9/11 Survivor surfed debris of collapsing tower

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That statement is patently false. Maybe in your mind and in your opinion there's enough pieces to rule out explosives, but the reality is that is completely false and inaccurate.

You are right, the statement is patently false, so let me rephrase it:


There are enough pieces for anyone that maters (experts on the subect) to rule out thermite or explosives.

This indeed does not include anonymous people on internet fora that have next no expertise or knowledge on the subject. They are indeed often missing a couple of essential pieces.

Evidence doesn't consist of only the physical kind. Evidence also consists of audio/video recordings and witness testimony. We don't need the physical pieces of explosives to prove there were explosives. There are enough videos and witness testimony to prove explosives were used at the WTC.

This is patently false. Explosions in no way mean explosives were used. You have been told this before, and you choose to ignore this essential piece of information. That is why you come to this faulty conclusion.

Quick example: Building in delft that collapsed due to fire. An explosion so big occurred that windows of surrounding buildings broke. According to your flawed line of reasoning, explosives were used. Do you really believe this? Or do you choose to use the fallacy "special pleading?

Numerous witness saw flashes with popping sounds on the lower floors of the towers while the buildings were collapsing up above. Numerous witnesses saw, heard, and felt explosions. Numerous witnesses heard timed booms as both towers collapsed.

You can hear explosions in video from almost two miles away. And you can see some of those explosions in the form of isolated ejections:

Anyone can sit in their armchair all day long and attempt to explain those isolated ejections away as mere puffs of air from floors compressing together. But anyone who knows how the floors were constructed will immediately know that it's not possible for something like that to happen.

However, I can show image after image of isolated ejections from controlled demolitions all day long. One can hypothesize on what the isolated ejections are caused by, but when explosions and flashes are present, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the isolated ejections are from explosives being detonated at the WTC, just as isolated ejections are from explosives being detonated in controlled demolitions.

So, no, there aren't anywhere near enough pieces to rule out explosives. In fact, every single piece of evidence indicates that explosives are the only explanation.

All this is based on your flawed line of reasoning so is worthless.

Anyone who thinks explosives were not used on 9/11 are actually contradicting the President's own words.



So if no explosives were used that means the witnesses are mistaken. First responders are mistaken. Those crazy "truthers" are mistaken, and the President himself is mistaken.

Please can anyone tell me how one can use "explosives on a point high enough to prevent people from escaping" and yet there are no explosions? How does that happen exactly?

Originally posted by MrWendal
Anyone who thinks explosives were not used on 9/11 are actually contradicting the President's own words.

Excellent. Bush is a complete moron and I couldn't be happier to disagree with him.

So if no explosives were used that means the witnesses are mistaken. First responders are mistaken. Those crazy "truthers" are mistaken, and the President himself is mistaken.

Actually not a single first responder or witness has ever talked about seeing explosives in any form. They've only talked about explosions.

Please can anyone tell me how one can use "explosives on a point high enough to prevent people from escaping" and yet there are no explosions? How does that happen exactly?

You use a plane. The impact itself is essentially an explosion, followed by the fireball itself.

reply to post by NWOwned


The towers were literally made of steel beams and trusses. Pick which one you think could hit a window.

I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but it will really help to slow down on the assumptions. We keep starting from literally square one, and then we jump forward to some area that logic could not have brought us.

Originally posted by -PLB-
There are enough pieces for anyone that maters (experts on the subect) to rule out thermite or explosives.

I think you meant to say in your book and your opinion. I'm pretty sure I corrected you on this in my previous post as well.

You wish to accept only those experts that matter to you and what you wish to believe in. There are other experts, many more, in fact, that have come out against the official conspiracy theory than have come out in support of it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
All this is based on your flawed line of reasoning so is worthless.

This statement takes the cake. Because you can't disprove my "flawed line of reasoning", you just simply dismiss all of the evidence? Wow.


For the record, there's no flaw in my line of reasoning when all of the evidence suggests controlled demolition:

* Flashes seen by multiple witnesses going up, down and around both towers on the lower to middle levels of the towers while they were collapsing above. The flashes also had popping sounds associated with them. (Flashes going up, down and around a building with popping sounds have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions.)

* Isolated ejections. (Isolated ejections have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions.)

* Timed / synchronous booms. (Timed / synchronous booms have only ever been heard in controlled demolitions.)


I ask you to prove me wrong. Show me another building collapse that exhibits flashes, isolated ejections, and timed booms that is not from a controlled demolition. If you can, then I'll never say that the towers were brought down by explosives for as long as I live.

