Massive Basement Explosion at WTC caught on tape!

Good one, it is a double image of the same building put back in place
in which case the debris is actually from the fall of one of the buildings.

It looks contrived or doctored.

But there was a blow out of the basement levels which was better than
1993 (Feb ?) try by the Arabs, guess this one took some time perhaps,
let me guess, by some ninja work crews.

I don't think you get much more than that Fire Station video with the
blown out windows or testimony of the firemen but the there was video
of train station damage.

The WTC 7 had some building controls, don't know if it was elevators or
not but perhaps if they worked the firemen would have use them to
help people at every floor.

Job not done on 911 and no wipe out of the enemy in IRAQ.

What gives here.

Originally posted by 2smooth4ya

This was caused by a blast. Unfortunately, you have others to believe jet fuel leaked down 80 floors and caused this lobby floors windows to burst outwards. Not only that, but the parking garage 2 floors below was destoyed. All by hot jet fuel.

Jet fuel didn't "leak" It was ignited by the impact and literally blew down the shafts ala path of least resistance. Of course at the end of the shafts are doors which are again, the path of least resistance. So by the laws of physics of course the elevator doors are going to get blown off and do damage to the lower floors. We have tons of eyewitnesses who reported the fireballs blowing off the elevator doors. We have witnesses who were in some of the elevators and survived (with massive burns) who spoke in documentaries dedicated to JUST the elevators in the WTC.

The parking garage was not destroyed. There was a lot of damage in the basement which is going to be inevitable.

This notion that if something sounds like an explosion can only be a bomb is a bit absurd. And at the very least there is no one here who can deny that it's nothing but an assumption.

And on top of that, there are many many things that are going to make explosion sounds. Everything from certain materials igniting, transformers blowing, steel failing, elevators crashing into the basement, fireballs blowing out doors and windows, debris and bodies falling from 80 stories are going to make explosion sounds, especially when they hit awnings or any metallic objects, collapsing building. We could go on and on and the number of sources are virtually unlimited. Yet some people will only accept that it was bombs. Bombs which would serve absolutely no purpose what so ever by being detonated in the basement. Bombs of which absolutely no physical evidence was ever found.

So you tell me what is more likely. Magical bombs that leave nothing behind and serve no functional purpose for a collapse that started at the point of impact (which would destroy any bombs up there as well) and only serve to expose such a daring caper, or that it was one of the hundreds of sounds that simply occur in such events?

do you know that the towers had 'sky lobbies', which divided them into three segments each and that only the freight elevator went all the way through?


in other words, magic jet fuel does not lend itself to an explanation, besides: bombs don't burn after ignition, fuel does. where are the fires to accompany your jet fuel explosions?

Originally posted by Long Lance
do you know that the towers had 'sky lobbies', which divided them into three segments each and that only the freight elevator went all the way through?


in other words, magic jet fuel does not lend itself to an explanation, besides: bombs don't burn after ignition, fuel does. where are the fires to accompany your jet fuel explosions?

There were several freight elevators, and many elevators serving different sections shared the same shafts.

So now the jet fuel burns after ignition? Kind of blows apart that claim that the most of the jet fuel instantly ignited and therefore couldn't have contributed to the fires. But actually there were fires accompanied. Heck, even William can attest to that when he helped pull burning people out of the elevator.

So no such thing as magic jet fuel. But how about those magic bombs that spewed burning flames everywhere?

I must say, the more i watch the OP clip, the less convinced i am. It does appear that you see debris from the south tower to the right side, and deceptive imagery is used to appear that there are two towers.

I now officially rescind my original endorsement for that clip. My bad.

However, this is by no means the only evidence for the basement explosions. NUMEROUS WITNESSES say there were definite explosions in the basement. Especially Willie Rodriguez, a 20 year WTC maintenance man in the building at the time, who claims there was a massive basement explosion just before the first plane crash.

The lobby is all ____ed up. The elevator shafts were hermetically sealed. If a magick fireball went down the elevator shaft, why did it selectively target the lobby? Why not explode out on each floor, being that less distance down the shaft equals less resistance? Or if it decided, sentiently, to go all the way down to the lobby, why not continue all the way into the numerous sub-basement levels?

What about all the explosions caught on tape? What about all the people that say, "I was in the stairway on the 3rd (or numerous other floors near the bottom) and then there was a massive explosion. This explosion knocked us up (or back or down or all around) and then there was a series of other explosions."

Or how about all the firefighters that say "THERE WERE NUMEROUS SECONDARY DEVICES!"

What about the FBI and NYPD that originally thought there were car bombs in the basement?!

Oh, i know. They are all lying. Their al-Qaeda disinfo agents sent here to destroy america. Or they've all been dropping acid. Or they are not credible, being that NYPD and NYFD have no idea what fires are or what explosions sound like. They have absolutely no experience fighting fires so they dont know that fires always sound like explosions and knock down steel frames.

[edit on 3/19/2007 by sp00n1]

Don't worry sp00n. It doesn't change how the buildings collapsed, and how WT7 collapsed. It seems like a disinformation tactic. I'm thinking "they" knew we would figure out that the evidence was faked, and maybe figured we would give up on conspiracy theories. The "In Plane Site" film, if I remember it correctly was done very professionally. It was well made, I guess by someone with a lot of cash.

Or it was done by someone(s) who just wanted to discredit the official story just because that is what this person(s) does. Some people try to find a conspiracy in everything.

But like I said, it doesn't change the fact that something is wrong with the official story. It just makes things more confusing. And with all the different evidence and views, I kind of wonder if some of this evidence is only placed there to make things confusing. Yes, confusing on purpose. It makes it harder for us to find out what really happened.

I just was looking at the picture and it looked like two different videos were sitting side by side because of the straight verticle line that goes all the way up the image. I kind of doubt that the line extending from the top of the buildings is a pointed structure because of it's location.

Troy

Originally posted by sp00n1
I must say, the more i watch the OP clip, the less convinced i am. It does appear that you see debris from the south tower to the right side, and deceptive imagery is used to appear that there are two towers.

I now officially rescind my original endorsement for that clip. My bad.

However, this is by no means the only evidence for the basement explosions. NUMEROUS WITNESSES say there were definite explosions in the basement. Especially Willie Rodriguez, a 20 year WTC maintenance man in the building at the time, who claims there was a massive basement explosion just before the first plane crash.

The lobby is all ____ed up. The elevator shafts were hermetically sealed. If a magick fireball went down the elevator shaft, why did it selectively target the lobby? Why not explode out on each floor, being that less distance down the shaft equals less resistance? Or if it decided, sentiently, to go all the way down to the lobby, why not continue all the way into the numerous sub-basement levels?

What about all the explosions caught on tape? What about all the people that say, "I was in the stairway on the 3rd (or numerous other floors near the bottom) and then there was a massive explosion. This explosion knocked us up (or back or down or all around) and then there was a series of other explosions."

Or how about all the firefighters that say "THERE WERE NUMEROUS SECONDARY DEVICES!"

What about the FBI and NYPD that originally thought there were car bombs in the basement?!

Oh, i know. They are all lying. Their al-Qaeda disinfo agents sent here to destroy america. Or they've all been dropping acid. Or they are not credible, being that NYPD and NYFD have no idea what fires are or what explosions sound like. They have absolutely no experience fighting fires so they dont know that fires always sound like explosions and knock down steel frames.

[edit on 3/19/2007 by sp00n1]

William claimed to hear "rumbles". And of course him being in the basement proves beyond any doubt that it was 100% absolutely impossible for him to know when the plane hit. He simply heard 2 rumbles and assumed the second one was the plane entering the building. The explosions have been explained.

And this notion of the elevators being sealed? The seals don't prevent commercial airplanes from breaking through. They did not selectively pick floors. Not all of them went from top to bottom, only some. Hence some blowing out in the basement, some in the bottom lobby, and some in the upper lobbies. They aren't going to explode into each floor because of the path of least resistance. If the blast wave has to choose between open air and a metal door, it's going to choose open air. When it has to choose between steel/concrete and a door, it's going to pick a door. It travels the path of least resistance.

There were many explosions all throughout the incident. And there are many things that would cause explosions all throught the incident. But yet you assume it means bombs. Bombs that would serve no purpose what so ever. So bombs are going off near the bottom of the building throughout the whole incident, and yet nothing is collapsing, and the building fell from the point of impact. Not to mention once again the complete lack of any physical evidence what so ever.

