Another nist FOIA LOBBY Exlosion witnesses video

If the 'debunkers' listen to the testimony again, it's clear they were stuck in the stairwells for a while, and
only made their way down after the first plane struck the building.

By the time they reached the 4th floor, they felt/heard explosions.

The lobby fell onto them.

How can anyone take this out of context? How could these explosions be jet fuel if the victims walked down
the stairwell and reached the lobby several minutes later?

How can jet fuel (even a full load) have enough energy to blown apart a lobby which is 1000 feet away?

If you all notice, these people are covered in fine white dust. They are NOT burned from flames.

Give your head a shake.

Originally posted by turbofan
If the 'debunkers' listen to the testimony again, it's clear they were stuck in the stairwells for a while, and
only made their way down after the first plane struck the building.

Correction, second plane.

By the time they reached the 4th floor, they felt/heard explosions.

The lobby fell onto them.

The building was collapsing already when they heard the "explosions," obviously.

How can anyone take this out of context? How could these explosions be jet fuel if the victims walked down
the stairwell and reached the lobby several minutes later?

Those particular explosions weren't jet fuel.

How can jet fuel (even a full load) have enough energy to blown apart a lobby which is 1000 feet away?

Because in most cases, fuel ignites the air rather than burning up the fuel instantly. As long as it is able to fume, it will continue to explode. If the fuel is propelling down elevator shafts, then the flame will follow until the fuel stops and gets burned away.

If you all notice, these people are covered in fine white dust. They are NOT burned from flames.

Give your head a shake.

Well, my head's shaking, but it shaking at the honestly retarded (not you, btw) logic I am seeing in this thread.

People are asking ME for specifics about the day when they can't even get their facts straight. Every time I come up with a solution that makes the situation make logical sense to me, I get basically shunned by the truther religion. Honestly, I keep saying that I think the government probably had a hand in 9/11. I just don't think they demolished the buildings with explosives.

The problem with all the truther arguments for demolitions is the simple fact that many things explode, not just bombs. Many things sound like bombs that aren't. This isn't to say I'm adamant about this. I just don't see the logic in the truther arguments.


See, the only thing that keeps me even remotely considering of truther arguments is the fact that I can't find a single video that is focused on the base of the tower just before collapse. The videos I found that actually are, well, they mysteriously glitch and skip to the collapse already progressing.

Stop attacking ME in this thread and attack my logic. I make very sound reasoning in my posts and I try my best to find the best explanation for the TRUTH of the matter, not what I want it to be. The fact of the matter is that the people in that infamous video with the explosion do not react like an explosion. The video in the OP does not speak about any unaccounted for explosions.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by remymartin

 

I just wanted to let you know that that particular video is a fake. The sound of the explosion was edited in, and the guys look in entirely the wrong direction if it is supposed to be WTC 7. Also, there is no echoing of the explosion as you would expect.

Nothing about the original vid in the OP, but this one is fake.

Amazing. When in doubt, call it fake! Wow! Just wow!

So I suppose when the blast was heard (er, I mean edited in because it's fake......) the people in the clip reacted to...........a load car horn?

Okie dokie.

So everything on that day that does not support the Official Story (that came out some 5 years LATER) are the result of a bunch of CGI's, audio-technicians and pure spin doctors because they wanted nothing more but to turn their country against their government!
Do I have that right?

So let's recap (because this is fun!)
There were hundreds perhaps thousands of people who started creating false claims moments after their country looked like it was under attack because------------------------they wanted to start a revolution and/or because they saw the prime opportunity to just make stuff up because they were deranged.

Yup............sounds reasonable!


PS. You show me the original clip and I'll toss back to you that that explosion was edited out. So the old "it's fake" can be played both ways.
But it's a LOT more likely that something is edited out than, in!
But I implore you to find us the original clip. Thanks!

reply to post by Human_Alien


I want to find the original clip too. I find it oddly suspicious that only like 20 seconds of the film seem to exist.

As for what could have made the guy look that way, there was a fireman yelling at him about being in a dangerous area. Did you notice that there weren't any other people occupying the street? They were clearing people out, and saw this guy trying to make a phone call. The camera-man appeared to look in the direction of the "explosion," but with a shoulder mount, just turning around would do that, and then when he backed up, the camera panned down before getting hoisted back straight.

reply to post by Human_Alien


So why does the sound of the explosion sound like its in stereo while the regular audio of the firefighters is mono and also a little muffled? Why is the "explosion" sound so clear, with no echo, and so close when WTC7 is a few blocks away?

Also, it amazes me how people try to twist the accounts of people, describing either the plane crash and fireball or the collapse, as if they are independent sounds of detonations? Its like any mention or description of the impact and or collapse as an explosion, it automatically means BOMBS!

@tezza

Tezz, next time a car crashes on your street, I want you to make a mathematical paper analysis of each and every shard of the car involved, where each piece flew, where it landed, how much fuel leaked out, burned out, or evaporated, which direction the fuel spilled towards, where the radiator fluid leaked and how it leaked out, and I want all of that to be done to prove to me the car crashed. If you cant do it, then I wont believe a car crashed there, even if you have pictures and eyewitnesses.

