I was at this location at the very time this was happening. The scene is from the command post outside the high school on West St., there was never a bomb, it was a report of a gas leak in the school itself. The fear was that it may explode. In all the confusion things were being misunderstood, The fear of an explosion immediately translated into "it was a bomb". That was never the case but more of case of the telephone game. By time the message was spread it had a totally different meaning.
slowshineymetal.... could you be any more of a passive, ignorant patriotic douchebag. first of all, its fucking been proved THOROUGHLY obvious that the whole thing was one giant scam. explain WT7 to me please.
and you have to be naive as hell as to think a superpower wouldnt kill 3000 of its sheep in order to strip the other millions of their liberty - VOLUNTARILY.
fruity nutjob bush haters have used all sorts of silly, pathetic twisted edited bits of anything to allege that we bombed ourselves- jas there ever been a more obviously ridiculous attempt at nonsense? these people make fighting terror even harder,. and should be throat-kicked. fuckin atrocious.
Give it up Obama, Hillary,and McShame. We want a real President. And that is Ron Paul. There is way too many people in this country that are finding out the real truth about these three CFR candidates, Obama, Hillary and McShame. People are waking up to their bullshit. American People, we need to keep spreading the Ron Paul message, and don't stop!!! We need to write Ron Paul in on the ballots
if you pay attention to where this is occurring, it is at the Stuyvesant High School. If you check the timelines and the records, you will see that the high school had a bomb scare in it as well. here is the whole story of this situation:
So what are you saying about the secondary device they are shouting about? that has nothing to do with any school...and btw the link still doesnt work that u posted.
Its called a bomb scare. They dont know how many bombs, or if there were more than one. It was all taking place at the school. Do you know how a bombing takes place? You set off one bomb to get everyones attention, then you set off a second bomb to kill the responders. During 9/11 there were plenty of bomb threats, all of which had to be taken seriously. Obvious way of thinking is if there is one device, there may be a secondary device. And it was all at the Stuyvesant HS, scene of bomb scare.
Don't you think that you wouldn't want to kill TOO many? Otherwise the 9/11 Victims Family Steering Committee would be 10 times bigger? THINK ABOUT IT. Pearl Harbor = 4000 dead. PNAC publishes Sept 2000 "New Pearl Harbor" - Sept 2001 9/11 gives these jews their new pearl harbor. "You can't handle the truth"
For those of you who want to knwo the truth about 9/11 just ask anyone who is not an anarchist...ask someone who cares about the future of america....and ask anyone who wants to see the good of democracy spread around the world. Ask a solier, ask a fireman, ask a patriotic american. To see these conspiritors provn wrong...watch history channels "9/11 consipiracies:fact or fiction"
David Ray Griffin, one of the first American writers to touch on this subject, writes it thusly, footnoting Meyssan:The footnote for this references "33. Thierry Meyssan, 9:11: The Big Lie (London: Carnot, 2002), 112, 116 ". The book referenced does not,however, mention this subject on those pages
oh...and btw...the source that you got that pentagon missile thing from is wrong.
David Ray Griffin, one of the first American writers to touch on this subject, writes it thusly, footnoting Meyssan:The footnote for this references "33. Thierry Meyssan, 9:11: The Big Lie (London: Carnot, 2002), 112, 116 ". The book referenced does not,however, mention this subject on those pages
Because Philip Zelikow's significant involvement with the administration of George W. Bush, some questioned the propriety of his position as executive director of the 9/11 Commission, which examined the conduct of George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Both the 9/11 Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens Watch demanded his resignation, due to this apparent conflict of interest.
The government of the united states cant keep quiet about the president hanging around with an intern! you think they could keep this a secret!? everyone who has seen bush speak knows he has NO poker face
We have a whole in the ground....we have a missing plane...we have around 90 people missing....and we have unofficial accounts that it landed. Don't you think the 9/11 comission would be able to find a plane if it was landed?
They couldnt track it because they turned the tracking system off...which may have be the transponder which would not tell the system taht a plane was coming...but something was turned off which didnt allow it to be tracked
Oh...and i guess all the passengers were kidnapped by the government...and brought to a remote location where they were executed by a firing squad? Is that how the story goes?
What was their reason? They had no reason. 2 planes went into the wtc...a plane went into the pentagon and another one was hijacted....in 1993 a car bomb was the weapon used tha attack the wtc. Thats their only reason.
Who is that? I just went to the rally at Union Square on sunday.Shot over to Cooper Union where 911truth was giving a whole lot of speakers and stayed there till -9pm.Very enlightening.
Too bad some of these closed minded idiots don't just go to 1 rally and hear different people.1 of them got blown up in the pentagon and was lucky 2 b alive.
brian, you must agree that the "truther" title conspiracy theorists like to assign to themselves is ironic at best, right? I can't find any claims you've made about the towers that has been truthful. Instead, all you've presented are unsubstantiated assertions, willful misinterpretations, and an allergic reaction to anything that is actually truthful. And of course your deceptive citation of the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, which you didn't really consult, didn't help your credibility.
brian, aren't you embarrassed that none of your claims about explosives have panned out? No one with any expertise supports your baseless assertions. Not a single demo expert, not even Romero. Instead, you heap on additional conspiracy theory by claiming he was paid off. Yes, all the engineers & metallurgists? Paid off. The FDNY who don't mention anything about any mo charges? Paid off. The ground zero workers who found no detritus of charges, cabling, or detonators? Paid off. Right.
brian, how come none of the thousands of signal receptors that would have been required for a remote controlled demolition were never found in the rubble by FDNY, first responders, & other ground zero recovery crews? How come none of the cabling or pieces of blasting caps were never found?
brian, why do you insist that the comments in the midst of a crisis about bombs were so significant, especially when they didn't even pan out and turned out to be uncorroborated? Surely you understand that something that is uncorroborated is a rumor. Why do you attach significance to rumors?
brian, why did you engage in deception by quoting a fireman on the 78th floor stating that, "We should be able to knock it down with two lines" when only a wingtip passed through the 78th floor and raging fires were on the 81st floor where the fuselage passed through? Were you trying to fool me into thinking the fires weren't raging? Was that the purpose of your intentional deception?
brian, you made the irrelevant & not quite correct statement that "steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F." When I asked for your source, you could have referred me to the on-line source that YOU used. But instead you played a little trick and referred me to a book that your on-line source cited, knowing that it would be a hassle for me to try to get that book. Why did you engage in that deception?
brian, as it turns out, you have made a number of unsubstantiated assertions, such as your claim about "squibs." I haven't been able to find anyone with demolition expertise who concurs that those blasts of air really are squibs. Please reference those demo experts that concur.
brian, the "working theory," according to Kelly, was that there was a van packed with explosives. Did that working theory pan out or did it turn out to be false? How about the reporters who initially reported that they thought WTC 1 was hit by a small private plane? Did those reports pan out or did they turn out to be false as well? I ask because you seem to have difficulty differentiating between unconfirmed reports and verified reports.
brian, I'm asking for the 6th time, it turns you never used the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics as you claimed, right? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you? It was a tactic designed to make it difficult for me to check out your info. Very dishonest on your part.
brian, it turns you never referenced the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics as you claimed, right? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you? It was a tactic designed to make it difficult for me to check out your info. Very dishonest on your part.
brian, why is it that you don't think it's necessary to corroborate your claims that there were explosives planted in the building or that the plumes were "squibs." Do you really think unsubstantiated assertions are worth anything?
brian, why did so many people well below the impact zones smell kerosene? Why did they smell it at the site of blown out elevators in the lobby, on the 3rd floor, in the sub-basement, etc.? What would cause the smell of kerosene?
brian, thanks for adding the important information that Van Romero doesn't think explosives brought down the towers. So that means there are zero demo experts that concur with your "squibs" claim.
