Video: 9/11 Firefighters Reveal Huge Explosions Before Towers Collapsed

How about industrial diesel generators?BMD004

well they would be in the basement so not up in the towers

LOL

'Ignorance is bliss'

Say why don't you study these links and get back to me.

http://killtown.911review.org/911links.html

sgotskillz

You don't seem to much like the images I provided of the top of the WTC building collapsing before the bottom. Ever since I posted them you've utterly ignored them and taken on a snarky tone. Why would that be?

Surely one who earnestly seeks the truth is willing to seriously consider evidence that does not fit within their proposed explanation, no?

[QUOTE="BMD004"] How about industrial diesel generators?Deano

well they would be in the basement so not up in the towers

If the government truly did this then it further cements the fact that government is just not efficient.

What was the point of the plane if they could just blow it up with bombs? It makes absolutely no sense. So they could blame it on someone? Um, couldn't they just blame it on one of the workers in the buildings, possibly an imaginary one. With the resources of the government it wouldn't be too hard to make someone look like a terrorist. The lack of logic to it makes me think the whole government conspiracy thing is wrong

[QUOTE="sgotskillz"]

LOL

'Ignorance is bliss'

Say why don't you study these links and get back to me.

http://killtown.911review.org/911links.html

GabuEx

You don't seem to much like the images I provided of the top of the WTC building collapsing before the bottom. Ever since I posted them you've utterly ignored them and taken on a snarky tone. Why would that be?

Snarky tone, I thought I was being much more polite than you.

That's the thing about the 9/11 conspiracies: they requires you to simultaneously hold that the conspirators are the most brilliant individuals in the entire world, yet also that they are the dumbest, most incompetent bumblers in the entire world.

GabuEx

And I answered your question how the explosions in the lobby didn't effect the top part of the building to tilt over via your photos, like all controlled demolitions you weaken the foundations first. Go back and read it. The towers fell straight after multiple explosions were heard from hundreds of witnesses, both in the lobby and above

yes and I also posted that all water boilers have inbuilt temperature and pressure relief valves to stop anything like this even happening.

mythbusters would have blocked it off most likely, they are always doing things like that to get

that capacitor isn't "blowing up" either, it's more just overloading.

don't consider mythbusters really accurate either, they only do 1 or 2 experiments and then conclude it as false or not.

Deano

They did block the pressure valve, I'll give you. As well as disable the thermal cut-off switch. But then they were also only using the boiler's own heating source. Which is what that valve is designed to coup with, in the event that the boiler's thermal switch malfunctions. It may not be able to release pressure fast enough in a raging fire.

The capacitor "overloaded" into many tiny pieces.

I'm more willing to trust the word of the Mythbusters than sources who often appear to have flunked high school physics. Oh, and they detonated several boilers BTW.

Well, three buildings with relatively minor fires collapse, only two of which were hit by planes. Despite the buildings being designed to withstand the impact of at least two jet liners, they completely collapse at free-fall speed in little over an hour - most of you believe that can happen, and that's fine lol.

Moving on to the not-so-talked-about aspects of that day...

What about the lack of Pentagon footage and the lack of wreckage from both (particularly the Pensylvania) crash sites?

I'm intrigued to hear people's thoughts on this.

[QUOTE="savebattery"]This is the explosion your average household water heater is capable of. Now imagine what a boiler that would be at the World Trade Center would do. Also, good job ducking the generator thing. Not to mention capacitors.Deano

that is an ENITRELY different situation, that isn't being burnt that is being forcibly pumped with pressur till it explodes. I could make a coke bottle explode like that too.

a water heater that is burning would just melt and the water would all run out.

Come on, you are joking right???

A little late to care, the world has moved on. Human-after-all

"Two firefighters in the building heard explosions." So that is the damning evidence? I expected something a little more substantial than just random heresy.

Well, three buildings with relatively minor fires collapse, only two of which were hit by planes. Despite the buildings being designed to withstand the impact of at least two jet liners, they completely collapse at free-fall speed in little over an hour - most of you believe that can happen, and that's fine lol.

Moving on to the not-so-talked-about aspects of that day...

What about the lack of Pentagon footage and the lack of wreckage from both (particularly the Pensylvania) crash sites?

I'm intrigued to hear people's thoughts on this.

raynimrod

They did block the pressure valve, I'll give you. As well as disable the thermal cut-off switch. But then they were also only using the boiler's own heating source. Which is what that valve is designed to coup with, in the event that the boiler's thermal switch malfunctions. It may not be able to release pressure fast enough in a raging fire.

The capacitor "overloaded" into many tiny pieces.