And yeah people referred to secondary devices. Because anyone in such a situation has no idea what is going on and is going to assume bombs. Ever stop to wonder why those firefighters aren't continuing their claims and saying they saw bombs and explosive devices after the fact? Because they just guessed. Like everyone does in such an event where no one really knows what is going on. The people in the buildings had no way of knowing a plane hit. Just like William did not hear an explosion and suddenly say to himself "Ah, a plane just hit the building" as he is pretending to imply. How does a guy in the basement know a plane is what hit the building? Answer: he doesn't. He is full of #.

And to the NYPD and NYFD go to explosion school? Do they train to know the differences between the sounds of various explosions? Especially when no one can really do that? And I suppose they are all in on it now too which is the only way you could explain that they aren't talking about these supposed bombs they referred to.

This is a clear cut case of having a pre-determined conclusion and finding information to fit that conclusion. Hence having to rely on initial reports which are often faulty because no one has assessed the information yet. Let's see some clips of all those people reporting such things after the fact when they figured out what was going on.

And this notion of the elevators being sealed? The seals don't prevent commercial airplanes from breaking through. They did not selectively pick floors. Not all of them went from top to bottom, only some. Hence some blowing out in the basement, some in the bottom lobby, and some in the upper lobbies. They aren't going to explode into each floor because of the path of least resistance. If the blast wave has to choose between open air and a metal door, it's going to choose open air. When it has to choose between steel/concrete and a door, it's going to pick a door. It travels the path of least resistance.

Are you trying to say that each of the elevator doors on each floor of the WTC was airtight? If any air could escape through these doors, then the fire would make use of that air before travelling another hundred floors to make use of the air at the bottom of the shaft. If we're talking about the path of least resistance, surely you can agree that the air found in the gaps in the doors on each floor on the way down provide less resistance than the open doors which are hundreds of feet lower.

So somehow enough of the fuel exploded on impact to weaken the structural supports. From that fuel, enough was left to fall the whole way down the elevator shaft, expending a little more fuel on each floor as it passes. By the time it gets to the bottom, though, there is still enough fuel to cause an explosion. And this is not even considering the massive amount of fuel that we can see exploding outside of the building in the video of the second impact. And out of curiosity, if this fuel is already ignited and burning, what causes the explosion?

Bombs that would serve no purpose what so ever. So bombs are going off near the bottom of the building throughout the whole incident, and yet nothing is collapsing, and the building fell from the point of impact. Not to mention once again the complete lack of any physical evidence what so ever.

Serve no purpose whatsoever? Ok, if you can you believe that an event that occurred for the first time in history happened 3 times on the same day, then I guess there would be no need for explosives. And how can you use the 'lack of evidence' as proof? All of the steel was shipped off and melted down immediately and no studies were done for evidence of thermite. How can you expect evidence to exist when it is conveniently shipped off straight away?

And yeah people referred to secondary devices. Because anyone in such a situation has no idea what is going on and is going to assume bombs. Ever stop to wonder why those firefighters aren't continuing their claims and saying they saw bombs and explosive devices after the fact? Because they just guessed. Like everyone does in such an event where no one really knows what is going on. The people in the buildings had no way of knowing a plane hit. Just like William did not hear an explosion and suddenly say to himself "Ah, a plane just hit the building" as he is pretending to imply. How does a guy in the basement know

So now, people's first instincts are not reliable? What happened to 'This is a clear cut case of having a pre-determined conclusion and finding information to fit that conclusion.' Works both ways doesn't it? People have a predetermined conlusion ('there were no bombs in WTC') so they find information to fit that conclusion ('the explosions we heard must have been the buildings collapsing or generators exploding within the building').

Originally posted by TheStev

Are you trying to say that each of the elevator doors on each floor of the WTC was airtight? If any air could escape through these doors, then the fire would make use of that air before travelling another hundred floors to make use of the air at the bottom of the shaft. If we're talking about the path of least resistance, surely you can agree that the air found in the gaps in the doors on each floor on the way down provide less resistance than the open doors which are hundreds of feet lower.

No I never said that. I said "path of least resistance". No the blast is not going to blow open elevator doors (regardless of how air tight they are or aren't) rather than continue downward. You tell me what has less resistance. A not-airtight door, or thin air? The pressure will then build up at the bottom because of the air compressing.

