World Trade Center eyewitness distinctly describes bombs going off prior to collapse

Originally posted by samkent

People on the 911 commission have resigned saying it was a coverup.

Proof please?

Proof? Use Google.

Since you're too lazy to use it at all, I'm too lazy to find a better source than InfoWars for you. But it's not like InfoWars just makes stuff up, no matter how much you may hate them, and they even give their own sources on the page so here you go:

Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a “national scandal”, stated in a 2003 PBS interview,

“I’m saying that’s deliberate. I am saying that the delay in relating this information to the American public out of a hearing… series of hearings, that several members of Congress knew eight or ten months ago, including Bob Graham and others, that was deliberately slow walked… the 9/11 Commission was deliberately slow walked, because the Administration’s policy was, and its priority was, we’re gonna take Saddam Hussein out.”

www.infowars.com...

There's a lot more there too.

Assuming you don't even check the IW article (which also has this link), here's the original PBS transcript they're talking about so you can't say IW is making it up:

www.pbs.org...

reply to post by bsbray11


I agree 100%. People needing proof? That ship has sailed. Nobody needs to spoon-feed proof to anyone anymore. Anyone who takes some time and does their own research, may see the obvious pattern in all of this and all the events that have been taking place over the past decade or so. It's a person's own individual responsibility to uncover what their truth is.

From your own link.

the 9/11 Commission was deliberately slow walked

So where’s the cover up?

Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day,

Quote “How it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks”

How does that statement indicate that some one other than the terrorist caused the entire disaster?

“There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,” Kerrey said.

Quote “ alternative to what we outlined in our version”.

I read it as the sequence of failures may be different. Not some one planted explosives and faked planes. Some people are always looking for boogie men under the bed.

reply to post by samkent


You left this part out:

I’m saying that’s deliberate.

You also left this part out:

“One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

You also left this part out:

In 2006 the Washington Post reported that several members of the 9/11 Commission suspected deception on part of the Pentagon. As reported,

“Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.”

Should I go on, or are you going to actually read the page now?



Btw, you're already moving goal posts. You asked for proof that a commission member resigned because of a scandal, and even though it wasn't directed at me I still gave you the proof. Now you'll try to make this into an endless petty argument into a million other things instead of just accepting that this guy did in fact resign. Do your own research. You've learned at least one new thing from me already today. Let's just say that's my personal quota. Maybe tomorrow I'll try to explain how someone resigning because he sees a scandal doesn't imply anything about explosives, and that no one here was even arguing that.

Originally posted by Resurrectio
I lost all faith in 911 truthers when they claimed a missile hit the Pentagon. I was there ... I saw it.. It was a jet air liner. PERIOD!!!!

So you reduced the whole day to what hit the Pentagon. Something which I personally don't care to dispute. But ignoring all the witness testimony to bombs going off before and during the collapses, I have to dispute that with you.

Before nuclear physics, scientists used to think that the Sun was a big ball of combustibles burning like any wood fire. Now that you know that, and those people working in the name of science were obviously wrong, are you going to dismiss all scientists' work?

So.....why would anyone wire up every single floor with explosives, when just one would have been enough?

How did they ever expect to get away with publicly blowing up a building with the worlds media filming it?

After they have packe dthe place with so much super-nano thermate that 10 tons of it are supposed to have been left over uncombusted in the dust - which by the way shows no traces of explosive residue!


Sorry - but anyone who buys into any of these demo theories is a complete and total idiot!

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
So.....why would anyone wire up every single floor with explosives, when just one would have been enough?

Where's your proof that they must have wired every single floor? That doesn't seem to match this guy's testimony. He didn't say he saw every single floor explode.

