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

[Twist_U_Up]

Newly obtained video that was reluctantly released by NIST after a lawsuit by the International Center for 9/11 Studies shows two firefighters on 9/11 discussing how secondary explosions occurred immediately before the collapse of the twin towers, providing damning new evidence that explosive devices were used to bring down the buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IO1ps1mzU8o

The new tape is as clear cut as it comes – the firefighters, who were inside the lobby of one of the towers, unequivocally state that secondary explosions which occurred after the planes hit were responsible for causing the towers to collapse.

More proof proving inside job DUDE!!!

[zappaman]

1. More proof?

I must have missed all the other "proof" that 9/11 was an inside job.
Unfortunately the "explosions" doesn't explain the mini-nukes.

[Twist_U_Up]

2. very lame response

not even a good try
better call in the big guns sunshine

[zappaman]

3. How is this TuTu?

A building as large as the World Trade Center is sure to have many electronic machines ranging from the elevator system to the fax machines in offices.
A simple electrical fire could have caused mini explosions.
Were these guys close enough to know what caused the explosions?
Obviously not, since they are still around.
Firefighters hear explosions very frequently when inside burning buildings.
Does that mean that there are explosive devices inside those buildings?
More "proof" from truthers.
*yawn*

[Twist_U_Up]

5. wow...im speechless...name calling to boot....sigh

[whatchamacallit]

37. Hmm... who to believe...

brave guys covered in dust and blood, or you? Desperate and pathetic doesn't begin to cover your post.

[SDuderstadt]

38. Nobody is denying...

they heard explosions, dude. It's up to you guys to prove they were the result of explosives.

So far, you're falling flat on your face.

[whatchamacallit]

39. Tally

Us: "Multiple firefighters claim to have heard/felt explosions"

You: "Any number of things can go boom, dude"

Us: "How come the firemen don't say it was transformers or fax machines (lol)?"

You: "Doesn't matter dude, you don't have visual proof that explosives caused the explosions, so it's anything we say it is"

[SDuderstadt]

40. This is amazing...

you apparently believe if someone hears, but does not see an explosion, they can tell precisely what exploded merely from the sound.

And, yet, you guys cannot figure out why hardly anyone takes you seriously.

[whatchamacallit]

41. Funny thing is - as you weren't there - you heard nothing

yet here you are telling everyone what they weren't. Who could possibly take you seriously?

[SDuderstadt]

42. Show me where I said...

they couldn't have been explosives, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

43. Awesome!

So you admit the firemen could have heard what they thought they heard. I'm impressed with your progress. Carry on...

[SDuderstadt]

44. Dude...

now it's your job to prove several things:

1) when someone hears, but does not see something explode, they can tell what it was merely by the sound.
2) Explosions automatically mean explosives.
3) If you have any evidence there were bombs, please present it.

[whatchamacallit]

45. Hmm... let's see

1) I can't speak for everyone, but as I have heard a great many explosions of all kinds, I can often identify the source. But that's me.
2) They don't of course.
3) If you have any evidence there weren't bombs, please present it.

See, you are so invested in the theory that all three buildings fell to rubble, unaided, the firemen MUST be mistaken.

[SDuderstadt]

46. "If you have any evidence there weren't bombs...

please present it".

Nice argument from ignorance, dude. Let me repeat this until it sinks in. I don't have to disprove your claim; YOU have to prove it.

I'd reply more, but I'm still laughing at your claim that you can tell what's exploding merely by hearing it.

[whatchamacallit]

48. Prove your claim

that the buildings fell unassisted. Another theory from a supposedly "authoritative" source won't cut it. Prove it!

[SDuderstadt]

51. Watch the fucking videos of the towers....

in the mintues prior to the collapses. Note the very obvious buckling and inward bowing of the columns. What do you think happens when the floor support systems fail? How is the building supposed to stand up?

[NYMdaveNYI]

53. Gas pipe explosions, perhaps? nt

[zappaman]

54. shhhh!

stop making sense.
whatchamacallit has a goofy theory that cannot be challenged!

[zappaman]

47. "If you have any evidence there weren't bombs, please present it."

That might be the most ridiculous statement I have ever seen!
Can you prove there are NOT unicorns?