So somehow enough of the fuel exploded on impact to weaken the structural supports. From that fuel, enough was left to fall the whole way down the elevator shaft, expending a little more fuel on each floor as it passes. By the time it gets to the bottom, though, there is still enough fuel to cause an explosion. And this is not even considering the massive amount of fuel that we can see exploding outside of the building in the video of the second impact. And out of curiosity, if this fuel is already ignited and burning, what causes the explosion?

it wasn't the fuel that weakened the support, it was the massive airplane that sliced through the support. And the fires then weakened them further. And fire didn't "Fall". You see that massive explosion that comes out of the building? It travells in all directions, including down the open elevator shafts. And again, it's a blast. So yes there is enough to reach the bottom, and that blast is compressing the air in the shafts because the air has to go somewhere. When enough pressure builds up, it's going to be too much for the doors at the bottom to hold, they will blow, and suddenly there will be a vacume sucking more air and debris downwards. The fuel igniting causes the explosion. If you are referring to what causes the "sound" of an explosion, it would be the doors being blasted out as well as the sound caused by all the air being forced out. Are you suggesting these things would be silent?

Serve no purpose whatsoever? Ok, if you can you believe that an event that occurred for the first time in history happened 3 times on the same day, then I guess there would be no need for explosives. And how can you use the 'lack of evidence' as proof? All of the steel was shipped off and melted down immediately and no studies were done for evidence of thermite. How can you expect evidence to exist when it is conveniently shipped off straight away?

Are you joking? You are now trying to change the subject. And are you implying that nothing can ever happen for the first time in history? Thus meaning that nothing could ever happen and making our very existence impossible. You are trying to mislead people by impling that the buildings just mysteriously collapsed, but that's not the case. Two were struck by large planes, and one was struck by massive building debris.

No the steel was not all shipped off and melted down. The fact that you are making this claim shows that you don't know much about the situation. This statement is 100% untrue. The real question is "how can I asnwer your question when you are fabricating information?"

So now, people's first instincts are not reliable? What happened to 'This is a clear cut case of having a pre-determined conclusion and finding information to fit that conclusion.' Works both ways doesn't it? People have a predetermined conlusion ('there were no bombs in WTC') so they find information to fit that conclusion ('the explosions we heard must have been the buildings collapsing or generators exploding within the building').

Are people's first instincts reliable? Absolutely not. Anyone in their right mind would have thought bombs were going off. Cars backfire and people's first thoughts are gunfire. It's completely inaccurate. And no, I am not doing the same thing. The difference between you and me is that I am going by ALL the information. I am not cherrypicking the initial reports and ignoring the following reports.

I tell you what. Go show me those people claiming secondary devices still claiming them. And then show me the proof of actual secondary devices. Here's a question for you. Is it possible that these people could have been guessing that's what they were? And if you can concede that, how can you determine the difference between someone who made an assumption that was wrong with someone who knew for fact they were devices? Explain how these people aren't out speaking about these devices.

Bottom line again. NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Please sort your quotes out - posts like that are near impossible to read.

No I never said that. I said "path of least resistance". No the blast is not going to blow open elevator doors (regardless of how air tight they are or aren't) rather than continue downward. You tell me what has less resistance. A not-airtight door, or thin air? The pressure will then build up at the bottom because of the air compressing.

In answer to your question - the 'thin air' behind the door which is not air-tight has less resistance than the 'thin air' all the way at the bottom of the shaft. As nothing is air-tight, they are both 'thin air'. One is closer, therefore it has less resistance. I never suggested that the fire would 'blow open' the doors on each floor on the way down. It wouldn't need to. It would escape through the doors because they are not airtight.

it wasn't the fuel that weakened the support, it was the massive airplane that sliced through the support. And the fires then weakened them further. And fire didn't "Fall". You see that massive explosion that comes out of the building? It travells in all directions, including down the open elevator shafts. And again, it's a blast. So yes there is enough to reach the bottom, and that blast is compressing the air in the shafts because the air has to go somewhere. When enough pressure builds up, it's going to be too much for the doors at the bottom to hold, they will blow, and suddenly there will be a vacume sucking more air and debris downwards. The fuel igniting causes the explosion. If you are referring to what causes the "sound" of an explosion, it would be the doors being blasted out as well as the sound caused by all the air being forced out. Are you suggesting these things would be silent?

