Political Crossfire Forums

[Patriot911]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: Patriot911 wrote: No pancake theory? Yeah, especially when the firefighters in the building heard each floor collapse as the building came down on top of them. :roll:

No they heard boom, boom,boom,boom....

As usual you have to lie your butt off to try to make even one simple point and you STILL mess it up. :lol:

Here is the whole quote

You could actually hear the floors hitting one another – boom, boom, boom – and I thought to myself 'oh s**t, this is it, we didn't make it.' Fire-fighter Sal D'Agostino

You lose yet again.

[homerjay_s]

Patriot911 wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: Patriot911 wrote: No pancake theory? Yeah, especially when the firefighters in the building heard each floor collapse as the building came down on top of them. :roll:

No they heard boom, boom,boom,boom....

As usual you have to lie your butt off to try to make even one simple point and you STILL mess it up. :lol:

Here is the whole quote

You could actually hear the floors hitting one another – boom, boom, boom – and I thought to myself 'oh s**t, this is it, we didn't make it.' Fire-fighter Sal D'Agostino

You lose yet again.

Here are many eye witness accounts that support the controlled demolition theory.

Quote: [url=http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html]"It [WTC 2] started exploding," said Ross Milanytch, 57, who works at nearby Chase Manhattan Bank. "It was about the 70th floor. And each second another floor exploded out for about eight floors, before the cloud obscured it all." [ASNE] "I saw small explosions on each floor." [Wing TV]

"It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down." [Ed Cachia - Firefighter [Engine 53]]

One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed. Each tower had six central support columns. [American Free Press]

"We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions." [Rich Banaciski - Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]

"When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down."

Q. "Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?"

A. "No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too." [Stephen Gregory - Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)]

"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." [Karin Deshore - Captain (E.M.S.)]

"It was a frigging noise. 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" That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down." [Daniel Rivera - Paramedic (E.M.S.)]

As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out. [Joseph Meola - Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]

The sight of the jumpers was horrible and the turning around and seeing that first tower come down was unbelievable. The sound it made. As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive, a wall. That's about it. Any questions? [James Drury - Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)][/url]

[Patriot911]

Yet not a single one of them believes explosives were in the buildings. Strange. Why do you think that is? Loyalty to a government that if the allegations are true killed 300 of their fellow firefighters? :roll:

And why didn't they see the same thing in both towers? From one of the interviews you show above here is the description of the second building coming down.

Quote: So I was kind of looking around over there, up and down West Street and looking on Vesey and I just remember there was a police officer standing there and he just started saying, it's starting to lean, it's starting to lean. I remember looking up, looking at the second building and just seeing it starting to move. I just started running back down Vesey towards the water again to where I had come from. That's -- the second building came down there.

Why hasn't anyone been able to find evidence of explosives?

Why didn't the demolition crews who KNOW what damage due to explosive charges looks like notice anything?

Explain the miracle in stairwell B. How can you blow the lower floors when the stairwell is RIGHT NEXT to the support columns? Don't you think people just a few feet away would notice the tremendous explosion it would take to sever the support columns?

So how about some answers.

[homerjay_s]

Patriot911 wrote: Yet not a single one of them believes explosives were in the buildings. Strange. Why do you think that is? Loyalty to a government that if the allegations are true killed 300 of their fellow firefighters? :roll:

Umm, I think you have a reading comprehension problem. Where did you interpret that not one of them believes explosives were in the buildings? Your blatant inability to make a counterpoint without lying speaks volumes to your agenda.

patriots911 wrote: And why didn't they see the same thing in both towers? From one of the interviews you show above here is the description of the second building coming down.

Quote: So I was kind of looking around over there, up and down West Street and looking on Vesey and I just remember there was a police officer standing there and he just started saying, it's starting to lean, it's starting to lean. I remember looking up, looking at the second building and just seeing it starting to move. I just started running back down Vesey towards the water again to where I had come from. That's -- the second building came down there.

What is your point exactly? What is it that you're trying to say with this quote? The guy saw the tower collapse and...what?

patriot911 wrote: Why hasn't anyone been able to find evidence of explosives?

