How can seemingly intelligent people dismiss the eyewitness accounts of hearing explosives?

I didn't say they mistook the explosions bsbray. An explosion is an explosion no matter how you look at it. But not ALL explosions are caused by explosives. What the witnesses at the WTC heard were explosions, there is no conclusive evidence that they were explosives. I saw a video one time of a rocket fuel factory that burned for a few hours, then exploded in a massive explosion that blew a shockwave out for miles. But that wasn't caused by an explosive. THAT is the point I'm trying to make. I don't doubt that the witnesses heard explosions, I doubt that they heard EXPLOSIVES. But it's going to sound the same no matter what causes it. All explosions have certain characteristics that are going to be the same whether it's an explosive or not.

[edit on 10-9-2005 by Zaphod58]

Yeah, I got what you meant. What I meant was that, yeah, that's a good point, and maybe they weren't hearing explosions caused by explosives, but there were testimonies of more than just sounds that indicated that, yeah, it seems as though there were some secondary explosions in the building from explosives, whether all of these guys are reporting the right incidents or not. I would also point out the squibs here, and they were obviously caused by explosives of some sort. Nothing else could turn concrete slabs into dust and hurl it so many feet out into the air laterally before the collapse is even close.

A true patriot believes in the Constitution and The Bill Of Rights

A blind patriot assumes that our leaders respect these documents.

"How can seemingly intelligent people dismiss the eyewitness accounts of hearing explosives?"

Witness testimony is notoriously subjective, so people on either side of the 9-11 fence will alternately dismiss or cite it, depending on whether or not the testimony of the witness in question suits their particular theory. That's a fact.

[edit on 2005-9-10 by wecomeinpeace]

Well I guess my question then, wecomeinpeace, would be what evidence would be subjective towards the official story since the only evidence to back that up is our own governments investigation -- or lack there of.

Originally posted by white4life420
Well I guess my question then, wecomeinpeace, would be what evidence would be subjective towards the official story since the only evidence to back that up is our own governments investigation -- or lack there of.

I'm confused. Do you mean subjective or objective?

Just for clarification, I personally believe that the witnesses' descriptions of explosions can not be blown off (very punny, I know) due to subjectivity, particularly in the case of fire-fighters and police who know what is and what isn't an explosion, as opposed to Howard's construction laborers. I was merely stating that both sides of the fence are guilty of accepting or discrediting witness testimony based on whether or not the testimony supports their theory. I stand by that, and I have even done so myself.

If you're asking what is entirely objective? Well...physics for one. And according to physics, it is impossible for the towers to collapse as they did without the addition of explosives or some other energy into the system.

[edit on 2005-9-10 by wecomeinpeace]

I was more asking a rhetorical sarcastic question that wasn't really directed at you.

My main point was that it's easy to dismiss conspiracy theorist's evidence as mumbo jumbo, but at least they have some.

Proponents of the official story only have our government's word...

Originally posted by white4life420
I was more asking a rhetorical sarcastic question that wasn't really directed at you.

My main point was that it's easy to dismiss conspiracy theorist's evidence as mumbo jumbo, but at least they have some.

Proponents of the official story only have our government's word...

No, we also have thousands of photographs, video and audio feeds, and the technical expertise (as well as simple common sense) to properly evaluate the data.

That is something that the conspiracy theorists are sorely lacking in.

Where are the audio files of the "explosions?"

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No, we also have thousands of photographs, video and audio feeds, and the technical expertise (as well as simple common sense) to properly evaluate the data.

You just described the exact things that we use to debunk your government reports and other BS, Howard. Cheers, mate. Oh, except for one difference, our experts aren't on the government payroll; they pursue this issue out of personal motivation to expose the truth.

[edit on 2005-9-11 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by white4life420
Howard, you make a relatively good point that they could be mistaken in what they heard. However, you do fail to understand the following:

Hundreds of people saw and heard what they thought were explosions -- many said like bombs were placed. Now I don't know about you, but I was always taught what looks like a duck and sounds like a duck is probably a damn duck.

Could they have been mistaken? Certainly. But it would be unreasonable to dismiss this many eyewitnesses -- especially when your basic logic behind it would be their ignorance.