Right, I thought we were talking about jet fuel falling down the elevator shafts. I didn't realise we were talking about the actual explosion. As you say, this blast travels in all directions. Yes, the air has to go somewhere. But you have agreed that the elevator doors are not air-tight, nor is the elevator shaft pressurised, so the pressure of this blast is continually lessening the whole way down the shaft. And that's not to mention the massive reduction in blast force from the force that is spent blasting in all the other directions, including the massive blast that exploded outside of the towers.

What fuel ignited? I thought it was an explosion travelling down these shafts - not fuel. If you're going to say that the fuel came down the shaft after the blast did - then why did the blast not ignite this fuel back at the impact site - considering both the blast and the fuel have come from the same place?

I was under the impression that the structures being weakened by burning jet fuel was the official reason for the collapse - given that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a passenger jet. I'm so reluctant to pull the Pentagon into this discussion, but I really don't understand how a passenger jet can disintegrate on impact in one case, and shear through the supports of a skyscraper in another. It seems completely inconsistent to me.

Are you joking? You are now trying to change the subject. And are you implying that nothing can ever happen for the first time in history?

No, not at all. I'm simply identifying the incredible unlikeliness of an event occurring for the first time in history three times on the same day in the same city. Yes, the building were struck by planes. But they were designed to withstand such an impact. And WTC contained the Mayor's high-security bunker. Are you telling me this bunker wasn't designed to withstand a secondary impact like that? The fire was the official reason for the collapse, and this has officially never caused a collapse before.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by TheStev]

No the steel was not all shipped off and melted down. The fact that you are making this claim shows that you don't know much about the situation. This statement is 100% untrue. The real question is "how can I asnwer your question when you are fabricating information?"

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. 1

Source

There's some proof that my claim is accurate. Care to provide some proof of your claim that my claim was '100% untrue'?

Are people's first instincts reliable? Absolutely not. Anyone in their right mind would have thought bombs were going off. Cars backfire and people's first thoughts are gunfire. It's completely inaccurate. And no, I am not doing the same thing. The difference between you and me is that I am going by ALL the information. I am not cherrypicking the initial reports and ignoring the following reports.

I tell you what. Go show me those people claiming secondary devices still claiming them. And then show me the proof of actual secondary devices. Here's a question for you. Is it possible that these people could have been guessing that's what they were? And if you can concede that, how can you determine the difference between someone who made an assumption that was wrong with someone who knew for fact they were devices? Explain how these people aren't out speaking about these devices.

The point I'm making is this. You've said - and rightly so - that people have a tendency to find and fit the information necessary to meet a predetermined conclusion. 'No government involvement on 911' is a predetermined conclusion. People unwilling to go against this predetermined conclusion are forced to revise any facts or anything they have witnessed to meet this conclusion. I'll tell you what. Find me a way that these people can continue to claim that they heard secondary explosions on that day without implying government complicity and I'll concede. People don't want to be ridiculed as such, and understandably so. I'd probably be the same way. I'd like to think I'd stand by my principles, but if I thought I heard secondary explosions on that day, and then later realised that anyone saying that is suggestion government complicity and is being publicly mocked and ridiculed - then I would change my story too.

Of course it's possible these people were just guessing what they heard. Just as it is quite obvious that these people are now just guessing as to what they heard. Look at the statements, they're all worded along the lines of 'must have been'. These people are not changing their description of what they heard that day. They're just deciding it must have been the buildings collapsing because it couldn't have been explosives. They have changed their opinion based on what others have told them of the events of that day. How is that a more valid opinion than a first instinct?

[edit on 19-3-2007 by TheStev]

But of course an obvious doctored film clip is all that is needed
to bring out the contra crowd on government complicity in 911.

Which Arabs did do it?

www.welfarestate.com...
^?

So what happened on 911 as far as plane damage bringing down a building
all by it self need not be a challenge since because you had the best planners
and equipment in the world, Osama said he would use our own devices
against us but forgot to name the non Arab names. Well if that was his
message.

Word is napalm was used so a lot of fire works was left over for the
elevators it you want it.