[url=http://www.serendipity.li/wtc5.htm]Seismic Evidence
But although some kind of "black" technology may have been used in the demolition of the Twin Towers, we do not need to establish this, since their collapse can be explained as a controlled demolition brought about by explosives. In fact (as Christopher Bollyn was the first to point out in his Open Letter) evidence for massive explosions was captured by a seismograph located 34 km from the WTC:



A "sharp spike of short duration" is how an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.

The seismograph which recorded this data was operated by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. A report was published by the American Geophysical Union in the November 20 issue of Eos, but the authors misinterpreted the data. They assumed, and thus reported, that the two largest signals were caused by the collapses of the Twin Towers. But:


During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage — but not causing significant ground shaking. — Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, Director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research, as quoted in Earth Institute News[/url]

there's also lots of vidoe evidence of explosions here

patriots911 wrote: Why didn't the demolition crews who KNOW what damage due to explosive charges looks like notice anything?

Who says they didn't? Why did all the steel in from the columns get given to New York city based scrap metal companies and immediately sold to foreign countries without any forensic testing?

patriots911 wrote: Explain the miracle in stairwell B. How can you blow the lower floors when the stairwell is RIGHT NEXT to the support columns? Don't you think people just a few feet away would notice the tremendous explosion it would take to sever the support columns?

I'm not familiar with the "stairwell B miracle". I'm not certain what point you're trying to make here. Please elaborate as to the implied meaning and and the significance of it in debunking the possibility of a controlled demolition bringing down the towers.

patriot911 wrote: So how about some answers.

So how about some?

[Patriot911]

homerjay_s wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Yet not a single one of them believes explosives were in the buildings. Strange. Why do you think that is? Loyalty to a government that if the allegations are true killed 300 of their fellow firefighters? :roll:

Umm, I think you have a reading comprehension problem. Where did you interpret that not one of them believes explosives were in the buildings? Your blatant inability to make a counterpoint without lying speaks volumes to your agenda.

For someone who can't comprehend English, it is pretty funny you accuse others. :lol:

See, I don't have to interpret what they wrote in their testimony whereas you do. You have to believe that when they say they heard booms that they were caused by explosives. You have to believe that when they say something like it sounded LIKE explosives that they REALLY meant it WAS explosives.

I will say it again. If a fire fighter REALLY thought there were explosives causing the "booms", why have they not come forward to question the official theory?

homerjay_s wrote: patriots911 wrote: And why didn't they see the same thing in both towers? From one of the interviews you show above here is the description of the second building coming down.

Quote: So I was kind of looking around over there, up and down West Street and looking on Vesey and I just remember there was a police officer standing there and he just started saying, it's starting to lean, it's starting to lean. I remember looking up, looking at the second building and just seeing it starting to move. I just started running back down Vesey towards the water again to where I had come from. That's -- the second building came down there.

What is your point exactly? What is it that you're trying to say with this quote? The guy saw the tower collapse and...what?

So if he believed it were brought down by explosives, why didn't he say he heard the explosives going off? All he says is he and the officer saw the building leaning. Tell me. What kind of explosives cause a building to lean before it collapses?

homerjay_s wrote: patriot911 wrote: Why hasn't anyone been able to find evidence of explosives?

Seismic Evidence
But although some kind of "black" technology may have been used in the demolition of the Twin Towers, we do not need to establish this, since their collapse can be explained as a controlled demolition brought about by explosives. In fact (as Christopher Bollyn was the first to point out in his Open Letter) evidence for massive explosions was captured by a seismograph located 34 km from the WTC:
Which has been debunked by the seismologists in charge of taking those readings. They were interpreted by people incapable of correctly analyzing the seismographs. Also, other seismographs were in the Manhattan area specifically for demolitions work, yet they did not record explosives going off.

homerjay_s wrote: A "sharp spike of short duration" is how an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.
So now you believe nuclear bombs were used? Tell me. Where is the radiation?

homerjay_s wrote: The seismograph which recorded this data was operated by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. A report was published by the American Geophysical Union in the November 20 issue of Eos, but the authors misinterpreted the data. They assumed, and thus reported, that the two largest signals were caused by the collapses of the Twin Towers. But:

During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage — but not causing significant ground shaking. — Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, Director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research, as quoted in Earth Institute News

Yet nowhere do they say in that article published in EOS that the seismic waves couldn't have been caused by the collapse. In fact they state just the opposite that the waves WERE caused by the collapse. Apparently you can't comprehend the article's English either. Just because they say most of the energy was used to demolish the building doesn't mean enough doesn't go into the ground to set off seismographs.

homerjay_s wrote: there's also lots of vidoe evidence of explosions here

Only if you assume you know exactly what causes the dust clouds. The pancake theory explains the dust clouds just as well as the explosives theory without the issue of people not hearing the charges going off. I am assuming you've been to or seen a controlled demolition? Explosive charges are heard for MILES.

homerjay_s wrote: patriots911 wrote: Why didn't the demolition crews who KNOW what damage due to explosive charges looks like notice anything?

Who says they didn't? Why did all the steel in from the columns get given to New York city based scrap metal companies and immediately sold to foreign countries without any forensic testing?
Because that is a bold faced lie, thats why. The steel was shipped to a holding facility where it was gone over by forensics experts and samples taken. :roll: You could at least CHECK your sources before spouting the same old tired lies.

homerjay_s wrote: patriots911 wrote: Explain the miracle in stairwell B. How can you blow the lower floors when the stairwell is RIGHT NEXT to the support columns? Don't you think people just a few feet away would notice the tremendous explosion it would take to sever the support columns?

I'm not familiar with the "stairwell B miracle". I'm not certain what point you're trying to make here. Please elaborate as to the implied meaning and and the significance of it in debunking the possibility of a controlled demolition bringing down the towers.

You had 12 firemen who know what explosives sound like IN the building and trapped in the stairwell of the North tower DURING the collapse. They heard the floors collapsing one into another but no explosives. You've also repeatedly made the claim that the columns at the base were cut. These men were RIGHT NEXT to the columns at the base and heard nothing. If there had been explosives at the base, these men would have been obliterated.

homerjay_s wrote: patriot911 wrote: So how about some answers.

So how about some?

Well, you've done some mighty fine cutting and pasting. How about some real answers now instead of the same old tired stuff that doesn't prove anything? So far all you have is assumptions and faulty conclusions based on those assumptions.

[Omega1]

homer, I like reading your posts, for their comic relief. :rotf:

[citizen_X]

homerjay_s wrote:
A "sharp spike of short duration" is how an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.

Patriot911 wrote
So now you believe nuclear bombs were used? Tell me. Where is the radiation?

From Patriot911s comment right here clearly displays his lack of analyzing any statement. Like any good gov't lackey, their only good for putting words in your mouth, obviously no physics education whatsoever.

I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself, READ IT OVER

[Omega1]

citizen_X wrote: homerjay_s wrote:
A "sharp spike of short duration" is how an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.

Patriot911 wrote
So now you believe nuclear bombs were used? Tell me. Where is the radiation?

From Patriot911s comment right here clearly displays his lack of analyzing any statement. Like any good gov't lackey, their only good for putting words in your mouth, obviously no physics education whatsoever.

I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself, READ IT OVER

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

"How can geologists catch a terrorist? With their instruments, explains Terry Wallace, a geophysicist at the University of Arizona. There are about 16,000 seismometers installed around the world, many of which offer data on freely accessible Web sites. Seismometers detect motion in the Earth, which can be triggered by an earthquake, or possibly explosions.

By learning how to read these signals, Wallace hopes scientists might catch on to suspicious activity.

"We can study these signals and begin to develop a portfolio of different kinds of signatures of explosions," says Wallace. "It will be like have a set of fingerprints."

Geophysicists have already contributed critical data to terrorist investigations. It was geologists who determined there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers — but only the impact of the airplanes and subsequent fires — that contributed to the towers' collapse on Sept. 11".
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020527-secure.htm

[homerjay_s]

Omega1 wrote: homer, I like reading your posts, for their comic relief. :rotf:


Your analytical and expostulative skills are astounding.