You show no indication of knowing that Van Romero does not think that explosives brought down the towers. Why would you only present PART of his views when the latter ones are far more relevant?
brian, one of the biggest weaknesses of the CT movement is it's intentional editing out of inconvenient truths that don't support their version of events. Like ONLY looking at the videos of WTC 7 without considering the FDNY statements or their not seeing or hearing any demo charges at the time of collapse. You've given another example by ignoring the rest of what Van Romero said.
brian, why did you make the false assertion that all the glass in all the windows should all have blown simultaneously when the building was under pressure? Can you identify anyone with expertise who concurs? Or was this just a little lie you came up with on your own?
brian, why do you pretend that the low temperatures found on the recovered steel pieces automatically means no steel reached higher temperatures? Why do you ignore the fact that the NIST report makes it clear that hardly any of the steel samples recovered were from the impact floors?
brian, why do CTers like yourself make broad, baseless claim that the computer models were manipulated when there's no evidence of it? How come CTers like you can identify no specific errors or manipulations in the models?
brian, how come none of the thousands of signal receptors that would have been required for a remote controlled demolition were never found in the rubble by FDNY, first responders, & other ground zero recovery crews? How come none of the cabling or pieces of blasting caps were never found?
brian, why do you insist that the reports of bombs were significant when they didn't pan out and turned out to be uncorroborated? Something this is uncorroborated is a rumor. Why do you attach significance to rumors?
brian, you made the irrelevant & only partially correct statement that "steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F." When I asked for your source, you could have referred me to the on-line source you used. But instead you referred me to a book, knowing that it would be a hassle for me to try to get that book. Why did you engage in that deception?
brian, why haven't you been able to substantiate your assertions, such as your claim about "squibs." I haven't been able to find anyone with demolition expertise who concurs that those blasts of air really are squibs. Please reference those demo experts that concur.
brian, the "working theory," according to Kelly, was that there was a van packed with explosives. Did that working theory pan out or did it turn out to be false? How about the reporters who initially reported that they thought WTC 1 was hit by a small private plane? Did those reports pan out or did they turn out to be false as well? I ask because you seem to have difficulty differentiating between unconfirmed reports and verified reports.
brian, why did you quote a fireman on the 78th floor stating that, "We should be able to knock it down with two lines" when only a wingtip passed through the 78th floor and raging fires were on the 81st where the fuselage passed through? Were you being intentionally deceptive again?
brian, it turns you never referenced the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics as you claimed, right? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you? It was a tactic designed to make it difficult for me to check out your info. Very dishonest on your part.
brian, so it turns out that we have no confirmed reports of bombs in either tower, no FDNY who say they actually heard bombs, no remnants of any demolition sets found at ground zero, no blasts that look anything like demo charges going off, no evidence of demo teams entering the building or planting charges or covering over torn up walls, & no demolition experts who say there explosives brought down the towers. There's nothing.
brian, how come none of the thousands of signal receptors that would have been required for a remote controlled demolition were never found in the rubble by FDNY, first responders, & other ground zero recovery crews? How come none of the cabling or pieces of blasting caps were never found?
brian, why do you insist that the reports of bombs were significant when they didn't pan out and turned out to be uncorroborated? Something this is uncorroborated is a rumor. Why do you attach significance to rumors?
brian, you made the irrelevant & on only partially correct statement that "steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F." When I asked for your source, you could have referred me to the on-line source you used. But instead you referred me to a book, knowing that it would be a hassle for me to try to get that book. Why did you engage in that deception?
brian, you have made a number of unsubstantiated assertions, such as your claim about "squibs." I haven't been able to find anyone with demolition expertise who concurs that those blasts of air really are squibs. Please reference those demo experts that concur.
brian, the "working theory," according to Kelly, was that there was a van packed with explosives. Did that working theory pan out or did it turn out to be false? How about the reporters who initially reported that they thought WTC 1 was hit by a small private plane? Did those reports pan out or did they turn out to be false as well? I ask because you seem to have difficulty differentiating between unconfirmed reports and verified reports.
brian, it has nothing to do with whether or not I can get the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics at the library. It has to do with the fact that you lied about using it yourself, didn't you? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you? It was a tactic designed to make it difficult for me to check out your info. Very dishonest on your part.
brian, so it turns out that we have no confirmed reports of bombs in either tower, no FDNY who say they actually heard bombs, no remnants of any demolition sets found at ground zero, no blasts that look anything like demo charges going off, no evidence of demo teams entering the building or planting charges or covering over torn up walls, & no demolition experts who say there explosives brought down the towers. There's nothing.
brian, as I said, you lied about using the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, didn't you? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you?
brian, I said that you lied about using the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, didn't you? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you?
PM does explain the alleged "squibs." They were caused by the air pressure. You still have not substantiated your claim that these were "squibs." I think you're unable to do so, aren't you?
brian, you lied about using the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, didn't you? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you?
The alleged "squibs" were caused by the air pressure. You still have not substantiated your claim that these were "squibs." I think you're unable to do so, aren't you?
They had fires in them. Fires create ash. They had dust in them. There was downward pressure from the collapsing building. Are you intentionally ignorant about everything?
brian, you lied about using the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, didn't you? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you?
Ahhh, the "concrete" masked all the flashes! How stupid of all those demolition experts not to understand that. brian the demo expert explains all. In fact, you're just making up this crap as you go along. Find a demo expert to substantiate your claims and you'll have credibility.
I'm talking about flashes in the locations of the 6 "squibs." No flashes. No apparent structural weakening. No one with any expertise in demolitions has says those were squibs. Not one.
brian, you lied about using the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, didn't you? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you?
Well, then substantiate your claim. Find a vdeo of a CD that uses shaped charges and that results in concrete being jettisoned outwards so that "that's all one sees from a distance."
"those shape charges caught on video went off too soon!"
You just made that up. No one agrees with you. No one. And you also just contradicted yourself about shaped charges resulting in the jettisoning of concrete. None jettisoned by the "squibs." No apparent structural weakening either. No flashes either.
Boy, you sure have that wrong. No controlled demolitions seek to jettison concrete outwards. But if you really want to argue that, go ahead and reference a video showing a CD with shaped charges resulting in the jettsioning out of concrete spikes so that "that's all one sees from a distance."
I already gave you a link to an analysis of the correct type of steel showing weakening beginning at less than 200 C and about 1/2 strength lost at about 550 C. As for the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, you lied about using that, didn't you? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you?
It wasn't just a ceiling collapse. It was the whole tower collapsing that caused the pressure. Your theory of "squibs" - 6 random bursts of air, accompanied by no flashes and no apparent structural weakening - is silly. I don't think you can find confirmation of your "squib" claim from any demo expert.
