[NEW VID RELEASED] Firefighters talk of explosives on @ 9/11

These "flashes" while the buildings fell were actually just dust/debris getting pushed out through the windows due to the massive force of the buildings imploding. They were not "explosions". This has been detailed and explained many, many times.

Nice try.

 

^ FIX the #*&$^#)%^#)*$^ YouTube EMBED on the first page, #$*&@darn it.

 

What's the motive?

 

Conspiracy theorists and ToyCen are scum of society. I'm still mad about that thread ToyCen made implicating that the pictures of victims were photoshopped. Talk about spitting on someone's grave...

 

So wait, why did that one building collapse when it wasn't hit by anything? (WTC 7?)

 

Why would the terrorists go to the trouble of flying planes into buildings that they were already going to blow up with explosives?

 

Good grief, you are so gullible to edited video. Those flashes are still "exploding" inside of the smoke even after the building as fallen past them.

 

Is a demolition explosive an accelerant? Like TNT, c4 and nitroglycerin - the stuff they use for demolishing buildings? I thought (could be wrong) you TNT structural braces and supports and watch it fall from gravity, not melt the structure? So what you are getting at is they set charges and explosives to take it down but it landed on an active volcano and thus melted steel into its molten form? Explain this more please I think i'm confused.

 

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q_OIXfkXEj0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q_OIXfkXEj0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

 

sue them

 

The guy that started this thread is an idiot.

 

Oral histories...

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

 

You know when it freezes real hard here in Houston and the tree limbs get over loaded with ice? After a while the limbs snap. When they snap it sounds like a shotgun going off. Now imagine a big ass steel beam that gets to the point where it is going to snap. It's probably going to be really freaking loud, you know, like a bomb going off.

 

:grin: "Why is Osama Bin Laden safe in... in... somewhere...?"

LOL! Made me LOL, sir. Thank you for posting that.

 

I love how ToyCen completely ignored the most sound, logical explanation of the video that he STARTED this thread with. You know, the one by the CIVIL ENGINEER.

 

This is why I laughed when Ahmadinejad was blabbering about no one ever talks about other theories of 9/11. If he wasn't so ignorant he would realize that Nat Geo has shown these theories for several years now, in fact I think there was one on this week too.

I watched all the videos, I've read all the theories, practically everything they throw out there has been refuted by professional engineers and those worthy on commenting on the subject. I just don't see how it is possible to sneak in that much explosives to have a controlled demolition. I am no engineer, but I don't think buildings were designed to take jet planes at 300 mph, the initial impact could have caused far more structural damage than previously though, therefore rendering the molten steal argument useless.

And although you could argue the government had motive (if in fact you believe that we were just looking for an excuse to go back to the Middle East). I just don't see it that way, I don't believe our government is capable of pulling something like that off without a hitch.