from firemen who claim to be in the lobbies when the explosions took place. They specifically stated this happened during their efforts to start evacuating the building. You must be aware of this, as I'm pretty certain you've participated in discussions on the topic in the past. Eye-witness accounts, especially from pertinent professionals, constitute evidence. Not the best evidence, but evidence none the less... often enough to convict on, depending on the circumstances.
That aside, as we've been through it all before, I go back to my last post:
Saying something "sounded like an explosion" or "looked like an explosion" is not evidence of an explosion. I have been involved in the discussions yes, and that's what I thought then and that's what I think now.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
These are the co-chairs of the Commission itself stating it was a failure. That's pretty indicative of it being a failure, regardless of whether they were declaring, criticizing, announcing or pronouncing. They're also not the only ones on that page.
Saying something "sounded like an explosion" or "looked like an explosion" is not evidence of an explosion. I have been involved in the discussions yes, and that's what I thought then and that's what I think now.
This is an extremely odd statement, given that human beings are generally limited to sensory perception. I'd say if it looks like a fish, smells like a fish, and feels like a fish, that's evidence you've encountered a fish. Even more-so if you work on a boat, I wager... as you'd have a fair idea of what a fish looks, smells and feels like. I think you can see where I'm going with this. Did you mean to say isn't evidence of a bomb?

What about the NIST report?
I second that, what about it?
 
Last edited:

JRBids

Senior Member.
These are the co-chairs of the Commission itself stating it was a failure. That's pretty indicative of it being a failure, regardless of whether they were declaring, criticizing, announcing or pronouncing. They're also not the only ones on that page.

This is an extremely odd statement, given that human beings are generally limited to sensory perception. I'd say if it looks like a fish, smells like a fish, and feels like a fish, that's evidence you've encountered a fish. Even more-so if you work on a boat, I wager... as you'd have a fair idea of what a fish looks, smells and feels like. I think you can see where I'm going with this.


I second that, what about it?
Sorry, I should have said "sounded like a bomb". My neighborhood is a loop. We have buried transformers every 4 houses. Once when some of them failed and we had a power failure, (but not at my house), I heard what I thought was a 12 gauge shotgun go off. I was so started. Couple of minutes later, another shot. I could have sworn it was a shotgun. Turned out they were tripping the transformers to figure out which one had failed. I sounded just like a gun. It wasn't. So sometimes we hear an explosion and attribute it to what we are familiar with instead of what it really was.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
These are the co-chairs of the Commission itself stating it was a failure. That's pretty indicative of it being a failure, regardless of whether they were declaring, criticizing, announcing or pronouncing. They're also not the only ones on that page.

This is an extremely odd statement, given that human beings are generally limited to sensory perception. I'd say if it looks like a fish, smells like a fish, and feels like a fish, that's evidence you've encountered a fish. Even more-so if you work on a boat, I wager... as you'd have a fair idea of what a fish looks, smells and feels like. I think you can see where I'm going with this. Did you mean to say isn't evidence of a bomb?


I second that, what about it?
So your overall position is that you have nothing new to bring to the discussion. It's the same old points that have been debunked elsewhere on this site.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Sorry, I should have said "sounded like a bomb". My neighborhood is a loop. We have buried transformers every 4 houses. Once when some of them failed and we had a power failure, (but not at my house), I heard what I thought was a 12 gauge shotgun go off. I was so started. Couple of minutes later, another shot. I could have sworn it was a shotgun. Turned out they were tripping the transformers to figure out which one had failed. I sounded just like a gun. It wasn't. So sometimes we hear an explosion and attribute it to what we are familiar with instead of what it really was.
That's not untrue, but it doesn't change the fact that a fireman in a lobby experiencing what he described, through every sense available to him, as an explosion is evidence of an explosion. That's simply what an eye-witness account is.
So your overall position is that you have nothing new to bring to the discussion. It's the same old points that have been debunked elsewhere on this site.
That's unexpected. Where's it coming from?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I responded to a question. Additional questions were asked, I responded to them. If the horse is dead, don't ask me to beat it and then groan when I do. Somewhat rude.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I responded to a question. Additional questions were asked, I responded to them. If the horse is dead, don't ask me to beat it and then groan when I do. Somewhat rude.
You are the one who brought up the dead horse. :)
 

Eddie

Member
There are multiple videos of people saying there were bombs or explosions in the lobbies. Guys being pulled out of elevators with their skin hanging off and blood on their face, who were in the lobby. They even say things like "the whole lobby collapsed on us". The fact that they were in the lobby is significant because there is no way that the impact of the planes cause that. People even talk about bombs in the lobby BEFORE the planes hit. And not just one person.

