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

Jazzy

Closed Account
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.
The path of the detonation was shorter than the sound path of the aircraft strike. I'm not saying that the detonation was faster than the speed of sound, although in its first stages it certainly could have been. No, it's about the shorter distance the detonation had to travel.

The man could have easily been blasted, and then heard the noise of the approaching jet reflected off nearby skyscrapers. The whole place was full of flat vertical faces, like a bathroom, but large, making it into a sort of giant echo chamber. It is quite apparent in the videos of the approaching plane.

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.
There was a fire after that, definitely above, and probably below. Fires cause other things to explode, like smoke-filled room volumes, sealed pipes and tanks, fire extinguishers and switch boxes. The possibility of other explosions due to fire was so great that one should not attach any particular significance to them.

You should note you copied my post while I was still struggling for the correct words.
 
Last edited:

JRBids

Senior Member.
The fact that they were in the lobby is significant because there is no way that the impact of the planes cause that.

No way, you say? How can you be so sure, Eddie?

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.

Why not? Do you believe there was nothing in the building that might have exploded when heated? Reports of explosions, yes. People often think an explosion "sounds like" a bomb.

Here is a video for you.

 

Eddie

Member
The path of the detonation was shorter than the sound path of the aircraft strike. I'm not saying that the detonation was faster than the speed of sound, although in its first stages it certainly could have been. No, it's about the shorter distance the detonation had to travel.

The man could have easily been blasted, and then heard the noise of the approaching jet reflected off nearby skyscrapers. The whole place was full of flat vertical faces, like a bathroom, but large, making it into a sort of giant echo chamber. It is quite apparent in the videos of the approaching plane.


There was a fire after that, definitely above, and probably below. Fires cause other things to explode, like smoke-filled room volumes, sealed pipes and tanks, fire extinguishers and switch boxes. The possibility of other explosions due to fire was so great that one should not attach any particular significance to them.

You should note you copied my post while I was still struggling for the correct words.

Im not convinced there are consistent reports of explosions in the lobby and all the smoke and huge explosions in the subway. I just can't believe that this was caused simply by the initial impact at all. A man described from the first floor "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom"
 

Eddie

Member
No way, you say? How can you be so sure, Eddie?



Why not? Do you believe there was nothing in the building that might have exploded when heated? Reports of explosions, yes. People often think an explosion "sounds like" a bomb.

Here is a video for you.



Your video is insulting to my intelligence. If you think i believe all that other nonsense then you're sadly mistaken.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Here is a video for you.
Gosh. The "sprinkler lady". I had a conversation with her once. It could never get started. She sent me a scientific report on aspects of forestry which had nothing at all to do with the topic, which apparently was a specialized one concerned with the effects of pixelization and compression software in her videocamera, although she didn't understand this. I can't remember her name, dammit.

Im not convinced there are consistent reports of explosions in the lobby and all the smoke and huge explosions in the subway. I just can't believe that this was caused simply by the initial impact at all. A man described from the first floor "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom"
They were big impacts, Eddie,
followed by truly massive explosions, bigger than the seventy yards wide face of the towers, and causing hundred foot high fireballs.
You've seen them all, I'm sure. But just in case... :) The first is two-thirds of the 911 impacts, and the fuel/air half of the 911 subsequent explosions.

The first also mentions the explosion followed by the arrival noise, in this case of a V2.

In a tower 1350 feet high made of steel, it may well have been that "boom-boom, (pause), boom-boom" was exactly what you would have heard on the first floor, as the sounds travelled up and down the lift shafts, reflecting at their ends.
 
Last edited:

JRBids

Senior Member.
Your video is insulting to my intelligence. If you think i believe all that other nonsense then you're sadly mistaken.

I think you display may of the same characteristics described in the video, not necessarily the theories therein. YOu use the same tactics.
 

Boston

Active Member
What was the purpose of having bombs detonate in the basement or lobby?


The following video shows the demolition of a large structure, it can be clearly seen that explosives are used to weaken the structure prior to its intended collapse.

 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Cant view the video, but I'm fairly certain the collapse doesn't take place hours after the explosions farther down.
 

Boston

Active Member
Hmmmm sounds like an assuption

Have you looked into the pattern of the shoot in any other controlled demolition events ?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Im not convinced there are consistent reports of explosions in the lobby and all the smoke and huge explosions in the subway. I just can't believe that this was caused simply by the initial impact at all. A man described from the first floor "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom"

Why not?

We know for a fact that jet fuel traveled down elevator shafts and blew out in the lobbies severely burning people.

What would that sound like?

We also know the elevators themselves crashed down to lower levels.

What do you think that would sound like?

We have gone over this quite extensively in this forum...see here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/eyewitness-accounts-of-explosions.1810/#post-50293
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
Why not?

We know for a fact that jet fuel traveled down elevator shafts and blew out in the lobbies severely burning people.

We do ? Do you have any samples of materials known to have only existed in the lobbies with jet fuel residue on them ? Do you have any direct evidence, like photographic evidence of a failed elevator ? Do you have any tissue analysis of the burn victims showing jet fuel residue ?

What would that sound like?

What sound like ? an elevator crashing down through its brakes and falling to the bottom of a shaft numerous stories bellow the lobby level, the sound of jet fuel igniting or the sound of severely burning people ?

We also know the elevators themselves crashed down to lower levels.

Odd, didn't you just say the elevators blew out in the lobbies ?

What do you think that would sound like?

