EXPLOSIVES. Where?

Originally posted by crowpruitt
There were many reports of explosions heard before the towers collapsed by fireman, reporters and policemen.I can clearly remember watching the attacks on tv that morning,and hearing reports of explosions prior to the collapses.Anyone else remember hearing this on tv that morning?

Yes, I remember hearing that there were explosions at the Capital Building and a few other places that morning... all of which did not happen.

sooo.......

Originally posted by snoopy
It's absurd to try and claim there were no explosions. It would be absolutely impossible for there not to be. Things like that don't just happen in silence. The laws of physics didn't stop working on 9/11.

Well this is what happened...

No resistance from undamaged columns and floors.
Pieces of facade, weighing tons, ejected laterally up to 600ft.
Office fires, according to the official story, hot enough to cause steel to completely fail to it's foundations.
South Tower top tilting and rotating whilst supposedly crushing the building under it.
Everything not made of steel turned to a fine dust.
Cars burned up but paper and a passport survive.
Columns bent into the shape of a C with no sign of the metal cracking at the compressed side.

All from a gravity driven collapse? According to the official story physics did stop working that day...

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by snoopy
It's absurd to try and claim there were no explosions. It would be absolutely impossible for there not to be. Things like that don't just happen in silence. The laws of physics didn't stop working on 9/11.

Well this is what happened...

No resistance from undamaged columns and floors.
Pieces of facade, weighing tons, ejected laterally up to 600ft.
Office fires, according to the official story, hot enough to cause steel to completely fail to it's foundations.
South Tower top tilting and rotating whilst supposedly crushing the building under it.
Everything not made of steel turned to a fine dust.
Cars burned up but paper and a passport survive.
Columns bent into the shape of a C with no sign of the metal cracking at the compressed side.

All from a gravity driven collapse? According to the official story physics did stop working that day...

I am sure that's how you want to think the NIST findings went. But most of that is simply made up, especially the part about the aluminum facade weighing tons, or the no resistance from columns or floors. And of course the 'everything turning to dust' always makes me giggle/ Almost as much as the passport surviving somehow being impossible or even unlikely.

Unfortunately none of those claims were part of that day.

Originally posted by whoknew
Are you implying that a body striking one of these objects listed above would cause a explosive like sound?

Yes, to some people a body hitting a car falling at about 90 mph would make a pretty loud noise. I was just throwing the idea out, because it is a possibility, but definately not the only answer.

I don’t believe for a second that someone inside the tower would even hear a body thudding on the ground.

I think it would be heard if they were in the lobby.
I'm under the assumption that the explosive sounds were heard by people that were inside and outside of the building.

Originally posted by snoopy
I am sure that's how you want to think the NIST findings went. But most of that is simply made up, especially the part about the aluminum facade weighing tons, or the no resistance from columns or floors. And of course the 'everything turning to dust' always makes me giggle/ Almost as much as the passport surviving somehow being impossible or even unlikely.

Unfortunately none of those claims were part of that day.

Snoopy... long time no see.

1. By facade he is talking about the exterior columns/lattice. Extremely massive pieces of which were thrown far enough to get stuck into the corner of WTC 7. You know that but are playing games here.

2. The OP should have said "very little" or more accurately "too little resistance according to the laws of physics or nature of static steel structures" instead of "no resistance". You know that too...

3. Not everything turned to dust, but the amount of energy input required to turn the amount of material to dust that was turned to dust is totally unaccounted for by gravity. Since energy is a zero sum game, where did all of this extra energy come from? On second thought... never mind.

4. The passport, found in pristine condition amongst all that mess, while people were frantically trying to flee, sure was neat-o wasn't it?



you are always good for a laugh bro.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Check out 9/11 eyewitness, the explosions are blatent in this:
video.google.co.uk...

You can hear multiple explosions, its the best audio capture I have heard.

Thanks for sharing this video. But couldn't the same scrutiny be applied to your video in assessing the many variables that TheStev has mentioned? Such as Wind speed, type of microphone.

Not only is the camera far from the towers but if that microphone can pick up those explosions (assuming it's not a combination of wind blowing on the microphone) then why have other videos (which were of closer distance) not recorded the explosion prior to the collapse? Cameras that were within the city streets looking up at the towers lack those explosions that are seen at 3:40 in your video. The sound at 3:40 at the distance your camera video is at should have no problem being captured on other cameras in the city.

What doesn't make sense is the farther you are away the better chance you have of hearing the sound? This is what I am seeing from your video.
I also dislike the radio being dubbed onto the video, I become skeptical to what may have been enhanced.

Again, Thanks for sharing it though.

The film linked to by the thread starter was filmed by Paul Berriff, a friend of my son. He was in New York making a documentary at the time of the 9/11 attacks and captured that spectacular footage. He survived, though a number of people in the film did not.

He was there and is quite adamant there were no explosions of any kind. You can hear this for yourself simply by opening your ears and listening to the footage.

Paul runs the Humber Rescue lifeboat service here in the UK, where my son is a volunteer and their youngest ever qualified cox. So no, I don't think he has been "told" what to say. Knowing Paul, he would tell them where to get off in anycase.

I wish some people would stop repeating the nonsensical mantra that the buildings were blown up. It is pretty clear what happened on that day to make those three building fall, but some just can't bring themeselves to look at this logically and instead rely on fantastic theories and completely ignore the evidence that makes a mockery of their claims.



Cheers,
Zep

Originally posted by Zep Tepi
It is pretty clear what happened on that day to make those three building fall...

What exactly made WTC 7 fall? I am sorry to be patronizing, but it is NOT clear to me what made WTC 7 fall. It is not clear to the NIST what made the building fall either.

No problem, it didn't come across as patronizing. The following is taken from a couple of posts I made at my own forum on the subject.

Captain Boyle, Engine 94 (18 years service)
Interview with Firehouse magazine, August 2002

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.
…
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.
…
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.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, Division 1 (33 years service)
Interview with Firehouse magazine, April 2002

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.

Those statements should serve to inform that there was indeed much more damage to building 7 than a lot of the conspiracy sites would have us believe. Those guys are firefighters with many years’ service and experience; one would feel they know what they are talking about.

The unfinished NIST report also mentions the damage to the structure of the building.

Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are
mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:
− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground
− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact
− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Zep

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Zep Tepi]

What if someone took the whole bottom half of the southern facade off? That would be much worse than the damage it actually took.

Tell me how the above, with fire, can bring a building straight down, all four corners dropping at the same time?

Originally posted by whoknew
Are you implying that a body striking one of these objects listed above would cause a explosive like sound?

Yes. Have you seen the documentary 9|11? It has LOTS of footage from inside the WTCs on 9/11 and you can clearly hear people thudding to the ground LOUDLY at least once every three minutes.

There were no controlled demolitions on 9/11. If you want to see some actual CDs go to youtube and search for landmark building demoltion, or go to controlled demolition incs website and watch the videos theyve posted of buildings they've blown up.

Tell me how the above, with fire, can bring a building straight down, all four corners dropping at the same time?

That would be quite difficult, but seeing as that isn't what happened I don't need to tell you

I have seen this repeated many times, i.e. the buildings collapsed into their own footprint and came down symmetrically. That is, however, blatantly untrue.

In the collapse of Tower 1, falling perimeter columns from the tower extensively damaged Building 7 - which was over 400ft away and had Building 6 situated between them. Other debris landed even further away. In any event, a collapse zone of over 400ft in one direction is hardly evidence of a building falling into it's own footprint. I know you haven't said that specifically here, but I have seen it repeated multiple times, both here on this site and elsewhere.

As far as Building 7 is concerned, if one were to look at ALL of the available film and footage from the collapse, it can be clearly seen that all four corners did not drop at the same time, nor did the building collapse into its own footprint. From one particular angle it does appear that Building 7 comes straight down. But even from this angle the Penthouse can be seen disappearing from view before the building itself comes down. It had to go somewhere, and it did - it collapsed towards the rear of the shot, along with the rest of that side of the building. Other video and photographic evidence also shows the collapse was not uniform, nor did the total collapse occur at freefall speeds, as is often stated.

Cheers,
Zep

Originally posted by Zep Tepi

Tell me how the above, with fire, can bring a building straight down, all four corners dropping at the same time?

That would be quite difficult, but seeing as that isn't what happened I don't need to tell you

Here is an animation:



All four corners drop simultaneously (regardless of the sagging inner part, which, in demolitions, causes the building to fold into itself rather than outward). Thus it falls evenly across. You can see three corners in that animation. If you can't see them falling together, evenly, at the same time, then we aren't going to have a fruitful discussion.

What you're doing is sliding the scale so you can say "well it wasn't REALLY symmetrical" or "they didn't EXACTLY drop at the same time" when that whole route is completely pointless. I'm not going to argue over 5 degrees offset, or milliseconds. No engineer would either. Any demo team would be proud to drop a building so precisely, the collapse was so precise. And in general, engineers don't expect such perfection in the first place. They always give room for, and expect, some level of error. It's impossible to avoid it.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by bsbray11]

And yet it didn't fold inward. Somewhere along the lines someone came up with this notion that the only way a building can come down with all sides at the same time is with controlled demolition.