Magic building collapse, with explosions a must. The buildings had to be
remove by someone. And mighty powerful explosions because that building
was big and strong.

I mean think of the conservation of energy here, the entropy involved,
it needed a lot of destructive power to bring it down, and so neatly
I might add.

Originally posted by TheStev

Source

There's some proof that my claim is accurate. Care to provide some proof of your claim that my claim was '100% untrue'?

You do realize that your own source proves you wrong don't you? You said all the steel was shipped off and melted. Completely untrue. So my proof that your claim is 100% untrue is the link you just provided.

The point I'm making is this. You've said - and rightly so - that people have a tendency to find and fit the information necessary to meet a predetermined conclusion. 'No government involvement on 911' is a predetermined conclusion. People unwilling to go against this predetermined conclusion are forced to revise any facts or anything they have witnessed to meet this conclusion. I'll tell you what. Find me a way that these people can continue to claim that they heard secondary explosions on that day without implying government complicity and I'll concede. People don't want to be ridiculed as such, and understandably so. I'd probably be the same way. I'd like to think I'd stand by my principles, but if I thought I heard secondary explosions on that day, and then later realised that anyone saying that is suggestion government complicity and is being publicly mocked and ridiculed - then I would change my story too.

Of course it's possible these people were just guessing what they heard. Just as it is quite obvious that these people are now just guessing as to what they heard. Look at the statements, they're all worded along the lines of 'must have been'. These people are not changing their description of what they heard that day. They're just deciding it must have been the buildings collapsing because it couldn't have been explosives. They have changed their opinion based on what others have told them of the events of that day. How is that a more valid opinion than a first instinct?

[edit on 19-3-2007 by TheStev]

'no government involved' is NOT a pre-determined conclusion. The fact is there is no evidence. I am not making up evidence to prove the government didn't engineer 9/11 or that there were no bombs. My conclusion is based on the non-existence of evidence. I am not jumping to conclusions and saying that because there were explosion sounds involved in a collapsing building that it must be only one or 1000s of possibilities.

And now your reason for people no longer sticking to their claims of secondary devices is that they don't want to be ridiculed? How can you sit here and not deny that you just completely made that up. It doesn't fit your conclusion so you are simply making conjecture that they don't want to be ridiculed. Unless you can get those people to come out and say they still feel the same way, it is in no way evidence what so ever. It's like me explaining I heard a bomb because a car backfired, and that making a bomb factual. It's nonsense and we all know it. And the only way you can explain it is by making stuff up as to why.

If people saw bombs they would all be quiet because of ridicule? They didn't seem to have a problem saying it that day did they? But of course you can simply make up a reason for that. But the other term for that is guessing.

Oh yes, and by this logic, those minors in W Virginia are still alive. Maybe someone should contact their families. I mean after all, don't you trust the initial instincts of the people who made the claim?

Even though the "In Plane Site" video seems to be fake, the collapses still stink of demolition. The tower collapses are far too symmetrical. If it were this easy to take down buildings, then we don't need demolition crews anymore.

And if you've ever had a charcoal barbecue, you will know that squirting lighter fluid on the fire gives it a short lived intense flame. If it wasn't for the charcoal the fire would quickly be gone.

In the case of the World Trade Center, you had better have a lot of flammable stuff in there to burn to continue the fire, after the jet fuel burns up, if you want to have a chance at weakening huge steal beams. Even if you could have weekened the beams enough with fire, three symmetrical collapses seem quite unlikely.


Troy

So it's to be a game of nit-picking semantics is it. I apologise for my exaggeration. It seems only 99% of the steel was shipped off and melted. 80% as of 2002, when the article I quoted was written, and the other 19% since, leaving 1% for the exhibits listed on the page I supplied. Unless you know of some hidden WTC steel that you care to tell me about?

And you've completely avoided the main point. Regardless of how much steel was melted down and how quickly it was melted - none of it was examined for thermite. So the steel wasn't examined for thermite, therefore there was no evidence of thermite, therefore no thermite. Bit of a self-referential argument don't you think?

I think perhaps you're a little confused as to the meaning of 'predetermined conclusion'. Perhaps you can explain to me how 'The government was complicit on 911' is a predetermined conclusion, but 'The government was not complicit on 911' is not a predetermined conclusion.