And did you miss my last post to you where I asked you if you thought asking "why?" is some kind of rebuttal? Because it's not. Make a new thread if you want to ask unrelated questions. "Why" has no bearing upon the fact of what this man, and many others, including firefighters, policemen and civilians, described seeing. "Why" doesn't make them go away. Neither does sarcasm and calling people idiots.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Wow ok, so he saw somehow explosions from the corner going off 25 floors below the fires. Ok, sounds reasonable, but a couple questions: Was this WTC1 or WTC2? Was this well before the collapse? Where is the video of the collapses that show distinctly what he says? Or is he slightly off in his experience of what he saw?

I do not deny his account, so i dont want the TM to jump down my throat saying that I am calling him a liar.

Then let me reasonably ask you something. Do you remember or have you ever read the testimony of people seeing flashes occurring in sequences around the lower floors right before one of the towers came down?

Here is an example:

Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that 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.
...
[It was at] 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.
...
He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.

Interview, 10/03/01, New York Times

graphics8.nytimes.com...

In other words the guy in the OP's video isn't the first person to describe low-level events like this.

Interesting video. Some key points:

1. He gives the same motion as the fire fighter's description of the explosives. That means two separate eye-witnesses described the exact same thing.

2. He said he saw the explosives, meaning there should be some type of video to back up this claim (possibly)

3. The reporter asked if the tower fell as opposed to collapsing

4. Smoke was in the background, sirens going off, but a very short video.

I read the entire page. No where in there does it says anything that would lead a normal person to think some unknown group wired the building to blow up.
You are just reading something into it that just isn’t there.

Ok one guy quit because the government was stone walling on some information. How does that make it a secret plot the government blew up the buildings?

And it clearly states “Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks".
It doesn’t say ‘mislead’ as to who caused the whole thing just how it reacted.

You are reading it with a conspiracy mindset not an open mind. And that's the problem with the TM.

reply to post by bsbray11


Of course you wouldn't want to debate the pentagon WITH A F'ING WITNESS to the events. My point is .. Just like your ASSUMPTIONS of the WTC. If your wrong about the pentagon.... there is allot more truths that your emotions and paranoia's are getting in the way of.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
So.....why would anyone wire up every single floor with explosives, when just one would have been enough?

Where's your proof that they must have wired every single floor? That doesn't seem to match this guy's testimony. He didn't say he saw every single floor explode.

And did you miss my last post to you where I asked you if you thought asking "why?" is some kind of rebuttal? Because it's not. Make a new thread if you want to ask unrelated questions. "Why" has no bearing upon the fact of what this man, and many others, including firefighters, policemen and civilians, described seeing. "Why" doesn't make them go away. Neither does sarcasm and calling people idiots.

The man reports hearing 'firecracker like' sounds - as in many short sharp reports - ergo multiple 'explosions' on many floors!

I have already given you the obvious and commonsense explanation of these as compression effects due to pancaking!

You are claiming that these must have been explosive detonators despite a perfectly reasonable explanation being available - ok WHY ON SO MANY FLOORS - 20, 30 40? - 100?

Note if you are claiming 'freefall' then you need to have explosives on every single floor to remove any resistance.

As for asking awkward questions - that is a leaf I have taken from troofers themselves - where just asking and demanding answers to questions is believed to consitute proof of a conspiracy.

So once again why would the conspirators have wired up a great many if not all the floors when just one would have done.

And why would pancaking collapse not produce identical sounds to those reported.

And why are you afraid of people asking questions? - what is it you are trying to hide?

Originally posted by samkent
I read the entire page. No where in there does it says anything that would lead a normal person to think some unknown group wired the building to blow up.

I already responded to this, but that isn't what you were talking about.

Original post you responded to:

Originally posted by samkent

People on the 911 commission have resigned saying it was a coverup.

Proof please?

Were you asking for proof of explosives or proof that someone resigned?

Get what you're asking straight first before you start ranting about how it doesn't prove the buildings were blown up. This is a weak attempt to confuse the responses you've been given.

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Of course you wouldn't want to debate the pentagon WITH A F'ING WITNESS to the events. My point is .. Just like your ASSUMPTIONS of the WTC. If your wrong about the pentagon.... there is allot more truths that your emotions and paranoia's are getting in the way of.

I saw no proof of an "F'ING WITNESS" just some screen name that claims to have been an eyewitness. Any one of the 86 known cameras could put this all to rest, but for some "UN-F'ING-EXPLAINABLE" and illogical reason, we never get to see it. By the way I now am an eyewitness, want to argue with me?

Originally posted by Resurrectio
Of course you wouldn't want to debate the pentagon WITH A F'ING WITNESS to the events.

And I wasn't. Your emotion about it is directed at the wrong person.

My point is .. Just like your ASSUMPTIONS of the WTC. If your wrong about the pentagon.... there is allot more truths that your emotions and paranoia's are getting in the way of.

Again, I'm not arguing about the Pentagon. Look back through all my posts. What do you see me say about the Pentagon, ever? Take your time looking.

If you want to talk about assumptions, why don't we start with what exactly has been proven about why those towers came down? Do you have something from the NIST or FEMA reports in particular that you want to bring to my attention, that I must have missed?

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
So.....why would anyone wire up every single floor with explosives, when just one would have been enough?

Where's your proof that they must have wired every single floor? That doesn't seem to match this guy's testimony. He didn't say he saw every single floor explode.

The man reports hearing 'firecracker like' sounds - as in many short sharp reports - ergo multiple 'explosions' on many floors!

You said "every single floor," not "many floors."

You're already changing your argument under the least amount of criticism.

I have already given you the obvious and commonsense explanation of these as compression effects due to pancaking!

According to the witness the top of the building hasn't collapsed yet. Also even NIST has refuted pancake theory as even other "debunkers" have explained on page 1 but I don't guess you've noticed that yet.

Note if you are claiming 'freefall' then you need to have explosives on every single floor to remove any resistance.

Not even commercial demolitions free-fall. They use the momentum of the falling building to knock out already-cut supports. Though WTC7 did accelerate at free-fall and even NIST admits as much. I would appreciate it if you didn't presume what I think, before I give you any indication. I don't think I've met you anywhere before, even though I have been through Louisiana Mr. B. Good.

As for asking awkward questions - that is a leaf I have taken from troofers themselves - where just asking and demanding answers to questions is believed to consitute proof of a conspiracy.

So you think "troofers" are all incapable of reasoning, so you use fallacious reasoning yourself and then blame it on "us"? What possesses you to spell "troofer" like someone with one tooth is saying it? Can't keep it civil?

And why are you afraid of people asking questions? - what is it you are trying to hide?

I didn't say I was afraid. I said asking "why?" "why?" "why?" doesn't change the words coming out of this guy's mouth, or anyone else's mouths, about what they saw physically happening at the WTC that morning.

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood



Sorry - but anyone who buys into any of these demo theories is a complete and total idiot!

if you care to carry out research of your own you will quite clearly find hundreds of eye witness accounts of explosions going off before the plane impact right up until the collapse can you explain this to us? can you tell us why explosions took place in the sub basement levels prior to the jet impact?

if you believe a jet can cause an explosion before it hits the towers ur the idiot!

reply to post by budaruskie


No... because you are a sarcastic mouthpiece. You are rude and plain disrespectful.

In a previous life "An old account on ATS" I did a thread on it. I was there..Period! I am not going to try and make you believe.. Back in the day , I cared if your kind believed me..I no longer give 2 flips whether you do or don't.

Act like I never said anything.. I would almost pay money to have you not address me. I can't deal with hot heads like I used to. I get it.. I'm a sheep - I buy the story - If one things is a lie, it is all a lie! I get it.. Talk about beating a dead horse.

reply to post by ericsnow


Can you source this thing other than youtube and allegedly the NIST? Something looks funny.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


There was no"pancaking" seeing how each floor exploded to dust like it shows here.
www.youtube.com...

So if the floors exploded to dust then that means there was no floors to cause pressure from above.So where did the pressure come from?Look for yourself to see the floors exploding outward.