[homerjay_s]

Patriot911 wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Yet not a single one of them believes explosives were in the buildings. Strange. Why do you think that is? Loyalty to a government that if the allegations are true killed 300 of their fellow firefighters? :roll:

Umm, I think you have a reading comprehension problem. Where did you interpret that not one of them believes explosives were in the buildings? Your blatant inability to make a counterpoint without lying speaks volumes to your agenda.

For someone who can't comprehend English, it is pretty funny you accuse others. :lol:

I figured I'd give you the chance to actually go back and look at the quotes.

This was the first one.

Quote: "It [WTC 2] started exploding," said Ross Milanytch, 57, who works at nearby Chase Manhattan Bank. "It was about the 70th floor. And each second another floor exploded out for about eight floors, before the cloud obscured it all." [ASNE] "I saw small explosions on each floor." [Wing TV]

here's the third quote

Quote: One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed. Each tower had six central support columns. [American Free Press]

Here's the quote I had listed from the Assistant Commissioner of the FDNY.

Quote: Q. "Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?"

A. "No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too." [Stephen Gregory - Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)]

Along with several other eyewitness accounts of people that all claim to have seen and/or heard explosions and the best you can do is to claim that none of them believe explosives were in the building? Why would they claim that they saw/heard explosives if they don't believe they saw/heard explosives?

patriot911 wrote: See, I don't have to interpret what they wrote in their testimony whereas you do. You have to believe that when they say they heard booms that they were caused by explosives. You have to believe that when they say something like it sounded LIKE explosives that they REALLY meant it WAS explosives.

If you hear a duck quacking and you don't assume it must have been a duck without the being evidence to the contrary, there is something wrong with your mental capacities. If people say they heard and saw explosions, why would I assume that they didn't? Your logic is completely backwards.

patriot911 wrote: I will say it again. If a fire fighter REALLY thought there were explosives causing the "booms", why have they not come forward to question the official theory?

This argument is simply stunning. Your supposition makes no relevant point and shows a tendency for false logical assumptions on your part.

You are first of all assuming that no fire fighters have questioned the official theory, and at the same time using that false assumption as evidence by it's lack of being. You either really really want to believe that no one saw or heard explosions, or you really really want to make others believe that it didn't happen. Clearly, as evidenced by the numerous quotes I listed and a myriad of others, there are many people that experienced the collapses in person that either saw or heard explosions.

For quotes to be on the internet, then certainly they told someone what they thought they heard/saw. In any event, even if there wasn't one quote from one person claiming to have seen or heard explosions, that fact alone would not prove in any way that explosives were not used to take down the towers. If you can't see that there's no point in me even trying to discuss this with you.

patriot911 wrote: homerjay_s wrote: patriots911 wrote: And why didn't they see the same thing in both towers? From one of the interviews you show above here is the description of the second building coming down.

Quote: So I was kind of looking around over there, up and down West Street and looking on Vesey and I just remember there was a police officer standing there and he just started saying, it's starting to lean, it's starting to lean. I remember looking up, looking at the second building and just seeing it starting to move. I just started running back down Vesey towards the water again to where I had come from. That's -- the second building came down there.

What is your point exactly? What is it that you're trying to say with this quote? The guy saw the tower collapse and...what?

So if he believed it were brought down by explosives, why didn't he say he heard the explosives going off? All he says is he and the officer saw the building leaning. Tell me. What kind of explosives cause a building to lean before it collapses?

Another representation of your flawed logical ability. Just because one eye witness account, by someone a few blocks away, doesn't expressly state belief that the collapse was caused by explosives, does not mean that it could not have been a controlled demolition with the use of explosives, nor that no one believes that.

patriot911 wrote: homerjay_s wrote: patriot911 wrote: Why hasn't anyone been able to find evidence of explosives?

Seismic Evidence
But although some kind of "black" technology may have been used in the demolition of the Twin Towers, we do not need to establish this, since their collapse can be explained as a controlled demolition brought about by explosives. In fact (as Christopher Bollyn was the first to point out in his Open Letter) evidence for massive explosions was captured by a seismograph located 34 km from the WTC:
Which has been debunked by the seismologists in charge of taking those readings. They were interpreted by people incapable of correctly analyzing the seismographs. Also, other seismographs were in the Manhattan area specifically for demolitions work, yet they did not record explosives going off.

