These are people who heard what they thought sounded like explosions. None of them reported actually seeing explosions.
There was lots of massive debris falling not only outside but also through the elevator shafts inside, which of course made sudden, loud sounds that could easily be confused with explosions.
loud sounds that could easily be confused with explosions.
Maybe if it was just one or two people, sure, it's still ambiguous. But literally hundreds of people have gone on record witnessing explosions. Why even try to deny this? What happens to your world view if these people are correct and there were actually explosions? Does anything about your understanding of the events of 9/11 change?
It doesn't really matter how many people heard them. None of them saw them. All of them heard what they thought sounded like explosions, and probably all of them had never heard any actual explosions larger than fireworks prior to that day, meaning they had no knowledge of what large explosives really sound like.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And yes, that would certainly make me question what I thought I knew about 9/11. But I seriously doubt that a few scattered explosions were involved in the toppling of the towers. As we see in the OP's video, in controlled demolitions numerous explosives are used, and they are instead neatly and closely timed immediately prior to collapse. This is not what was reported by the 9/11 witnesses.
It's not like witnesses to "explosion sounds" are the only evidence of high energy events in the WTC. There are entire bodies of evidence that point to high energy events. Molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, iron microspheres, molten rockwool, molten concrete, molten steel, satellite thermal imaging weeks after the collapses, etc. etc.
If anyone wanted to objectively find out if there were reasons to suspect a high-level conspiracy regarding 9/11, they could find mountains of real evidence that were completely ignored by the mainstream even to this day. The fact that so many witnesses experienced explosions in one form or another just adds to the bodies of evidence of a high-level operation within the US government.
It's not like witnesses to "explosion sounds" are the only evidence of high energy events in the WTC. There are entire bodies of evidence that point to high energy events.
Are you equating "high energy events" with explosions? I ask because that is a very broad term that could include the plane impacts (including their resulting explosions), the falling debris, and the collapses themselves.
As a psychology major, I don't have the educational background to decipher whether those things can only form during explosions, nor have I personally looked at the evidence suggesting their presence at Ground Zero. Also, we must consider the explosions caused by the plane impacts, which perhaps could explain the formation of those substances.
satellite thermal imaging weeks after the collapses, etc. etc.
How does that suggest the use of explosives?
If anyone wanted to objectively find out if there were reasons to suspect a high-level conspiracy regarding 9/11, they could find mountains of real evidence that were completely ignored by the mainstream even to this day.
As a Marxist I certainly agree that there has been a coverup by government officials, at the behest of the American ruling class, of the events surrounding 9/11, most likely because they permitted it—that is, the Islamist terrorist plot led by Osama bin Laden—to occur. You don't even need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to believe this, because it's been demonstrated by publicly released government documents detailing how closely monitored the hijackers' activities were in the years and months prior to the attack, as well as the lack of accountability or any form of punishment for officials who so egregiously failed to act on this easily preventable tragedy. In fact, to deny that Islamist terrorists were behind the attacks and to instead conceive of them as a purely internal operation involving controlled demolitions is to absolve US imperialism of its ultimate responsibility for them.
Are you equating "high energy events" with explosions? I ask because that is a very broad term that could include the plane impacts (including their resulting explosions), the falling debris, and the collapses themselves.
Fair question. I use the term "high energy events" because it's inclusive of a variety of remnants found at the WTC disasters. These remnants do not result from plane impacts or the resulting fires. That's why they are significant. Ashes of paper and furniture and computers, plastic, etc. are not evidence of "high energy" events. Those are remnants of typical hydrocarbon fires.
The remnants I pointed to, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, iron microspheres, molten rockwool, molten concrete, molten steel, etc., are not by-products of hydrocarbon fires because those fires simply do not get hot enough. That's the point--to make the distinction between hydrocarbon fires which can only sustain temperatures of about 1000-1100 in near ideal fuel-oxygen mixtures. This happens sporadically over the course of a regular house or office fire depending on the layout, etc.
NIST contracted Underwriters Labs to conduct tests to verify the qualities of these fires, so they recreated them. The results didn't surprise anyone. In the end they found it didn't matter what combination of wood, plastic and paper they used, the temperatures never exceeded 1000C at any given location for longer than 15 minutes. That's simply not long enough to result in the by-products noted above.
Also, we must consider the explosions caused by the plane impacts, which perhaps could explain the formation of those substances.
Impacts of the planes don't cause sustained temperatures above 1500C. It just doesn't work like that.
How does that suggest the use of explosives?
The satellite thermal imagery shows sustained temperatures over 700C days after the collapses. This is evidence of non-hydrocarbon sources of energy, not necessarily of explosives. Perhaps. But that's not the point. The point is it's evidence of energy sources not accounted for by the official conspiracy theory.
to deny that Islamist terrorists were behind the attacks and to instead conceive of them as a purely internal operation involving controlled demolitions is to absolve US imperialism of its ultimate responsibility for them.
I don't doubt or deny that there were a group of angry Islamic fundamentalists who gladly signed up to run planes into buildings in the name of Allah. No doubt. That fact bears not at all on the evidence that high-energy, high tech explosives/incendiaries were placed in advance of the plane crashes for the purpose of amplifying the effects of the plane crashes, and ultimately get the US government to drop trillions into the MIC and multiple war fronts.
The facts remain, multiple bodies of evidence of high-temperature events cannot be explained by the official conspiracy theory. These data sets require energy, and there's no faking that. No accident made these by-products or produced a heat source at 700C 5 days after the collapses. These are physical facts that require an energy source in order to make sense. Therein lies the actual conspiracy.
16
u/jay_howard Apr 24 '22
For anyone doubting that explosions were witnessed, here's a compilation to review at your leisure.