Specific pieces of evidence showing 9/11 s an inside job

In the hopes of specifically addressing pieces of individual evidence (since we can't seem to stick to any one presented point without going off on some tangent), I offer this piece of information that will hopefully be addressed to it's logical conclusion.

Often 9and very recently), "pro official" conspiracy theory supporters contend that nobody heard anything that would indicate controlled demolition because witnesses to that fact do not even exist. Obviously, that's BS as anyone can gather from the link below:

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=4


Two different opinions of the same event. Which one is correct? These firefighters say they DID hear and witness what OCTers claim doesn't exist. Objective opinions?

One piece of evidence....one at a time. Can we stick to the specific point raised here and offer reasonable commentary concerning the firefighters specific viewpoints?

 

What are you trying to pull?....NO ONE has said there were no explosions heard on 9/11


They were NOT from explosives

 

Ever hear a transformer explode? Besides, if this was "controlled demolition" why would the explosions take hours to bring down the building?

Each floor had about an acre of 3" - 4 " concrete flooring. The sound of that plus office furniture and equipment collapsing on an office below would make a very loud boom.
Steel snapping under tension would make a very loud boom.
Large transformers exploding in the building would make a very loud boom.
Large oil filled transformers exploding from the fire in WTC 7 could account for explosions heard in the building before collapsing
Many of the people who said they heard explosions also said they realized it was the building collapsing causing the sound.
Even bodies hitting the ground sounded like explosions to some people.
Some say "It was like" before saying what they heard.
People generally try to describe something hard to describe by saying it's like something most people know. Like the sound of a hurricane is often described as a freight train by survivors.
You would expect a few people who are under attack by terrorists to think a loud boom is an explosive going off.

 

Of all the things on that page, which one did you want to address?

 

First off...you agree there were explosions. Thank you for that.

They were NOT from explosives is your contention. How do you know this?

 

For the sake of specific argument, they witnessed explosions COULD have some attributes of what you describe. Why is it NOT possible that explosions heard were the result of explosives? What SPECIFIC information do you attribute them NOT beng explosions as a result of controlled demolition?

 

Your contention is that there was a controlled demolition. How does that work if you hear an explosion and an hour later the building collapses?

 

I want to first address that fact that many people (professional firefighters and otherwise) heard explosions. Did witnesses to what they deemed to be explosions hear what they try to describe or not?

 

You didn't answer my previous question. Have you ever heard a transformer explode?

 

Easy,no evidence was found,and I agree there were 'explosions',but not from explosives

 

So....you do or do not know specifically if it was a result of controlled demolition? Yes or no? Thank you in advance for not ducking the specificity of the question.

 

So you find no evidence of that. Okay. So, your elimination of explosives as a possible explanation for the admitted explosions that you agree, DID occur, is based on something you know to be independently true. Is that correct? You personally verified the evidence or, you're basing your conclusion on something else? What would that be...SPECIFICALLY?

 

So you find no evidence of that. Okay. So, your elimination of explosives as a possible explanation for the admitted explosions that you agree, DID occur, is based on something you know to be independently true. Is that correct? You personally verified the evidence or, you're basing your conclusion on something else? What would that be...SPECIFICALLY?

 

No,the ball's in your court....you contend they were explosions caused by explosives,but offer no proof to back your claimthere were bomb sniffing dogs all over the ruins after the collapse,yet did we hear of anything found?

 

Okay...you don't want to answer or cannot. Understood. "Did we hear" of anything, is your question? Officially? Not much...granted. Who was in charge of what was and wasn't found "officially"? That should be the question you ask. You find the "official" investigation and resulting things "found" credible I presume. I do not, and many do not as well.

There were explosions. So, at issue is SPECIFICALLY what those explosions were? Would that be correct?

 

Is your contention based on ANYTHING other than what you were told in a report, or what you THINK you already know? I'm trying to point out that your conclusions must not be any more valid than mine, and if that's the case, because you're asking me to point to absolute proof of demolition when you don't follow the exact same standard that you are trying to enforce onto me. SPECIFICALLY...there were no explosions caused by controlled demolition because........? WHY? Can you answer that? You want honesty, you have to show a little yourself. That usually makes for a prudent conversation between opposing parties. Anyone??? Can anyone offer proof that controlled demolition was not involved in any of the towers that day?

 

Were there explosions? Yes. Things explode when exposed to heat.

Was there a controlled demolition? Nope.

The proof not one truther has ever been able to address is the fact 13 people survived in Stairwell B of the North Tower. Where are the stairwells? In the core. Where would ANY controlled demolition have to be conducted? In the core. Did they hear any explosions before or during the collapse? No. Did they hear the approaching collapse? Yes. Did they survive being in a place the truthers pretend explosives would be going off? Yes.