[whatchamacallit]

49. Can you?

[zappaman]

50. Can you?

[IScreamSundays]

57. Why should it be up to "us" to prove.....

Wouldn't an independent investigation with subpoena powers be able to do that?? I would think that you would be on board. You progressive, you.

[SDuderstadt]

58. How was the 9/11 Commission not...

independent? Independent of what? And, the Commission not only had subpoena power, they exercised it.

I'll put my progressive credentials up against yours anyday. I'll also ask you politely to quit smearing me by suggesting I am something other than progressive.

[immune]

59. They exercised their subpoena powers when?

September 8, 2006

Can NIST’s findings be used in court?

As part of the NCST Act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages. Additionally, NIST employees are not permitted to serve as expert witnesses.

The NCST Act gives NIST the authority to subpoena information or witnesses during an investigation. Was the power used in the WTC investigation?

If the quality or completeness of an investigation is impeded by the lack of specific data, NIST will use the subpoena power under the NCST Act to access that information. To this point in the WTC investigation, NIST has been able to obtain all of the data it needed through teamwork and negotiation, and without the need of a subpoena.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.cfm

****All the data it "needed", or all the data it "wanted"?

[SDuderstadt]

60. Dude...

NIST is not the 9/11 Commission.

[immune]

62. You mean like THESE subpoenas?

November 20, 2003
9/11 Commission Orders New York to Hand Over Documents
By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 — The federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks announced today that it had subpoenaed New York City for a variety of police tapes and other material about the attacks. It said that the city's refusal to hand over the material had "significantly impeded the commission's investigation."

http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=9-11/inquiry/hampering-probe/commission-orders-new-york-to-hand-over-documents.txt

George W. Bush - President; refused to testify under oath
Dick Cheney - Vice President; refused to testify under oath
Bill Clinton - former President; refused to testify under oath
Al Gore - former Vice President; refused to testify under oath

President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former President Bill Clinton, and former Vice President Al Gore all gave private testimony without oaths. President Bush and Vice President Cheney insisted on testifying together, while Clinton and Gore met with the panel separately. As National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice was not required to testify under oath because the position of NSA is an advisory role, independent of authority over a bureaucracy and does not require confirmation by the Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

What big teeth you have, grandma!!

[SDuderstadt]

64. Dude...

None of those people "refused" to testify under oath. Do you understand why the Commission would not have them testify under oath and further, why the sessions would be closed to the public?

Do you understand anything about our system of government at all????

[immune]

65. What a friggin' joke.

the city's refusal

George W. Bush - President; refused to testify under oath
Dick Cheney - Vice President; refused to testify under oath
Bill Clinton - former President; refused to testify under oath
Al Gore - former Vice President; refused to testify under oath

Where the hell were you when all this refusal was headline news for weeks?

It has nothing to do with "our system of government", it has to do with the obstruction of "our (alleged) system of government".

[SDuderstadt]

66. Who says they "refused", dude?

Was it the Commission? Hint: no.

And, of course, you avoided my question. Do you understand why they would not be asked to testify under oath to begin with?

[immune]

67. Hint: yes.

"It (the commission) said that the city's refusal to hand over the material had "significantly impeded the commission's investigation."

Impede = obstruct. Dude.

As for why the commission might not want the four listed individuals to testify under oath ... what, are you implying that the commission was involved in some kind of cover-up? Shame on you.

But here's a little commission humor for ya.

Joint 9/11 testimony raises speculation
By Dana Milbank, Washington Post | April 26, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Chairman Thomas H. Kean, asked at a news conference a few weeks ago about the White House's requirement that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney appear together before his commission on the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, quipped: ''Well, we recognize that Mr. Bush may help Mr. Cheney with some of the answers."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/26/joint_911_testimony_raises_speculation/


And to brighten your day a little more, here's how Bush and Cheney's "joint" testimony might have gone:

http://www.crisispapers.org/essays/911-testimony.htm

[SDuderstadt]

68. What does something about the "city"...

have to do with a sitting President and Vice-President, as well as the immediate past holders of that office?

As for why the commission might not want the four listed individuals to testify under oath ... what, are you implying that the commission was involved in some kind of cover-up? Shame on you.

