911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions

Originally posted by dereks
I notice you are completely ignoring our repeated requests to post proof that there were actual explosions, not just loud noises?

I posted a link to a dictionary website above. Do you know what a dictionary is? It's something that defines what words mean.

Here, let me post another definition of "explosion" from another source:

An explosion is a sudden very loud noise.

www.google.com...|en&hl=en&q=explosion


When you listen to the first video I posted, do you hear a "sudden very loud noise"? If not, maybe I can coach you through what the different sounds are like. Some sounds are made by people talking. Other sounds are made by smaller things moving around. Those aren't very loud and come across as "noise." But when you hear the SUDDEN VERY LOUD NOISE -- wait am I going too fast? Hold on... No, I give up. You'll have to figure out how to use the dictionary yourself, sorry. I don't have the patience.

"We do know that there was no evidence found for demolitions, so we can only say that it wasn't demolitions."

Who is this "we" that you speak of? Since a thorough investigation targeting explosives was not conducted after 9/11, how do you expect demolition evidence to be found? You can only find evidence of certain things if you look for them. After 9/11, the only things they were looking for was a terrorist under every bed.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

Originally posted by Lillydale
Do you know for certain what caused these noises?

We know for certain it was not explosives...

It could have been many things, falling debris, exploding cans/drums/tanks, reinforcd concrete shattering etc etc.

All we know for certain is it was not explosives.

reply to post by pteridine


I notice you have completely ignored my request to please explain with positive evidence what must have been causing all of the events being described here:




I have a feeling you have refused to even watch this video due to your extreme bias.


Can you please post your positive evidence to demonstrate what all the people in this video are actually describing?

Originally posted by dereks
We know for certain it was not explosives...

Can you please post your positive evidence that proves it could not have been explosives?

"It could have been many things, falling debris, exploding cans/drums/tanks, reinforcd concrete shattering etc etc.

All we know for certain is it was not explosives."

How exactly do you know for certain it wasn't explosives when the bozo follow up investigation did not test for explosives?

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Lillydale
Do you know for certain what caused these noises?

We know for certain it was not explosives...

How do you know that for certain?

It could have been many things, falling debris, exploding cans/drums/tanks, reinforcd concrete shattering etc etc.

I do not care what it "could" have been. If you KNOW it was not explosives, how do you know that?

All we know for certain is it was not explosives.

Please provide me with the proof that convinces you it was not explosives.

[edit on 2/4/10 by Lillydale]

Well guys now we know how to shut them up apparently.

Just ask them to prove it.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Well guys now we know how to shut them up apparently.

Just ask them to prove it.

LOL, how true. The problem is that either the thread will die from inactivity or eventually the conversation will shift at which point they magically reappear with a new set of diversions.

I have faith they are all just taking their time to make sure the proof they post is posted well and creatively.

Originally posted by hooper
Do you also dismiss as fabrication any event for which there is no video or photographic evidence?

Well since we had so many cameras on the Pentagon and several buildings around i expect some video coverage or photos from the videos.

It has been reprted the FBI took or confiscated 4,000 photos. So if there is no proper souces with the video or photos basic CSI 101, then i have to question the event.


[edit on 5-2-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE

Well since we had so many cameras on the Pentagon and several buildings around i expect some video coverage or photos from the videos.

And you saw the one they had of the actual crash. Again, if there is no video or photographic evidence - is then a non-event?

It has been reprted the FBI took or confiscated 4,000 photos. So if there is no proper souces with the video or photos basic CSI 101, then i have to question the event.

Well, since you are not privy to the FBI reports and never will be I guess then you'll just keep those questions. To an earlier post: The FBI announces, before the whole world what happened on 9/11 but you don't believe them, however, when the same agency incorporates the same statement into written reports - you believe them? Or are you just trying to avoid the obvious?

Also, please provide your evidence and proof that there are no "proper sources" for the photos.

Originally posted by hooper
And you saw the one they had of the actual crash. Again, if there is no video or photographic evidence - is then a non-event?

Sorry but the security video at the Pentagon DOES NOT show a 757. IF you see a 757 it is only in your mind form what you were told to see.

Also, please provide your evidence and proof that there are no "proper sources" for the photos.

So easy to show evidence, you should try it sometime. None of the posted photos have the proper sources. They should at least show the first 3 in the following list.

www.policeone.com...
Investigators should maintain a photographic log as a reference to where and what photos have been taken, as well as the conditions under which the photographs were obtained. A log also helps the photographer present a professional image when testifying in court.

The log should include:

Identity of photographer
Date/time
Location of crime


Type of case
Case number or other identifying number
Orientation, description of the scene
Type of camera/lens used
Type of film used
Light source, type of strobe (manual or automatic, fill)
Shutter speed
Lens aperture - Because photography does have some inherent limitations, always create a crime scene sketch as an addendum to the photographic log.



[edit on 5-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Can you please post your positive evidence to demonstrate what all the people in this video are actually describing?

There's already been proof posted that these noises, whatever their source, couldn't have damaged the towers, since they lack the telltale signs of known explosive types used, as described.

Therefore, no cutter charges, bombs, etc. PROVEN FACT.

It's not necessary to answer your question with positive proof. it is sufficent to prove what they weren't. That's been done already.

Although I'm quite sure that you believe you haven't been defeated here, you're about as wrong as the Black Knight in The Holy Grail.

reply to post by bsbray11


They are describing noise. It could be explosions and it could be something else.
What is your point? That not everything is explained?

Description of 9/11 truthers: non educated, non experienced, but with an over inflated sense of self worth and accomplishment. The perfect product of an education system which focuses more on student self esteem rather than their knowledge base. It comes with the idea that his opinion is JUST AS VALID as people who have the academic degrees and years of experience.

Well after EIGHT YEARS the educated people have a serious problem.

They need for everyone to BELIEVE them. Because the NIST can't even tell everyone the total for the concrete in the towers. How could the conservation of momentum allow the north tower to collapse that fast. But then we have not been told the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the towers so how can we apply the conservation of momentum?

The EDUCATED PEOPLE have been doing physics without data for the last EIGHT YEARS.

So if most people ever understand this they would have to come to the conclusion that the educated people are really stupid and expect everyone to just believe what they are told by the educated people. Have they turned physics into a RELIGION? The educated peisthood says it could happen therefore it must be true.

A test can be done for about $20.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

psik

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

Can you please post your positive evidence to demonstrate what all the people in this video are actually describing?

There's already been proof posted that these noises, whatever their source, couldn't have damaged the towers, since they lack the telltale signs of known explosive types used, as described.

Therefore, no cutter charges, bombs, etc. PROVEN FACT.

It's not necessary to answer your question with positive proof. it is sufficent to prove what they weren't. That's been done already.

Although I'm quite sure that you believe you haven't been defeated here, you're about as wrong as the Black Knight in The Holy Grail.

Could you please provide the proof of what they weren't, This thread is 14 pages long...

As "Educated" people in the Academic fields generally back up there claims, with Scientific Peer Reviewed Literature, seeing your not a Truther... We can automatically presume your educated.

Or can we assume your just one of Millions of people who base there opinions and weigh in on stuff with Stereotypes.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by Hmmm101]

Originally posted by pteridine
They are describing noise. It could be explosions and it could be something else.
What is your point? That not everything is explained?

No, you well know that it doesn't make a lick of difference if everything has been explained or not, we still know EXACTLY what happened anyway no matter what information we are missing. Right?


So again. Where is your positive evidence that these sounds could not have been explosives?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
There's already been proof posted that these noises, whatever their source, couldn't have damaged the towers, since they lack the telltale signs of known explosive types used, as described.

Can you please provide your positive evidence that "they lack the telltale signs of known explosives"?

