Here is one rescue worker who was "in on it"

[HyJinX]

FF Craig Carlsen:
[Y]ou just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.... We then realized the building started to come down."

No "like" but "there were" [...] explosions"

Explosions does NOT equal Explosives

Why does this perplex you and all the other junior detectives like you?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Red,

People use similes from their experience. Why do you TMers continue to harp on people describing loud noises as "explosions"?

Do you expect them to say that "it sounded just like the 110 story building I saw collapse the week before"?

There was no prior experience of anything of this nature, so people relate it to something in their own memory. Further, none of the people who are quoted as saying it was the sound of an explosion, like ______(insert whatever), had any first hand experience with demolitions so their reference points for comparison are, at best, dubious.

The Native Americans referred to steam locomotives as "iron horses". Do you think they really thought it looked like a horse? Or was that the frame of reference that they had available. How about guns:thunder sticks? The loudest boom any aboroginals anywhere had heard before they heard a gun go off was the sound of a clap of thunder. It was therefore the metaphor they chose... e.g. being the only one available.

 

[lapman]

It ended when I provided a list of accounts of FDNY personnel describing multiple, sequential explosions before collapse.

You listed a bunch of names. None of them describe the sequence of explosions that is unique to CD.

 

[lapman]

FF Craig Carlsen:
[Y]ou just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.... We then realized the building started to come down."

Your dishonesty continues. You purposely cut out:

At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

It turns out that the "explosions" occurred at the start of the collapse, not before. The lengths you'll go through to "prove" your non-existent point.

 

[RedIbis]

Your dishonesty continues. You purposely cut out:
It turns out that the "explosions" occurred at the start of the collapse, not before. The lengths you'll go through to "prove" your non-existent point.

I don't doubt for a second that these firefighters came to agree with the official explanations "after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

My point from the get-go was what these people said before people came to them and told them the source of these events.

 

[chillzero]

Red,
Did you miss post 399? You had seemed keen to discuss it, initially.

 

[Dave Rogers]

My point from the get-go was what these people said before people came to them and told them the source of these events.

And your evidence that people came to them and told them the source of these events is?

Dave

 

[lapman]

I don't doubt for a second that these firefighters came to agree with the official explanations "after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

My point from the get-go was what these people said before people came to them and told them the source of these events.

Nice copout. That's becuase they didn't see the sourced of the sound. However, there is no real timeframe between the sound and the collapse, so it does not support what you claim.

 

[Disbelief]

I don't doubt for a second that these firefighters came to agree with the official explanations "after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

My point from the get-go was what these people said before people came to them and told them the source of these events.

And yet after all this time, they do not think that it was a CD. Do you think that these people are not intelligent? That they only follow orders or what they have been told? What next, you are going to break out the "Fear of losing their job" card?

 

[MarkyX]

RedIbis, did you actually talk to any of these firefighters and ask if they believed bombs bought down the towers?

 

[johnny karate]

I don't doubt for a second that these firefighters came to agree with the official explanations "after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

My point from the get-go was what these people said before people came to them and told them the source of these events.

The hypothesis you present here leaves you with a limited number of choices:

A) Every single firefighter that was on the scene was at some point fooled into thinking that a building that collapsed due to controlled demolition actually collapsed due to debris damage and fire. Regardless of their individual level of experience and/or training dealing with collapsing, burning buildings. Furthermore, every single one of those firefighters has been living in a vacuum for the last seven years, being oblivious to all the "smoking gun" evidence your movement has presented, or just aren't quite as clever as a handful of teenage Youtubers to be able to discern the Truth.

B) Every single firefighter that was on the scene knows that WTC7 actually collapsed due to controlled demolition, but for various personal reasons (paid off, coerced, evil) have chosen not to come forward with this startling information.

C) A combination of A and B.

So I put it to you Red, which of the above scenarios do you feel best describe what actually took place?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And Red has to agree that there was a train in the building since his standards are that whatever a witness uses to describe events means that that description was literally present during the event.