I suppose you have a link supporting this? I've seen several different accounts of seismographs registering what would have equated to very large underground explosions, large enough to cut the supports of the towers allowing the disintegration and free fall collapse.

patriots911 wrote: homerjay_s wrote: A "sharp spike of short duration" is how an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.
So now you believe nuclear bombs were used? Tell me. Where is the radiation?

I never said they were nuclear bombs. Just because the quote from the site with the seismographic evidence claimed that the seismographic results were similar to how an underground nuclear explosion appears, that does not imply that I or anyone else believes a nuclear explosion was observed.

You really are having some problems with logical reasoning. It's not looking good for you.

[Patriot911]

homerjay_s wrote: Patriot911 wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Yet not a single one of them believes explosives were in the buildings. Strange. Why do you think that is? Loyalty to a government that if the allegations are true killed 300 of their fellow firefighters? :roll:

Umm, I think you have a reading comprehension problem. Where did you interpret that not one of them believes explosives were in the buildings? Your blatant inability to make a counterpoint without lying speaks volumes to your agenda.

For someone who can't comprehend English, it is pretty funny you accuse others. :lol:

I figured I'd give you the chance to actually go back and look at the quotes.

This was the first one.

Quote: "It [WTC 2] started exploding," said Ross Milanytch, 57, who works at nearby Chase Manhattan Bank. "It was about the 70th floor. And each second another floor exploded out for about eight floors, before the cloud obscured it all." [ASNE] "I saw small explosions on each floor." [Wing TV]

here's the third quote

Quote: One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed. Each tower had six central support columns. [American Free Press]

Here's the quote I had listed from the Assistant Commissioner of the FDNY.

Quote: Q. "Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?"

A. "No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too." [Stephen Gregory - Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)]

Along with several other eyewitness accounts of people that all claim to have seen and/or heard explosions and the best you can do is to claim that none of them believe explosives were in the building? Why would they claim that they saw/heard explosives if they don't believe they saw/heard explosives?

patriot911 wrote: See, I don't have to interpret what they wrote in their testimony whereas you do. You have to believe that when they say they heard booms that they were caused by explosives. You have to believe that when they say something like it sounded LIKE explosives that they REALLY meant it WAS explosives.

If you hear a duck quacking and you don't assume it must have been a duck without the being evidence to the contrary, there is something wrong with your mental capacities. If people say they heard and saw explosions, why would I assume that they didn't? Your logic is completely backwards.

Because you still wish to make an ass out of yourself by assuming explosions are caused by explosives. You still can't grasp the very simple concept that loud noises are not necessarily caused by explosives. These people aren't saying what was causing the explosions, just that there were explosions. It is YOUR asinine leap of faith that assumes these explosions MUST have been caused by explosives.

homerjay_s wrote: patriot911 wrote: I will say it again. If a fire fighter REALLY thought there were explosives causing the "booms", why have they not come forward to question the official theory?

This argument is simply stunning. Your supposition makes no relevant point and shows a tendency for false logical assumptions on your part.

Wrong again and way to run away from a point you can't defend! The argument is that WHY haven't firefighters come forward if the government was responsible for killing off 300 of their fellow fire fighters? Why is this so hard for you to understand as a legitimate question?

homerjay_s wrote: You are first of all assuming that no fire fighters have questioned the official theory, and at the same time using that false assumption as evidence by it's lack of being. You either really really want to believe that no one saw or heard explosions, or you really really want to make others believe that it didn't happen. Clearly, as evidenced by the numerous quotes I listed and a myriad of others, there are many people that experienced the collapses in person that either saw or heard explosions.
And when you read their entire testimony vs. cutting out single sentences or parts of sentences you clearly see that they didn't believe the government caused 9/11. If YOU were being interviewed and believed the government did it or explosives were in the building, wouldn't YOU say something? Of course you would. Do you HONESTLY think none of the firefighters have this same desire for the truth? Of course they do. Claiming they believe explosives were used even though none said explosives were used is intellectually dishonest and very assumptive on your part.