Originally posted by white4life420
Hundreds of people saw and heard what they thought were explosions -- many said like bombs were placed. Now I don't know about you, but I was always taught what looks like a duck and sounds like a duck is probably a damn duck.

.

The thing is, hundreds of people said they didn't hear "bombs". Who are we to believe?

what they thought were explosions

" How can seemingly intelligent people dismiss the eyewitness accounts of hearing explosives?"

nice tautology

being intelligent , i know that it is unlikley that most of the witnesses had any prior experience of explosions . explisives - and given the nature and stress of events on that day would easily link any sharp report they could not immediatly identify to " OMG it was a bomb "

ignoring the fact that 1001 things within the WTC building could create an hard to identify report

the funniest " bombscare " i have seen was traced to a can of brake fluid left ontop on an engine , 1/2 the camp was " sure " we had been bombed

so forgive me if , in the absence of better evidence - i assume your witnesses were panicked and confused

home.planet.nl...


There is video proof of the explosions, plus witness testimonies on theses videos, Loose Change part 1 - 2

question911.com...


question911.com...

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
How many of us would be able to differentiate between a bomb and an explosion caused by some other means?

Exactly. One example: Kim White is quoted hundreds of times online for this:

Kim White, WTC 1 survivor: We got down as far as the 74th floor ... Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell.
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

An explosion, which is supposed to mean a bomb. But what about the story of a co-worker of Whites? What does she have to say?

there was a second ka-boom, the building shook again and debris started hitting the windows... I thought some part of the plane or some part of the building that had been hit by the plane had exploded and debris was sliding down from the floors above us. I would later learn it was a second airplane diving into the other tower and it was debris from that explosion hitting the windows.
www.webscope.com...

Obviously that doesn't prove what it was, but it does sound like a plausible alternative explanation. And also shows that "explosion" does not necessarily = "explosives".

For a long time I thought reports of explosions were just the sound of the steel collapsing. But then you have the smoking gun of WTC 7. I think to a lot of people who have studied that, there can be no doubt that was brought down by implosion. Osama bin Laden in Dec 2001 said in a video tape that he was shocked that th eplanes were able to bring the two towers down. With all the evidence hauled off to China in the months following 9/11, we may never know. But it just would not have been as dramatic to whoever orchestrated it or wanted it to happen; if these buildings did not fall by any means neccesary.

Originally posted by 8bitagent
For a long time I thought reports of explosions were just the sound of the steel collapsing. But then you have the smoking gun of WTC 7. I think to a lot of people who have studied that, there can be no doubt that was brought down by implosion.

8bitagent, how do the first hand accounts from these firemen fit into your WTC 7 “smoking gun?”

Notice that it was clear that WTC 7 had been extensively damaged by the collapse of WTC 1. The building was on fire and there was clear evidence of an imminent structural collapse. Also, I can’t seem to find any references to anyone hearing explosions when WTC 7 collapsed and you can’t hear them on the video. What kind of explosives were used? hush-a-boom?

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
. . .
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

According to the Inside 9/11 on National Geo (excellent, non-bias opinions), they explain the 'explosions' that you are speaking of. When the planes hit, jet fuel poured down the elevator and maintenance shafts, reaching lower levels of the building. There were explosions, but they did not to bring down the towers.

Remember the eyewitness accounts of armed gunmen in front of the Pentagon on 9/11? Eyewitness accounts can always vary...


WTC 7 was heavily damamged in the collapse, there was no controleed charges I beleive....

Where are the audio files of the "explosions?"

Simply put, watch "loose change".

It boggles my mind that people belief fire brought down WTC7.

Have you even seen the footage from WTC7 lately ? Or any pictures ?
Doesn't look like a building that is about to collapse to me.

And even if there was damage or fire, again, buildings don't come down like that or CDI would be out of business.

Originally posted by esdad71
According to the Inside 9/11 on National Geo (excellent, non-bias opinions), they explain the 'explosions' that you are speaking of. When the planes hit, jet fuel poured down the elevator and maintenance shafts, reaching lower levels of the building. There were explosions, but they did not to bring down the towers.

Well, like someone pointed out in this thread, it's not about one explosion...
There were explosions the entire day, or atleast the time the towers stood.

What everyone else seems to forget is the explosion in the basement BEFORE the plane hit the tower. This is what caused the massive damage downstairs, not the fireball.