Depends on if any elevators actually fell and how many presumably fell. Sound analysis would be the correct way to establish what the source of various suspicious sounds were in the buildings, so the question becomes, were any detailed analysis of sound emanations from all three building that failed that day offered for consideration within the various gubment studies so that this determination can be accurately made ?

We have gone over this quite extensively in this forum...see here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/eyewitness-accounts-of-explosions.1810/#post-50293

actually I'm not much on eye witness accounts, so I'll stick to what we do know and can find within the physical evidence available
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SR1419

Senior Member.
actually I'm not much on eye witness accounts, so I'll stick to what we do know and can find within the physical evidence available

Indeed. Other than eyewitness accounts of fireballs bursting forth from elevators, elevator professionals describing what they experienced with their elevators and accounts of smelling of kerosene in the lobbies and severely burned people exiting elevators....there is very little evidence....but more evidence that it was as described than there is for any other potential scenario.

Eyewitness accounts are not always reliable but when taken in the aggregate can be used to develop a likely scenario.
 

Boston

Active Member
Interesting, so when a predominant number of eye witness accounts report molten metal in large quantities we should consider them a "likely scenario" ? Course then we must consider who's counting what witnesses and what there particular bias might be.

A finely polished two edged sword, one which I'd prefer we avoid. Once we consider highly fallible eye witness accounts of people under extreme stress we begin a difficult trek down a long dark path. Structural engineering is what I consider to be a hard science, IMHO the hard sciences do not consider ambiguous information as data to be analyzed.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Interesting, so when a predominant number of eye witness accounts report molten metal in large quantities we should consider them a "likely scenario" ? Course then we must consider who's counting what witnesses and what there particular bias might be.
We all accept that metal melted in the fires.

Some of us here turn this "molten metal" into "molten steel" when it suits them, even when they have proved to everyone quite conclusively that it wasn't "molten steel" after all.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/molten-and-glowing-metal.2029/page-8#post-65434

And then all the rest of us have to say "well, of course there was hot molten metal in the damn fires! So effing what?" - time after time after time.

A finely polished two edged sword, one which I'd prefer we avoid. Once we consider highly fallible eye witness accounts of people under extreme stress we begin a difficult trek down a long dark path.
To Metabunk, by the sound of it

Structural engineering is what I consider to be a hard science, IMHO the hard sciences do not consider ambiguous information as data to be analyzed.
You don't happen to have a humble opinion.

If you did, then we wouldn't be dealing with "As far as molten steel, I have also presented multiple evidences of this being found as well." seven pages after you proved to yourself conclusively the steel you were looking at was at 900+ Centigrade and nowhere near its melting point of probably 1400+ C.

You should check on what "humility" actually means.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
For the love of all we hold dear and holly will someone please put that guy on ignore for me. o_O

I think my afternoon project will be to torture the sites functions till I find some way of accomplishing this minor goal. But seeing as how all I'm up to today is making a new batch of dog food ( yes I make my own dog food ) I guess I have the time

carry on and yes administration, feel free to delete this sorta off topic :cool: message
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
For the love of all we hold dear and holly will someone please put that guy on ignore for me. o_O
I think my afternoon project will be to torture the sites functions till I find some way of accomplishing this minor goal. But seeing as how all I'm up to today is making a new batch of dog food ( yes I make my own dog food ) I guess I have the time
carry on and yes administration, feel free to delete this sorta off topic :cool: message
It makes it easy for you. Look top right and you'll see "Boston". Select it.
You're now in your own personal space. Look down the left column. You'll see "People you ignore". Select it. Enter "Jazzy". Bingo, you're done.
This should work perfectly for you.
In my case it didn't, because the person I ignored was occupying half the thread with his stupid claims and conflations of hot metal. The remnant of the thread was unreadable for page after page.
You might have better luck, because I normally attempt humility, brevity, and finality with my posts.
 
Last edited:
Don't ignore Boston it's good to have varying opinions and discuss but I agree with you jazzy has a habit if you look through all the posts of presenting evidence of certain things as certainties in cases here that are in no way as concrete as he thinks as well as not taking valid evidence into consideration. His attempts at humility and brevity, maybe in his own head at best, and finality...well that's just ridiculous. You from what I have read and I actually go through and read a lot of these posts front to back and your the most informed with the least rational open-minded approach of anyone on here that isn't completely uninformed. Clear valid points in almost every 9/11 thread Boston has posted that you dismiss. It's a shame. Anyways all good stuff love the site
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
and finality...well that's just ridiculous.
Aw, shucks. Succinctness is all. Brevity is the soul... ...anyway I wrote "normally"...

the most informed with the least rational open-minded approach of anyone on here that isn't completely uninformed. Clear valid points in almost every 9/11 thread Boston has posted that you dismiss. It's a shame. Anyways all good stuff love the site
Least rational in what way? I've just tested ignore and told you its true limitations. Seems pretty rational to me: ignoring a poster who's posts tend to occupy a page renders it impossible to follow the thread. I have fewer issues with Boston than I do with others. Oxymoron the same, though we frequently bash heads. Puzzled about the engineering? The atmosphere? Yes, the site is good. :)
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Bruno D. 9/11 Sounds of Explosions Not being Recorded 9/11 15
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 35
Mick West 2017 Manchester Arena Explosions Current Events 13
Mick West Audio Reference for Falling or Burning Things that Sound Like Explosions 9/11 9
Oystein Debunked: "WTC7 Sound Evidence of Explosions" by Chandler/AE911T 9/11 31
Jason Aluminum-Water Explosions Theory of Collapse, Christian Simensen 9/11 17
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
P Dan Aykroyd: Making something out of nothing General Discussion 2
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





















Related Articles

Top