I'm more willing to trust the word of the Mythbusters than sources who often appear to have flunked high school physics. Oh, and they detonated several boilers BTW.

ThePlothole

I still don't get your point, are you trying to say even if a boiler exploded somehow that it could take down a skyscraper.

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]

They did block the pressure valve, I'll give you. As well as disable the thermal cut-off switch. But then they were also only using the boiler's own heating source. Which is what that valve is designed to coup with, in the event that the boiler's thermal switch malfunctions. It may not be able to release pressure fast enough in a raging fire.

The capacitor "overloaded" into many tiny pieces.

I'm more willing to trust the word of the Mythbusters than sources who often appear to have flunked high school physics. Oh, and they detonated several boilers BTW.

Deano

I still don't get your point, are you trying to say even if a boiler exploded somehow that it could take down a skyscraper.

[QUOTE="Deano"]

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]

Does this or this look like melting?

BMD004

good grief i've already spoken about these things in previous posts.

Deano, why are you ignoring this ^ post?

[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="Deano"]

good grief i've already spoken about these things in previous posts.

GreySeal9

Deano, why are you ignoring this ^ post?

Cause' then it might go away. Maybe. Possibly.

Come on, you are joking right???

Ryan_Kitchen

ffs i've already explained multiple times of the way a boiler is built that is has pressure and temperature release valves so no, they do not explode and no mythbusters disabling the overflow valves is not an accurate representation of how boilerswork

how many house fires do we have where the boiler blows up and launches 200 feet in the air like mythbusters if that was what really happened. cause i've never heard of one case.

i'm done with this thread considering i'm having to explain the same answers repeatedl;y for people who are just blind posting.

[QUOTE="Ryan_Kitchen"]

Come on, you are joking right???

Deano

ffs i've already explained multiple times of the way a boiler is built that is has pressure and temperature release valves so no, they do not explode and no mythbusters disabling the overflow valves is not an accurate representation of how boilerswork

how many house fires do we have where the boiler blows up and launches 200 feet in the air like mythbusters if that was what really happened. cause i've never heard of one case.

i'm done with this thread considering i'm having to explain the same answers repeatedl;y for people who are just blind posting.

Hard to repeat answers you've never given. Also, it should be obvious that just not hearing about something happening doesn't mean it hasn't and does happen. Poor excuse.

[QUOTE="Ryan_Kitchen"]

Come on, you are joking right???

Deano

ffs i've already explained multiple times of the way a boiler is built that is has pressure and temperature release valves so no, they do not explode and no mythbusters disabling the overflow valves is not an accurate representation of how boilerswork

how many house fires do we have where the boiler blows up and launches 200 feet in the air like mythbusters if that was what really happened. cause i've never heard of one case.

i'm done with this thread considering i'm having to explain the same answers repeatedl;y for people who are just blind posting.

The only reason you are leaving is because you want to avoid the question that keeps being put to you.

And I answered your question how the explosions in the lobby didn't effect the top part of the building to tilt over via your photos, like all controlled demolitions you weaken the foundations first. Go back and read it. The towers fell straight after multiple explosions were heard from hundreds of witnesses, both in the lobby and above

sgotskillz

I already replied to that:

A plane hits a building.

The portion of that building above where the plane hits it tilts and falls onto the building, and then the building start collapsing downwards after that.

Where, exactly, do these explosions at the bottom contribute anything?

GabuEx

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"] Answer me this, since nobody has refuted this point yet. How can a building rigged with explosives sustain a crash by a jetliner? Wouldn't that cause a chain reaction and set off all of the explosives? Or at least mess up the timing of the explosive order?789shadow

Deano, why are you ignoring this ^ post?

Cause' then it might go away. Maybe. Possibly.

Instead, he's going away. :lol:

[QUOTE="sgotskillz"]

And I answered your question how the explosions in the lobby didn't effect the top part of the building to tilt over via your photos, like all controlled demolitions you weaken the foundations first. Go back and read it. The towers fell straight after multiple explosions were heard from hundreds of witnesses, both in the lobby and above

GabuEx

I already replied to that:

A plane hits a building.

The portion of that building above where the plane hits it tilts and falls onto the building, and then the building start collapsing downwards after that.

Where, exactly, do these explosions at the bottom contribute anything?

GabuEx

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Deano, why are you ignoring this ^ post?

GreySeal9

Cause' then it might go away. Maybe. Possibly.

Instead, he's going away. :lol:

Funny how that works.

I still don't get your point, are you trying to say even if a boiler exploded somehow that it could take down a skyscraper.

