Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

a reply to: wildb

No explosives were found in the van.

News Conference: No explosives in Van

BERNARD KERIK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER:
I just got a confirmation from the Chief of Detectives, he's reach out to the FBI. They have confirmed that someone has been stopped in New Jersey, three men in a van. However, there was no explosives in the van.

transcripts.cnn.com...

a reply to: skyeagle409

Wrong van, one truck blew up between 6th and 7th ave , the other van was stopped on the GW...and was found to be loaded with explosives.



NYPD Radio comms..

a reply to: ComplexCassandra

In a lot of the videos reports are made of very large and or very loud explosions.

Please point out the time lines where explosions are heard in the following videos.



Noticed that falling debris actually outpaced the collapse of WTC 1, which effectively proves that WTC 1 did not collapse at free fall speed or even near-free fall speed.





Without physical evidence, hearsay is not evidence for explosives. Case in point:

Manhole Explosions Set Cars On Fire In SoHo

December 29, 2012 4:22 PM

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Several cars were ablaze on Prince Street in SoHo Saturday afternoon, after a series of explosions in manholes below.


Harsh winter triggers New York City manhole explosions

Record snowfall is turning the city's mean streets even meaner, with 65 manholes exploding or catching fire since New Years, a utility spokesman said on Friday.

www.reuters.com...

a reply to: wildb

Those reports were determined to be false. There were no explosive detonations within WTC 1. That occurred in 1993 and yet, WTC 1 remained standing.

Let's take a look at the hoax.

Photo 1: The Van

Photo 2: The Van

I have uncovered other hoaxed and doctored photos as well.

Let's take a look at the hoax. Photo 1: The Van Photo 2: The Van I have uncovered other hoaxed and doctored photos as well.

Wonderful, a visual photo shopped , but a visual to go along with NYPD radio comms.

NYPD quote... Its a big truck with a mural painted of a airplane diving into NYC and exploding..


There were truck bombs .

a reply to: skyeagle409

In all fairness two things spring to mind when I watch the videos you posted.

The first thing is that the collapses themselves are barely audible let alone anything else. They don't seem like the best choice of clips to base any kind of auditory assessment on.

The second thing is that they only contain the exact moments of the collapses. In my post I spoke of the notion that explosions had been heard up to minutes prior to the collapses and, in some cases, at or around the time of the tower being hit.

The videos you supplied do not cover the times in question and, therefore, I am uncertain as to their relevance to my post.

a reply to: ComplexCassandra

There not, bravo for you.. good job.. I could not agree more...

a reply to: wildb

In reference to your video, your video claimed that a truckload of explosives was found in the vehicle on the George Washington Bridge. However, let's review the rest of the story.

New York City Officials Address Day's Devastation

Aired September 11, 2001 - 23:30 ET

QUESTION: Were they on the George Washington Bridge as they were heading to New Jersey?

GIULIANI: No, they weren't.

Also, another clarification. We reported about 30 minutes ago a van had been pulled over outside of New York City. We now understand that two or three men are being held for questioning. But as for explosives onboard that van, that has been denied by police officials there in the briefing we just hear.

transcripts.cnn.com...

In other words, the van wasn't on the George Washington Bridge and no explosives were found in the vehicle despite the claim of the woman reporter in the video. In other words, her reports were later determined to be false.

.

a reply to: ComplexCassandra

In all fairness two things spring to mind when I watch the videos you posted.

The first thing is that the collapses themselves are barely audible let alone anything else. They don't seem like the best choice of clips to base any kind of auditory assessment on.

The second thing is that they only contain the exact moments of the collapses.

Okay, let's take another video of WTC 1 and point out any time lines where demolition explosions are heard.

In my post I spoke of the notion that explosions had been heard up to minutes prior to the collapses and, in some cases, at or around the time of the tower being hit.

Demolition explosives occur within seconds of a collapse, not minutes and the explosions seen as the aircraft hit the WTC buildings were the result of the fuel.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: ComplexCassandra

In all fairness two things spring to mind when I watch the videos you posted.

The first thing is that the collapses themselves are barely audible let alone anything else. They don't seem like the best choice of clips to base any kind of auditory assessment on.

The second thing is that they only contain the exact moments of the collapses.

Okay, let's take another video of WTC 1 and point out any time lines where demolition explosions are heard.

In my post I spoke of the notion that explosions had been heard up to minutes prior to the collapses and, in some cases, at or around the time of the tower being hit.

Demolition explosives occur within seconds of a collapse, not minutes and the explosions seen as the aircraft hit the WTC buildings were the result of the fuel.

I'm sorry but I have to ask. Did you fully read the post of mine that you are responding to? It seems like you have seen the word explosive and simply responded by copy/pasting the same videos and comments that you have done throughout this site.

My post is quite clearly and very specifically NOT about Controlled Demolition, so I ask again, how are these responses relevant to my initial post?

I would be interested in your answer, please don't just copy/paste yet another video.

a reply to: skyeagle409

In other words, the van wasn't on the George Washington Bridge and no explosives were found in the vehicle despite the claim of the woman reporter in the video. In other words, her reports were later determined to be false.

No different than the premature collapse announcement for 7.
The news outlets were reporting every scrap they could find without vetting it first.

a reply to: samkent

You are correct and it also reminds my about the false news report about United 93 and Cleveland Airport. It was later determined the aircraft in question was Delta 1989.

a reply to: ComplexCassandra

I'm sorry but I have to ask. Did you fully read the post of mine that you are responding to? It seems like you have seen the word explosive and simply responded by copy/pasting the same videos and comments that you have done throughout this site.

