Scipio stop squirming. The three firemen said it was a bomb that blew up the lobby many times. There is video of the shattered lobby with all windows blown out and this has NOTHING to do with floors collapsing; this is after the plane crash but long before the Tower collapsed!
I'm not squirming you are distorting. They didn't say anythign about bombs simply secondary explosions and the lobby roof collapsing on them. You have no reliable evidence of any kind to establish there were bombs anywhere so instead you resort to games that jsut make you look as pathetic and dishonest as Mike which makes you a hypocrite on top of all your other problems.
How do you establish there were bombs? You look for the blast patters bombs make among other things.
In the meantime there are very detailed engineering reports that all come to the same conclusions. The exterior of the Twintowers were part of the frame. The planes CLEARLY destroyed part of that frame. The floors were connected to these structures as well as to the main column. The floors became disconnected form the main column in part because of the various fires. The planes didn't crash at the top they crashed with a number of floors above, those floors collapsed because of the holes made by the planes as well as the fires. The collapsed floors added too much weight to the and each floor fell in succession on the one below causing the buildings to pancake.
WHat evidence do yo uhave to refute the claims of the engineers? Unsupported opinion from quacks who say that is not possible. Their unsupported opinion is as vlaueless as Mike's unsupported opinion about Jeremy's innocence and in fact just as dishonest as his claims because such people always post bogus nonsense.
There are numerous other videos of dozens of people talking about explosions or with sounds of explosions. Not only that 100+ firefighters have testified to hearing explosions in the towers! They didn't enter to long after the planes hit (obviously) and surely you're not going to suggest they are all mistaken and/or lying?
As a practical matter people who never heard a bomb are in no position to say whether they heard one or not or to differentiate windows blowing out from a bomb because windows blowing out create a sound that is like an explosion. There were in fact many different secondary explosions. Even experienced peopel have a hard time differentating explosion sounds. You bear the murder of proving the sounds were bombs not simply secondary explosions.
I saw a car that was on fire blow up, does the fact it blew up mean there was a bomb in it? What about houses I sw on the news the past few months or read about in the paper that exploded were they bombs?
None were determined to have been from bombs because if they had been from bombs then evidence would have been found to prove it.
When I was a teenager one mornign there were 4 explosions that rocked my town and those nearby. Was it bombs? No there was an accident that caused four manufacturing buildings to explode.
If I were to use your ridiculous criteria then they all were bombs just because they blew up.
That's your sole source of argument- there was an explosion heard so it had to be bombs.
Making that argument just makes you look stupid.
That BBC response is totally inadequate; just look at the public comments underneath it! "An error" is a ridiculous description; someone gave them that information and surely you have to find that at least very odd if not sinister?
First of all there is no one who can autheticate the video and prove it was not altered by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. 9/11 theorists lie and misrepresent constantly so that is not above them at all. If real all it proves is that the press was fed false information which is done all the time. The BBC doesn't have the original film to review. At any rate numerous times from 3:30 on peopel heard noises of things cracking and breaking and expected collapse to occur. Numerous times it was reported by people around the area that it was expected to collpase any second. It is not weird that someone could have misinformed the BBC anymore than when papers or news misreprt deaths that have not yet occurred because of misinformation. Sometimes the misinformation is intentional other times not. The notion that somone who planted a bomb notified the the BBC before they set the charges to go off makes zero sense.
But hey if you want to believe stupid crap go right ahead I choose to live in reality and not be a fool.
John Kerry is your Secretary Of State for f--k sake; two heart attacks away from the Presidency! His words were "I do know" not "it might"!
It is scientifically proven that the only way a large building can collapse at freefall speed into it's own footprint is by controlled explosive demolition with millisecond timing to destroy all support columns! This isn't guess work Scipio and so far 2213 US architects have testified to this! Do some research before accepting the quite ludicrous 'finding' by NIST that it was an 'office furnishing fire' that caused that perfect collapse!
Firefighters & police officers saying WTC7 is "about to explode"! : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cU_43SwWD9A
First of all the secretary of State is 4th in line and the public had nothing to do with him being there. He ran for president but lost because he is a clown. Part of being a clown is not thinking before you speak and speaking about things you are uninformed about. His supposed admission is not one at all. He was fed a claim and just ran with it he didn't go research what happened with WTC 7.
As for your claim that it is proven that only explosives can cause the collpases that is an outright lie and false. Such had neve rbeen proven at all and the speed of the collapses are always misrpresented as well. Your supposed evidence is little more than straw arguments combined with outright lies and unsupported opinions. Right now you are jus tliek Mike when I argue with him, if you want to look like such a dishonest fool go ahead but in out debates you have simply shown yourself to be very ignorant and immature.