It is not possible for explosives to produce one feature, such as the squib effect, without the others, such as shockwaves and flying debris, none of which are present in those locations. Also, the "squibs" are too few in number and too slow to be evidence of explosions. We do not see the "squibs" on all exterior columns, or even on a majority, nor do we see them in any symmetric pattern. Nor do they cause any apparent structural weakening.
brain, we've already discussed how those temps are not applicalbe. But as you well know, I was talking about the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, which you lied about using. It's obvious you had an online source that had cited the Handbook. So instead of giving me the link to the online source, you cite the book instead. Very dishonest.
brian, ever since you lied about the source of your information and refused to provide a link, I've had even more difficulty taking you seriously. And now you're making outlandish claims about the specifications of window installation without citing a single source to substantiate your claims. That's not very honest.
Are you talking about the alleged "squibs?" Yes, those were not explosions. They only happen after the building is already collapsing and cause no apparent structural weakening. I haven't seen anyone with expertise in demolitions say they were caused by explosions. Surely if they really were caused by explosions, you'd be able to find someone with expertise to corroborate your claim.
Not sure about negligible, but the small difference would be significant when under pressure because the weakest one would break first. And in fact that's what we saw. Your whole claim about there being no variations among window strengths is so absurd and unsubstantiated.
You're claiming that a floor under pressure would result in all the windows blowing open simultaneously, but that's absurd. Your "exacting specifications" for air pressure resistance are invented by you. Since you lied about the source of you melted steel temperature infor, you cannot be trusted.
Of course, you don't address the differences in pressures. There is no way that you (especially YOU) can know that the pressures were exactly equal at each window. It's much MORE likely that MORE windows would blow out because of an explosion than the mere collapse, because the explosion causes a much more rapid increase in overpressure. You are just making stuff up (which we suspected before, but have now confirmed).
"13287, since the windows in the towers were ALL of the same make and designed especially for the peculiar characteristics of the towers, they WERE of the same strength!" You don't know that, but it also ignores any imperfections in installation.
"since the tell-tale signatures of shaped chages are observed, therfore shape charges were used" That would make sense ONLY if blowing out a few windows and not all of them was such a signature. You have provided nothing to support that facially illogical conclusion. Your arguments about "equalizing" pressures make no sense. Finally, you risk being called a shill, and worse, for disagreeing with the all-thermite, all-the-time wing of the truthers.
"Air pressure would equalize over the floor in question and either blow out all the windows or none!" No. You apparently have at least two false assumptions: (1) all windows on a floor are of exactly equal strength and (2) the pressure at each window is exactly the same. That is the only way you get to all-or-nothing. Otherwise, the most vulnerable window breaks, followed by the next, until the pressure is lessened enough.
brian, you seem to be making up these assertions. What's your substantiation for claiming shaped charges were used in certain locations and "more stable explosives" were used on the impact floors? Still impossible for them to have survived the impacts.
"A collapsing floor due to a collapsing building, he said, would blow out ALL the windows." That's plain silly. Once some windows blew out, the air pressure would be (temporarily) lessened, and the air would, for a while, have a place to go and not have the pressure to blow out more windows.
brian, it's pretty much impossible to trust you on anything since you lied about where you got your information about the steel melting temperatures from. The fact that you continuously refuse requests for the link to your information source shows you are afraid I'll find out your sources is not credible. I can't think of any other reason for concealing your source.
Yes, the models. Completely legit. You have been unable to cite any errors or manipulations in the models. NIST used 4 sets of empirical data as the imputs. Was their approach wrong. You claim about the heat sinks is incorrect. Structural steel weakens in fire, sometimes very quickly.
NIST found that there was intense heat. Fireballs are not easily protected from, nor are shock waves. Cutter charges in particular, which you assert were used, are particularly sensitive to disturbance. Sorry you've got nothing but unsubstantiated assertions that you yourself make up. No one agrees with you.
"charges in particular, which you assert were used, are particularly sensitive to disturbance" True, and keep in mind that the truther theory of the week is that there were charges immediately below the points of impact, and all over the rest of the building, which (a) survived the crash and (b) were completely unnoticed by the people fleeing the building.
The fact that you have lied about the source of your information reflects on your character. You not only lie about it, you refuse to provide the citation to back up your claim. That is dishonest and a sign of terrible scholarship. Remember when you claimed that "truthers' always tell the truth? You must be an exception to that.
No, there's no evidence to support such a silly supposition. There could be no assurance that any charges would survive the impacts, shock, waves, fireballs, fires, and intense heat. You just made that up and are unable to substantiate it.
Ok, let's hear the evidence that there were agents from Ace Elevator installing demo charges. Can't wait to hear this. Probably another lie just like your lie that you got the steel melting temp info from a library book instead of online where you really got it.
The cores and perimeters weren't affected by the plane impacts? Then what was? According to all analyses, core columns were severed and damaged, plus there was the shockwave, fireball, and fires. The demo sets would not have survived the explosive power of the impacts and after-effects. Sorry.
Explosives also tend to burn or detonate when exposed to heat, and even those that don't will degrade chemically. Detonators, wiring, & the connections between explosives are sensitive components. It's difficult to imagine any method of explosive demolition that could be expected to survive such conditions.
Since the collapses began at the impact floors, explain now explosives secretly planted on those floors survived the impact and the fires. Explosives used in demolitions are either packed close to the structural members, or use shaped charges that are extremely sensitive to geometry, and since we know the jetliner impacts fractured some columns outright and stripped others to the bare metal, either situation would be disrupted.
I seem to know physics better than you. At least I don't lie about getting information from a certain book when in fact I got it online. Who said anything about an air blast "deciding" something? Not only have you lied about your sources, but you're not making any sense.
brian, why did you lie about getting the steel melting info from the handbook of chemistry and physics? You actually got it from an online source. Yet contrary to good scholarship, you refuse to reveal it. Why is that?
brian, why did you lie about getting the steel melting info from the handbook of chemistry and physics? You actually got it from an online source. Yet contrary to good scholarship, you refuse to reveal it. Why is that?
Yep, they're just air blasts. Which demo expert says the random blasts of air during the building's collapse are actually the "distictive sign of shape charges going off?" Since I don't trust your word on that, tell me which demo expert says that?
What's odd is that only a few random windows were blown out. I thought there were supposedly bombs powerful enough to break up steel columns, but they didn't shatter any glass?
Yes, there is indeed misinterpreting of bombs going off. The bomb reports turned out to be rumors. There are no eyewitnesses who saw bombs. That's false.
brian, why did you lie about getting the steel melting info from the handbook of chemistry and physics? You actually got it from an online source. Yet contrary to good scholarship, you refuse to reveal it. Why is that?
I agree that you didn't make the initial comments about bombs. No one says that. You just repeat and willfully misinterpret them. You attach enormous significance to the comments made in the midst of a crisis and then ignore what the firefighters said afterward.
As I said, the reports of bombs turned out to be rumors. I think the officers of the FDNY, including special investigators, had higher priorities post-911 than investigating why rumors got started.
brian, what was the reason you lied about getting the steel melting info directly from the handbook of chemistry & physics when in fact you got it online? Did you want to make it difficult for me to verify the info? Or did you worry that it was from a questionable source? So...what's the URL where you got it?
No indication of any bomb planting just like there's no indication of nuclear devices or energy beams. Need evidence to justify an investigation not just rumors and politically-motivated baseless assertions.
