9/11 FireFighters - THREE Explosions After Plane Hit WTC

Proof bombs were used in the demolition of the WTC buildings on 9/11.

FireFighter - "THREE EXPLOSIONS after the plane hit, three explosions then the whole lobby collapsed".

FireFighter - "You people don't understand, there may be more, anyone of these #ing building could BLOW UP".

FireFighter - "Your in the building trying to help people and then EXPLODING on you inside the building, so you can't get worse than this".

911datasets.org\International_Center_for _911_Studies_NIST_FOIA\Release_14_-_NIS T­_Cumulus_Video_Database\NIST Cumulus Video\CBS-Net NIST Dub #6

FireFighter Erik Lawyer Slams NIST And The 9/11 "Investigation"
www.youtube.com...
FireFighters for 9/11 Truth
firefightersfor911truth.org...

reply to post by SL55T0T0


No worries it's easy to do, but already posted: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by SL55T0T0


this video is crazy.

everyone must watch this.

S+F

Ok ok first things first folks, before we all dogpile on the "PROOF OF BOMBS" bandwagon a couple of things to take into account:

1) This is the first time planes this big impacted any large building, ever. NOBODY knows what the hell was going on in the initial few hours of the attacks.

2) The fuel fireball did travel down the shafts and killed and injured many people, many on the first floor lobbies. The force of that AND the impact causing the building to shudder and sway also contributed to the damage. Firefighters were not expecting to see this.

3) Once it became apparent this was a terrorist attack, its most direct link is to the bombing in 1993. Also terrorism usually ends up = bombs. So after seeing such devistation, hearing explosions from the plane impact and the resulting fires, of coruse some will suspect of some "extra" explosive devices. But ALL of this is based on pure speculation and zero direct tangeble evidence. Remember, hearing a "BOOM!" in a fire =/= explosives.

4) Steel failing, snapping, bending will also sound like a bomb going off. Can be seen and heard here:


Listen closely to this steel crane failing. What does it sound like to you? And I ask ALL Ats members to take a look, and tell me that if you heard steel snapping like that, how would you describe it?

5) Do you really believe that all the great pains to keep the whole thing "under wraps" and secret is going to go away with a simple FOIA of the documents? As if the perps didnt think that far ahead to cover their tracks? But they managed to keep quite the thousands and thousands that would have had to been in on it no problem, but they couldnt hide a few videos and now its all going to unravel? Sure!

6) Why should you trust the NIST if you didnt trust it before? Why should you trust the videos they released, if you dont believe or trust their report? These videos are what they used to come up with their exhaustivly compiled reports as to what happened at the WTCs. I fail to see how we will get anythign new, other than having the truthers once again, twist and edit the initial reports of the events, when nobody had a flipping idea as to what was going on. Since when are initial reports ever credible during a MAJOR disaster? Once again I turn to the media response during Katrina. So no, this video proves nothing, nor suggests anythign sinister, other than the obvious initial responses to an event nobody has ever been witness too. With all the chaos, confusion, and insanity of the day, i find it funny that some people will take initial eyewitnes accounts of "black planes" as PROOF that something evil was a foot. Apparently some people have never been privy to watching a disaster unfold and have people's intial reactions explaining what they thought they saw.

Also notice in the OP's video. The firefighter says the whole building collapsed on top of them while they were in the lobby. Apparently this means this was when the building collapsed. How else are you going describe a 110 floor building collapsing? Some people just dont understand what a simile is, or when a metaphor or an anaology is used. So no, this video is not proof that bombs were used.

Listen to the firefighter talking. He says that the planes hit, you had the fireball/fuel explosion in the lobby. The firefighters get to the building, they are in the staging area waiting to go up the stairs in the WTC, when the damn thing comes crashing down on top of them. That is precisely what is being described here, the collapse, the explosion, was the collapse. How else to describe it? They didnt know wth was going on, all of a sudden the building comes crashing down, including the lobby, at the conclusion of the collapse.

"Also notice in the OP's video. The firefighter says the whole building collapsed on top of them while they were in the lobby. Apparently this means this was when the building collapsed."

If this is the case, how do you explain these firefighters surviving and escaping a pancake collapse of a 110 story building while they were in the lobby? You are of the school of thought that it was a pancake collapse aren't you?

I do not think the firefighter was referring to the building collapse; I think he was referring to three explosions prior to the building collapsing. He even states there was another (third) explosion after the lobby exploded, which you seem to believe was the building collapsing. How can there be another explosion after the entire building collapses?

In any event, there is a very simple way to clarify these statements: track down the firefighters and interview them. Oops, I forgot...since a professional and competent investigation was to be averted at all costs, this makes no sense whatsoever...stupid me for even bringing it up. In any event, it's a lot more fun to watch the debunkers continue to trip all over their words and make countless contradictions while attempting to explain the Official Lie.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal




So where were the 110 floors suppose to go when they started to collapse? Up? Nice strawman logic there.

