>> ^Psychologic:

I suppose it's fitting that this is the first video I watched after a Hitchens video bashing people for wrapping anecdotes around a preconceived conclusion.
I wonder what it's supposed to sound like from the inside of a collapsing tower filled with hundreds of sealed rooms.


They didn't say they heard explosions while the tower collapsed. The lobby was blown out before the towers collapsed. If they were inside when the tower collapsed they wouldn't be on camera talking about it, they would be dead.
Even the third guy says the first explosion happen around the same time WTC2 was hit by the second jet. And towards the end of the clip, the second guy says "You people don't understand...there may be more, any one of these fucking buildings could blow up. This ain't done yet." And he was right: WTC7.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Yeah, you're right.. These guys are clearly lying. In fact, they're not even fire fighters! They're actors working on scale.. (how else would they know what it's like to be on a movie set?)
>> ^EvilDeathBee:
I dunno about you guys, but i'm convinced. This is such a conspiracy, there is no other explanation at all.


Is it possible that they're mistaken? In a building that was hit by a plane...fires and such, I would expect some very loud bangs.


...and ground level explosions 80+ floors below.

>> ^ant:

I am sure there are many medias we have not seen and heard. It's almost ten years!


No doubt. There is medias we will never hear or see. Even with the few NIST has been forced to recently release, some have been obviously edited and redacted.

There's probably hundreds of videos of the Pentagon attack that will never see the light of day. They were quickly rounded up "for public safety". They later released one video with 6 frames of the plane hitting.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

I dunno about you guys, but i'm convinced. This is such a conspiracy, there is no other explanation at all.


Such a conspiracy? Is there levels of extremity to the word "conspiracy" now? I understand how the word's meaning has been unjustly maligned by ignorant tools to where you're not even conscious to what you're saying, but this all out confirms it.

>> ^Thallium:

Secondary explosions != coverup. Stop jumping to conclusions.


I'm sorry, did the 9/11 commission admit there were secondary explosions? Stop ignoring the obvious.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Yeah, you're right.. These guys are clearly lying. In fact, they're not even fire fighters! They're actors working on scale.. (how else would they know what it's like to be on a movie set?)
>> ^EvilDeathBee:
I dunno about you guys, but i'm convinced. This is such a conspiracy, there is no other explanation at all.

Everybody knows that an approaching tornado sounds like an oncoming locomotive. And a path of destruction it leaves behind also looks like a train plowed through. Shouldn't there also be a claim that it's a conspiracy and they are hiding all the rogue trains while blaming tornadoes?

These firefighters might not be lying or actors, but I would not necessary take their post-traumatic descriptions of the event as facts. They just lived through perhaps their most extreme experience of their lives with 2 giant buildings collapsing around them. While they might be trained and have experience with fires, nobody there had any training or preparation or prior experience on how an 110 story building hit by a plane would collapse and what it would sound and feel like.

When the south tower started collapsing i was standing at exactly 40.705426,-74.004928 that was literally in front of the an entrance to our office building(it was demolished since). When it started collapsing from my vantage point it looked like the top simply toppled over. That was my experience of the event. Was it accurate? No. But everybody on the street at that time saw it that way.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Yeah, you're right.. These guys are clearly lying. In fact, they're not even fire fighters! They're actors working on scale.. (how else would they know what it's like to be on a movie set?)
>> ^EvilDeathBee:
I dunno about you guys, but i'm convinced. This is such a conspiracy, there is no other explanation at all.



Is it possible that they're mistaken? In a building that was hit by a plane...fires and such, I would expect some very loud bangs.

>> ^PoweredBySoy:

This proves a conspiracy and coverup? You people are idiots. And obviously bored.


Love how all the sock puppet probies come out of the woodwork to nay-say whenever a 9/11 video appears on the sift.

Can't wait for the plethora of structural engineers that are members here to follow...

I think you forgot your sarcasm checkbox.>> ^budzos:

Pfft we all know from the many times it's happened before that a 110 storey skyscraper will be silent - in particular, free of any booming type noise - until it falls collapses. After all the times I saw this happen before and after, they expect me to believe the WTC is some kinda special case where a 110 storey building with raging fires in multiple locations actually makes loud noises?

Secondary explosions != coverup. Stop jumping to conclusions.

I watched most of this video but gave up part way through because it's shit. All it is is images we've all seen before and audio of various news broadcasts talking about either reports of secondary explosions or how there may have been secondary explosions. These reports are all meaningless as evidence. remember Katrina, after it blew through reporters were going on about how little damage there was and how New Orleans dodged a bullet. In the heat of the action the media and everybody else often get things wrong. Not saying there weren't secondary explosions and other events that sounded like explosions. there almost certainly were as there are at many disaster and fire sites, but this video is not evidence of anything

The intent of this video is to foment the idea that someone somewhere (the "government" I guess) is obfuscating the "truth" that there were secondary explosive devices at this tragic event. That's the conspiracy. There were no such devices. That's why it's in lies. When a major event happens, many bits of information come in to news organizations concurrently and initial reports are often wrong. Going back and skimming the original news reports and creating a mash-up of mistakes isn't really proof of anything. The news agencies didn't "lie". But their reports, as it turns out, just weren't true.

A better title would be:
"NO BOMBS WERE EVER DEACTIVATED DURING THE OKLAHOMA BOMBING"

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
All the first hand accounts from people like Mr. Rodriguez, the firefighter testimony and the journalists seem to quantify the existence of explosives being set off.
Are you truth debunkers saying that these people don't know what they saw, felt and heard even though they were giving eyewitness accounts at ground zero? If we can't believe those who were able to escape being victims of this heinous act then we should just take a quasi-government controlled agency at it's word? I think not.


Your argument only makes sense if witness accounts are reliable in telling the difference between concrete supports being crushed beneath 50 stories of skyscraper and explosives being set off at the exact same time. If you go watch other footage and witness accounts you won't hear a consistent story of all the witnesses talking about secondary explosives going off. The consistent story is panic and confusion, basing the entire argument on selected witness statements is weak in the extreme.

Ever been in a fender bender? Try and get the same story from the witnesses even for something that straightforward and relatively non-traumatic, you'll find it's the exception. For 9/11 any sane person should expect the witness accounts to vary infinitely more.

For 9/11 we have a huge stock of footage showing the collapse, and not a ONE shows any explosions on the floors beneath until after the top floors have started crashing down. The shear weight of those floors SHOULD cause the floors beneath them to blow out explosively.