I spent quite a bit of time searching the conspiracy websites and elsewhere looking for a demolition expert who has said explosives brought down the towers. I can't find even one. The only people who claim it was a demolition are people without expertise in demolitions. That's significant.
The recovery operation took precedence for the FDNY. The rumor investigation still seems not very useful. "Did you start the rumor? Do you know who did?" etc. etc. Silly.
brian, what is the online source where you got the reference to the handbook of physics & chemistry?
Most of the steel was not examined in situ. Some selection of pieces to be saved was done at GZ. It was mainly examined at Fresh Kills & salvage yards.
Seems like a waste of time and money to investigate the rumors. As I said, there were far more pressing things for the FDNY to deal with in the days and weeks following the attacks than investigate how rumors got started.
brian, there were no bombs. There was no evidence of any bombs. No one saw any or heard any. All there is is intentionally misinterpreted comments made in the midst of a crisis. Nothing more.
Forensic engineers DID examine the steel. Contrary to CTer rumor, there was no rush to send it to Asia. BTW, will you give me the online cite of the person who cited the handbook of physics and chemistry? Please don't tell me you got the book from the library.
There were no bombs to investigate because as it turned out, none were found. They turned out to be false reports. I think the FDNY had some more pressing matters to deal with that day and in the days and weeks that followed than investigating false reports of bombs.
Now you want a rumor investigation? What for? Should all rumors of bombs be investigated? After all, there were rumors of bombs in the UN, the NY stock exchange, the Stuvysant school, and the US Capitol. As with the rumors of bombs in th etowers, they turned out to be false. Why would you want to investigate them?
What would your investigation consist of? Re-interviewing the people who said they heard explosions or explosion-like sounds, only to have them repeat that they didn't think they were really explosives? I put the CTer bomb claims in the same category as the CTer nuclear device claims and energy beam claims: no evidence. All you have, brian, are a few comments made in the midst of a crisis. As it turned out, no bombs were found. By anyone. None.
No bombs ended up being found. No firefighters said they thought they actually heard bombs. So if it turned out there were no bombs, how do investigate nothingness? You are attaching enormous significance to a few comments made in the midst of a crisis and ignoring everything else they said.
We DO know what the FDNY actions were on 9/11. You can read about them in the oral histories. They do not mention finding any bombs. They do not mention that they thought they actually heard any bombs. There turned out to be no evidence of any bombs. You're attaching enormous significance to comments made in the midst of a crisis while ignoring everything else they said.
It's not an INTENTIONAL rumor. But the reports never panned out. The FDNY never found anything. When firefighters talked of bombs in the Stuvysant school, they weren't INTENTIONALLY spreading rumors. When police said there were reports of bombs in the NY Stock Exchange & the US Capitol, they weren't INTENTIONALLY spreading rumors. None of the bomb reports ever panned out.
brian, the bomb reports turned out to be rumors. It turns out no one saw any bombs and the oral histories show that the firefighters never actually thought there were demo charges or that explosions brought down the towers.
If the FBI were part of the plot to plant bombs, why would they publicly state that? Doesn't make any sense. The bomb reports never panned out. They were rumors, like so much else that day.
This was second-hand from a reporter. So the phrasing comes from him. In any event, since none of the comments about bombs panned out, they were rumors.
Yo- your moron Richard Cage said that demolitions don't bring down clouds of dust. What an idiot. When a big building falls, it produces gobs of dust. Moron.
"ghk13287, did Richard Gage really say that demolitions don't result in clouds of dust?" I probably mispoke. If I recall, Gage said that buildings that just fell didn't produce clouds of dust, that there had to be explosions. That's just silly. Sorry for the confusion.
"PoetryHound, maybe you need the government to tell you what happened on 9/11" That's the classic moron truther response: if you don't buy the insane, stupid moron conspiracy theory of the week, you are blindly following the gov't. How many times have you seen this pathetic, stupid argument?
You're right ghk13287, the CTers frequently claim that anyone who disagrees with their demolition theory i(or thermite theory) automatically buys everything government officials say. Nonsense.
Planes masking bombs??? Are you f-ing serious? Is the moron conspiracy theory that the bombs were already set, and about to go off, but the planes were sent in as diversions? What evidence do you have to support that insanity????
bushhaters ... do some research you fucking twat fool!!
bush haters .. what is he your uncle that you almost burst into tears ..
in the beginning we are soled a lie , but no buying the lie , because wwe know better .
get a life
dennisjo88 1 year ago
I was at this location at the very time this was happening. The scene is from the command post outside the high school on West St., there was never a bomb, it was a report of a gas leak in the school itself. The fear was that it may explode. In all the confusion things were being misunderstood, The fear of an explosion immediately translated into "it was a bomb". That was never the case but more of case of the telephone game. By time the message was spread it had a totally different meaning.
mrjruss 2 years ago
@mrjruss we are going to advance, send reinforcements, ends up as, we are going to a dance, send three and fourpence......
hathechewed 5 months ago
slowshineymetal.... could you be any more of a passive, ignorant patriotic douchebag. first of all, its fucking been proved THOROUGHLY obvious that the whole thing was one giant scam. explain WT7 to me please.
and you have to be naive as hell as to think a superpower wouldnt kill 3000 of its sheep in order to strip the other millions of their liberty - VOLUNTARILY.
idiots.
renderedfreakish 2 years ago
fruity nutjob bush haters have used all sorts of silly, pathetic twisted edited bits of anything to allege that we bombed ourselves- jas there ever been a more obviously ridiculous attempt at nonsense? these people make fighting terror even harder,. and should be throat-kicked. fuckin atrocious.
slowshineymetal 3 years ago
at least we don't ignore witnesses.
JSSTyger 3 years ago
Hey jackass-Nice usage of atrocious, you are a moron. Go fuck your uncle with an american flag wrapped around your ass you moron.
Yagsiyag 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Give it up Obama, Hillary,and McShame. We want a real President. And that is Ron Paul. There is way too many people in this country that are finding out the real truth about these three CFR candidates, Obama, Hillary and McShame. People are waking up to their bullshit. American People, we need to keep spreading the Ron Paul message, and don't stop!!! We need to write Ron Paul in on the ballots
swaneeusa3 3 years ago
Here is the video in full:
watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE
Apparently the author of "Fireman: Bomb in the Building" either forgot the rest of this video, or refused to show the truth.
this "bomb" reference was to the bomb scare in the Stuyvesant High School five blocks away.
Bundy133T 3 years ago 7
where does it say that? I hear "secondary device" in the video you posted.
TIKOMIX 3 years ago
Sorry the wrong clip got posted.
watch?v=dZ8K_HwQjPY
if you pay attention to where this is occurring, it is at the Stuyvesant High School. If you check the timelines and the records, you will see that the high school had a bomb scare in it as well. here is the whole story of this situation:
watch?v=o2Us6hwc5EY
Bundy133T 3 years ago
So what are you saying about the secondary device they are shouting about? that has nothing to do with any school...and btw the link still doesnt work that u posted.
TIKOMIX 3 years ago
Its called a bomb scare. They dont know how many bombs, or if there were more than one. It was all taking place at the school. Do you know how a bombing takes place? You set off one bomb to get everyones attention, then you set off a second bomb to kill the responders. During 9/11 there were plenty of bomb threats, all of which had to be taken seriously. Obvious way of thinking is if there is one device, there may be a secondary device. And it was all at the Stuyvesant HS, scene of bomb scare.
