Flames or explosions in the second tower as the first tower falls - NEW VIDEO

And let me try ONE MORE TIME, this time EXPLICITLY, to explain this to you man:


We're not saying BOOMS = BOMBS, therefore DEMOLITION.

And yet, in light of all the other things taken in context, like lack of deceleration of the collapse wave even against ~90% of the masses being ejected, greater resistance towards the base, etc., angular momentum being lost in WTC2, disappearing into thin air as a more symmetrical vertical collapse begins (whether or not YOU see it), the lack of sufficient buckling and severing before the collapses began, etc.,

again, in light of ALL OF THAT, "booms" can be taken as corroborating evidence in a case for there having been controlled demolitions. Thus, all that glitters is not gold, but gold STILL glitters, and bombs STILL make booms, and all of the other information in context is what suggests that some, or most, or all of those BOOMS were coming from explosive devices.

Um, Jedi, if you understand logic, which even in its simplest and often casual form:

If A then B, but B not always A.

Bsbray11 clearly has defined this, I don't know if you're posting on this thread to occupy space, up your post count, or trying to solve world hunger, but I do not know how much more clearer we need to get.

Originally posted by bsbray11
And let me try ONE MORE TIME, this time EXPLICITLY, to explain this to you man:


We're not saying BOOMS = BOMBS, therefore DEMOLITION.

And yet, in light of all the other things taken in context, like lack of deceleration of the collapse wave even against ~90% of the masses being ejected, greater resistance towards the base, etc., angular momentum being lost in WTC2, disappearing into thin air as a more symmetrical vertical collapse begins (whether or not YOU see it), the lack of sufficient buckling and severing before the collapses began, etc.,

again, in light of ALL OF THAT, "booms" can be taken as corroborating evidence in a case for there having been controlled demolitions. Thus, all that glitters is not gold, but gold STILL glitters, and bombs STILL make booms, and all of the other information in context is what suggests that some, or most, or all of those BOOMS were coming from explosive devices.

You're not???

Then what are the BOOMS ??? If not bombs ( according to the CT'ers )???



Ohhhh...and ...

Thus, all that glitters is not gold, but gold STILL glitters, and bombs STILL make booms

Yep gold still glitters, but...doesn't mean that the glitter you see is gold ( get what I'm saying here? )...

Yep...bombs make BOOMS, but so does a lot of other things ( get what I'm saying here ? )...

[edit on 9-11-2006 by Jedi_Master]

If A then B, but B not always A.

Been a while but an OR Gate ?

Not sure what you want...

[edit on 9-11-2006 by Jedi_Master]

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c






A REMINDER ...


Focus on the topic NOT each other, M'Kay!?





.

Sir, I am incredibly sorry for my complete ignorance of the subject matter and apologize for my attacks directed at the individual posters on this thread. I am sorry, and I admit my fault. It will not happen again.

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

If A then B, but B not always A.

Been a while but an OR Gate ?

Not sure what you want...

[edit on 9-11-2006 by Jedi_Master]

Can you please define an OR Gate? That is what I want at the moment.

But as we are debating the logical issues of what I'm trying to discuss, clearly a rather relevant issue to what we're discussing in regards as to the possibilities of what exactly caused the banging noises in the video presented.

Interesting none the less. I am not out to be the man to be hung in completely supporting that they were explosions but I vouch that because we're dealing with a subject matter IN WHICH explosives or cutter charges or some type of secondary device MAY of been present, I have concluded by that simple back up, that the "BOOMS" heard during the collapse video, may have very well been explosions from bombs/secondary devices. But it's not absolute.

Thank you.