9/11 Eye Witness: I Watched A Few Of Them (Bombs) Explode!

reply to post by dereks


When will you say something that matters...care to refute every single eyewitness that was there???

Not one camera angle shows a collapse but a massive fireball and explosion !!

[snip]

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by backinblack

 

People rarely SEE a bomb go off..
It's normally hidden inside something...

So , you agree that the guy in the video simply used a poor choice of words , and didn't actually see any bombs going off ?

Here's a legitimate question..
Are you 100% certain that NO explosives were used on 9/11.?

I am 100% certain that no "explosives" were needed to bring the towers down , once they had been impacted by airplanes trvelling at high speeds , and having suffered intense heat for an extended period of time .

I am 100% certain that "bombs" are not the only thing that go boom .

I am 100% certain that NOBODY has presented solid evidence of bombs or any other type of controlled demolition .

I am 100% certain that claims of this nature are unfounded , minus any supporting evidence .

Therefore , after looking at all of the evidence available , I can safely say that I am 100% certain that no bombs or other type of explosive demolition were used on 9/11 .

OKBMD and VIPERTECH really do try hard. TOO hard maybe. Surely Ye are close to being top of the class. We must earn our pay, i suppose. understanding(ridiculously) that all the floors pancaked and squashed everything to dust below the impact zone, what is to be said for materials and bodies above the 'impact zones'. where are they? i am 100% certain that you are not 100% certain.(excepting that you probably are 100% certain of the real truth, having been let in on it.) SHAME ON you.

To All the genuine people searching for the truth, exercise cartesian doubt. Doubt every single thing about what you were told happened(and doubt what you believe you saw on t.v.) on that day and build up a picture from there. aluminium planes can not penetrate thick steel girders, no matter how fast they are travelling. if and when you realise that the media were complicit( in terms of knowingly broadcasting preprepared cgi footage ) in propagating the official LIE, only then will you start to become aware of the scale of this HUGE HOAX. Again question everything, everything, everything (NO Area off-limits for questioning) and you will see how much your eyes WILL be opened. PAy absolutely no attention to people like the above who insist on the veracity of the official story. they are just doing what they are paid to do!!!

reply to post by mnemeth1


this sort of reminds me of two things.. Harley dude.. And that firefighter thats all messed up sitting on the curb... I was watching a science channel doc, and they showed him there talking, but didnt play his audio.. Which was comments of fear that all the buildings around them were rigged with explosives.. They would use his image of distress, and just being beat up... But not what he was saying....

reply to post by pshea38


Do you not see the hypocracy in exhorting everyone to " Doubt every single thing " and you then proceed to post this nonsense as fact " aluminium planes cannot penetrate thick steel girders, no matter how fast they are travelling. "

Pity kamikaze pilots didn't realise they would bounce off steel ships and please don't fire a soft lead bullet at a tin (steel) can because it will bounce right back at you.

reply to post by dereks


Dereks, I wanted to ask you something personally if I may. Another member in another thread recently dismissed firefighter's accounts of 9/11 because none of them "took samples" to back up their obvious lies. I'm just curious what your opinion on that is. Is there ever a case where firefighters themselves are simultaneously doing their job (i.e. saving lives, putting out fires, etc), and the job of investigators or scientists? Please put aside any notion of what you or I think may of happened that day and focus on the particular question. I know you support the OS and you undoubtedly know I'm a "truther", but regardless of that, how realistic is the scenario I described above?

reply to post by pshea38

aluminium planes can not penetrate thick steel girders, no matter how fast they are travelling.

Do you have even an educated guess , as to how thick the steel was at the points of impact ? In addition , the perimeter of the towers were not constructed of "steel girders" . The perimeter was constructed of box-columns , and at the points of impact , those columns were not as thick as you have assumed . Care to guess how thick the steel was at those points ?

reply to post by Alfie1

Pity kamikaze pilots didn't realise they would bounce off steel ships and please don't fire a soft lead bullet at a tin (steel) can because it will bounce right back at you.

Kamikaze pilots would intentionally attempt to crash their aircraft into enemy ships—planes often laden with explosives, bombs, torpedoes and full fuel tanks.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah, that's why they loaded up with bombs and torpedoes...
They realised JUST the plane wasn't having much impact...

reply to post by okbmd


i am 100% certain that they didnt look for explosives while dismantling ground zero and shipping it off to china. How certain again are you that the buildings would come down after jetliner impacts? More certain than the one wtc dude he was pretty sure it could withstand multiple impacts?

reply to post by okbmd


Yes, you should.

Also, how does a collapse that takes out the center supports of a building, cause the building to collapse beginning at the CRASH ZONE? How does it also allow parts of the core to remain standing after the collapse?

Spire anyone?

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by stirling

 

I find it quite fascinating that the officials did not even think of including bombs in the "official investigation"and that it was only airplanes that supposedly took down the towers.Just by ignoring this fact makes me suspicious,especially since bombs were used the first time the towers were attacked.I find the eyewitnesses(firemen,and others that were there)very credible witnesses,I mean come on these people were up close and personal when this happened and I'm quite sure that the NYC firemen know what bombs sounds like.

Yes, a BOMB (not plural) was placed in the WTC parking area. Guess what? Not a single piece of core columns were damaged. And it was heard THROUGHOUT the WTC complex.

Now, why would terrorists waste their time and risk being caught when they could just park a 767 into the building from the outside?

Makes no sense.

ETA: How many FDNY members actually believe there were bombs in the WTC? Any of them? How about ONE?!?!

reply to post by FDNY343


I don't understand the point of your opening line . Yes I should , what ?

I honestly believe there were bombs SOMEWHERE in the WTC complex that detonated that day for I can come up with no other explanation for there being debris, broken glass and smoke in the LOBBY - before anything fell. Many many firemen-testimonies report this.

Originally posted by ANOK
[
In a real investigation EVERYTHING is looked at.

Especially when you have buildings completely collapsing, WTC7 into its own footprint, that in itself is evidence of explosives. Or at least enough to warrant an investigation into explosives.

If 7WTC fell into it's footprint, how did 3 OTHER buildings suffer EXTREME damage, one on it's ROOF?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

In other words, still absolutely no evidence that any of the buildings lost that day were a result of controlled demolitions.

Were they actually looking??
And I'm pretty sure they found evidence of wires unless the building had no power..

So, are the dozens of people with the FBI, ATF and other state, local, and national LE agencies are too stupid to tell the difference between det cord and copper wire?

How do you explain that?

reply to post by mnemeth1


There is something fishy about this video. Everyone seems to calm and composed in the background. Its before WTC7 collapsed supposedly but after the towers had collapsed but everyone is neat and clean. Anyone within a few blocks of the WTC after the collapse was covered in dust. But not this guy or anyone else.

Not buying it.

reply to post by FDNY343

If 7WTC fell into it's footprint, how did 3 OTHER buildings suffer EXTREME damage, one on it's ROOF?

Debris from WTC 1&2...That's how...

Originally posted by gandalphthegrey

Originally posted by starless and bible black
That's just one eyewitness. For every one of these witnesses, there are twelve daves or hoopers who were also there. You know what I mean.

How dare you refute this . If you watch Loose Change , even firefighters were filmed at the scene recounting how they saw a series of detonations prior to the collapse of the towers . These guys were heroes . Are you going to refute their claims too . people like you make me sick .

Yes, I do when they are taken out of context and quotemined.

Tell me, the FF in the Naudet video (the one LC pillaged), does he describe the building AS it was collapsing, or does he describe it BEFORE the WTC collapsed?

Can you point me to a single member of FDNY who believes there were bombs in the WTC?

I'll wait.