The interference runners will not address this point Jim. What will follow will be dances and more scattershot tangents. Specifics of an issue lend credibility to the point being raised, and they'll have none of that. Instead, you'll get rapid fire attacks, from everyone, all at once, to maintain the fog of misinformation they try so hard to block the truth with. I've tried some time ago to address specifics, but then realized what I was up against here, so I'm resigned to the fact that the fog will continue to be generated, and all I can do is speak in bits and pieces (as reasonable discussion is simply impossible). I hope you have better success though.
Bomb damage is not the same as controlled demolition damage. I've read about a dozen random oral histories so there are probably other witnesses. Kevin Curry is one witness who omits the damage -but he was from OEM and I find most of their activities rather suspicious. Also, you have 2 page 6's because one was duplicated as page 7. So that doesn't mean you didn't miss page 7.
Well, so I did - my mistake. The link is there for any who wish to read it. Why 'bombs' if not for CD? (And really, shouldn't this be a thread of its own? We're getting off the topic of this one. The OP insists that DEW beams disintegrated the towers.)
In a word, your post is pure BULL(*)(*)(*)(*). You think so little of firefighters that you think they wouldn't investigate? Bombs are pretty easy to spot if they've gone off. Does he describe that? Does ANY fire fighter? No. Do you ignore this fact in your rabid pursuit of a lie? Absolutely. BTW, while we both agree his testimony was truthful, his testimony directly refutes your claims of a bomb. Does he think there was damage? Yes. Does he think it was a bomb? No or he would have said so and reacted as I stated in my previous post which you ignored. As for what caused the damage, first you have the impact from the plane which was severe enough to register as a minor earthquake at the seismic monitoring station a few miles away. Don't you think that would cause some damage? What about the elevators letting loose and crashing to the ground. Do you think the impact from them might do some damage? One other thing. All the injuries are not what one would expect from a bomb. Bombs don't cause burns. They cause things like ruptured ear drums, eye injuries and shrapnel injuries. Were any of these described? No. Hmmmm.
Well, everyone knows they wouldn't have used a hollywood bomb. What would the point be? Look elsewhere for the truth.
Hi Pat. He clearly said on page seven that the elevator doors which service the lower floors were blown off its hinges.
And wouldn't that be caused by an elevator that crashed down as witnessed by several people? Wouldn't a bomb do more than just blow the doors off their hinges?
Hollywood "bombs" achieve their effect with an accelerant, like gasoline. Can you think of an accelerant that could have been present in the elevator shaft after a large aircraft slammed into the side of the building? I can.
A falling elevator wouldn't take out more than one door. These elevators went to the lower floors and had elevators above them in the shaft. The lobby was not at the bottom of these shafts.
And what leads you to THIS conclusion? You pretending to be some kind of expert on elevator crashes? And who said it was only one elevator? With a little research you will find that numerous elevators were affected by the impact of the planes. A shaft only supports one elevator at a time. What do you expect them to do? PASS each other?!? BTW, don't you think it is possible for elevators to end at the lobby?
I've only read Williams description of the elevators and they don't seem to support the theories being offered here.
The elevators ended at the lobby level, as is typical for most office towers. They would have transfer lifts for the lower levels from the lobby. It's a functionality and security issue that is fairly standard for most towers. For fun, here's the lift diagram for the WTC.
Why the exasperation? If logic and evidence is on your side, why not calmly explain the subject? Isn't that what a college professor would do? I didn't know it was a contest. However, I think I have successfully pointed out your hypocrisy and others have as well. To continue to engage in ad hominem in order to show you that that "isn't the best I've got" would be hypocritical of me as well. So I will refrain from ad hominem and hope that you do the same. Actually we DON"T know that since Griffin has never PROVED that. Yes he put forth several theories and hypotheses to that effect but his an awful of speculation, assumption and innuendo. Be that as it may, I know by now I am not going to convince you that Griffin has not "proven" that they were faked. But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that he has. What is his/your explanation for the cooperation of the family members/loved ones who would have to have been in on the "faked" calls? (DDave shoots his hand up into the air) Ooo, ooo, I think I know . . . jet fuel?
Which version? He has had several as his desperation for attention increased. He started off claiming it was only a rumble. First account on 9/11. A year later he added this which still sounds like the truth: By 2007 this is what his story morphed into: So which version are you believing?
Criminy, my mistake. I didn't mean that Williams. I was talking about William Walsh - the original off-topic honest firefighter who I believe witnessed the elevator doors that serviced the lower floors had blown off.
Ah. Gotcha. Not the typical Willaims. My bad actually. Seriously, though. If it really looked like something a bomb would do, and given that Al Qaeda attacked with a bomb in 93, why wouldn't they investigate the possibility of a bomb? They knew what cause the damage; crashed elevators and fuel from the plane that ignited. Bombs don't smell like jet fuel and numerous witnesses claimed to smell jet fuel (kerosine).
Alright, I didn't get the impression Walsh could see the bottom of the shaft (kinda like I don't see your diagram) but they only went to a third of the entire building.
I'm probably not the first to suggest this but maybe a bomb was used to take out the elevators. Of course, that would be complicating.
The buzzers sounds and that would be wrong. The fuel burned up on impact in the form of that big fireball that we all saw that day. If the building(s) were going to fall, they would have fallen on impact.....not an hour later. Of course, no one bothers to explain what happened to the 47 VERTICAL columns in the two structures. Common sense would dictate that those columns would have offered some resistance to the supposed pancaking (or whatever the latest BS is today) and slow down the near free fall speed the buildings achieved. Explosive demolition COULD achieve that feat though, removing support columns one floor at a time in timed succession.