Deano

Uh, no. What I'm saying is that there are plenty of other explanations for why someone might have heard an "explosion". Though I do think transformers are a far more likely culprit than water boilers.

What brought those towers down was the damage caused by a jet plane impacting them, followed by intense fires. While these fires were not hot enough to melt the steel, they wouldn't have needed to be. Steel doesn't simply go from a solid to liquid state. It slowly loses rigidity when heat is applied. Its load bearing properties severely compromised in the process.

Uh, no. What I'm saying is that there are plenty of other explanations for why someone might have heard an "explosion". Though I do think transformers are a far more likely culprit than water boilers.

What brought those towers down was the damage caused by a jet plane impacting them, followed by intense fires. While these fires were not hot enough to melt the steel, they wouldn't have needed to be. Steel doesn't simply go from a solid to liquid state. It slowly loses rigidity when heat is applied. Its load bearing properties severely compromised in the process.

ThePlothole

except people heard explosions coming from the sub level area.

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]

Uh, no. What I'm saying is that there are plenty of other explanations for why someone might have heard an "explosion". Though I do think transformers are a far more likely culprit than water boilers.

What brought those towers down was the damage caused by a jet plane impacting them, followed by intense fires. While these fires were not hot enough to melt the steel, they wouldn't have needed to be. Steel doesn't simply go from a solid to liquid state. It slowly loses rigidity when heat is applied. Its load bearing properties severely compromised in the process.

Deano

except people heard explosions coming from the sub level area.

Extremely panicked people heard what they thought were explosions when a lot of crazy **** was going down.

In a court trial, if a piece of objective evidence contradicts witness testimony, the contradicting portion of the testimony is thrown out and doubt is cast on the veracity of the remainder of the witness' testimony.

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]

Uh, no. What I'm saying is that there are plenty of other explanations for why someone might have heard an "explosion". Though I do think transformers are a far more likely culprit than water boilers.

What brought those towers down was the damage caused by a jet plane impacting them, followed by intense fires. While these fires were not hot enough to melt the steel, they wouldn't have needed to be. Steel doesn't simply go from a solid to liquid state. It slowly loses rigidity when heat is applied. Its load bearing properties severely compromised in the process.

Deano

except people heard explosions coming from the sub level area.

Structural failure clearly started at the point of impact. Not the sub level area.

Hey Deano, glad you're back. Now maybe you can answer the question that was posed to you. I'll repost it for your convenience:

Answer me this, since nobody has refuted this point yet. How can a building rigged with explosives sustain a crash by a jetliner? Wouldn't that cause a chain reaction and set off all of the explosives? Or at least mess up the timing of the explosive order?

Holy ****... when are you going to respond to this: How can a building rigged with explosives sustain a crash by a jetliner? Wouldn't that cause a chain reaction and set off all of the explosives? Or at least mess up the timing of the explosive order?BMD004

I wasn't there so why would you expect me to know every detail.

but that fact multiple people reported explosions should tell you something isn't right,

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/eyewitness.html

[QUOTE="Deano"]

I still don't get your point, are you trying to say even if a boiler exploded somehow that it could take down a skyscraper.

ThePlothole

Uh, no. What I'm saying is that there are plenty of other explanations for why someone might have heard an "explosion". Though I do think transformers are a far more likely culprit than water boilers.

What brought those towers down was the damage caused by a jet plane impacting them, followed by intense fires. While these fires were not hot enough to melt the steel, they wouldn't have needed to be. Steel doesn't simply go from a solid to liquid state. It slowly loses rigidity when heat is applied. Its load bearing properties severely compromised in the process.

[QUOTE="BMD004"] Holy ****... when are you going to respond to this: How can a building rigged with explosives sustain a crash by a jetliner? Wouldn't that cause a chain reaction and set off all of the explosives? Or at least mess up the timing of the explosive order?Deano

I wasn't there so why would you expect me to know every detail.

but that fact multiple people reported explosions should tell you something isn't right,

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/eyewitness.html

[QUOTE="BMD004"] Holy ****... when are you going to respond to this: How can a building rigged with explosives sustain a crash by a jetliner? Wouldn't that cause a chain reaction and set off all of the explosives? Or at least mess up the timing of the explosive order?Deano

I wasn't there so why would you expect me to know every detail.

but that fact multiple people reported explosions should tell you something isn't right,

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/eyewitness.html

Why, exactly, would explosions anywhere in a building that has just been hit by a jetliner be in anyway suspicious? Without context, explosions are not suspicious whatsoever.

