Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That statement is patently false. Maybe in your mind and in your opinion there's enough pieces to rule out explosives, but the reality is that is completely false and inaccurate.

You are right, the statement is patently false, so let me rephrase it:


There are enough pieces for anyone that maters (experts on the subect) to rule out thermite or explosives.

This indeed does not include anonymous people on internet fora that have next no expertise or knowledge on the subject. They are indeed often missing a couple of essential pieces.

Evidence doesn't consist of only the physical kind. Evidence also consists of audio/video recordings and witness testimony. We don't need the physical pieces of explosives to prove there were explosives. There are enough videos and witness testimony to prove explosives were used at the WTC.

This is patently false. Explosions in no way mean explosives were used. You have been told this before, and you choose to ignore this essential piece of information. That is why you come to this faulty conclusion.

Quick example: Building in delft that collapsed due to fire. An explosion so big occurred that windows of surrounding buildings broke. According to your flawed line of reasoning, explosives were used. Do you really believe this? Or do you choose to use the fallacy "special pleading?

Numerous witness saw flashes with popping sounds on the lower floors of the towers while the buildings were collapsing up above. Numerous witnesses saw, heard, and felt explosions. Numerous witnesses heard timed booms as both towers collapsed.

You can hear explosions in video from almost two miles away. And you can see some of those explosions in the form of isolated ejections:

Anyone can sit in their armchair all day long and attempt to explain those isolated ejections away as mere puffs of air from floors compressing together. But anyone who knows how the floors were constructed will immediately know that it's not possible for something like that to happen.

However, I can show image after image of isolated ejections from controlled demolitions all day long. One can hypothesize on what the isolated ejections are caused by, but when explosions and flashes are present, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the isolated ejections are from explosives being detonated at the WTC, just as isolated ejections are from explosives being detonated in controlled demolitions.

So, no, there aren't anywhere near enough pieces to rule out explosives. In fact, every single piece of evidence indicates that explosives are the only explanation.

All this is based on your flawed line of reasoning so is worthless.

Originally posted by MrWendal
Anyone who thinks explosives were not used on 9/11 are actually contradicting the President's own words.

Excellent. Bush is a complete moron and I couldn't be happier to disagree with him.

So if no explosives were used that means the witnesses are mistaken. First responders are mistaken. Those crazy "truthers" are mistaken, and the President himself is mistaken.

Actually not a single first responder or witness has ever talked about seeing explosives in any form. They've only talked about explosions.

Please can anyone tell me how one can use "explosives on a point high enough to prevent people from escaping" and yet there are no explosions? How does that happen exactly?

You use a plane. The impact itself is essentially an explosion, followed by the fireball itself.

Originally posted by -PLB-
There are enough pieces for anyone that maters (experts on the subect) to rule out thermite or explosives.

I think you meant to say in your book and your opinion. I'm pretty sure I corrected you on this in my previous post as well.

You wish to accept only those experts that matter to you and what you wish to believe in. There are other experts, many more, in fact, that have come out against the official conspiracy theory than have come out in support of it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
All this is based on your flawed line of reasoning so is worthless.

This statement takes the cake. Because you can't disprove my "flawed line of reasoning", you just simply dismiss all of the evidence? Wow.


For the record, there's no flaw in my line of reasoning when all of the evidence suggests controlled demolition:

* Flashes seen by multiple witnesses going up, down and around both towers on the lower to middle levels of the towers while they were collapsing above. The flashes also had popping sounds associated with them. (Flashes going up, down and around a building with popping sounds have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions.)

* Isolated ejections. (Isolated ejections have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions.)

* Timed / synchronous booms. (Timed / synchronous booms have only ever been heard in controlled demolitions.)


I ask you to prove me wrong. Show me another building collapse that exhibits flashes, isolated ejections, and timed booms that is not from a controlled demolition. If you can, then I'll never say that the towers were brought down by explosives for as long as I live.

Until then, that is what happened based on all available evidence and testimony. And I'll never waiver from that position because I know there are no other building collapses that exhibit all of the signs of controlled demolitions, but really aren't controlled demolitions.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Yet the top sections of either tower never stayed together in one piece to actually crush either building. Not to mention that the top section of the south tower tilted and was destroyed in mid air. And thus not able to crush the lower part of the building.

But the mass remains. Bonez, do not fall into the same line ANOK used to in thinking the mass just vanished during the collapse. Also due to the design, which i thought you would be well read in, it allowed for the collapse to occur the way it did. Mass does not evaporate into nothing. Also, the top section, would have required enormous amounts of explosives to be destroyed in mid-air. But we see it tilted and fell down, and it was covered by dust from the remainder of the collapse. The hanging floors and exterior columns are what caused the collapse to happen.

He said he heard loud noise from above. Explosives are loud.

So does 100+ floors collapsing. Are we falling into the 9/11 truth mantra of loud noise = explosives again?

Many controlled demolitions employ two types of explosives to bring a building down. They use a few powerful explosives (isolated ejections) and then lots of smaller explosives. The towers employed the same. Several powerful explosives (isolated ejections) and dozens, if not hundreds of smaller explosives, which was the loud roar everyone heard as the towers collapsed.

Interesting thing about those "ejections". They gain velocity as time progresses. Explosives do NOT do this. Its been how many years since we have mentioned it. Also, the "ejections" are isolated, and do nothing in terms of any structural damage. Can you tell me where exactly these explosives were planted in order to cause such an "ejection"? Also why did they decide to come out this one window, and not affect others, and do NO damage to the exterior column's aluminum cladding? I'd figure such a powerful blast to sever the, well, whatever structural member you believe is being cut, would blow the cladding right off. Dont see that happening. Also, you have to explain just how they'd rig so many explosives, and do it without a soul noticing. Lots of holes in this idea of yours. makes a sieve look sea-worthy.

That roar can be heard miles away, which indicates the roar was caused by explosives, not by building parts crashing into each other.

and where exactly were the initial blasts prior to collapse? You know, like in an actual demolition? Must have been the quietest set of demo charges ever. My old favorite. Hush-a-booms. You do recall how loud those blasts are prior to any sort of movement? How can you forget?

So, the loud noise he heard above was not only building parts crashing into each other, but a much louder noise of dozens/hundreds of smaller explosives being detonated.

Pardon the eyeroll, but, 100+ floors crashing down is going to be quieter? Really? again, just where were these explosives planted? These questions have never been answered by anyone in the truth movement. not even the self appointed god Griffin or Gage has ever done so. All we get is, it looked like demolition, ergo it IS demolition. Ya, that bird aint gonna fly. hasnt flown yet. Hasnt even reached the runway. In fact, it just exploded and burned in the hanger.