Let me make sure I get this straight. You ask me a question and without giving me a chance to answer it first, you assume my answer and condemn me for it? No, shame on YOU, dude. Another one of your underhanded tactics for all to see, which is among the many reasons no one takes you seriously here. Do you honestly think I would condone a cover-up?

What I was asking you about is why the Commission did not ask them to testify under oath. Do you understand how our system of government works, dude? And if the Commission co-chair is making jokes about Cheney needing help from Bush with answers, does that sound like a "cover-up" to you?

[immune]

69. "Something about the city"

Scroll back up to post #62. since you obviously missed it the first time around.

You have had unlimited opportunities to 'splain your idea of why the commission wouldn't want the big four to testify under oath and "how our system of government" REALLY works and you've missed all of those, as well, which explains why no one on this forum takes you seriously ... well, besides your sidekicks.

And Christ Almighty, you even managed to miss the punchline of Kean's "joke".

(edit typo)

[SDuderstadt]

70. You might want to reread my post...

dude. I noted that Kean observed that Cheney might need help from Bush...get it?

Dude...when you went to whatever level of school you did, did you learn anything about the concept of "separation of powers"? Start there.

[LARED]

61. How many times do we have to go over this?

The explosions are needed to detonate the minninukes, and the mininukes are needed to create enough energy to operate the direct energy weapons.

and the direct energy weapons were needed to generate the hologram jets and the faster than free fall collapse.

[OnTheOtherHand]

4. can you transcribe where they "unequivocally state" that?

I didn't catch where either of them stated that secondary explosions were responsible for causing the collapse.

I also don't understand how explosions in the lobby could be responsible for the observed collapse of either tower.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zappaman]

7. why don't you track them down and ask them

if they believe they heard explosions that caused the building to collapse?
Too much work for you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. which part of my post did you not understand?

That's remarkable.

[deconstruct911]

9. Thank for this post

my feeling is the core collapsed FIRST well before any debris was able to crush it.

[terrafirma]

33. Care to explain this then?

How did the core manage to remain standing for a little while after the collapse?

[deconstruct911]

34. the core

not all of it remained standing..... That probably helped the tower collapse faster and smoother. Notice the core didn't fall over either. it came down at the base first. The top part of the core that is missing probably collapsed like a regular demolition also.

[terrafirma]

35. So basically...

... judging from you're use of "probably", you can't explain it.

[deconstruct911]

52. uh not what I said

Most people don"t grasp the fact that the WTC were 2 buildings in one and 3 sections tall.

The majority of the strength was the inner structure. It collapsed EXACTLY like a regular demolition.

Clearly when the inner section starts to drop in places the rest (the concrete floors) will collapse top bottom.

People who say it's impossible to bring a building top down like the WTC are probably right. How many 1400 foot tall buildings are built like the WTC?

That was the beauty of the core for a controlled demolition.

[terrafirma]

55. What does a "regular" demolition look like, EXACTLY?

More specifically... how do you know what a regular demolition of a 110 story building looks like?

And do explain how a section of the core in the lobby or basement failing would cause the concrete floors to start to collapse up on the 102nd floor.

[SidDithers]

36. Christophera?...nt

Sid

[ryan_cats]

56. LOL, That's exactly what I thought

LOL, That's exactly what I thought, he sure got around and banned a lot.

[Twist_U_Up]

10. Firemen Explosion Testimony

This video was received from NIST under the Freedom of Information Act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IO1ps1mzU8o

Newly obtained video that was reluctantly released by NIST after a lawsuit by the International Center for 9/11 Studies shows two firefighters on 9/11 discussing how secondary explosions occurred immediately before the collapse of the twin towers, providing damning new evidence that explosive devices were used to bring down the buildings.

[Twist_U_Up]

11. oh shit, wrong forum ;-)

[LoZoccolo]

12. While I disagree with your implication, I will admit that I do find this tactic to be clever. n/t

[Twist_U_Up]

14. whats there to disagree wirh ?