If people saw bombs they would all be quiet because of ridicule? They didn't seem to have a problem saying it that day did they? But of course you can simply make up a reason for that. But the other term for that is guessing.

No doubt I'm 'making this up', but it does stand as completely consistent. On the day, nobody was sure of anything that was going on. People could make claims of secondary devices and it could still gel with the fact that 'Arabs did it'. But once the official fairy-tale was released, there was no way these secondary explosions would gel with this story. People who heard and saw these explosions are then faced with a choice - change their story to find some explanation for what they saw that fits the official story, or deny the official story. It's pretty clear the treatment those who deny the official story get - so why wouldn't they feel compelled to change their story to fit the official story? Particularly when these people (and no doubt many millions of Americans) find it hard to believe that any other than Arabs could be responsible for such a great tragedy - let alone their own countrymen.

Seriously though. I've explained how secondary explosions were perfectly acceptable on the day of the attacks. Now I need you to explain to me how these people can still claim they witnessed secondary explosions and stay within the official story?

By the way, it's interesting how these people have gone from witnessing secondary explosions to actually 'seeing bombs'. Next thing these people will be claiming to see George Bush himself planting the bombs in the WTC.

Great point troy - and I'm surprised it's never occurred to me before. If all that's needed to bring a massive building down in its own footprint is damage to 5 or so floors, then there are a lot of demolition experts out there that are seriously overpayed and have some kind of underhanded deal going with explosives companies to justify rigging every floor with explosives when bringing down a building.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by TheStev]

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by 2smooth4ya

This was caused by a blast. Unfortunately, you have others to believe jet fuel leaked down 80 floors and caused this lobby floors windows to burst outwards. Not only that, but the parking garage 2 floors below was destoyed. All by hot jet fuel.

Jet fuel didn't "leak" It was ignited by the impact and literally blew down the shafts ala path of least resistance. Of course at the end of the shafts are doors which are again, the path of least resistance. So by the laws of physics of course the elevator doors are going to get blown off and do damage to the lower floors. We have tons of eyewitnesses who reported the fireballs blowing off the elevator doors. We have witnesses who were in some of the elevators and survived (with massive burns) who spoke in documentaries dedicated to JUST the elevators in the WTC.

The parking garage was not destroyed. There was a lot of damage in the basement which is going to be inevitable.

This notion that if something sounds like an explosion can only be a bomb is a bit absurd. And at the very least there is no one here who can deny that it's nothing but an assumption.

Are you trying to tell us that a fireball can reach all the way down the elvator shaft; cause an explosion in the lobby and the basement, and still have survivors to tell about it? LOLOLOL

Do you see how ridiculous your claims are?

[edit on 19-3-2007 by NegativeBeef]

Originally posted by TheStev
and I'm surprised it's never occurred to me before. If all that's needed to bring a massive building down in its own footprint is damage to 5 or so floors, then there are a lot of demolition experts out there that are seriously overpayed and have some kind of underhanded deal going with explosives companies to justify rigging every floor with explosives when bringing down a building.

Right that's all thats needed. Also you need to either a)hit the buildings with airliners, or b) drop a hundred story building into it, as in the case of seven.

Yeah it's so easy, why don't demo companies just buy a bunch of 757s?

Well 'into it' is a bit misleading. But we're not talking about WTC7 here, and the fact still remains that a controlled demolition calls for charges to be placed throughout the building. 911 proved that a building can be collapsed into its own footprint through damage to only 5-10 floors.

What causes the damage is irrelevant. Current demolition techniques designed to collapse a building into its footprint require charges to be carefully placed throughout the entire building. Clearly this is not necessary. Imagine how much money these companies have wasted on explosives.

Originally posted by TheStev

What causes the damage is irrelevant.

I see.

Perhaps you have a cheap and easy way to inflict the damage of a 757 hitting something at 500mph? Maybe a giant catapult of some sort?

Now if you had something like that, I'm sure you'd find interested demo companies. Especially if you could make one that didn't damage the surrounding buildings.

Originally posted by TheStev
Well 'into it' is a bit misleading.

How so?

What would you call the impact of even part of something that enormous?




Would you prefer the phrase "being hit with chunks from the 100 story building collapsing next to it"?