Originally posted by esdad71
Just to remind you folks of what happened that day, some of those 'secondary explosions' that occurred after the impact were actually the sound of
bodies in alot of cases hitting the ground or the glass above. It was real. I find it funny how you believe people that heard some thing in some cases
but not if they SAW planes hit the buildings...real planes...LOL..what kind of logic is that?
Thanks for the reminder, but do you really think the numerous references to "secondary explosions" by various people in that video are actually
bodies hitting the ground? Really? That first KA-BOOOMMM (about :05 in) when the guy is on a pay phone and FDNY firefighters frantically motion him to
get the hell out of Dodge?
Wow, now I've heard it all. It's so interesting to see the lengths that some people will go to rationalize what their minds either refuse or are
unable to process. Seriously esdad71, you're in a MASSIVE state of denial. As in a delusional, desperate grasp for any shred of consensus reality.
You spend so much time denying what is painfully obvious that I honestly don't think your mind could handle the world as it currently exists.
There's no possibility that this ENORMOUS explosion that literally shakes the ground and sends dust flying is anything but the KABOOOOOMMMM of a
big-ass incendiary device. Or as Larry Silverstein would say, "PULL IT!"
But if the only way you can retain what appears to be an increasingly tenuous grasp on manufactured reality is to convince yourself that an
eardrum-bursting explosion is really the sound of a body hitting the ground, or a falling piece of building, or a gas valve or exploding copy machine
or whatever, then go for it. Like I said, whatever helps you sleep better...
Golden, also to clarify, the WTC was not designed to withstand multiple hits of a airliner but to withstand the impact of one that was of
course, in the fog, and if there was a collision the structure would stand long enough to allow evacuation. I know who you are quoting and it is
You know that the architect of the WTC towers is incorrect when he says that a plane hitting the building's structural support system is equivalent
to "punching holes in a screen?"
Again, thanks for that "clarification." No offense ES, but I don't think I'd want to be anywhere near you if your extensive mental defenses are
ever breached and you temporarily awaken. That's gonna be one hell of a traumatic experience.
Originally posted by Spectre0o0
reply to post by GoldenFleece
I just watched the video. i wonder how many of those reporters either didn't get a bonus that year, or were fired??
My favorite is CNN's Jamie McIntyre who stood in front of the Pentagon and said, "based on my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane
having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon!" I think reporters are cut some slack on the first day, but they're gently counseled on what they
saw and heard (or didn't hear) from that point forward. This is why MSM reports during the first day are the most honest and accurate
(except BBC's premature announcement of the "collapse" of WTC 7.)
After the first day, the "official" script has been established (and is
hopefully given out AFTER a building "collapses".)
But you're right, any reporter who foolishly mentions "secondary explosions" after the first day or who fails to quickly recognize the 757 that
"crashed" into the Pentagon is gonna end up with a new assignment quoting pork belly futures in Crib Death, Iowa.
[edit on 6-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]