Until then, that is what happened based on all available evidence and testimony. And I'll never waiver from that position because I know there are no other building collapses that exhibit all of the signs of controlled demolitions, but really aren't controlled demolitions.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Yet the top sections of either tower never stayed together in one piece to actually crush either building. Not to mention that the top section of the south tower tilted and was destroyed in mid air. And thus not able to crush the lower part of the building.

But the mass remains. Bonez, do not fall into the same line ANOK used to in thinking the mass just vanished during the collapse. Also due to the design, which i thought you would be well read in, it allowed for the collapse to occur the way it did. Mass does not evaporate into nothing. Also, the top section, would have required enormous amounts of explosives to be destroyed in mid-air. But we see it tilted and fell down, and it was covered by dust from the remainder of the collapse. The hanging floors and exterior columns are what caused the collapse to happen.

He said he heard loud noise from above. Explosives are loud.

So does 100+ floors collapsing. Are we falling into the 9/11 truth mantra of loud noise = explosives again?

Many controlled demolitions employ two types of explosives to bring a building down. They use a few powerful explosives (isolated ejections) and then lots of smaller explosives. The towers employed the same. Several powerful explosives (isolated ejections) and dozens, if not hundreds of smaller explosives, which was the loud roar everyone heard as the towers collapsed.

Interesting thing about those "ejections". They gain velocity as time progresses. Explosives do NOT do this. Its been how many years since we have mentioned it. Also, the "ejections" are isolated, and do nothing in terms of any structural damage. Can you tell me where exactly these explosives were planted in order to cause such an "ejection"? Also why did they decide to come out this one window, and not affect others, and do NO damage to the exterior column's aluminum cladding? I'd figure such a powerful blast to sever the, well, whatever structural member you believe is being cut, would blow the cladding right off. Dont see that happening. Also, you have to explain just how they'd rig so many explosives, and do it without a soul noticing. Lots of holes in this idea of yours. makes a sieve look sea-worthy.

That roar can be heard miles away, which indicates the roar was caused by explosives, not by building parts crashing into each other.

and where exactly were the initial blasts prior to collapse? You know, like in an actual demolition? Must have been the quietest set of demo charges ever. My old favorite. Hush-a-booms. You do recall how loud those blasts are prior to any sort of movement? How can you forget?

So, the loud noise he heard above was not only building parts crashing into each other, but a much louder noise of dozens/hundreds of smaller explosives being detonated.

Pardon the eyeroll, but, 100+ floors crashing down is going to be quieter? Really? again, just where were these explosives planted? These questions have never been answered by anyone in the truth movement. not even the self appointed god Griffin or Gage has ever done so. All we get is, it looked like demolition, ergo it IS demolition. Ya, that bird aint gonna fly. hasnt flown yet. Hasnt even reached the runway. In fact, it just exploded and burned in the hanger.

Originally posted by NWOwned
I'm trying hard here to visualize what you are suggesting.

First of all, what 'falling steel beam'?

You mean from the core? One of the vertical core beams? You got any evidence of ANY core beam at all falling other than straight down? You have evidence any core beams "fell over"?

Seems to me, all we have evidence for as it pertains to core beams is falling pretty much straight down as with the 'spire'. Wouldn't it be doubly hard then to 'visualize' beams doing anything other than the spire when none of those core beams fell sideways or over?

we sure do!



Pay attention to the left side of the screen in the dust. You can see the core columns falling over AFTER the initial collapse. Also behind WTC7 and at the base of the falling tower, you can see the core columns tilting over and falling too. As for why the spire fell "down" this video may show the mechanics of that:

Second, if the building is collapsing on the inside and the window gets poked out and debris slides down a beam channel (this what you mean?) then how do you figure that would happen? That a beam from higher up 'falls over' and punctures a floor or two (or 4 or 6) BELOW and then angles toward the lower window? Isn't the collapse wave (if I can say that) ahead of these 'falling beams' (we have zero evidence for) on the way down?

Like if the 'collapse wave' is floors impacting floors then the isolated expulsion of material would be just as the higher floor(s) strike the floor above the expulsion right? There's no time for 'falling beams' to do the job etc.

Also, are you saying you don't think the collapsing and pancaking floors are the cause of the expulsions? This is generally where I'm at, if it was floors impacting floors there would be more ejections in many more windows. (But alas I'm not going for the lone poking beams theory.)

well, i would say that the window blown out could have been from the pressurized air from the collapse which was being compressed by the collapse being channeled by either elevator shafts or HVAC systems. There was evidence of this earlier. All it takes is one window. If it was explosives, well then, that whole floor would be blown out.

reply to post by GenRadek


ahh your sir have the greatest vid i think exists of 9/11

the spire.