Is it the "they weren't 130 dB" thing again? Because if 130 dB is equivalent to a jackhammer, I'd then like you to demonstrate that the sound in the above video from near WTC7 was quieter than a jackhammer running from WTC7 would have been at the same location.



PS A Monty Python video also does not count as evidence that "they lack the telltale signs of known explosives." Like pteridine said, gut feelings don't count.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by SphinxMontreal

It is obvious that you misunderstand my example. Read what BSBray asked.
There is no evidence for demolitions. You don't have any and neither does anyone else. There is only speculation. Follow the evidence and see where it leads.

Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by Lillydale
Do you know for certain what caused these noises?
We know for certain it was not explosives...
It could have been many things, falling debris, exploding cans/drums/tanks, reinforcd concrete shattering etc etc.

All we know for certain is it was not explosives.

This is enough proof all we needed to know, there were explosions in all three WTC.

This is what I call "bringing it to the table", while you debunkers or OS believers just spout your opinions, of there were no explosions in the WTC.

You OS believers are wrong.

There were multiples explosions at the WTC and here are some of the credible eyewitness that were there, that were in these explosions that witness these explosions that heard these explosions and that were rescued from these explosions.

You all were not there, these credible people were, and “life experiences” tells me that these credible people are telling the truth.

You OS believers can deny it, ignore it, but these facts are not going away.

CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Firefighters, law enforcement officers, and other extremely credible witnesses have also discredited the Administration's version of why the world trade center buildings collapsed on 9/11:

Reporter for USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down
NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings (video) ; or high-quality audio here
NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings

NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"
NYC firefighter stated there was a "bomb in the building ... start clearing out"
Dying heroes, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers
MSNBC reporter stated that police had found a suspicious device "and they fear it could be something that might lead to another explosion" and the police officials believe "that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area"

NYC firefighter stated "the south tower . . . exploded . . . At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges . . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade" (pages 6 & 7)
Assistant Fire Commissioner stated “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building [not up where the fire was]. You know like when they . . . blow up a building ... ?" -- and a lieutenant firefighter the Commissioner spoke with independently verified the flashes (see possible explanation below)(when, as here, there are no page numbers in the original firefighter transcript, you can locate the text using the "find" function in your web browser)

A firefighter said “[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”
Another firefighter stated "it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight" (page 4; original is .pdf; Google's webpage version is here)
Paramedic said "at first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop -- thats exactly what because thought it was" (page 9)

Police officer noted "People were saying, 'There’s another one and another one.' I heard reports of secondary bomb explosions . . ." (page 61, which is page 3 of a hand-written memorandum)
Firefighter stated "there was an explosion in the south tower, which . . . just blew out in flames . . . One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93" (referring to 1993 bombing of world trade center; pages 3 & 4)

A firefighter stated "it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building . . . Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."
Officer in the New Jersey Fire Police Department who was previously a sergeant in the U.S. Army, said about the south tower: “[I]t sounded like bombs going off. That's when the explosions happened. . . . I knew something was going to happen. . . . It started to get dark, then all of a sudden there was this massive explosion.” Then, discussing her experiences during the collapse of the north tower, she said: “[There was] another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs. . . . I can't tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me. . . . There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street.” (pages 65-66, 68)

Dan Rather said that collapse was "reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen [when]a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down" (CNN's Aaron Brown and a Fox News reporter also made similar comments)
British newspaper stated "some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a 'planned implosion' "

Peter Jennings stated "anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down"
A reporter for WNYC radio said "The reporters were trying to figure out what had happened. We were thinking bombs had brought the buildings down" (page 203 of Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind The Breaking News of 9/11)
A Wall Street Journal reporter said "I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, "My God, they’re going to bring the building down." And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES . . . . I saw the explosions" (page 87)

A facilities manager in the north tower "was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons"
Indeed, Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, said in a PBS documentary that Building 7 was "pulled" on September 11th. "Pulling" is a construction industry term for "intentionally demolishing", as shown in this PBS interview discussing the demolition of world trade center building 6 many weeks after 9/11.