Bundy133T 3 years ago
He said "theres a bomb in the building clear out."
FDNYDCFDfirefighter 3 years ago
see in my favorites the explosion in pentagono ...the airplane dont exist
MARCOSUPERSONIC 4 years ago
the firefighters were referring to a bomb scare at Stuyvesant High School, five blocks from the WTC.
Kinsey5 4 years ago
dont you think if the government rellly did it that they would do it right? By attacking lower and killing ten of thousands more?!
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
Don't you think that you wouldn't want to kill TOO many? Otherwise the 9/11 Victims Family Steering Committee would be 10 times bigger? THINK ABOUT IT. Pearl Harbor = 4000 dead. PNAC publishes Sept 2000 "New Pearl Harbor" - Sept 2001 9/11 gives these jews their new pearl harbor. "You can't handle the truth"
Focoist911 4 years ago
What is your proof they stopped supporting it? your last few arguemnets were backed up
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
For those of you who want to knwo the truth about 9/11 just ask anyone who is not an anarchist...ask someone who cares about the future of america....and ask anyone who wants to see the good of democracy spread around the world. Ask a solier, ask a fireman, ask a patriotic american. To see these conspiritors provn wrong...watch history channels "9/11 consipiracies:fact or fiction"
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
David Ray Griffin, one of the first American writers to touch on this subject, writes it thusly, footnoting Meyssan:The footnote for this references "33. Thierry Meyssan, 9:11: The Big Lie (London: Carnot, 2002), 112, 116 ". The book referenced does not,however, mention this subject on those pages
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
and how would he know?
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
oh...and btw...the source that you got that pentagon missile thing from is wrong.
David Ray Griffin, one of the first American writers to touch on this subject, writes it thusly, footnoting Meyssan:The footnote for this references "33. Thierry Meyssan, 9:11: The Big Lie (London: Carnot, 2002), 112, 116 ". The book referenced does not,however, mention this subject on those pages
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
If i was speaking to my mother or father..they would know if it was me or not
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
this doesnt debunk the fact that people made calls from the phones on the plane.
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
so wah twere the family members speaking to?
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
Because Philip Zelikow's significant involvement with the administration of George W. Bush, some questioned the propriety of his position as executive director of the 9/11 Commission, which examined the conduct of George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Both the 9/11 Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens Watch demanded his resignation, due to this apparent conflict of interest.
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
So you're saying these calls were fake? There is no way they would just pull these calls because some ppl said its not possible
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
The government of the united states cant keep quiet about the president hanging around with an intern! you think they could keep this a secret!? everyone who has seen bush speak knows he has NO poker face
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
We have a whole in the ground....we have a missing plane...we have around 90 people missing....and we have unofficial accounts that it landed. Don't you think the 9/11 comission would be able to find a plane if it was landed?
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
And this plan never went through because they relized how stupid it was
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
There is tons more evidence ranging from physical to eyewitness evidence that contradicts the conspiracy accounts.
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
i did...but it still doesnt answer my question...WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE?!
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
there is no evidence....just questions "unanswered" but...WHERE DID THE PEOPLE GO?!
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
although i dont beleive any of this....what happened to those people that were on the flight 93 plane that you said landed?
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
Where did the people go? who were on the landed plane?
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
They heard explosions....which you hear in most fires. and what were tell-tail signs of bombs...and if 93 landed...WHERE DID THE PEOPLE GO?!
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
They couldnt track it because they turned the tracking system off...which may have be the transponder which would not tell the system taht a plane was coming...but something was turned off which didnt allow it to be tracked
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
Oh...and i guess all the passengers were kidnapped by the government...and brought to a remote location where they were executed by a firing squad? Is that how the story goes?
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
And what on the plane would trigger this? How would it tell the difference between a commericial plane and a fighter jet?
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
What was their reason? They had no reason. 2 planes went into the wtc...a plane went into the pentagon and another one was hijacted....in 1993 a car bomb was the weapon used tha attack the wtc. Thats their only reason.
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
Cm on! this is no proof for anything! there was sooo much chaos on that day...and he was trying to get this guy to clear out the building....
GIJonathan730 4 years ago
What site do u watch?
Is it live?
I've been staying up late every nite just watching all these films.I'm buggen!!! LOL
Where do u live?
ed11561 4 years ago
Who is that? I just went to the rally at Union Square on sunday.Shot over to Cooper Union where 911truth was giving a whole lot of speakers and stayed there till -9pm.Very enlightening.
Too bad some of these closed minded idiots don't just go to 1 rally and hear different people.1 of them got blown up in the pentagon and was lucky 2 b alive.
ed11561 4 years ago
Because PoetryHound is too stupid to listen to anything-he's too busy reading Shelley and Keats. lol
I laugh at these assholes-passit on.Good job with citing people
ed11561 4 years ago
brian, you must agree that the "truther" title conspiracy theorists like to assign to themselves is ironic at best, right? I can't find any claims you've made about the towers that has been truthful. Instead, all you've presented are unsubstantiated assertions, willful misinterpretations, and an allergic reaction to anything that is actually truthful. And of course your deceptive citation of the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, which you didn't really consult, didn't help your credibility.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, aren't you embarrassed that none of your claims about explosives have panned out? No one with any expertise supports your baseless assertions. Not a single demo expert, not even Romero. Instead, you heap on additional conspiracy theory by claiming he was paid off. Yes, all the engineers & metallurgists? Paid off. The FDNY who don't mention anything about any mo charges? Paid off. The ground zero workers who found no detritus of charges, cabling, or detonators? Paid off. Right.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, how come none of the thousands of signal receptors that would have been required for a remote controlled demolition were never found in the rubble by FDNY, first responders, & other ground zero recovery crews? How come none of the cabling or pieces of blasting caps were never found?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, you keep avoiding the question. Why did you lie about the source of your information about steel melting temperatures?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, why do you insist that the comments in the midst of a crisis about bombs were so significant, especially when they didn't even pan out and turned out to be uncorroborated? Surely you understand that something that is uncorroborated is a rumor. Why do you attach significance to rumors?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, why did you engage in deception by quoting a fireman on the 78th floor stating that, "We should be able to knock it down with two lines" when only a wingtip passed through the 78th floor and raging fires were on the 81st floor where the fuselage passed through? Were you trying to fool me into thinking the fires weren't raging? Was that the purpose of your intentional deception?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, you made the irrelevant & not quite correct statement that "steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F." When I asked for your source, you could have referred me to the on-line source that YOU used. But instead you played a little trick and referred me to a book that your on-line source cited, knowing that it would be a hassle for me to try to get that book. Why did you engage in that deception?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, as it turns out, you have made a number of unsubstantiated assertions, such as your claim about "squibs." I haven't been able to find anyone with demolition expertise who concurs that those blasts of air really are squibs. Please reference those demo experts that concur.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, the "working theory," according to Kelly, was that there was a van packed with explosives. Did that working theory pan out or did it turn out to be false? How about the reporters who initially reported that they thought WTC 1 was hit by a small private plane? Did those reports pan out or did they turn out to be false as well? I ask because you seem to have difficulty differentiating between unconfirmed reports and verified reports.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, I'm asking for the 6th time, it turns you never used the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics as you claimed, right? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you? It was a tactic designed to make it difficult for me to check out your info. Very dishonest on your part.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, it turns you never referenced the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics as you claimed, right? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you? It was a tactic designed to make it difficult for me to check out your info. Very dishonest on your part.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, why is it that you don't think it's necessary to corroborate your claims that there were explosives planted in the building or that the plumes were "squibs." Do you really think unsubstantiated assertions are worth anything?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, why did so many people well below the impact zones smell kerosene? Why did they smell it at the site of blown out elevators in the lobby, on the 3rd floor, in the sub-basement, etc.? What would cause the smell of kerosene?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, thanks for adding the important information that Van Romero doesn't think explosives brought down the towers. So that means there are zero demo experts that concur with your "squibs" claim.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brain, no one corroborates or concurs with your claim that the plumes were actually "squibs" or that they were accidental.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
