You Can’t Handle the 9/11 Truth

Witness statement compilation of hearing explosions.

Here is two hours worth and I hear that there is more than this. (Including audio and other videos not included in this one)

reply to post by ugie1028


Out of context, it's not very helpful. I'm not in an area where I can listen to 2 hours of it (and I have classes soon anyway), but if it's the one I remember, a large number of explosion accounts were based around the plane impacts. Those were explosions. Then, you also have to consider all of the people who described the collapse as an explosion. Once you weed out the context, you're not left with much.

reply to post by Varemia


So you're explaining it away... almost 2 + hours explained away in a single paragraph.

I see what you tried to do there.

reply to post by NIcon

So a negative was proven just 8 days after the event, and all the rest was clearly written. Talk about stacking the deck in favor of one conclusion.

Actually there were people on 9/11 already telling people that there were no bombs in the buildings.

Originally posted by NIcon
That was printed on September 19th, just 8 days after the event. So what evidence was gathered in 8 days that proved "no bombs had been detonated". All those paint cans, fire extinguishers, transformers and cars exploding and yet they could determine all of it was incidental and that "no bombs had been detonated" within 8 days.

Who's suggesting it was proven? Within the first day the talk of explosives had died down because of the lack of any evidence for them. It's that simple. The 'official story' didn't exist for years, conspiracies had barely begun as rumours. Why do you think someone had proved a negative?

These engineers must have been really good because, according to the Wall Street Journal article, they all ready knew how the buildings collapsed EVEN BEFORE THEY INVESTIGATED.

"By now it is accepted wisdom that the Twin Towers collapse was inevitable -- the result of extraordinary trauma followed by extraordinary fire."

So a negative was proven just 8 days after the event, and all the rest was clearly written. Talk about stacking the deck in favor of one conclusion.

Except you keep using the word 'proven', wheras your source uses the word 'accepted'. There's a pretty huge gulf between those two. It's accepted knowledge in many forums here that there exists a shadowy group of conspirators who run the world. It doesn't mean that it's proven.

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by Varemia

 

So you're explaining it away... almost 2 + hours explained away in a single paragraph.

I see what you tried to do there.

The first guys have some kind of miscommunication, because they're talking about different explosions, and the timescale is strange. I think it would help to have had a later interview with them so that we could know exactly what they were talking about.

The second video is one that cannot be found in its original form. It has to be debunked every time someone posts it, and every time it's brought up, if someone brings up a previous analysis of it, they get real stubborn and refuse to admit that the explosion doesn't follow any of the laws of physics with regards to sound waves and video recording (the explosion was able to be captured perfectly, yet their voices were maxing out the camera's mic?).

Third video was the only legitimate boom so far that seemed unrelated to the collapse itself or the plane impact. The only problem is the fact that it occurred after the tower had already collapsed, and did not precede any collapse. I imagine it was probably a localized collapse of the partially destroyed stuff.

Fourth video, the woman is talking about the collapse of the floors hitting each-other.

Next couple videos were more boom, boom, boom people.

Another guy is describing the sound of the building collapsing above him. The floors are crashing, and then they get louder when they get closer and the whole building is coming down.

Do I have to do this all day, or will nothing I say matter?

reply to post by Varemia

But here were two city officials reporting that a big explosion had gone off pretty early in the morning, evidently before 9:30. In his interview for Dylan Avery, moreover, Jennings said that the big explosion that trapped them was simply the first of many. He also said that when the firefighter took them down to the lobby, he saw that it had been totally destroyed – it was, he said, “total ruins, total ruins.” Jennings also that, when he and the firefighter were walking through this lobby, they were “stepping over people.”43 Jennings’s testimony contradicted the official story, according to which there were no explosions in WTC 7 and no one was killed in this building. What would NIST do? NIST’s Treatment of the Hess-Jennings Testimony: NIST simply ignored Jennings’ report about the lobby and, with regard to the time that Hess and Jennings got trapped, followed the line that had taken by Rudy Giuliani in a 2002 book, according to which the event that Hess and Jennings took to be an explosion within WTC 7 was simply the impact of debris from the collapse of the North Tower. But that collapse did not occur until 10:28, whereas the event described by Hess and Jennings had occurred at least an hour earlier.

Maybe you want to cite some actual evidence

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


Could we please at least try to focus on the same building? Jennings' interview has been dissected and dissected over and over again. Does it really need another drawn out post just so you can ignore it?

reply to post by exponent

I guess you missed the first instance in the story:

"Upon learning that no bombs had been detonated..."

What's the definition of learning?

dictionary.reference.com...

1. knowledge acquired by systematic study in any field of scholarly application.

2. the act or process of acquiring knowledge or skill.

How much "knowledge" was acquired in just 8 days at Ground Zero that it could be stated "no bombs had been detonated"? How much "systematic study" was conducted in 8 days that it could be stated "no bombs had been detonated"?


and again:

www.thefreedictionary.com...