The firefighters are describing the initial impact and fireball that tore through the lobby, then the collapse of all three buildings. First "explosion" was the fireball. The second and third were reffering to the collapses. Oh and firefighters didint survive in the tower's collapses? You might be surprised, but some did survive the collapses, only to be buried and dug out, some immediately, others it took longer. My how quickly did we forget that some people survived the collapses while inside the towers.

More firefighter testimony:

www.youtube.com...&hl=en&fs=1


www.youtube.com...&hl=en&fs=1

There is a previously posted thread that contains the same material, posted before this thread:

Reportedly a new FOIA 2010 Video: Firefighters discuss explosions on 9/11

"Oh and firefighters didint survive in the tower's collapses? You might be surprised, but some did survive the collapses, only to be buried and dug out, some immediately, others it took longer. My how quickly did we forget that some people survived the collapses while inside the towers."

Yeah buddy, I am well aware some firefighters did survive the collapse, but not the ones that were in the video, because they were not in the building when it collapsed. They were in the lobby when the lobby collapsed due to secondary explosions prior to the collapse of the building. After the secondary explosion in the lobby, they obviously evacuated the building prior to the collapse. Again, maybe we can locate these guys and re-interview them so they can clarify for the moronic brain dead.

By the way, what are the chances of firefighters surviving a pancake collapse with 110 stories falling on top of them (your theory)? What are the chances of firefighters surviving a collapse because most of the entire building above them was blown to bits (which is what actually happened)? So in essence, those firefighters who survived the collapse displays that your pancake theory is a load of rubbish.

reply to post by GenRadek


Fire balls travel upwards not downwards....unless it's a meteor.

reply to post by OmiOra

Fire balls travel upwards not downwards....unless it's a meteor.

But fuel droplets travel downward under force of gravity

Also fireball progresses in direction fuel is travelling from point of ignition which was from top to bottom of
elevator shaft

reply to post by thedman

But fuel droplets travel downward under force of gravity

So now your telling me that Kinetic energy from the jet flying at some 500MPH ceased to exist and the fuel just dropped??

My my my at it again now thedman? Sheesh again the laws of physics have been muted for 9/11 and the OS supporters once again.

[sarcasm] Tonight at nine, fuel from jet stops in mid flight, and drops despite 500mph speed![/SARCASM]

Tell Me why the Fuel sprayed out, through the sides of the building then?

Hmm maybe because you can't void the conservation of momentum at a whim.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by thedman

 

But fuel droplets travel downward under force of gravity

So now your telling me that Kinetic energy from the jet flying at some 500MPH ceased to exist and the fuel just dropped??

My my my at it again now thedman? Sheesh again the laws of physics have been muted for 9/11 and the OS supporters once again.

[sarcasm] Tonight at nine, fuel from jet stops in mid flight, and drops despite 500mph speed![/SARCASM]

Tell Me why the Fuel sprayed out, through the sides of the building then?

Hmm maybe because you can't void the conservation of momentum at a whim.

Hello, Jets don't fly at 500 MPH at sea level.

Edit to remove 2ed line.

reply to post by 22-250

Hello, Jets don't fly at 500 MPH at sea level.

The official story says they were going faster than they should have been. I don't stand by the OS. You'd know that if you looked at my post.

Hint: [sarcasm in brackets]

reply to post by theability


Fuel sloshed into elevator shafts - as the fuel fell it would be broken up as it fell by air resistance

Ever throw (liquid) from top of building - as it falls air resistance causes liquid to break up into droplets
the longer the fall smaller the droplets when hits ground.

Same thing at WTC as fuel hit the elevator shafts - it was a thousand foot fall (95 floors) to the bottom

Originally posted by 22-250
Hello, Jets don't fly at 500 MPH at sea level.

They do when they use gravity and are coming down from a higher altitude like the second plane did.

reply to post by thedman


Man you seriously post some of the most illogical stuff on this forum.

Fuel sloshed into elevator shafts - as the fuel fell it would be broken up as it fell by air resistance

Not to mention the fact the the fireball was instantaneous at the moment of impact, from the tremendous speeds in which the plane was flying. Thus spraying fuel everywhere in the resulting fireball....but let me humor your illogical fallacy.

Ok lets look at your first part about this: IE air resistance. So with that said the FUEL could not have fallen faster than free fall in air. So from the 95 floor as you stated, the fuel would need about 12 seconds to reach the lobby.

we know that 12 seconds afterword there was no fire ball and the lobby was intact because of videos of the inside of the 1st floor. First illogical fallacy failed.

Ever throw (liquid) from top of building - as it falls air resistance causes liquid to break up into droplets the longer the fall smaller the droplets when hits ground. Same thing at WTC as fuel hit the elevator shafts - it was a thousand foot fall (95 floors) to the bottom

Next part of your illogical fallacy is that the fuel was merely dumped over the side of the building.

My god the plane was traveling at high speed and had INERTIA!!!! The fuel didn't just stop and find its way to the elevator shaft the fall all the way to the first floor!!!
Plus the fact that the WTC Elevators were stacked on top of each other and hermetically seal on different levels. AGAIN part two of your fallacy, failed!

Wow thedman seriously wow!