Yet none of the people saying this have any expertise in demolition. Which is for good reason, because it's simply not true. There simply is no physical evidence that the building was brought down by demolition no matter how much you want there to be. We can make up imaginary rules of physics and demolition all we want, but it doesn't make it true, and it's being dishonest.

If it was brought down by CD, the video does not show that and other evidence needs to be used.

Originally posted by elevatedone

Originally posted by crowpruitt
There were many reports of explosions heard before the towers collapsed by fireman, reporters and policemen.I can clearly remember watching the attacks on tv that morning,and hearing reports of explosions prior to the collapses.Anyone else remember hearing this on tv that morning?

Yes, I remember hearing that there were explosions at the Capital Building and a few other places that morning... all of which did not happen.

sooo.......

A reporter on the news the other day reported a pet recall. I guess I could find a clip and use it as evidence to prove that there was no pet food recall and that it was really a pet recall. The government must be trying to cover their tracks because why would the reporter have said Pet recall if he was talking about a pet food recall?

In the collapse of Tower 1, falling perimeter columns from the tower extensively damaged Building 7 - which was over 400ft away and had Building 6 situated between them. Other debris landed even further away. In any event, a collapse zone of over 400ft in one direction is hardly evidence of a building falling into it's own footprint. I know you haven't said that specifically here, but I have seen it repeated multiple times, both here on this site and elsewhere

What would cause steel to be ejected 400ft?If the towers did indeed collapse from fire,how would steel travel that far with enough force to damage wtc 7?

Originally posted by snoopy
And yet it didn't fold inward.

So how did it all end up in a nice neat pile on top of itself then?



It doesn't take an expert to see this. It couldn't have been done any better.

Originally posted by lizziex3
There were no controlled demolitions on 9/11. If you want to see some actual CDs go to youtube and search for landmark building demoltion, or go to controlled demolition incs website and watch the videos theyve posted of buildings they've blown up.

Yeah everybody, go watch some ACTUAL controlled demolitions on youtube and search for the demolitions that have huge audiences waiting for the count down show. No need to hide explosives on these ones, they like to face the explosives outward! The more BOOM, the better!

On the other hand, the masterminds of 911 are a bit more sneaky. Yes sneaky CD is possible. ESPECIALY when they do the Sleight Of Hand Trick!

In Bush's right hand - WTC 1 and 2 impacts. ***HEY LOOK AT ME***

In Bush's left hand - WTC 7, The Pentagon, Flight 93

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Connected]

Originally posted by Zep Tepi

Tell me how the above, with fire, can bring a building straight down, all four corners dropping at the same time?

That would be quite difficult, but seeing as that isn't what happened I don't need to tell you

I have seen this repeated many times, i.e. the buildings collapsed into their own footprint and came down symmetrically. That is, however, blatantly untrue.

In the collapse of Tower 1, falling perimeter columns from the tower extensively damaged Building 7 - which was over 400ft away and had Building 6 situated between them. Other debris landed even further away. In any event, a collapse zone of over 400ft in one direction is hardly evidence of a building falling into it's own footprint. I know you haven't said that specifically here, but I have seen it repeated multiple times, both here on this site and elsewhere.

As far as Building 7 is concerned, if one were to look at ALL of the available film and footage from the collapse, it can be clearly seen that all four corners did not drop at the same time, nor did the building collapse into its own footprint. From one particular angle it does appear that Building 7 comes straight down. But even from this angle the Penthouse can be seen disappearing from view before the building itself comes down. It had to go somewhere, and it did - it collapsed towards the rear of the shot, along with the rest of that side of the building. Other video and photographic evidence also shows the collapse was not uniform, nor did the total collapse occur at freefall speeds, as is often stated.

Cheers,
Zep

Zep Tepi I disagree with you . there is nothing in this world you can make me believe airplanes knock these building down.
I did my home work, those building were blown to bits. Theres to much proof. and you want me to believe that hundreds of firemen and police officers are making up LIES just to ruin their career.
Here is a site you might want to view I am sorry but everone cant be liers.
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Originally posted by Zep Tepi
No problem, it didn't come across as patronizing. The following is taken from a couple of posts I made at my own forum on the subject.

There are just as many quotes from other firemen saying otherwise. Eyewitness testimony will not cut it for me as the sole evidence as to why this structure failed especially since there are many diverse and opposing opinions on the damage to 7 from the FDNY.