People keep asking why? Well the basement and lobby are blown to weaken the structure. That area is one of the most important in building stability, I would have thought that was obvious.

Let's review those eyewitness accounts, shall we?

Jump to 4:09


 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
It's all about the speed of sound.

If a plane flies right past you at 500 mph, in the open air, over your head, at an altitude of 1100 feet, then what you hear as it flies overhead is not the sound it is making at that very moment, but the sound it was making two hundred and fifty yards behind its present position.

If you had had the misfortune to be centrally-placed inside a tower lobby at that time, you would probably not have heard the plane's approach or its impact, due to intervening glass and wall soundproofing, though if you were touching some part of the structure you would have felt it.

The impact was followed by a fuel-air detonation great enough to reach down the lift shafts, whether or not they were fitted with air barriers. The speed of that detonation would have reached you faster than the noise of the plane closely approaching the building.

Lift doors and foyer would have been blasted out simultaneously with the sound of the explosion above. Then you would have heard the sound of the aircraft's jet engines echoing off surrounding buildings arriving through the broken foyer window openings.

The rest is history.
 
Last edited:

Eddie

Member
It's all about the speed of sound.

If a jet flies right past you at 500 mph, in the open air, over your head, at an altitude of 1100 feet, then what you hear as it flies overhead is not the sound it is making at that very moment, but the sound it was making two hundred and fifty yards behind its present position.

If you had had the misfortune to be inside a tower lobby at that time, you would probably not have heard its approach, due to intervening glass and wall soundproofing.

The impact was followed by a fuel-air detonation great enough to reach down the lift shafts, whether or not they were fitted with air barriers. The speed of that detonation would have reached you faster than the noise of the plane.

Lift doors and foyer would have been blasted out simultaneously with the sound of the aircraft's jet engines echoing off surrounding buildings entering the broken foyer window openings.

The rest is history.
SO what you're saying is the fuel-air detonation reached down to the lobby at faster than the speed of sound of the initial impact? the first man who said he was blasted before the first plane as he was going through the doors into the lobby

That still doesn't address that there were several explosions after that, which couldn't be related directly to the initial impact. The point is there appear to have been several reports of bombs in the lobby around/before the time of the impact and several afterwards.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Dingo 2020 Beirut Explosions Current Events 16
Mick West The Physics of Explosions Tossing Girders - Overpressure and Impulse 9/11 0
Mick West Explosions at Rally for Venezuelan President Maduro - Drones? Assassination? False Flag? Current Events 31
Mick West Explained: Mexico City Earthquake Lights [Power Line Arcing and Transformer Explosions] Science and Pseudoscience 30
Mick West 2017 Manchester Arena Explosions Current Events 13
Mick West Audio Reference for Falling or Burning Things that Sound Like Explosions 9/11 4
Oystein Debunked: "WTC7 Sound Evidence of Explosions" by Chandler/AE911T 9/11 31
Jason Aluminum-Water Explosions Theory of Collapse, Christian Simensen 9/11 19
Tazmanian How many explosions Boston Marathon Bombings 22
Grieves Eyewitness accounts of explosions 9/11 72
Tazmanian Where did the explosions come from? Boston Marathon Bombings 46
Svartbjørn The Solar System.. To Scale (just for fun, nothing to debunk here) General Discussion 0
Mick West Missing African Plane N9784L is a Small Prop Plane, not a Boeing 737, nothing like MH370 General Discussion 17
Critical Thinker Flooding in Colorado caused by HAARP, nothing to do with Climate Change? Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Jay Reynolds Chemtrailer looked for evidence but finds nothing reliable. Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Spongebob Something from Nothing Science and Pseudoscience 2
Mick West Debunked: "In politics, nothing happens by accident" - FDR Quotes Debunked 5

Related Articles

Top