Apparently, you posted the following message:

The second thing is that they only contain the exact moments of the collapses.

The "exact moments of collapse," so, I posted anothing video that begins well before WTC 1 collapsed.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

In reference to your video, your video claimed that a truckload of explosives was found in the vehicle on the George Washington Bridge. However, let's review the rest of the story.

New York City Officials Address Day's Devastation

Aired September 11, 2001 - 23:30 ET

QUESTION: Were they on the George Washington Bridge as they were heading to New Jersey?

GIULIANI: No, they weren't.

Also, another clarification. We reported about 30 minutes ago a van had been pulled over outside of New York City. We now understand that two or three men are being held for questioning. But as for explosives onboard that van, that has been denied by police officials there in the briefing we just hear.

transcripts.cnn.com...

In other words, the van wasn't on the George Washington Bridge and no explosives were found in the vehicle despite the claim of the woman reporter in the video. In other words, her reports were later determined to be false.

.

Not so, this was the van in New Jersey with the dancing Israels, the other van was on or near the GW, the third truck was in lower Manhattan..
Key words THE FBI SAID..

a reply to: wildb

Not so, this was the van in New Jersey with the dancing Israels, the other van was on or near the GW, the third truck was in lower Manhattan..
Key words THE FBI SAID..

Those reports were determined to be false as well.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: ComplexCassandra

I'm sorry but I have to ask. Did you fully read the post of mine that you are responding to? It seems like you have seen the word explosive and simply responded by copy/pasting the same videos and comments that you have done throughout this site.

Apparently, you posted the following message:

The second thing is that they only contain the exact moments of the collapses.

The "exact moments of collapse," so, I posted anothing video that begins well before WTC 1 collapsed.

This video only shows the period from 30 seconds before collapse and, similar to the others, the collapse itself is barely audible so also probably not the best material to make audio assessments on.

The numerous reports of secondary explosions that were made on the day were, as far as I could tell, coming in from around the time of initial impact, throughout the whole time that the towers were still standing and not just isolated to seconds before the collapse.

If you have any thoughts on my initial post I would be interested to hear them but please respond to the actual post that I made and not the one you seem to think that I made.

a reply to: ComplexCassandra

This video only shows the period from 30 seconds before collapse and, similar to the others,.. the collapse itself is barely audible so also probably not the best material to make audio assessments on.

Do you wish for me to post other videos with longer time frames in order to prove my point?

The numerous reports of secondary explosions that were made on the day were, as far as I could tell, coming in from around the time of initial impact, throughout the whole time that the towers were still standing and not just isolated to seconds before the collapse.

Demolition explosives occur seconds before a building collapses, not minutes. That is another indication the explosions had nothing to do with demolition explosives.

Hearsay without physical evidence is not evidence that explosives were used. Remember, New York City experiences over 2000 explosions each year.

Every Day in New York Is a New Chance to Get Hit by an Exploding Manhole

New York's manhole incidents are officially out of control: There were 600 alone in the first week of February, and the city averages about 2,100 a year.

nymag.com...#

So once again, a person who claims the explosions they heard were from bombs has to provide physical evidence.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: ComplexCassandra

This video only shows the period from 30 seconds before collapse and, similar to the others,.. the collapse itself is barely audible so also probably not the best material to make audio assessments on.

The numerous reports of secondary explosions that were made on the day were, as far as I could tell, coming in from around the time of initial impact, throughout the whole time that the towers were still standing and not just isolated to seconds before the collapse.

Demolition explosives occur seconds before a building collapses, not minutes. That is another indication the explosions had nothing to do with demolition explosives.

I have bolded the part that, had you actually read my initial post instead of just skimming it, you would realise was exactly what I was saying.

I get that you trot out the same videos and comments whenever you see the word explosion but if you actually read what I wrote you would see I was suggesting that the controlled demolition idea didn't fit the observations. I was asking about something else entirely.

So I ask again, what is the relevance of your responses to my initial suggestion?

a reply to: ComplexCassandra

So I ask again, what is the relevance of your responses to my initial suggestion?

It all boils down to the following message you had posted.

So possibly there still remains a third option. Could there not have been bombs planted by accomplices of the hijackers that brought down the buildings? Wouldn't this, at the very least, have been a pertinent line of enquiry?

I posted those videos to prove there was no third option. There were no secondary explosions as each WTC building was impacted and there were no secondary explosions as those buildings collapsed.

There was never evidence that explosives were placed within the WTC buildings during 9/11 and that is the point that I wanted to make clear because you can't just place explosives in a steel frame building and expect the building to collapse, which was evident when a huge bomb failed to drop WTC 1 in 1993, a fact that somehow, is overlooked.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Those videos show nothing but the last 30 seconds before collapse. In what way do they demonstrate proof that explosions weren't witnessed at times up to almost an hour earlier than seen in the clips?

We can not know incontrovertibly that bombs were not placed in the buildings because, as stated, despite multiple eyewitness accounts that suggest there could have been, that possibility was never investigated.

That's one of the things that puzzled me at the time. During most major incidents we are repeatedly informed that all lines of enquiry are being followed but it seems, during the events of September 2001, that certain leads were totally ignored. Despite this the same agencies that had previously been totally unaware of even the possibility of such an event had solved the crime and delivered it to us all neatly wrapped within 48hrs.

At the very least it suggests that the "official story" had been decided on well before the time that any thorough investigation could have been completed.