60 stories straight down into dust captured on camera.

notice how the base of the spire doest buckle like your tower collapse? notice the horizontal movement in the 2nd vid. notice none of that in wtc spire.

the reason people lived who were that far down the tower was because the towers never fell they were dustified..

i know people here take a lot of flack for denouncing the explosive/thermite answer but the spire is just to strange to ignore (and a lot of people will)

i think the (people involved in 9/11) used many illusions that day to confuse and distort the story later. including false bombs,thermite,and a host of other deceptions because they were testing a weapon not known to us. all the false starts were planted to have us arguing . what if they used all these during 9/11?

reply to post by Another_Nut


Ah yes and what magical explosive dustifies steel, pray tell? we have been wondering this for almost a decade, and am surprised the military has not been using this fantastic piece of technology yet. Dustifiying steel. Wow!

Originally posted by GenRadek
9/11 Survivor Surfed debris

Eleven years ago, Pasquale Buzzelli somehow survived the attacks of Sept. 11 when he rode a wave of debris while falling nearly 20 stories inside the collapsing North Tower of the World Trade Center.

I'm a little surprised this hasnt been posted on ATS. It is a very interesting story of survival, and yeah, it does seem a little out there, but it is entirely plausible.

Also gives us a rare account of what was happening inside the Tower as it fell. It indicates, to me, that as the tower was collapsing, the exterior columns were being forced out by the force of the top section coming down. It severed the floors themselves from the horizontal forces of the exterior columns, causing the floors to drop and giving this guy a ride of his life. Also gives us another interesting tidbit. NO mention of explosives. If there were, this guy wouldnt be here to talk about it.

If that story is true then it absolutely confirms my suspicion, and many others, that the towers were "dustified" by some kind of exotic energy weapon. If you watch carefully the towers look like they turned into a heaping mass of dust. So if he was in the tower and all of a sudden the whole thing turned to dust, well he might have that slim chance of living as the dust would actually cushin his fall. If it was anything else, whether planes causing the weakeing of beams, causing a so called pancaking, or controlled demolition, then he would have been dead for sure. As the big pieces of concrete would grind him to a pulp.

Watch these two videos. There's nothing left but dust dust and more dust. That's not what you end up with in a pancaking or a controlled demo. You'd end up with boulders and rocks, not all dust like you see below....

watch...



Look it's all mostly dustified. One minute that concrete is so hard that it's as hard or harder than solid stone. The next minute the whole building, doesn't turn to boulder and large rock sized pieces as it should. Instead every inch turns to dust. Like that's not what happens in any normal building collapse. So it must have been some exotic energy weapon as explained by Dr Judy Wood.





She starts at 3:24 (she's got some kind of doctoral in material physics and whatever else...There's a gazillion videos of her on youtube as her theory is fairly sound) (6:59 don't miss that photo she shows!)

reply to post by r2d246


Could you elaborate on what is in the dust? Dust is an extremely general term. If dust refers to plaster, concrete, and fireproofing going into the air, then that makes sense. However, if you are implying that metal was being disintegrated into airborne metal particles, that would be a very strange thing to suggest. Mind elaborating? I'm tired of such general terms.

reply to post by GenRadek


You can explain away the evidence however you see fit to help you sleep at night. But, my request stilll goes unchallenged:

Show me another building collapse that exhibits flashes, isolated ejections, and timed booms that is not from a controlled demolition.

reply to post by GenRadek


i denounce the "explosive" theory though i think explosives were used in an effort to "hollywoodize" the destruction .so instead of us talking about "who dun it" we talk in endless circles over "how was it dun" . and since we will never know how without an investigation. and that will never happen because the 9/11 community that spans the globe is fractioned into fighting ingroups.

all this while behind the scenes:

the real masters have used what i think was a black op, to test fire a weapon of incredible destruction. a weapon able to turn 60+ stories of steel that managed to stay standing for over 15 seconds into dust before my eyes. a weapon able to turn 2 110 storie buildings into a rubble pile less than 10. i wont even say it was the Gov because we simple dont know. but it was someone.

and in full disclosure i have a personal stake in 9/11. i had to drive to NY after 9/11 with his son, a good friend of mine, to help in the aftermath of his father ,Lt. Peter L Freund Engine 55.being killed in the north tower. i will never forget.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


this is a crazy line of thinking. it doesnt matter if explosives were used . it is impossible for explosives to turn 60 stories of steel to dust but neither do building collapses. also i thing a HUGE clue was all the paper. its because whatever was acting on the steel and and filing cabinets and all the other metal and concrete in the building vanished while the paper was scattered everywhere. because all that dust contained the paper.

when you take away the impossible whatever remains

explosives - nope
collapse - nope

time for "out of the box" thinkng people

reply to post by r2d246


But there was pancaked debris found in the pile. There were thousands of tons of debris found from the WTC. It was not dustified. They found floors stacked and squeezed together during clean up.

Dr. Judy Wood is a joke. And I mean that in the best way possible. She use pictures of cars that were burnt by debris and fires that were towed to other locations as "PROOF!!!!111!!" of special exotic weapons used. That is dishonest at best, ignorance and stupidity at its worst. She makes up non-existant special magical weapons with virtually NO proof, just hunches and random ideas, and lots of "looks like, sounds like, acts like," stuff. Oh yeah and grainy video, the truth movement's defacto "evidence" producer.

reply to post by Another_Nut

time for "out of the box" thinkng people

so what was it space beams? nukes? and fake airplanes?

reply to post by GenRadek


I am also a resident of Oklahoma city and went through that bombing as well where there was pancaking. Please show evidence of pancaking and all of this debris please.

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

this is a crazy line of thinking. it doesnt matter if explosives were used . it is impossible for explosives to turn 60 stories of steel to dust but neither do building collapses. also i thing a HUGE clue was all the paper. its because whatever was acting on the steel and and filing cabinets and all the other metal and concrete in the building vanished while the paper was scattered everywhere. because all that dust contained the paper.

when you take away the impossible whatever remains

explosives - nope
collapse - nope

time for "out of the box" thinkng people

edit on 22-9-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

A huge thing for me, don't know if it's a clue (yet), is the tipping top of the South Tower.

No no, not the fact that it tips, and not even the fact that it appears to right itself and disintegrate in mid air while falling. No, it's how it was the top of the building and well above 'plane' damage, and yet when you look at it falling as it angles and pushes through the rest it is smoking of dust, you follow?

Literally the whole top - which was pristine and together seconds before with hardly any dust on it and made of steel, glass and aluminum, starts "frothing" insanely, like the whole top section FROTHS. When moments ago was pristine and you could've even stood on the observation deck if it were open.

Frothing Dust.

And I really don't think it's just picking up dust from below, NO, it appears to be dusting OF ITSELF completely.

Edit: And of course this 'overall frothing' doesn't happen in natural 'collapses' or explosive demolitions either etc.


Cheers

reply to post by GenRadek


Wait! Not so fast...

I actually tried to cover this in my post by saying I didn't think the speed of the 'collapse wave' allowed for the damage of "isolated ejections" to have been created by falling rogue beams and the Spire video actually backs me up.

The leaning and 'falling' observed in the Spire clip occur AFTER the floors have 'collapsed'.

So the Spire could magically split into 13 vertical sections and all fall over horizontally and then vertical again for all I care - falling beams would be too late to cause any lower floor window poking.

Many people seem to think and characterize the towers as like 2 big vertical piles of Jenga building blocks of steel, glass and aluminum etc. Not seeming to take into account the fact that these pieces of various material weren't just laying on each other all the way up in handy pop out sections, but all bolted and welded together, to themselves and to each other.

What happened to the rest of the core adjacent to and above the Spire? People could think the whole thing fell over or fell down (in many tiny attached to nothing it seems pieces) but there's no evidence really of either.

You seem to concede that despite your belief it wasn't explosives that the 'ejections' are of a pressurized variety. They look pressurized to me too.

But if it were explosives, like you indicate, there would be even more of these 'ejections' no doubt. On this I agree. Should see more of them really on more floors maybe.

The second thing though is if it's pancaking floors I also think there should be more ejections on more floors in a similar way to extensive explosives etc.

I don't think the core fell over in successive convenient sections progressively as it fell. That some remnants appeared to lean and fall when that's all that was left standing has no bearing on the missing pieces above that we have no clear video of IMO.

I think the falling beam debris window poking theory is incorrect.

Indeed, the horizontal 'ejections' look similar and look "pressurized" and not merely that of debris falling out a broken window or two.


Cheers

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by r2d246

 

Could you elaborate on what is in the dust? Dust is an extremely general term. If dust refers to plaster, concrete, and fireproofing going into the air, then that makes sense. However, if you are implying that metal was being disintegrated into airborne metal particles, that would be a very strange thing to suggest. Mind elaborating? I'm tired of such general terms.

Concrete dust