1. To gain knowledge, comprehension, or mastery of through experience or study.
or
4. To become informed of; find out.

How much of Ground Zero was "studied" within 8 days so that it could be stated "no bombs had been detonated"? What was "found out" in 8 days that it could be stated "no bombs had been detonated"? How much debris was removed within 8 days exposing more rubble in which to "study" and gain more "knowledge."

This guy seemed convinced because according to him he thought there were explosives, but then he was either "informed" or "gained knowledge" that "no bombs had been detonated" and he was "very surprised."

So to paraphrase, according to this story, they had "knowledge acquired by systematic study" that "no bombs had been detonated." ALL BEFORE THEIR INVESTIGATION BEGAN.

Originally posted by NIcon
I guess you missed the first instance in the story:

"Upon learning that no bombs had been detonated..."

What's the definition of learning?
...
How much "knowledge" was acquired in just 8 days at Ground Zero that it could be stated "no bombs had been detonated"? How much "systematic study" was conducted in 8 days that it could be stated "no bombs had been detonated"?
...
How much of Ground Zero was "studied" within 8 days so that it could be stated "no bombs had been detonated"? What was "found out" in 8 days that it could be stated "no bombs had been detonated"? How much debris was removed within 8 days exposing more rubble in which to "study" and gain more "knowledge."

This guy seemed convinced because according to him he thought there were explosives, but then he was either "informed" or "gained knowledge" that "no bombs had been detonated" and he was "very surprised."

So to paraphrase, according to this story, they had "knowledge acquired by systematic study" that "no bombs had been detonated." ALL BEFORE THEIR INVESTIGATION BEGAN.

This is a long post for a trivial argument. The wording of his statement does not support the implication you have derived. He says nothing of knowledge acquired by study and in context it's likely that 'learning' means 'being informed that'. I can tell you that there was speculation about the use of explosives for the first few days after 911. When no evidence was found immediately supporting this assertion it faded away.

Trying to hang the 'predetermined conclusion' hat on this statement is pointless, I can't believe it's convinced you let alone anyone else.

So as many of you know i hear voices

I asked them "was 9-11 an inside job"

they said "that's right"

reply to post by exponent

So one of the forensic investigators was "informed" that "no bombs had been detonated" and he accepted it before he began his investigation and even though it went against his first impressions. Now that is stacking the deck... I wonder who did the stacking.

And evidence is only considered if its found immediately despite the fact the piles were burning so hot that they could not investigate large areas of Ground Zero for months? That's odd.

It's not a trivial point to me as I believe the whole investigation was compromised from the beginning, then all the way through to the publication of NIST's report. I have many more instances of bias by investigators before they started their investigation, during their investigation and after their investigation. So I believe the use of explosives was never seriously considered. And I haven't seen anything that shows that they were. Does that mean there were actually explosives? No.

But what that tells me is we don't know how the towers fell because, IMHO, there was not a competent investigation from the beginning through to the end.

reply to post by Varemia


If you have any evidence we are all waiting.

Logically if WTC 7 had explosions beforehand and was not hit by an airplane then it obviously casts doubt on WTC 1 and 2 also.

Yeah but you want to ignore WTC7 just like it's not even included in the 9/11 Report. WTC 7 was on 9/11 wasn't it?

haha.

Go ahead and disprove Jennings for us -- now that Jennings death was by "foul play" right before the NIST WTC7 report was released - how convenient.

Are you saying Jennings was physically dissected? Maybe you know something you should share with the rest of us.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by Varemia

 

If you have any evidence we are all waiting.

Logically if WTC 7 had explosions beforehand and was not hit by an airplane then it obviously casts doubt on WTC 1 and 2 also.

Yeah but you want to ignore WTC7 just like it's not even included in the 9/11 Report. WTC 7 was on 9/11 wasn't it?

haha.

Go ahead and disprove Jennings for us -- now that Jennings death was by "foul play" right before the NIST WTC7 report was released - how convenient.

Are you saying Jennings was physically dissected? Maybe you know something you should share with the rest of us.

I never said we should ignore WTC 7, and I will find evidence if you can provide me with a suggestion of exactly what evidence you want.

What I was saying is that we don't need to always change the subject. I was posting about different buildings, and so instead of talking about that, you change it to WTC 7 and Jennings. That practically needs its own thread, and there are dozens of them already. I've posted in them and culminated lots of info on the matter. If you'd do a search, you can easily find plenty of viewpoints on the matter.

I never said Jennings was physically dissected. I meant that his testimony has been dissected, compared with the facts of the day and with his companion, Hess. Are you saying we should ignore Hess's testimony?

reply to post by Varemia


I could post more evidence but I'm still waiting for the OS believers to post evidence.

Any evidence is appreciated.

thanks.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by Varemia

 

I could post more evidence but I'm still waiting for the OS believers to post evidence.

Any evidence is appreciated.

thanks.

Could you be more specific? Asking for evidence in general is like asking me to describe the universe. Where do you want me to clarify?