Ok, now I'm doing some work here. I've managed to confirm that the guys were on a telephone at the intersection of broadway and murray. It's actually right below what is now a restaurant, Corner Gourmet II. They look south, south-west down broadway apparently in the direction of the explosion. This is two blocks away from WTC 7.

Coincidentally, a fireman in a mask is also standing exactly where the man on the telephone was turning around to look, speaking in a muffled tone before the other firefighter gets close enough to loudly talk, asking what the guy was doing there.

As soon as he says "here, come on-" and hands the phone to the other guy, there is a sound jump. Before that, there is the sound similar to a narration music in a show.

I just can't consider the explosion to be an original part of the video.

varemia, your welcome to your opinion.....

An opinion which contradicts the video, an opinion which contradicts what survivors of the towers believe they heard and saw, as well as a multitude of firemen who also heard a series of explosives prior to the implosions of the towers....

Believe what you will varemia......although not too long ago( a few weeks) you said you were on the fence with an open mind...just playing Devils Advocate etc....seems youve decided what happened, regardless of damning evidence coming in from all sides bud!!


As for thedmans Stereo Versus Mono drivel........

You should get your ears checked mate.....

reply to post by exponent

Which is it? What sort of explosives did the witnesses hear?

I support both and you know it. Do you have anything productive to discuss about the OP?

Originally posted by impressme
I support both and you know it. Do you have anything productive to discuss about the OP?

You asked the question remember? I was answering you.

There's not really much that needs to be discussed, when people stop claiming that any explosion is proof of demolition then I'll start caring more.

reply to post by exponent

You asked the question remember? I was answering you.

I did?

Originally posted by exponent

Which is it? What sort of explosives did the witnesses hear?

Looks to me, it was you asking me the question don’t you agree?

reply to post by exponent

There's not really much that needs to be discussed, when people stop claiming that any explosion is proof of demolition then I'll start caring more.

Ok convince me there were no explosions in the WTC show me real evidence with sources and credible science? Leave out you opinions just show us the proof that the OS is all true.
,

reply to post by benoni


Actually, I believe there may have been explosions. I'm open to it. I still won't blindly accept that particular video, however. It seems doctored to me. Like I said, there are too many suspicious "accidents" in so many of the films that take out a crucial part of what I am looking for specifically, that I just can't help but keep an open mind to it.

What I was asserting is that I cannot find the particular video with the loud explosion to be a credible soundbite. I'm not discounting witness testimony or anything. For example, I have no explanation for the ring of explosions at the base of the tower just before the collapse. I don't know what was on the floors there, I don't know if there was fire (though there is evidence of something smoking there, etc. Every video I look for that may contain the first 10-20 floors just before the collapse is mysteriously glitchy, skipping directly to showing the tower coming down. A few of the WTC 7 videos are the same, except they cut out the penthouse collapse. So far, I have found every testimony of WTC 7 to line up with the visual evidence I have seen. I cannot find evidence to support some of the tower testimony, though I am actively looking for it.

The smoking at the top of the towers was such a distraction from the base that it is really astounding to watch the footage. Nearly no video shows the base, and logically so, but as I've said, some did. The were panning around the street or showing a full-tower view from the coast... then all of a sudden the video jumps a few seconds already into the collapse. I can't accept that every single one was an accident. There is definitely foul play afoot at the Circle K.

Originally posted by impressme
I did?

Yup:

For all of you OS believers, why don’t you prove there were no explosions at the WTC instead of giving your opinions?

I told you why, but you don't seem to have read as you asked this question again:

Ok convince me there were no explosions in the WTC show me real evidence with sources and credible science? Leave out you opinions just show us the proof that the OS is all true.

Let me be very clear and put it in bold so you don't miss it this time:
Because we think that there were explosions at the WTC, just that they probably didn't originate from demolition explosives.

I can't prove that these weren't demolition explosives, because it's impossible to prove a negative. What I can show is that there's an entirely credible mechanism for all 3 buildings to fail that doesn't require demolition explosives, and I can challenge you to describe a coherent demolition theory in any sort of detail which I doubt you would succeed at.

That is proof for me, a coherent, complete hypothesis, supported by evidence which has not or cannot be explained by a controlled demolition.

reply to post by exponent

because it's impossible to prove a negative.

Like the OS, yet you defend it like a religion.

To bad science doesn’t support your conspiracies theories.
At this point it doesn’t matter what hypothesis is written, if it doesn’t support your OS it is automatically rejected.

What I can show is that there's an entirely credible mechanism for all 3 buildings to fail that doesn't require demolition explosives,

Really, so why don’t you show us? Oh that’s right, you can’t and neither can the government.

reply to post by impressme


Maybe you didn't understand what he meant by proving a negative. The OS proves that what happened caused things to happen. You're asking for proof that something that didn't happen, didn't happen. It's like trying to prove that God doesn't exist. It's impossible because in order to prove a negative, you have to absolutely prove a positive of the opposite nature. As a matter of fact, the OS has explained hundreds of times how the towers fell, but truthers have completely shunned it as if THEY were the religion.