But there're reports of explosions on the ground level, how do you suppose the fire burning hundreds of meters above the ground was able to cause those explosions? (assuming there where actually explosions on the ground floor).PernicioEnigma

If there were explosions on the ground level whose purpose was to bring down the building, the building would have fallen down onto itself. Instead, the building clearly falls top-down, beginning with the portion of the building above where the plane hit.

The conclusion is obvious: those reporting explosions were, quite simply, mistaken. I have no doubt there was probably something that sounded like an explosion, but that means nothing in itself. As I said, when the objective evidence contradicts witness testimony, you throw out the testimony.

Uh, no. What I'm saying is that there are plenty of other explanations for why someone might have heard an "explosion". Though I do think transformers are a far more likely culprit than water boilers.

What brought those towers down was the damage caused by a jet plane impacting them, followed by intense fires. While these fires were not hot enough to melt the steel, they wouldn't have needed to be. Steel doesn't simply go from a solid to liquid state. It slowly loses rigidity when heat is applied. Its load bearing properties severely compromised in the process.

ThePlothole

[QUOTE="BMD004"] Holy ****... when are you going to respond to this: How can a building rigged with explosives sustain a crash by a jetliner? Wouldn't that cause a chain reaction and set off all of the explosives? Or at least mess up the timing of the explosive order?Deano

I wasn't there so why would you expect me to know every detail.

but that fact multiple people reported explosions should tell you something isn't right,

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/eyewitness.html

LOL, I love how you just dodged the question and went back to your weak "witness" argument.

Why don't you actually answer the question?

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]

Uh, no. What I'm saying is that there are plenty of other explanations for why someone might have heard an "explosion". Though I do think transformers are a far more likely culprit than water boilers.

What brought those towers down was the damage caused by a jet plane impacting them, followed by intense fires. While these fires were not hot enough to melt the steel, they wouldn't have needed to be. Steel doesn't simply go from a solid to liquid state. It slowly loses rigidity when heat is applied. Its load bearing properties severely compromised in the process.

Vax45

Because the location of the hits were above the centers of gravity. They would likely have toppled over if the hits where below the center of the buildings. But a building toppling over horizontally doens't make sense when the problem is above the center.

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]

Uh, no. What I'm saying is that there are plenty of other explanations for why someone might have heard an "explosion". Though I do think transformers are a far more likely culprit than water boilers.

What brought those towers down was the damage caused by a jet plane impacting them, followed by intense fires. While these fires were not hot enough to melt the steel, they wouldn't have needed to be. Steel doesn't simply go from a solid to liquid state. It slowly loses rigidity when heat is applied. Its load bearing properties severely compromised in the process.

Vax45

The planes punched a hole right through the towers; it didn't just chip away at the side. Even then, the tower did slightly tip over, but at that point inertia and gravity took over and caused the tower to fall down since the structural integrity of the tower had failed to a sufficient degree to cause the floors below where the plane hit to give way to the floors above.

LOL, I love how you just dodged the question and went back to your weak "witness" argument.

Why don't you actually answer the question?

GreySeal9

well it's possible the explosives were onboard the plane.

there's been numerous flase flag operations in history, you really think it's so unbelievable the govt. let this happen so they could gain greater power, just look at the patriot act

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

LOL, I love how you just dodged the question and went back to your weak "witness" argument.

Why don't you actually answer the question?

well it's possible the explosives were onboard the plane.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

LOL, I love how you just dodged the question and went back to your weak "witness" argument.

Why don't you actually answer the question?

Deano

well it's possible the explosives were onboard the plane.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

LOL, I love how you just dodged the question and went back to your weak "witness" argument.

Why don't you actually answer the question?

Deano

well it's possible the explosives were onboard the plane.

there's been numerous flase flag operations in history, you really think it's so unbelievable the govt. let this happen so they could gain greater power, just look at the patriot act

Is there anywhere where there weren't explosives? I'm sure at least one New York hotdog stand was explosives free.

lol those who still believe it was terrorists are having a laugh! if you still believe this their brainwashing techniques are greatFreshPrinceUk

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

LOL, I love how you just dodged the question and went back to your weak "witness" argument.

Why don't you actually answer the question?

Deano

well it's possible the explosives were onboard the plane.

there's been numerous flase flag operations in history, you really think it's so unbelievable the govt. let this happen so they could gain greater power, just look at the patriot act

LOL. That's all I have to say to the bolded section.

As for false flag operations, instead of asking me "do you really think it's so unbelievable". how bout you actually construct a coherent argument instead of asking me what's unbelievable.

well it's possible the explosives were onboard the plane.

Deano

Well yes, there were certainly explosives on board the plane, in the form of tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel...