I was just reading this article that was published at Forbes.com late in the morning of 9/11. It describes the collapses of the Twin Towers: "An hour later, the tower collapsed, following what eyewitnesses describe as a series of 15 explosions inside the building. Half an hour after that, the second tower fell, leaving southern Manhattan covered in a pall of smoke and dust." (Source)

I wonder what caused that "series of 15 explosions"???

Gee..that would be a tough one to figure out assuming we have 'eyewitnesses' who were counting 15 explosions as it was going off. We've heard 'eyewitness' describing the sound of the crash a bomb going off more than once, even experts in the field have said it. Well...how exactly do you think a 200,000lb Boeing crashing into a concrete structure at more than 500 miles per hour would sound? Just wondering....
Let's see now...a passenger plane crashes into the building in its full capacity and nothing would explode in the building? Was the plane running on manure by any chance...bio fuel perhaps? And since we have not had a similar crash in the history aviation, I'm wondering, should we expect the Boeing to have half its fuselage dug into the building while the other half dangling out?

No, this series of explosions being described occurred just before the collapse, not at the time the plane hit. I.e., it occurred 56 minutes after the plane hit the South Tower. There were lots of other witnesses who said the same thing, as the following entry from the Complete 9/11 Timeline describes:

9:59 a.m. September 11, 2001: Some Witnesses Hear Explosions as South Tower Collapses
Numerous witnesses, including firefighters and other rescue workers, hear explosions at the start of, and during, the collapse of the south WTC tower. Some of them report hearing a single explosion:
* Jeff Birnbaum: “There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.” [Electrical Wholesaling, 2/1/2002]
* Battalion Chief John Sudnik: “[W]e heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw Tower Two start coming down.” [City of New York, 11/7/2001]
* Firefighter Edward Kennedy hears “a tremendous boom, explosion… and the top of the building was coming down at us.” [City of New York, 1/17/2002]
* Firefighter Edward Sheehey hears “an explosion, looked up, and the building started to collapse.” [City of New York, 12/4/2001]
* Battalion Chief Thomas Vallebuona: “I heard ‘boom,’ an exploding sound, a real loud bang. I looked up, and I could see the Trade Center starting to come down.” [City of New York, 1/2/2002]
* EMT Julio Marrero: “I heard a loud bang. We looked up, and we just saw the building starting to collapse.” [City of New York, 10/25/2001]
Other witnesses report hearing multiple explosions:
* Journalist Pete Hamill: “We heard snapping sounds, pops, little explosions, and then the walls bulged out, and we heard a sound like an avalanche.” [New York Daily News, 9/11/2001]
* Police officer Sue Keane, who is an Army veteran, is located in the north WTC tower: “[I]t sounded like bombs going off. That’s when the explosions happened.… It started to get dark, then all of a sudden there was this massive explosion.” [Hagen and Carouba, 2002, pp. 65]
* Firefighter Keith Murphy, who is in the lobby of the North Tower: “[T]he first thing that happened, which I still think is strange to me, the lights went out.… I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions.… At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out.… I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar.” [City of New York, 12/5/2001]
* Firefighter Craig Carlsen hears “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.” [City of New York, 1/25/2002]
* Firefighter Thomas Turilli, who is in the lobby of the North Tower: “[A]ll of a sudden you just heard like it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came… It just seemed like a huge explosion.” [City of New York, 1/17/2002]
* Firefighter Stephen Viola: “[T]hat’s when the South Tower collapsed, and it sounded like a bunch of explosions. You heard like loud booms.” [City of New York, 1/10/2002]
* Firefighter Lance Lizzul: “[W]e heard some bangs. That made us look up, and that’s when the first Trade Center came down.” [City of New York, 12/10/2001]
* Paramedic Kevin Darnowski: “I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and Tower Two started to come down.” [City of New York, 11/9/2001]
However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which conducts a three-year study of the WTC collapses, will subsequently claim it found “no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives” (see October 26, 2005). [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 146]
Source

You should read post before you respond to them. Then you won't look like such an ignorant fool.

Shoestring,
Basically, witnesses heard explosions before and during the collapse of the towers and I'm not disputing that. I'm sure if we search real hard we might even have witnessess who heard explosions AFTER the collapse. So what is so strange about that? Are you implying that when a building collapses, it should be silent before, during and after it's collapse? Admittedly, since I believe no explosives were used, hearing explosions before the collapse can be a little suspect. But are we overlooking a minor fact here? A Boeing in all it's capacity was slammed into the building at over 500 mph! You really accept the fact that no explosions can occur right up till the time the building is reduced to a pile of metal and dust? Enlighten me with your views please.

My response/questions was based on eye witnessess, 15 of them hearing explosions.
Ignorance is when you don't understand what you read.
A fool is one who thinks he does and calls another ignorant!
Now you understand the meaning of an ignorant fool? Go on, throw another snide remark and prove me right.

What is your point?

How about enlightening us with some substantiation for your views?

You state some common knowledge (Boeing crash) and expect this to lead the reader to accept the same speculation that you subscribe to (the Boeing crash caused the explosions before the collapse).

MM

You conveniently left out the time frame. The 15 explosions were heard right before the collapse. You should head over to JREF, you might have more luck there.

The explosions are far more compelling when we take into account the overwhelming amount of other evidence that clearly shows the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down deliberately, using pre-planted explosives.

If you haven't already done so, I'd recommend you read the following two papers, both written by retired physics professor Steven E. Jones, which describe the key evidence:

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?

Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method

Also, watch the following lecture given earlier this year by Dr. Jones:

Dr. Steven Jones - PNAC 14.Apr.2007 - New 9/11 Evidence

Does the obvious escape you? - "A Boeing in all it's capacity was slammed into the building at over 500 mph! You really accept the fact that no explosions can occur right up till the time the building is reduced to a pile of metal and dust?" What's the issue? If you want to believe bombs [15 of them or more?] were planted and co-ordinated with the timing of the hijacking and subsequent crash, that's fine with me. I'm giving my 2 cents worth based purely on common sense.
When a crash of that magnitude is deliberately targeted on a building and it collapses with loud explosions, I tend to believe that whatever 'explosions' occur is a result of the crash, unless you can positively state that when a building collapses, it does so silently. I've witnessed houses burning and explosions occur before it collapses. I've seen footage of buildings burning and explosions occur before, during and after it collapses. Where's the speculation in this?

What time frame have I left out? I'm responding to the 'witness' accounts of '15 explosions that were heard right before the collapse'.

It may be clear as a bell to you, it's not to me simply because then I have to believe the hijacking of the planes were also co-ordinated. That's where I have a problem. We've had 'compelling evidence' from all sorts of theories, from missiles right down to one I read... a nuclear explosion!

A finnish military expert has provided an opinion that a small nuclear device was involved in the collapse of the WTC...the report can be found here, in both English and Finnish:
Excerpt: Steel columns and pillars were ejected in the surroundings of the building. In the beginning of the so-called collapse, exists no such energy exists that could throw steel pillars outwards from 60 to 175 meters (approx. from 170 to 574 ft.) from trunk. Not even cutting charges can do that. Instead, the blast wave from a nuclear bomb is capable to do that.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm

So let me ask you, would a 'small nuclear device' cause 15 explosions or a single one to bring down the entire building?

How about 15 tactical nukes? Why just one? Have you ever heard a tactical nuke go off? What if they only make a Fizz noise just like the mistaken sound of your argument fizzeling out? :lol:

If they used nukes then they were augmented/layered with other explosives, there were dozens of flashes occurring all over the building most noticeably around 8:55 to 9:00 which were obviously not nukes but some other type of explosive most likely c4. Flashes have been observed travelling up the WTC buildings much like the Landmark tower primaries. Its been confirmed for multiple angles so its no good saying it was reflecting debris.

See the WTC primaries in this video:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-VF95YXfVcU

Still when has traditional demolition resulted in nearby cars being melted and charred along with that instant rusting effect, pools of molten steel, complete pulverisation of almost all the concrete, etc.

You'll have to refer to that Finnish military expert who provided an opinion on that one birdy. His expert opinion is that 'a small nuclear device' was used, not 15 small ones.
The plot thickens as with the 'audacious' claims. I'm neither a 'nuke' specialist nor a 'bomber man', so could you explain 'tactical nukes', and give us your birds eye view please? Are they 'portable nuclear weapons' like suitcase bombs perhaps?
That would explain how they can be conveniently placed in a targeted building without attracting too much attention I suppose, but it would be a stretch to accept that these ' little nukes' just sat there while a Boeing ploughed into it at over 500mph, tons of jet fuel, flames and all then promptly exploded in sequence within minutes before the building collapsed.
And they only make a 'Fizz noise' or is that a question you're throwing in disguised as a fact? The birth of another 'theory' amongst the hordes of others perhaps? I can see it now already...tactical nukes that make a fizz sound seems likely in collapse of WTC Towers! And we have another 'explosive' theory that won't 'fizzel' out. :blink:

From a birds eye view I say it was Termites that took the buildings down, but looking at it again There-Mite (for the phonetically impaired, Thermite) be a better solution for you There-Mate (Thermate). 15 Tactical Nukes make 15 explosions, not 1 explosion. This is where your 1 bomb fizzles out. Thought it was self explanatory but I guess this was a Fizz Pop Quiz and you failed.

Tactical Nuke would be a smaller nuke. Who knows what kind of Skunk Works projects were attained by the Millitary and instead of briefcases they could be wallet sized. At least that is where the bombs hit, the U.S. in the wallet.

Why would a plane crashing above a Nuke affect the device? They are triggered and not unstable.

Microspheres that resemble Thermate are found in large ratios from the dust created during the WTC demolition. Does a Nuke create a Microsphere with a thermate signature? What would be the purpose of combining Thermate and a Tactical Nuke? 15 Nukes would toast cars but could the heat from tons of thermate reactions do the same? Should we expect to see the cars toasted in a natural collapse?

I actually have a theory that I call GIST. It uses all of the factors that NIST states along the official story and adds for the evidence that they leave out, being explosions in the basement to initiate collapse. The major load bearing columns were cutt creating column instability and of course global collapse ensued. If you can believe NIST then you could also believe GIST. I could go into more detail but well, you get the GIST of it. And this would be no huge task to accomplish either and could have been planned out during the bombing of 1993 when they would have access to it in order to rig it while they were repairing it with unlimited access.

With all due respect...

Gersang, your posts are hostile and defensive. You are attempting to excuse or explain away eyewitness testimony by claiming that explosions always occur before, during and after any building collapse.

From my viewpoint, you are grasping at whatever you can to explain away the evidence. You'd probably be a lot more comfortable 'in your skin' as they say, if you opened up to the more obvious possibility that explosives caused the explosions that have been reported by many dozens of eyewitnesses.

Remember too that in order to come up with a reasonable explanation for the phenomena, you have to find a theory that incorporates all the evidence, not just selected pieces. I'll leave you to source the 10 or 12 unmistakeable characteristics that are always present in controlled demolitions -- and oddly enough, I'll leave it to you to realize that every single one of these characteristics are present in not one, not two, but all three sudden collapses of World Trade Center building destructions on, and only on, 9-11-2001.

Termites, There-Mite, Thermate..whatever, maybe you're a Finch-ish military expert but the opinion that 'A' small nuclear device was involved in the collapse of the WTC is not my opinion. It's that of a Finnish military expert, remember? So I can't see the direction you're taking when you chirp '15 Tactical Nukes make 15 explosions, not 1 explosion. This is where your 1 bomb fizzles out.' Really, you should get in touch with that Fin my feathered friend.

So a Tactical Nuke would be a smaller nuke and they could be wallet sized? Hey, they could even be in the form of a chewed gum and you could just stick it on the underside of a table as you merrily hop along 'rigging' the building for all we know. Hmm... makes sense now why it went unnoticed. And I'm beginning to understand how conspiracy theories are born too.

And these little nukies were not affected by the crash because they were placed somewhere below the actual impact zone? Or were they placed at the bottom of the building? Makes sense if they were rigged at the bottom as it would be a stretch to believe that our 'crash-course' pilots were so precise in the maneuvers. You must understand this is all new to me and the questions might sound a tad silly.

Ah so going by the 'NIST and GIST' of it, it was probably concocted sometime after 1993 when our lone stranger Ramzi Yousef attempted the first blast to bring down the Towers after his attempts at simultaneously blowing up 12 passengers planes failed? Wow..this is a conspiracy that goes back to the days of the Clinton administration then? You gotta hand it to the US administration and all those involved in this massive conspiracy though. They sure can keep their mouths shut after all these years.

With all due respect...
Gersang, your posts are hostile and defensive. You are attempting to excuse or explain away eyewitness testimony by claiming that explosions always occur before, during and after any building collapse.
From my viewpoint, you are grasping at whatever you can to explain away the evidence.
With all due respect...
I'm not attempting to excuse or explain away eyewitness testimony. I'm just stating the facts. If YOU feel it is an excuse or explaining away testimony, it doesn't make my posts hostile or defensive.

You'd probably be a lot more comfortable 'in your skin' as they say, if you opened up to the more obvious possibility that explosives caused the explosions that have been reported by many dozens of eyewitnesses.
And here we have the typical conclusion 'explosives caused the explosions', based on 'eyewitnesses describe as a series of 15 explosions inside the building'. Are you saying that only explosives can cause explosions? Especially when there's a disintergrated Boeing with tons of jet fuel burning just overhead?

Remember too that in order to come up with a reasonable explanation for the phenomena, you have to find a theory that incorporates all the evidence, not just selected pieces.
That tickles me...because this discussion board is based on 'Loose Change' the now famous docu. They maintain by all their extensive investigations that a missile COULD cause the gaping hole at the Pentagon, yet do not answer the important question of where the that plane and i's passengers dissapper to. Theory that incorporates all the evidence, not just selected pieces you say?

I'll leave you to source the 10 or 12 unmistakeable characteristics that are always present in controlled demolitions -- and oddly enough, I'll leave it to you to realize that every single one of these characteristics are present in not one, not two, but all three sudden collapses of World Trade Center building destructions on, and only on, 9-11-2001.
By any chance, was there another '9-11-2001' in the history of our civilisation to make a comparison?

Another pity example of a SINGLE explication...


" It can't be a nuke , because of more than one explosion..."
" It can't be multiple explosions because of the melted steel... "
" It can't be explosions because there's proof of use of thermate... "

C'mon ,

Don't have to be ONE technique.

Bringing down such towers like the WTC ( and WTC7 ) in a manner that look's as natural as possible is not a easy job !

Of course , they had to use a combinaison a different technique. Highly probable that they came from the military techniques.

Personally I think they had to use at least :

1) Penetrator to help the "plane entry" into the buildings ( I mean , a nice and COMPLETE entry )

2) Incendiary device ( and/or more fuel than supposed ) to ensure maximum "show" for fear effect and also to help the official theory.

3) Basement explosions. Maybe nuke , maybe something else or both. But its essential to "weaken" the inner core from the basement. Without it , the collapse cannot be complete. ( Same , and WAY MORE evident in case of WTC7 ) SO Many rapports , pics and videos proves their presence.

4) Thermate probably use ( demonstrate by Dr.Jones ) to weaken more the "point of anchor" between exterior exosqueleton and the core.

5) Maybe ( not sure enough ) the use of "classic" charge to disloque floors and for the "timing" of the operation. Squibs ARE a irrefutable proof of something detonating UNDER the line of collapse and during the collapse.

Anyway ,

The point is ; controlled demolition is already proven and irrefutable ! ...The techniques uses is not clear. But its obvious they use more than A SINGLE one. Its a CD , but not a Classic CD.

Yeah and even if we handed the schematic for how it was achieved people would still scoff at the evidence. This stuff really does go deeper and further back than I care to explain.

America is a Pawn and Time is running out on the Fairy-Tale of Freedom, yet once a pawn of time is forced to move across the chess board squaring off in black and white truth, a pattern emerges from the pawns actions divulging a mathematical victory acheived only as the masses are decieved.

The obese King gobbles up every piece and saves no room for the last Peace, yet stays thin as he is always Thin-King. If you think america is free and devoid of conspiracy spanning generations much less administrations, then that is your Fairy-Tale; like most who believe this illusion of freedom their will is enslaved to generate taxes exponentially in an economic con perpetrated to wage war from our wages upon the enemies of the state and its foreign ally's enemies.

The moves & atrocites committed on the chess board of war expose the master chess player who disguises it's true face through terrorism. An effective effigy of Evil only created as a distraction. The King has a bishop and hopes America will just take it on faith. But what I hear the Bishop try to say is, "America is Righteous!". But the Bishop failed to understand that is why there is an US and RIGHT in the word RIGHTeoUS leaving EO looking for a place to hide in thEOlogy.

Ear Witnesses Hearing explosions in the basement means that in and of itself we already got to the bottom of it all, we were just waiting for someone to doubt it happened and state that it was mistaken for something other than explosions just to top it off. As Finrod states CD is not out of the question it is just currently in debasement.

SinceSurly,
T3QuillAMocKINGbird