You show no indication of knowing that Van Romero does not think that explosives brought down the towers. Why would you only present PART of his views when the latter ones are far more relevant?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, one of the biggest weaknesses of the CT movement is it's intentional editing out of inconvenient truths that don't support their version of events. Like ONLY looking at the videos of WTC 7 without considering the FDNY statements or their not seeing or hearing any demo charges at the time of collapse. You've given another example by ignoring the rest of what Van Romero said.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, why did you make the false assertion that all the glass in all the windows should all have blown simultaneously when the building was under pressure? Can you identify anyone with expertise who concurs? Or was this just a little lie you came up with on your own?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, why do you pretend that the low temperatures found on the recovered steel pieces automatically means no steel reached higher temperatures? Why do you ignore the fact that the NIST report makes it clear that hardly any of the steel samples recovered were from the impact floors?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, why do CTers like yourself make broad, baseless claim that the computer models were manipulated when there's no evidence of it? How come CTers like you can identify no specific errors or manipulations in the models?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, how come none of the thousands of signal receptors that would have been required for a remote controlled demolition were never found in the rubble by FDNY, first responders, & other ground zero recovery crews? How come none of the cabling or pieces of blasting caps were never found?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, you keep avoiding the question. Why did you lie about the source of your information about steel melting temperatures?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, why do you insist that the reports of bombs were significant when they didn't pan out and turned out to be uncorroborated? Something this is uncorroborated is a rumor. Why do you attach significance to rumors?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, you made the irrelevant & only partially correct statement that "steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F." When I asked for your source, you could have referred me to the on-line source you used. But instead you referred me to a book, knowing that it would be a hassle for me to try to get that book. Why did you engage in that deception?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, why haven't you been able to substantiate your assertions, such as your claim about "squibs." I haven't been able to find anyone with demolition expertise who concurs that those blasts of air really are squibs. Please reference those demo experts that concur.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, the "working theory," according to Kelly, was that there was a van packed with explosives. Did that working theory pan out or did it turn out to be false? How about the reporters who initially reported that they thought WTC 1 was hit by a small private plane? Did those reports pan out or did they turn out to be false as well? I ask because you seem to have difficulty differentiating between unconfirmed reports and verified reports.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, why did you quote a fireman on the 78th floor stating that, "We should be able to knock it down with two lines" when only a wingtip passed through the 78th floor and raging fires were on the 81st where the fuselage passed through? Were you being intentionally deceptive again?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, it turns you never referenced the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics as you claimed, right? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you? It was a tactic designed to make it difficult for me to check out your info. Very dishonest on your part.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, so it turns out that we have no confirmed reports of bombs in either tower, no FDNY who say they actually heard bombs, no remnants of any demolition sets found at ground zero, no blasts that look anything like demo charges going off, no evidence of demo teams entering the building or planting charges or covering over torn up walls, & no demolition experts who say there explosives brought down the towers. There's nothing.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, how come none of the thousands of signal receptors that would have been required for a remote controlled demolition were never found in the rubble by FDNY, first responders, & other ground zero recovery crews? How come none of the cabling or pieces of blasting caps were never found?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, you keep avoiding the question. Why did you lie to me about the source of your information about steel melting temperatures?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, why do you insist that the reports of bombs were significant when they didn't pan out and turned out to be uncorroborated? Something this is uncorroborated is a rumor. Why do you attach significance to rumors?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, you made the irrelevant & on only partially correct statement that "steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F." When I asked for your source, you could have referred me to the on-line source you used. But instead you referred me to a book, knowing that it would be a hassle for me to try to get that book. Why did you engage in that deception?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, you have made a number of unsubstantiated assertions, such as your claim about "squibs." I haven't been able to find anyone with demolition expertise who concurs that those blasts of air really are squibs. Please reference those demo experts that concur.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, the "working theory," according to Kelly, was that there was a van packed with explosives. Did that working theory pan out or did it turn out to be false? How about the reporters who initially reported that they thought WTC 1 was hit by a small private plane? Did those reports pan out or did they turn out to be false as well? I ask because you seem to have difficulty differentiating between unconfirmed reports and verified reports.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, it has nothing to do with whether or not I can get the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics at the library. It has to do with the fact that you lied about using it yourself, didn't you? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you? It was a tactic designed to make it difficult for me to check out your info. Very dishonest on your part.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, so it turns out that we have no confirmed reports of bombs in either tower, no FDNY who say they actually heard bombs, no remnants of any demolition sets found at ground zero, no blasts that look anything like demo charges going off, no evidence of demo teams entering the building or planting charges or covering over torn up walls, & no demolition experts who say there explosives brought down the towers. There's nothing.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, trying to run away from your claim isn't going to work.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, as I said, you lied about using the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, didn't you? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, I said that you lied about using the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, didn't you? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Do you think the air pressure would only force the air out the windows that was on that floor? I don't.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
PM does explain the alleged "squibs." They were caused by the air pressure. You still have not substantiated your claim that these were "squibs." I think you're unable to do so, aren't you?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, you lied about using the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, didn't you? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Actually, there were indeed fires reported at various levels below the impact floors - ignited by the jet fuel.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
The alleged "squibs" were caused by the air pressure. You still have not substantiated your claim that these were "squibs." I think you're unable to do so, aren't you?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Okay, you're right about PM. They said the air pressure did force out concrete and other debris.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
They had fires in them. Fires create ash. They had dust in them. There was downward pressure from the collapsing building. Are you intentionally ignorant about everything?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, you lied about using the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, didn't you? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Ahhh, the "concrete" masked all the flashes! How stupid of all those demolition experts not to understand that. brian the demo expert explains all. In fact, you're just making up this crap as you go along. Find a demo expert to substantiate your claims and you'll have credibility.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Dust. Ash. Whatever. No jettisoned concrete.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
I'm talking about flashes in the locations of the 6 "squibs." No flashes. No apparent structural weakening. No one with any expertise in demolitions has says those were squibs. Not one.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Dust was emitted.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, you lied about using the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, didn't you? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Well, then substantiate your claim. Find a vdeo of a CD that uses shaped charges and that results in concrete being jettisoned outwards so that "that's all one sees from a distance."
PoetryHound 4 years ago
"those shape charges caught on video went off too soon!"