homerjay_s wrote: For quotes to be on the internet, then certainly they told someone what they thought they heard/saw. In any event, even if there wasn't one quote from one person claiming to have seen or heard explosions, that fact alone would not prove in any way that explosives were not used to take down the towers. If you can't see that there's no point in me even trying to discuss this with you.
Again explosions don't = explosives being used. You have a 110 story skyscraper on fire and suffering from severe structural damage from a fully loaded 767 slamming into it at 500 miles an hour. You think everything should be nice and quiet? :lol:

And why, if the fire fighters thought there were explosives as you claim, don't the fire fighters say "I heard explosions CAUSED BY EXPLOSIVES"? Fire fighters know what explosives sound like.

homerjay_s wrote: patriot911 wrote: homerjay_s wrote: patriots911 wrote: And why didn't they see the same thing in both towers? From one of the interviews you show above here is the description of the second building coming down.

Quote: So I was kind of looking around over there, up and down West Street and looking on Vesey and I just remember there was a police officer standing there and he just started saying, it's starting to lean, it's starting to lean. I remember looking up, looking at the second building and just seeing it starting to move. I just started running back down Vesey towards the water again to where I had come from. That's -- the second building came down there.

What is your point exactly? What is it that you're trying to say with this quote? The guy saw the tower collapse and...what?

So if he believed it were brought down by explosives, why didn't he say he heard the explosives going off? All he says is he and the officer saw the building leaning. Tell me. What kind of explosives cause a building to lean before it collapses?

Another representation of your flawed logical ability. Just because one eye witness account, by someone a few blocks away, doesn't expressly state belief that the collapse was caused by explosives, does not mean that it could not have been a controlled demolition with the use of explosives, nor that no one believes that.
If you are only a couple blocks away from a building brought down by explosives, you're GOING to hear explosives. Lots of them. Right before the collapse. Thats my whole point. These explosives are LOUD! Incredibly loud! So loud that you can't mistake them. Yet the ONLY way you can convince anyone explosives were used is by making the assumption you know what the fire fighters "really" meant when they heard explosions. :roll:

homerjay_s wrote: patriot911 wrote: homerjay_s wrote: patriot911 wrote: Why hasn't anyone been able to find evidence of explosives?

Seismic Evidence
But although some kind of "black" technology may have been used in the demolition of the Twin Towers, we do not need to establish this, since their collapse can be explained as a controlled demolition brought about by explosives. In fact (as Christopher Bollyn was the first to point out in his Open Letter) evidence for massive explosions was captured by a seismograph located 34 km from the WTC:
Which has been debunked by the seismologists in charge of taking those readings. They were interpreted by people incapable of correctly analyzing the seismographs. Also, other seismographs were in the Manhattan area specifically for demolitions work, yet they did not record explosives going off.

I suppose you have a link supporting this? I've seen several different accounts of seismographs registering what would have equated to very large underground explosions, large enough to cut the supports of the towers allowing the disintegration and free fall collapse.

patriots911 wrote: homerjay_s wrote: A "sharp spike of short duration" is how an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.
So now you believe nuclear bombs were used? Tell me. Where is the radiation?

I never said they were nuclear bombs. Just because the quote from the site with the seismographic evidence claimed that the seismographic results were similar to how an underground nuclear explosion appears, that does not imply that I or anyone else believes a nuclear explosion was observed.

Why state it then? If you don't believe the spike was caused by the building falling down then you have to have an alternate explanation for the spike. Demolitions charges will show up on seismographs, but because the charges are set of in sequence, they appear as numerous very small spikes.

homerjay_s wrote: You really are having some problems with logical reasoning. It's not looking good for you.
Maybe you should look in the mirror. Your logic is almost non existant. That might explain why you think everyone else has logic problems. ;-)

[Patriot911]

I noticed you omitted the whole part about the fire fighters being between the second and fifth floors of the north tower and survived. Why is that? Do you have a hard time explaining how explosives could be used to bring down the building yet firefighters IN the building not only survived but only heard the impact of the floors as they came down? I can't blame you. It is really hard to claim the base of the towers were blown with fire fighters feet away from the theoretical explosion who didn't hear anything and weren't blown to bits. Does the CIA now have explosives that somehow don't harm firefighters, office workers and police officers? ;-)