Moreover, there is evidence that substantial explosions occurred well BELOW the area impacted by the planes, and -- according to some witnesses -- they occurred BEFORE the plane had hit:

www.911proof.com...

More Proof 911 Inside
Job - Witnesses To
WTC Explosives

www.rense.com...

9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!

www.youtube.com...

Proof of sub-basement explosions at WTC

www.dailymotion.com...

Proof that the WTC was rigged with explosives! Pt. 3

www.youtube.com...

Simultaneous Explosions In North & South Towers On 9/11.

www.metacafe.com...

911 WTC Proof Of Explosion In Lobby Before Demolit...Try our new player

www.dailymotion.com...

911 WTC Demolition Squence Revealed
Demolition sequence can be seen traveling diagonally up 20 floors to the service floors.Its not an explosion of air, but small charges in sequence seen exploding.

www.ebaumsworld.com...






[edit on 5-2-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


First the mass of people, before exposed to this information, said, "Where are all the sounds of explosions we should've heard if they were demolitions?"

Now we are picking up the pieces through various recordings and videos and written records of eyewitness testimonies, not least of which from the first responders, FDNY and NYPD, and the technique is simply to automatically assume they were caused by other things. Because the original question so many asked of "Where are the explosions?" was rhetorical to begin with; they have no intention of realizing such a thing and will fight it as long as possible.

Even pteridine here can't think of explosions at the WTC without automatically going into the mode of thinking of "somebody MUST be trying to pull my leg." The whole mentality persists and will continue to persists until these guys are comfortable and 100% accepting of the fact that there were explosions all throughout that morning, for which we DO NOT KNOW THE SOURCES.


By 100% accepting I mean, when we ask for evidence for what was causing these explosions:


A) They don't automatically try to divert the conversation to something else.

B) They don't automatically try to ASSUME a bunch of other things "MUST" have been the causes even though they have NO supporting evidence.

C) They don't try to claim we know for certain they weren't explosives/bombs when they also cannot produce any evidence to support THIS idea either.


So I will continue to ask "What positive evidence do we have as to what was causing these explosions?"

And "What positive evidence do we have that these COULD NOT HAVE BEEN explosives/bombs OF ANY KIND?"


Until we can ask those questions and get a straight answer, ie "I don't know," END OF ANSWER, and force them to become comfortable with this fact, and not distrusting of it and automatically trying to down-play it or divert away to another topic or act like their ignorance is inconsequential, I wouldn't even take the conversation any further become the disease that is their denial of these facts remains unaddressed.


So again. For ANYONE willing to put up or shut up.

What positive evidence do we have as to what was causing these explosions?

What positive evidence do we have that these explosions could not possibly have been caused by explosives/bombs of any kind?


If you don't have any such positive evidence, then just shut up and realize your ignorance. I have realized that I personally am unaware of what caused these explosions. I don't seek to marginalize the issue or to claim it is inconsequential to my knowledge of that day, because that would make me even more ignorant as I would be lying to myself. I do not know if they were explosives, and I do not know if they were bombs. However, infinitely more people AT THE SCENE said this than said, "exploding electrical generators" and all the other crap that "debunkers" invent in their own imaginations, things that would have been extremely obvious yet NO ONE said such a thing happened. As compared to... how times did we hear reports of explosives being found in vehicles, vehicles exploding in the underground parking garage, "secondary devices" being found?....




As long as people are in denial about the fact that we don't understand what happened that morning, we only need to continually remind them that they are ignorant.


The explosions exist and they have not been explained for about 9 years and counting. Many "informed" people on this website refused to admit they existed at all for the first several years of this period, and I was here to see it myself. Millions of people are no doubt STILL ignorant of all the additional explosions that occurred that morning.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by bsbray11]