You just made that up. No one agrees with you. No one. And you also just contradicted yourself about shaped charges resulting in the jettisoning of concrete. None jettisoned by the "squibs." No apparent structural weakening either. No flashes either.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Boy, you sure have that wrong. No controlled demolitions seek to jettison concrete outwards. But if you really want to argue that, go ahead and reference a video showing a CD with shaped charges resulting in the jettsioning out of concrete spikes so that "that's all one sees from a distance."
PoetryHound 4 years ago
I already gave you a link to an analysis of the correct type of steel showing weakening beginning at less than 200 C and about 1/2 strength lost at about 550 C. As for the Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, you lied about using that, didn't you? You actually got the info from an online source who in turn referenced the handbook, didn't you?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
"Exploded" would be an incorrect word, but yes there were a global collapses, I agree. Lots of dust too, I agree. Lots of other debris too.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
It wasn't just a ceiling collapse. It was the whole tower collapsing that caused the pressure. Your theory of "squibs" - 6 random bursts of air, accompanied by no flashes and no apparent structural weakening - is silly. I don't think you can find confirmation of your "squib" claim from any demo expert.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
It is not possible for explosives to produce one feature, such as the squib effect, without the others, such as shockwaves and flying debris, none of which are present in those locations. Also, the "squibs" are too few in number and too slow to be evidence of explosions. We do not see the "squibs" on all exterior columns, or even on a majority, nor do we see them in any symmetric pattern. Nor do they cause any apparent structural weakening.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, the squib claim is made up. Find someone with expertise in the matter who concurs and then your claim will have credibility.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brain, we've already discussed how those temps are not applicalbe. But as you well know, I was talking about the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, which you lied about using. It's obvious you had an online source that had cited the Handbook. So instead of giving me the link to the online source, you cite the book instead. Very dishonest.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, ever since you lied about the source of your information and refused to provide a link, I've had even more difficulty taking you seriously. And now you're making outlandish claims about the specifications of window installation without citing a single source to substantiate your claims. That's not very honest.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Are you talking about the alleged "squibs?" Yes, those were not explosions. They only happen after the building is already collapsing and cause no apparent structural weakening. I haven't seen anyone with expertise in demolitions say they were caused by explosions. Surely if they really were caused by explosions, you'd be able to find someone with expertise to corroborate your claim.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Not sure about negligible, but the small difference would be significant when under pressure because the weakest one would break first. And in fact that's what we saw. Your whole claim about there being no variations among window strengths is so absurd and unsubstantiated.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
You're claiming that a floor under pressure would result in all the windows blowing open simultaneously, but that's absurd. Your "exacting specifications" for air pressure resistance are invented by you. Since you lied about the source of you melted steel temperature infor, you cannot be trusted.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
"have you seen the shaped charges"
Shaped charges? According to whom? ...No one. You just made it up.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Of course, you don't address the differences in pressures. There is no way that you (especially YOU) can know that the pressures were exactly equal at each window. It's much MORE likely that MORE windows would blow out because of an explosion than the mere collapse, because the explosion causes a much more rapid increase in overpressure. You are just making stuff up (which we suspected before, but have now confirmed).
ghk13287 4 years ago
"13287, since the windows in the towers were ALL of the same make and designed especially for the peculiar characteristics of the towers, they WERE of the same strength!" You don't know that, but it also ignores any imperfections in installation.
ghk13287 4 years ago
"since the tell-tale signatures of shaped chages are observed, therfore shape charges were used" That would make sense ONLY if blowing out a few windows and not all of them was such a signature. You have provided nothing to support that facially illogical conclusion. Your arguments about "equalizing" pressures make no sense. Finally, you risk being called a shill, and worse, for disagreeing with the all-thermite, all-the-time wing of the truthers.
ghk13287 4 years ago
"Air pressure would equalize over the floor in question and either blow out all the windows or none!" No. You apparently have at least two false assumptions: (1) all windows on a floor are of exactly equal strength and (2) the pressure at each window is exactly the same. That is the only way you get to all-or-nothing. Otherwise, the most vulnerable window breaks, followed by the next, until the pressure is lessened enough.
ghk13287 4 years ago
Who said anything about air "deciding" something? What are you talking about?
"Air pressure would blow out all the windows"
No, just whichever one(s) give way first.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, you seem to be making up these assertions. What's your substantiation for claiming shaped charges were used in certain locations and "more stable explosives" were used on the impact floors? Still impossible for them to have survived the impacts.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
"A collapsing floor due to a collapsing building, he said, would blow out ALL the windows." That's plain silly. Once some windows blew out, the air pressure would be (temporarily) lessened, and the air would, for a while, have a place to go and not have the pressure to blow out more windows.
ghk13287 4 years ago
"Telltale" only to people with no expertise in demolitions. Find a demolition expert who agrees. Then you'll have some credibility on the subject.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, it's pretty much impossible to trust you on anything since you lied about where you got your information about the steel melting temperatures from. The fact that you continuously refuse requests for the link to your information source shows you are afraid I'll find out your sources is not credible. I can't think of any other reason for concealing your source.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Yes, the models. Completely legit. You have been unable to cite any errors or manipulations in the models. NIST used 4 sets of empirical data as the imputs. Was their approach wrong. You claim about the heat sinks is incorrect. Structural steel weakens in fire, sometimes very quickly.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Okay, fine. So you claim shaped charges weren't used. What kind were?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
NIST found that there was intense heat. Fireballs are not easily protected from, nor are shock waves. Cutter charges in particular, which you assert were used, are particularly sensitive to disturbance. Sorry you've got nothing but unsubstantiated assertions that you yourself make up. No one agrees with you.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
"charges in particular, which you assert were used, are particularly sensitive to disturbance" True, and keep in mind that the truther theory of the week is that there were charges immediately below the points of impact, and all over the rest of the building, which (a) survived the crash and (b) were completely unnoticed by the people fleeing the building.