If someone describes sounds that were like babies being put on spikes, then it has to literally mean babies were being put on spikes. Since people claimed to hear the sounds of a locomotive, therefore there it must mean there literally was a locomotive at the scene.

Do you agree with this Red?

 

[pomeroo]

Wow, that was some great debunking. How about this one:

FF Edward Cachia
"[W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down."

Oh I know, it's what he originally thought. Go back to your local detective and ask him/her which interview is the most valuable, the one just after the event, or what the eyewitnesses concludes at a later date.

Understandably, you are tap dancing around the devastating implications to your fantasy of the exact words of Edward Cachia. If we take the four booms as a literal description, then obviously we are not dealing with a controlled demolition. Are we agreed that your latest deception has crashed and burned? What will you try next to resurrect this idiocy?

Let's save time. Show us someone who claims to have heard a succession of blasts--NOT three or four-- at the base, going off near-simultaneously, followed by the collapse of the building. Got anyone?

Buh-bye.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How do you expect people to describe what they saw? He was in no more of a position to say it was explosive charges as he was to say it wasn't.

In other words, he described what he experienced. I suppose it's the experts on jref who will decide why he described what he did.

This is ignorant beyond belief. You display awareness that this person is describing what he experienced based on limited information, but you seem completely oblivious to the fact that many of us here... now... seven years later... have [sarcasm]just a wee bit more[/sarcasm] information to work with than the person you've quoted.

Amazing. Utterly, truly amazing...

 

[Alt+F4]

In other words, he described what he experienced. I suppose it's the experts on jref who will decide why he described what he did.

Again Red, why bother with what anyone here has to say? Contact him yourself and get clarification from "the horse's mouth", as the saying goes.

If you are unwilling to contact him then I must ask, what are you really after....the truth or just an Internet exercise in debate?

 

[RedIbis]

Let's save time. Show us someone who claims to have heard a succession of blasts--NOT three or four-- at the base, going off near-simultaneously, followed by the collapse of the building. Got anyone?

Buh-bye.

Next, you'll be telling me what color socks they have to be wearing.

 

[lapman]

Next, you'll be telling me what color socks they have to be wearing.

Blue, wait no, red.. AAAArrrrrggggh_hhh!

Seriously, so far you've only shown that people heard a noise, looked up and saw that the building was collapsing. The audio record supports that.

 

[RedIbis]

Blue, wait no, red.. AAAArrrrrggggh_hhh!

Seriously, so far you've only shown that people heard a noise, looked up and saw that the building was collapsing. The audio record supports that.

I thought the debunker claim was that there was no noise of explosions.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I thought the debunker claim was that there was no noise of explosions.

It was the sound of an acre of concrete & metal slamming into another acre sized slab of concrete & metal... considering that bodies were described as sounding like explosions on hitting the ground, what do you think a tower collapsing would sound like?

Where'as you're claiming that 'explosions' mean 'explosives' detonating because somebody used a simile. Some described the collapse initiation as sounding like a 'clap of thunder'

'Debunkers' aren't claiming there weren't sounds, debunkers are claiming that 'sounds' do not mean 'explosives'
In the videos of the collapse we hear the building collapse, not thousands of tons of explosive charges blowing out all the structure... If they were explosive charges the sound would have been difficult to miss

 

[R.Mackey]

I thought the debunker claim was that there was no noise of explosions.

Please read more carefully. Mr. Rodriguez DID NOT see an explosive. He felt shocks and saw damage and fireballs that he incorrectly assigned to explosives.

What you posted is bunk. There were explosions. But none of those eyewitnesses actually thinks there were bombs. Unlike you, they know that jet fuel and other things caught in fires can also deflagrate.

There is a certain point at which a Forum member makes so many staggeringly incorrect proclamations, or ignores so many facts that should be blindingly obvious, that one cannot escape the conclusion that he is just lying outright.