# Firemen recall "detonations" in South Tower:

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'

Video: http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/..._firehouse.mpg

Tons More:
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulle...ic.php?t=11233


I'd post more, but some of you would whine. Loudly. This way, you can dismiss it at a distance. Without even reading it.

For all your chest beating, your posted exchange means nothing at all.

Structural Engineers and Failure analysists from several nations have explained the cause of the collapse.

The demolition scenario doesn't even pass the sniff test.

A tornado bearing down on you can sound like an onrushing train. That doesn't mean it is one. People's perceptions, especially in panic situations, are worse than useless.

Funny how in the weeks and months before the attack, nobody saw anyone wiring any of the buildings with explosives. Funny how not one of the massive crew of people who must have been involved has developed a guilty conscience and come forward to confess.

Actually it's not - 'cos it didn't happen.

How utterly predictable of you.

So, no one confessed, and no one saw a black op in action? That's your case?

But I'm glad you dismiss the eyewitnesses at the WTCs. And all of the video evidence.

And present, in its stead, nothing?

we are not just talking about any joe shmoes off the street--L Cacchioli's description included the phrase "detonators the kind you would use to bring down a building"--albert turi was even more specific and used the term "secondary explosions" and even claimed they were responsible for taking the lives of his men before he was killed that day--
************************************************** ******
"Shortly after 9 o'clock ... [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit - the first crash that took place - he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.

Two WTC impacts. Three explosions reported.
One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device - he thinks, he speculates - was probably planted in the building. ... But the bottom line is that he, Albert Turi, said that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions, and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in those towers when the explosions took place."
9/11 nbc news broadcast
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
[Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis...503_bombs.html

This does not make your demolitions claims any more convincing.

Your non-argument doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

However, I posted a link to a gigantic page of quotes from people who say they saw and heard bombs go off. I said the page would be ignored, and not addressed, and it was. Predictable. No refutation. No analysis. Just another dismissal without cause. Weak...

I'd post them all here, but I'm sure I'd be banned, or threatened with banning. For a board that claims to want discourse, you people sure restrict people's abilities to present a case.

Stick your head in the sand all you like. You're not really helping your cause any with this tact.

Evidence for an argument is always welcome. You can certainly post links to pages, preferably with a short explanation (of course, you should expect your references to be evaluated critically). For copyright reasons, there is a restriction on large cut-n-paste operations. While evidence and logical arguments are welcome here, cursing and ad-hominem attacks are not.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

It would be nice if they were evaluated at all, instead of roundly dismissed without investigation.

Of copyrighted material. Links, as far as I know, are not copyrighted. Are they?


Yes, yes. I stopped cursing. How is it that you only see "ad hominems" from me (Cite?), and not the many peppered throughout the responses to me?

Selective judgment on your part?

I can already tell I'm having too much of an impact, and I will be banned soon, even though I am not cursing or engaging in "ad hominems". But that's just a poor reflection on you, and this board's supposed desire for discourse on these subjects.

What happened to the planes? What happened to the people?

And, in fact, the seismologists they trot out every time there's an earthquake in LA say it feels/sounds like a big truck. However, they are experts and know it isn't.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

And do you also have a link to quotes from people who witnessed the "bombs" being planted? Oh...that's right...it was done at night, when no one would witness it. (They must have "payed off" the night watchman.)

And what "cause" would that be?? The only "cause" I'm involved in is rationality.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Thanks for providing the perfect introduction .

This is going to be repetitive, but then it is increasingly becoming clearer that responding to 911 CT believers is like

As with most of the 'points' bought up by JG the witness statements he has linked to have been looked at by the webmaster of the 911Myths site (See:Here). He has also looked into the 'pre-planted' explosives story, but rather than providing another link, I'll suggest that readers start exploring from the point I've linked to.

This Coroners Report, deals with a 1997 'controlled implosion' that went badly wrong and as a result someone was killed. If nothing else, this gives some idea of the planning and engineering work that is supposed to go into such events.

__________________
We all know those Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...

John Sladek, The New Apocrypha, pg 34.

You called me a moron in ASCE thread.

He's been banned.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

agitation over substance
marvin bush sat on the board of diretors for securcom the companythat held the security contracts for the entire wtc complex as well as dulles airport--their 2yr contract for the wtc complex ended on 9/11/01--after which pointthe job was to be handed over to ex-fbi special agent jonh o'neil who had been forced off the investigation of bin laden by a presidential executive order W199I-WF-213589 signed by "w" who many believed he leaked and was killed his first day at his new job on 9/11/01
please first you use agitation now your using diversion--both signs of an unwillingness to accept the facts presented before you

What a surprise. I figured it would have happened last night.

All of this still fails to get around the physical impossibility of installing explosives throughout the complex without anyone noticing. Thus it is mere innuendo.

It also fails to address the fact that Structrual, Civil, and Failure Analysis Engineers throughout the world are mostly in agreement with the NIST report, which does not involve explosives.