ghk13287 4 years ago
The fact that you have lied about the source of your information reflects on your character. You not only lie about it, you refuse to provide the citation to back up your claim. That is dishonest and a sign of terrible scholarship. Remember when you claimed that "truthers' always tell the truth? You must be an exception to that.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
No, there's no evidence to support such a silly supposition. There could be no assurance that any charges would survive the impacts, shock, waves, fireballs, fires, and intense heat. You just made that up and are unable to substantiate it.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Yes, there were indeed such reports.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Ok, let's hear the evidence that there were agents from Ace Elevator installing demo charges. Can't wait to hear this. Probably another lie just like your lie that you got the steel melting temp info from a library book instead of online where you really got it.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
The cores and perimeters weren't affected by the plane impacts? Then what was? According to all analyses, core columns were severed and damaged, plus there was the shockwave, fireball, and fires. The demo sets would not have survived the explosive power of the impacts and after-effects. Sorry.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Explosives also tend to burn or detonate when exposed to heat, and even those that don't will degrade chemically. Detonators, wiring, & the connections between explosives are sensitive components. It's difficult to imagine any method of explosive demolition that could be expected to survive such conditions.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Since the collapses began at the impact floors, explain now explosives secretly planted on those floors survived the impact and the fires. Explosives used in demolitions are either packed close to the structural members, or use shaped charges that are extremely sensitive to geometry, and since we know the jetliner impacts fractured some columns outright and stripped others to the bare metal, either situation would be disrupted.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
I seem to know physics better than you. At least I don't lie about getting information from a certain book when in fact I got it online. Who said anything about an air blast "deciding" something? Not only have you lied about your sources, but you're not making any sense.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, why did you lie about getting the steel melting info from the handbook of chemistry and physics? You actually got it from an online source. Yet contrary to good scholarship, you refuse to reveal it. Why is that?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
And what does your demolition expertise tell you those are?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, why did you lie about getting the steel melting info from the handbook of chemistry and physics? You actually got it from an online source. Yet contrary to good scholarship, you refuse to reveal it. Why is that?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Yep, they're just air blasts. Which demo expert says the random blasts of air during the building's collapse are actually the "distictive sign of shape charges going off?" Since I don't trust your word on that, tell me which demo expert says that?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
What's odd is that only a few random windows were blown out. I thought there were supposedly bombs powerful enough to break up steel columns, but they didn't shatter any glass?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
The 911 twoofers have him on their side? Really? What does he say about your explosive demolition theory?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Yes, there is indeed misinterpreting of bombs going off. The bomb reports turned out to be rumors. There are no eyewitnesses who saw bombs. That's false.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, why did you lie about getting the steel melting info from the handbook of chemistry and physics? You actually got it from an online source. Yet contrary to good scholarship, you refuse to reveal it. Why is that?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
I agree that you didn't make the initial comments about bombs. No one says that. You just repeat and willfully misinterpret them. You attach enormous significance to the comments made in the midst of a crisis and then ignore what the firefighters said afterward.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
As I said, the reports of bombs turned out to be rumors. I think the officers of the FDNY, including special investigators, had higher priorities post-911 than investigating why rumors got started.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, what was the reason you lied about getting the steel melting info directly from the handbook of chemistry & physics when in fact you got it online? Did you want to make it difficult for me to verify the info? Or did you worry that it was from a questionable source? So...what's the URL where you got it?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
The bomb reports turned out to be rumors. The FDNY had higher priorities post-911 than investigating how rumors got started.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Since I don't trust CTers claims about bombs, I want to hear it from someone with expertise in the matter.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
As I said, I think the FDNY had higher priorities (and still do) than investigating how rumors got started.
BTW, what's the online source of the quote you gave which originated in the handbook of physics and chemistry? Are you running away from answering?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
No indication of any bomb planting just like there's no indication of nuclear devices or energy beams. Need evidence to justify an investigation not just rumors and politically-motivated baseless assertions.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Already ruled out. No evidence.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
I spent quite a bit of time searching the conspiracy websites and elsewhere looking for a demolition expert who has said explosives brought down the towers. I can't find even one. The only people who claim it was a demolition are people without expertise in demolitions. That's significant.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
The recovery operation took precedence for the FDNY. The rumor investigation still seems not very useful. "Did you start the rumor? Do you know who did?" etc. etc. Silly.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, what is the online source where you got the reference to the handbook of physics & chemistry?
Most of the steel was not examined in situ. Some selection of pieces to be saved was done at GZ. It was mainly examined at Fresh Kills & salvage yards.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Seems like a waste of time and money to investigate the rumors. As I said, there were far more pressing things for the FDNY to deal with in the days and weeks following the attacks than investigate how rumors got started.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, there were no bombs. There was no evidence of any bombs. No one saw any or heard any. All there is is intentionally misinterpreted comments made in the midst of a crisis. Nothing more.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Forensic engineers DID examine the steel. Contrary to CTer rumor, there was no rush to send it to Asia. BTW, will you give me the online cite of the person who cited the handbook of physics and chemistry? Please don't tell me you got the book from the library.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
There were no bombs to investigate because as it turned out, none were found. They turned out to be false reports. I think the FDNY had some more pressing matters to deal with that day and in the days and weeks that followed than investigating false reports of bombs.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Now you want a rumor investigation? What for? Should all rumors of bombs be investigated? After all, there were rumors of bombs in the UN, the NY stock exchange, the Stuvysant school, and the US Capitol. As with the rumors of bombs in th etowers, they turned out to be false. Why would you want to investigate them?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
What would your investigation consist of? Re-interviewing the people who said they heard explosions or explosion-like sounds, only to have them repeat that they didn't think they were really explosives? I put the CTer bomb claims in the same category as the CTer nuclear device claims and energy beam claims: no evidence. All you have, brian, are a few comments made in the midst of a crisis. As it turned out, no bombs were found. By anyone. None.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
No bombs turned up. The FDNY didn't say they found any. No one did. No one reported finding any.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
No bombs ended up being found. No firefighters said they thought they actually heard bombs. So if it turned out there were no bombs, how do investigate nothingness? You are attaching enormous significance to a few comments made in the midst of a crisis and ignoring everything else they said.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
They didn't spread any rumors intentionally, The bomb reports didn't turn up anything. No bombs found.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
We DO know what the FDNY actions were on 9/11. You can read about them in the oral histories. They do not mention finding any bombs. They do not mention that they thought they actually heard any bombs. There turned out to be no evidence of any bombs. You're attaching enormous significance to comments made in the midst of a crisis while ignoring everything else they said.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
It's not an INTENTIONAL rumor. But the reports never panned out. The FDNY never found anything. When firefighters talked of bombs in the Stuvysant school, they weren't INTENTIONALLY spreading rumors. When police said there were reports of bombs in the NY Stock Exchange & the US Capitol, they weren't INTENTIONALLY spreading rumors. None of the bomb reports ever panned out.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
In other words, your claim that firefighting operations were curtailed by the bomb reports is unfounded.
BTW, the bomb reports never panned out. The FDNY never found any bombs. They were rumors, like so much else that day.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Did those reports of secondary devices turn up anything? No. They turned out to be rumors.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Are you claiming FDNY operations were curtailed in the towers due to reports of bombs?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
brian, the bomb reports turned out to be rumors. It turns out no one saw any bombs and the oral histories show that the firefighters never actually thought there were demo charges or that explosions brought down the towers.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
If the FBI were part of the plot to plant bombs, why would they publicly state that? Doesn't make any sense. The bomb reports never panned out. They were rumors, like so much else that day.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
This was second-hand from a reporter. So the phrasing comes from him. In any event, since none of the comments about bombs panned out, they were rumors.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Yo- your moron Richard Cage said that demolitions don't bring down clouds of dust. What an idiot. When a big building falls, it produces gobs of dust. Moron.
ghk13287 4 years ago
ghk13287, did Richard Gage really say that demolitions don't result in clouds of dust?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
"ghk13287, did Richard Gage really say that demolitions don't result in clouds of dust?" I probably mispoke. If I recall, Gage said that buildings that just fell didn't produce clouds of dust, that there had to be explosions. That's just silly. Sorry for the confusion.
ghk13287 4 years ago
"PoetryHound, maybe you need the government to tell you what happened on 9/11" That's the classic moron truther response: if you don't buy the insane, stupid moron conspiracy theory of the week, you are blindly following the gov't. How many times have you seen this pathetic, stupid argument?
ghk13287 4 years ago
You're right ghk13287, the CTers frequently claim that anyone who disagrees with their demolition theory i(or thermite theory) automatically buys everything government officials say. Nonsense.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Planes masking bombs??? Are you f-ing serious? Is the moron conspiracy theory that the bombs were already set, and about to go off, but the planes were sent in as diversions? What evidence do you have to support that insanity????
ghk13287 4 years ago