Truthers like to distract by pretending the only pertinent information is whether or not there were explosions and then pretend any explosions were caused by high explosives used in controlled demolition. Never mind RWAF already has a thread where he swears up and down they used nano thermate enhanced paint. Just more proof truthers will believe ANYTHING and defend it to the death as long as it promotes their agenda and the truth be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed.

 

Hey, thanks for sticking to specifics.

The firefighters, who are professionals, say they heard explosions. WE can hear the explosions on some of the video in the link. They speak of "secondary explosions" throughout. Are we supposed to believe that they're referring to transformers, or the like every single time? When did they ever mention transformers or anything else as to what they were hearing? They didn't. They simply said "explosions" and "secondary explosions". How is it that you can determine these explosions (all of them) are NOT via some sort of explosives? Please show me the way here....SPECIFICALLY.....not through some Phillip Zelikow edited report long after the fact, but something a little more....physical....provable. Thank you.

 

How can you determine they are not and which scenario is more credible? The answer is simple but not one you will ever accept because you have already made up your mind, sans facts.

 

Apparently you have made up yours as well....Credibility is part of what I am trying to ascertain. The answer may be simple to you, because you accept that what we were all told is accurate. I do not. Fact is eyewitnesses (in this case the firefighters) said they heard "explosions" and referred to "secondary explosions" throughout. I'm asking how is it that you (or anybody else) is able to determine what they heard repeatedly, (what we can hear as well), ISN'T explosive oriented? What do they hear exactly and how is anyone able to determine WHAT it is that they're hearing SPECIFICALLY? Furthermore, how do they arrive at that conclusion? Based on what? How do they verify it?
You guys want proof. I want proof. You critique my speculation. I am critiquing your apparent speculation. My point is either admit it's speculation, or prove that it isn't. Speculation is fine sometimes...just use the same standard for both sides of the argument, instead of changing the acceptable criteria when it fits the point being raised. Speculation or provable, verifiable fact....BOTH sides of the aisle here.

 

I have made up my mind...this is true. However I will always consider provable evidence to the contrary. I think we've already concluded that we disagree of what constitutes actual evidence and what constitutes speculation (or speculation via filtered, highly edited or incomplete reports from corrupted sources).

 

So show us a single firefighter present on 9/11 that believes there were explosives. Come on. Shouldn't be hard. They would know the official story is a lie and that three hundred of their fellow fire fighters died for a lie. Yet not ONE has come forward to back up your baseless claim where you have to put words in their mouths to try and make your point.

So there you have it. It isn't physical evidence. It is the complete LACK of physical evidence in the form of ANY firefighter who has stepped forward and claimed the explosions they heard were from explosives. I am relying on the experts here, just as you are. The only difference is I don't have to pretend I know what they "really" meant.

Want more proof? Read through all their testimonies after the fact. Not ONE of them said there were explosives that day. NOT ONE. It is one thing to try and warp what they say in interviews. It is a whole different thing when their official testimony refutes what you are trying to pretend is true.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Here is the link to their testimonies. Good luck! You're going to need it!

 

So why do you run from the evidence provided by 13 survivors of the North Tower that directly refute your claims of controlled demolition? Not just their tesimony that they didn't hear explosions but by the very fact they survived where truthers pretend the high explosives were going off. Your claim you will "always consider provable evidence to the contrary" is pure horse(*)(*)(*)(*). I know it. You know it. I'm pretty sure there isn't anyone reading any of your threads that isn't intelligent enough to know it.

 

I think the firefighters in the link I am referencing pretty much ARE saying exactly that. Did you miss something in the link? It was pretty obvious, so I think your comment is inaccurate. I think one video in particular states exactly what you claim they AREN'T saying. I think the words and the video speak for themselves. After all, it IS their words, and their feelings being expressed (in plain English) BY THEM. Why do you have such difficulty with what they clearly state in the video? Are they lying? C'mon man...use some of that honesty I know you insist on from others.

 

Who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) what you think? "Pretty much" doesn't cut it. You have to stick words in their mouths for them to say what you want them to say. You have to ASSume they are saying something different which does NOT stand up to the fact not one of them has come forward to clarify that they meant explosives and the official story is wrong.

I have been completely honest. You can't say the same, can you. So show me one fire fighter who says he saw a bomb or explosives or knew that the explosions were from explosives. Don't give us a firefighter repeating something he heard from someone else. You ARE trying to be honest here, right?