[LoZoccolo]

16. Same old brass band. n/t

[Twist_U_Up]

18. shame on you...

pissing on our fireman........sad

[Dennis Donovan]

13. Amazing how the buildings failed exactly where the planes hit them...

...that's the most precise "demolition" ever! In fact... it was (and still is) impossible to rig explosives to detonate that way in a building that's already burning. Unless, of course, the FIRE was an illusion?!?

Maybe David Copperfield did it?:rofl:

Oh, and unrec'd for sheer silliness...

[Twist_U_Up]

15. completely lost on the vid I see

[Dennis Donovan]

20. The video is worthless...

Two firefighters from the ground are not going to be reliable as to what happened above the 75th floor. Sorry...

[Twist_U_Up]

23. they were in the lobby if you bothered....3000 victims...remember?

[Dennis Donovan]

26. Which puts them in an even worse position to know what was happening 70 stories up...

...and don't give me "3000 victims" - a high school friend of mine died that day.

[ljm2002]

22. "sheer silliness"???

You listened to those 3 firemen who had just come out of the building that collapsed, as they described the explosions they heard, and you find it to be silly?

Odd reaction, to say the least.

Whatever you may think did or did not happen, I wonder why you think it was a good idea to SUPPRESS this video, along with so much else about 9/11. I certainly do not think it is a good idea to do so. The more information we can gather, the likelier we are to get at the truth.

But of course for some, that is not the goal. Not at all.

And no I am not directing that last at you, it is a more general remark.

[Twist_U_Up]

25. TY

[Dennis Donovan]

27. If anything, they heard concrete imploding...

...from the systematic collapse, floor-by-floor, of the structure. Yes, I find it incredibly silly that anyone could have rigged explosives to detonate in the order that would cause the buildings to fail in exactly the spots in which the aircraft hit them - ESPECIALLY in a burning, heavily damaged building.

Ask youself two simple questions: why didn't the explosives go off when the buildings were first hit? How did the wiring to the explosives survive the massive amount of damage caused by the aircraft?

[deconstruct911]

30. it's called the massive steel core

parts of it were falling down to allow the building to collapse.

They would certainly need to weaken the base and sub level because it's much much stronger than the office space above it.

The explosives were NOT your normal explosives.Your ordinary demolition expert would not have a clue what kind of explosives were used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upk767RMYsM

[joeybee12]

17. Did the WTC pay its $75 fee? n/t

[Twist_U_Up]

19. ask the 3000 victims

[Dennis Donovan]

21. .

:rofl:

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. let's just say that thousands of firefighters didn't ask

I think about 300 of them died that day.

[deconstruct911]

31. As a result of Giuliani &

the order to keep people in their office space at the top of the 2nd tower.

The reality of the way the fireman died is suspicious. Why didn't their radios work???

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dennis Donovan]

28. OMG! You are SLAYING me!!!

:spray:

You're implying that David Allen, founder of this website, is being PAID to hide your thread?

Are they paying EVERY webmaster to do the same to every truther thread out there?

No offense, but every assertion you've made on this thread defies logic.:crazy:

[mrarundale]

63. How did all those posts happen at 10:11

what's going on here?

[mrarundale]

32. Stuff that bugs me about the interview

"The whole building just collapsed on us" - Wouldn't they be in a lot worse shape?

The interviewer asks about the "secondary explosions" (implying there was a first explosion not a plane crash) and the 1st guy says yes, but then the blonde guy says there were three and kind of looks off to the side ...

Why does he pick the radio up then? (and, yeah, why didn't the radios work?) To me, it looked like the first guy went "off script"

Why isn't there more chaos/destruction around?

Then the third guy says he saw a "black very large plane" "right in front of our eyes" from the Brooklyn Navy Yard? That is on the east side of the Brooklyn Bridge isn't it? Would it really look like it was "right in front of him" ? BLACK? was flight 175 BLACK? or did he see the TELEVISION right in front of him (the ONLY LIVE footage of a plane hitting a building and the plane does, indeed, look black in that "footage")

And I know it's New York but do firefighters wear jewelry to the scenes of disasters? c'maahn....

I've seen that blonde guy in other WTC footage and can't remember where , it's driving me nuts. Any other 911-obsessed people recognize what else he was in?

There are already tons of witnesses saying there were explosions, some on live tv that morning and some in news accounts, so I doubt this will make much of a dif.