Sunday, December 16, 2007

Debunk This...


Lee said...

And since WHEN did this site start relying on Fox (or Faux, as you like to call it)News for information? When their news fits your agenda?

Shoes4Industry said...

So that Debunks the reporting?

The only "agenda" here is the truth.

Anonymous said...

Ya know, fwiw, there were a bunch of secondary explosions. And, yeah, there was a lot of confusion at the time. However, afaik, these secondary explosions were, well, secondary explosions. When various chunks of the torn building fell to the street and hit things, boom!, there was a secondary explosion. When the buildings collapsed there were all kinds of secondary explosions. While the buildings were burning, there were secondary explosions. Tear a couple of big holes in a 100 story building, dump a bunch of jet fuel everywhere, and, doh, you are going to get secondary explosions. And the scale of the scene made it very hard for people within blocks of the buildings to know exactly what was exploding. Shortly before the first building feel, a huge chuck fell off the east side, perhaps a bus-size chuck. Wham! A big explosion. When stuff tumbled down the elevator shafts, when various tanks in the building exploded, etc. there were explosions. The night of the collapses, there were a lot of small explosions within the fire.

Have you ever watched a large building fire? There tend to be a lot of little explosions. The WTC was huge, there were, yes, lots and lots of smaller explosions. Yes, the cops and firemen herding people away from the area said, at the time, stuff like "Get away, there's been an explosion."

Ya know, seems to me that all the explosions business is bunk. And, if you watched closely after the planes hit the buildings, you could see the fires spread, you could see the heat waves coming off the top of the builds get stronger and stronger, you could see chuck of the building collapsing and falling off--there was a steady, pretty straightforward progression that indicated the fires were increasing, that the air sucking through the building was increasing, and the building was under extreme stress. This was clearly visible to those of us who watched the buildings burn and then collapse from our roof tops.

My roof was close enough to see bodies falling without binoculars. It took a while to realize that some of the junk falling out of the building wasn't junk but people. It wasn't pretty to watch. I didn't know the building was going to collapse but because the fire kept getting more intense, it seemed like something was going to happen, perhaps the top of the building would fall off, or the top floors would collapse. The fires were clearly very hot and the air circulating up through the building was intense. I heard several large things hit the ground. I saw them break free of the building and then a distinct boom when they hit the ground. I did not hear _any_ large, unexplained explosions until the buildings were collapsing.

My neighbors were on the street near the WFC when the planes hit. They were herded into a building just before the first building collapsed. The building they were in shook and, yeah, there were big booms. Yeah, the firemen said "Sounds like an explosion." Etc. However, of course, once they figured out the WTC had collapsed, they figured there was no additional big explosion, it was just the noise of the building hitting the ground, etc.

I think it's quite likely that the WTC 7 collapse is dodgy. I think it's even possible, since it was the second largest known CIA building after Langley, that the building had some kind of burn safe or, perhaps, was hiding very large electronic listening equipment that they wanted to hide or some such thing. I'm sure, by the late afternoon, the CIA was completely freaked out by all the paperwork and debris that had poured out of the buildings. I'm also pretty sure they were worried that the building might tip over and cause even more problems. It seems quite possible that it was, as Mr. Silverstein sez "dropped".

However, as a witness to the collapse of 1 and 2, I saw no evidence of explosions other than what you might expect from running a couple of large planes filled with jet fuel into the buildings at high speed, followed by nasty fires, and then a collapse.

Yeah, that's all anecdotal evidence but, as a witness, I saw lots of evidence that the impact and fires causes the collapses of 1 and 2 and no evidence whatsoever that explosives (other than, shall we say, naturally occurring explosions due to stuff in the building and various things falling) were involved.

Shoes4Industry said...

Perhaps you should have testified before the 9/11 Commission.

We would be willing to believe this if the events were giving a complete, INDEPENDENT investigation. Given what has been coming to light lately, that was not the case.

Perhaps you can understand our skepticism?

Anonymous said...

I'm all over an INDEPENDENT investigation. I just think harping on and on about explosives in 1 and 2 is silly and counterproductive.

Have you ever watched a home video of the attack? There are some videos that start shortly after the first impact and go on until both buildings are down. In all of them, you can see the fires spread, you can see the building start to come apart, etc. There's a pretty clear narrative that doesn't involve any (unexpected, I guess is the right word) explosions.

The first impact woke me up. I could hear/feel both impacts and the collapses. I didn't hear anything else unexplained. Seems to me even fairly small explosions would have made some noise. (The city was disturbingly quiet, oh, 30 minutes or so into the attack. Usually, you can't hear, oh, buses going down the street from my roof during the day because their noise blends into the background. Because the traffic was minimal after all the emergency trucks made it downtown, you could hear stuff like lone buses and individual cars, etc.)

文章 said...