There is no such thing as plain evidence that I can just post and convince you. I have to have some sort of subject matter to narrow down what evidence you want to see. If we get to that point, I could probably find accurate data and academic studies/papers done on the matter. Perhaps cite physics and even mathematic principles which relate to what you want to know. I mean, I'm not trying to avoid anything. Your demand is simply too open-ended.

reply to post by Varemia


Why wouldn't you want to post evidence? Just go back to one of your old posts and then back it up with some evidence.

Or make a new claim and then provide some evidence.

Have fun with it. The other dude just kept saying read the NIST report and whenever I provided evidence about NIST he'd responded -- that's not the correct answer!

That's hilarious -- he never provided any evidence yet his claim was the NIST report was correct. Why? Because there is no evidence.

So maybe you have no evidence either -- I'm not saying you do or don't -- just that it hasn't happened yet.

It's not a demand by the way. If you don't want to provide evidence that's fine with me -- just chock up your views due to personal religious belief or some such. Mythology. Folklore. We can all have our opinions and opinions don't need evidence.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


Evidence is too general. Give me something to work with.

I can't just post random evidence, because evidence needs to be specific in order to be considered evidence. Should I just link you to a youtube account that debunks 9/11 stuff, or to a 9/11 debunking site?

www.debunking911.com...

www.youtube.com...

Seriously, pose a question that needs evidence to be answered, and I'll be happy to help.

reply to post by Varemia


If you're not making any claims then you don't need to post any evidence.

If you ever make a specific claim again in this thread then I'll just ask you to post evidence.

That's how forums work.

Look back on my posts and I post links to specific evidence all the time.

That's why the Official Story is bunk because it lacks the evidence.

Maybe you don't want to talk about WTC7 since it so obviously was a controlled demolition.

Once that is acknowledged then it's also obvious that WTC 1 and 2 were also controlled demolitions.

According to the OS -- a brand new type of "progressive collapse" by fire was discovered by WTC 7 -- but WTC 1 and 2 were also brand new types of collapses yet "different" than WTC 7. What an amazing day of "discovery" for science! haha.

Now let's also not talk about the actual hijackers being CIA spies - as Daniel Hopsicker has demonstrated -- our Arab double agents -- with U.S. military connections and CIA protection -- as Sander Hicks has demonstrated.

Nope - that's also not on topic. haha.

Have you watched the Daniel Hopsicker documentary -- care to comment on that? Mohammed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus.

Have you read Sander Hick's book The Big Wedding.

I have debunked the NIST report here but apparently I've still not given the correct answer that is the secret evidence proving 9/11 was not a controlled demolition.

If you have this secret evidence -- please provide it -- because the other person just repeats how this Column 79 somehow spread the interior column collapse instanteously for 6 seconds and then the exterior columns were pulled down.

It's strange that WTC7 collapses from the bottom first in free fall speed and so the above scenario doesn't match that at all.

So we have this secret imaginary computer animation scenario and all you can do is refer to whole websites without any specific evidence to explain how this was possible.

I've already pointed out David Griffin exposing NIST lying about the cause of column 79 failing and how Alienscientist has exposed NIST lying about the extent of fires on floors 11 to 13. I've already pointed out research proving that the NIST animations - all of them - are inaccurate.

That's all specific evidence I provided with links and specific "exterior quotes". Now provide specific evidence that it's not true. Instead you just give links to whole websites. haha. That's not specific evidence.

You refer to the person who was with Bryan Jennings - can you prove this person is not now tied to Guiliani?

Is that what your website that you link to does prove? If so give a quote or specific evidence. Because obviously if Bryan Jennings died by foul play and the person with him then works with Guiliani -- then his credibility as a witness no longer holds.

I'll give you an example - there's this new documentary Bananas about Dole pesticide use killing workers in Honduras. So the workers were made sterile and died from cancer, etc. but then their testimony was considered fraud because Dole got a new law firm to find other workers in Honduras saying that the original witnesses were lying. The documentary was then censored in the U.S. and the filmmakers were sued, etc. Well it turns out that these new Honduras workers claiming the first witnesses were lying actually had already made a deal with Dole to take a direct payment from Dole if they kept quiet about the pesticide damage. So their witness credibility has already been disproven.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


I'm not making claims. That's the whole point. I consider myself a fact-checker, not an OS defender. When a claim is made, I will respond to it with evidence that I can find on the matter. You purposefully completely changed the subject from what I was posting about, and now you are acting as if I purposefully don't want to talk about what you changed the subject to. That's not it at all. I just wanted a topic to stay the same for a short period!

If you really, really want the topic to change to WTC 7, then I will listen. Pose a question about WTC 7 that you think I should have the answer to. If I don't have an answer, I will make it clear. Otherwise, I will point you to specific evidence.

Please don't give me a general statement like "Find me evidence that WTC 7 was not a demolition," because that's attempting to prove a negative, which is basically impossible. Never start from a conclusion and work backwards. Start with base info and move from there.