Interesting to see that most of the claims made by our troll turn out to be based on incomplete and selective quotation. I'd just like to add that it doesn't pay to confuse an observation e.g. a report of an explosion-like noise, with an interpretation, e.g., that the noise was a bomb going off.

The human ear can be a valuable diagnostic instrument- after all, doctors don't use stethoscopes just for the fun of goosing patients with the cold end- but to serve as such an instrument it requires training.

If you were to play me the sound of a heart murmur as heard through a stethoscope I wouldn't have anything more intelligent to say than "what a crummy drum sound", but an experienced physician hearing the same thing would recognize it for what it was and refer you to a cardiologist.

OTOH, when I'm called into a control room by some overpaid knob-twister who's complaining of a "ground hum", I can listen to the offending noise for a few seconds and predict, with a a great deal of confidence, whether I need to:

look for a ground loop
look for an open-circuited ground connection
look for a faulty power supply producing excessive ripple
go shut off the air conditioning in the live room

The odds are that the doctor who diagnosed the heart murmur couldn't do that.

The difference is training. The doctor has learned how to interpret the sounds heard through the stethoscope as they relate to what's going on in your chest; I've learned to interpret the sounds heard in the monitor speakers as they relate to what's going on in the electronics.

Anyone can make an observation. "A loud bang", "a funny swishing sound" and "a deep smooth 'hmmm' with no treble to it" are all observations, and as long as we remember that they're raw data and not conclusions we're okay. It's when we want to interpret them that the question of knowledge and experience becomes critical.

To interpret those three observations as "bomb", "heart murmur" and "ground loop" imputes a degree of expertise to the person making the interpretation. If that person doesn't actually have the relevant knowledge and experience, it's a mistake to take their interpretation as proved.

__________________
Please enjoy your trip through this door.

i suppose "if" this were true you could offer names and credentials similar to the ones being presented to you day after day-- do you need the link to prof jones paper? please send it to the highest credentialed engineer you can muster and post his response as soon as he has evaluated it

You have it backwards. Not only did Graham2001 link to something that has relevance to the topic, he even paraphrased his reason for doing so.

Even excluding the illogical motivations espoused by CTers for why this was done, this whole 9/11 nonsense does not add up. Maybe that's why people that peddle this hokum are content to try to lose these type of discussions in linked minutiae gleaned from CT woo sites that live for this stuff. I think the reason CTers concentrate on the collapse of the WTC is because those old stories about how the planes were remote-controlled was laughed right off the net .. so, if you need to make 9/11 "conspiratorial," what's left?

Pre-setting explosives and even a successful implosion are not impossible engineering feats. It's just that it's not mistake-proof and would be an ill-advised risk by the nefarious PTB. After all, we still had the planes crash into the towers. IMO CTers put too much stock in the collapse of the towers and overlook the reaction most of us in this country had prior to the collapse that morning. Remember this is the so-called cabal that couldn't even "produce" WMD in Iraq, yet we are told to believe that they managed to somehow pre-set explosives without anyone the wiser and pull off a demolition so perfect that most mainstream experts that investigated the site were/are fooled.

That seems a little thin-skinned. I note in the now locked thread, many regular posters were quite insulting to him, with impunity.

Is there a double standard at work, here?

ok where did he paraphrase the relavence? how can a 97' coroners report of an unconnected demoltion casualty give any credence to the planning or engineering that it took to orchestrate 9/11?
please -you have ignored the obvious reasons that were presented already--that their intention is "not" to find wmd--finding the wmds would eliminate the threat they so cravenly desire--there would be no "no-bid" contracts for haliburton and the carlyle group and lockheed wouldnt be having such a great year--its much "more profitable" to never find them

Insults and Ad Hominems are not allowed on this board. The thickness of one's skin does not play into it.

I said the same thing to Jason:

Please quote exactly what insults were used. Use the report feature if you wish.

[QUOTE=Jason Gortician]#Video: http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/..._firehouse.mpg
[QUOTE]

There's no video. Only an HTML page.

Try again.

[QUOTE=genebujold][QUOTE=Jason Gortician]#Video: http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/..._firehouse.mpg
I went there, and found a link to this. I don't know what to make of the videos there, though.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...eos/index.html

Might I suggest you read the pages you arrive at?

Sorry, but these mpegs are without valid codecs. Either I get an "HTML" if I try to download, or an "invalid codec" if I try to open.

The poster is going to have to conform to Internet standards!

I smell socks.

Between KookBuster and kookbreaker, I'm confused.

Nope. I've read it. Its an amazing compilation of junk. I am stunned that the man was able to get a doctorate in physics with the boners he makes. I honestly think he was mentioning laws at random to impress the less informed.

I just ran it past a simple, Civil EIT, and he laughed and laughed. I won't be bothering with searching for anyone with higher credentials.
They've already made their opinions clear with their analyses. None of Jones foolish physics and imagined things are going to make a diffference. Even engineers in China, which is not exactly sympathetic to the US, have pretty much agreed with NIST: http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm