This one particularly so.IS this evidence in text form anywhere? Videos are poor evidence.
I did. I'm accustomed to watching such videos.I would suggest watching the video segment first
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.
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.
I post this because I personally believe that bombs were in the basements of the towers. ...
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.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.
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?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?
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?
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?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_CommissionWhere was the investigation declared a failure?
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."
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:
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?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.
I second that, what about it?What about the NIST report?
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?
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?
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.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 unexpected. Where's it coming from?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?
Probably the fact that this stuff has all been discussed to death here.
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.
Where is the concrete evidence of a bomb going off in the lobby. "Seemed quite sure" is not good evidence.
What was the purpose of having bombs detonate in the basement or lobby?
That was Met watch and yourself, JR.
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.