Any time someone even mentions OS you guys curl up and shriek as if burnt by fire (metaphorically). If you've read through exponent's posts, you would know that he WAS a truther some time ago, but became convinced through examining the evidence that the OS was more accurate.

To reiterate, it is impossible to prove a negative, especially if anything in the tower had the potential to explode (i.e. fuel in anything, fire hydrants, paint. Just a few examples. Anything pressurized or highly flammable in a container is a potential bomb). It's like watching a tv show in which the character goes into a room, and proving that they didn't touch a desk while in the room. Sure, you can prove that it is a possibility that a desk was touched, and lots of people corroborate that they heard a tapping noise that might be related to a desk touch, but the fact is, there were no fingerprints on the desk, and investigators figured out that he went into the room to open the closet, since he came out in a different shirt (huge metaphor, think about it closely).

Originally posted by exponent

Because we think that there were explosions at the WTC, just that they probably didn't originate from demolition explosives.

Wow nice sentence. You "think" that there were explosions, just that they "probably" didnt originate from demolition explosives.

So translated you dont know if there were explosions and you dont know were they originated from. Sound like the Commission Report.

Im eager too see your explanation how the 3 Towers that day where demolished without using any explosives, just they fires from the jets, and some fires from WTC 7.

reply to post by TrueFalse


Don't forget the damage! */cheerful bird with information*

I'm just saying...

Originally posted by impressme
Like the OS, yet you defend it like a religion.

No, I don't. Nothing in my posts suggests such a thing, you're just making up things to try and insult me.

To bad science doesn’t support your conspiracies theories.
At this point it doesn’t matter what hypothesis is written, if it doesn’t support your OS it is automatically rejected.

Once again this is untrue, this is not how I think, and examination of my posts would show this.

Really, so why don’t you show us? Oh that’s right, you can’t and neither can the government.

I have shown many times how I understand the buildings to have fallen, and I doubt you have read the NIST report well enough to understand it.

If you want to have a serious discussion, try to answer the questions I have left you rather than just insulting me.

Originally posted by TrueFalse
Wow nice sentence. You "think" that there were explosions, just that they "probably" didnt originate from demolition explosives.

Yes

So translated you dont know if there were explosions and you dont know were they originated from. Sound like the Commission Report.

No, you don't need to translate what I wrote, because I wrote it in English.

Im eager too see your explanation how the 3 Towers that day where demolished without using any explosives, just they fires from the jets, and some fires from WTC 7.

Feel free to start a thread with whatever questions you have.

reply to post by exponent


Its funny how they still believe that the 9/11 Commission Report was to investigate why the WTC's collapsed. Just goes to show how much they know, which is not very much on the facts.

I think I posted this a few times before, but I feel as if it just gets lost in the backg round noise or ignored, but what the hell:

The 9/11 Commission Report was to investigate the events leading UP to 9/11, investigating the intelligence failures of the agencies charged with monitoring suspicious activities, securing our borders, and national security. It was NOT charged with investigating as to how and why the WTCs collapsed. That was given to FEMA and NIST. To all truthers, please update your files and notes, so this gross error can be resolved, and give you all a little bit more credibility, when you have the facts straight.

reply to post by GenRadek

Its funny how they still believe that the 9/11 Commission Report was to investigate why the WTC's collapsed. Just goes to show how much they know, which is not very much on the facts.

They are who? I assume you mean all Truthers and people sitting on the fence?

I can assure you that not everyone is as stupid or ignorant as you claim.

Most people know what the 911 commission was set up for, it was set up to fail and that’s exactly what happened, or are you going to deny that to?

The commission was criticized for significant alleged conflicts of interest on the part of commissioners and staff (e.g.; Philip D. Zelikow, 9/11 Commission Executive Director/Chair in 1995 co-authored book with Condoleezza Rice[12])[13] Further, the commission's report has been the subject of much criticism by both the commissioners themselves and by others.[14][15]
The commission members were appointed by George W. Bush as well as Congress, which led to the criticism that it was not a commission truly independent from the U.S. government whose actions it was supposed to review. The commission stated in its report that "[their] aim has not been to assign individual blame," a judgment which some critics believed would obscure the facts of the matter in a nod to consensus politics.
In addition, commissioners believed that key agencies of the U.S. government, including The Pentagon, the FAA and NORAD were deliberately deceiving them,[15] and that the CIA was deliberately impeding the work of the commission.[16] [color=gold]On the whole, the chairmen of the commission believed the commission was set up to fail

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, many of you OS supporters have not done any real research on the subject of 911.

John Farmer, senior counsel to the Commission stated that the Commission "discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue." Farmer continues: "At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened...The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public."[20] Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: "We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth."

en.wikipedia.org...

Where do you get the idea, that “they” all think the 911 commission was set up to study and explain the demise of the WTC?