Milo is the host of Touch, a daily program from 5:00-6:00 PM Pacific on The Bridge, 95.1 FM in Guerneville. Milo has invited me (Brian Romanoff) to be a regular guest on his show to try to bring more light into the events of 9/11. I appreciate the opportunity and I hope you enjoy the show.
This week we discussthe big NIST lie of finding no evidence for explosions during the WTC collapse investigation.
Available as a live-stream every Monday 5:00-6:00 PM Pacific at the website provided below:
What caused the “squibs”? Could they have been just puffs of dust being pushed out of the Towers by falling floors? Are they visual evidence of explosive charges?
The isolated ejections 20-60 stories below the demolition front appear to be composed of pulverized building materials, including concrete. There was no known mechanism by which pulverized building materials being created up at the zone of destruction could have been transported so far down through the building and to the exterior. Air conditioning vents would not have tolerated such pressures, and there was no other “channel” in the building to deliver “compressed air”.
There is no reason, on the “dust puff” theory, for such blasts to be as isolated as they were. Massive air pressure which would delivered by the (missing) “pile driver” down through the elevator hoist ways and out through a given floor would have broken most or all windows on that floor – not created the highly focalized pin-point ejections that are seen on the videos. The breakage of one or two windows on a given floor would not have relieved enough pressure across an entire floor area to prevent the breakage of many other windows nearby.
Images like this one reveal that the squibs were not merely puffs of air, as they have the same hue and consistency as pulverized solid building materials
Multiple analyses have shown that the ejection speed of the squibs was too high, at 100+ mph, to have been the result of air pressure. These are explosive speeds. They have also been clocked at 160 to 200 feet per second.
Another problem with the “dust puff” theory is that the pulverized building materials would not have been transported so quickly. Air would have been pushed ahead of such materials, resulting in transparent puffs of air flowing through the freshly broken windows.
Physicist David Chandler has also shown that some of these ejections came from the corners of the buildings. Since there are no windows on the corners, these ejections could not have been the result of air pressure.
A key facet of the 9/11 catastrophe that is often overlooked is the reports of explosions at the Twin Towers that dozens of eyewitnesses gave on 9/11 and in the following days. Some of these video accounts are scattered across the Internet, and a handful have appeared in documentaries such as 9/11: Blueprint for Truth. Bringing many of these testimonies together would be a powerful presentation tool… and now that’s exactly what has happened.
In April, 9/11 Truth activist Will Dull collected over 30 video clips into a 27-minute compilation, in which dozens of journalists, first responders, and survivors describe explosions and explosive devices in and around the WTC skyscrapers.
The first video clip, which was featured in a November 2010 “Blueprint” article, comes from the NIST WTC archive. The firefighters shown are so concerned about the explosions that they experienced in the Twin Towers that one of them says, “There may be more. Any one of these buildings could blow up.”
In another harrowing sequence, two office workers that are covered in building debris and dust tell how they escaped from an explosion in one of the Twin Towers.
The familiar testimony of a firefighter describing the “boom boom boom” sequence of explosions that ran down the side of one of the Twin Towers is accompanied by clips from four other eyewitnesses who independently give the same account.
If you want to help me out, please check out these 2 videos for incriminating statements (like “explosions”, or “bombs”, etc…). I have not had the time to do this so I figured I would throw the task out there for anyone who is interested. Use the comments section to let us know which film and what time and the statement made; that way no one is double-working the same film and time spans – that is if anyone picks the ball up I just put down.
The following statements were highlighted by the YouTube user who posted the video above, he did not post the other video.
00.55 “we are hearing a number of large booms from that area”
8.45…eyewitness ” explosion..”
20.50 eyewitness “sounded just like a bomb going off”
26.17 eyewitness ” an explosion of smoke… “
32.15 eyewitness “an internal explosion in the building “
The new video, some of it seen before (@ 4:00 min), is low-mid quality and mostly missing the very important aspects of the WTC Towers destruction; especially the onset of their destruction. It does however give good perspective to the dust cloud that covered thousands of people in Manhattan.
Over the last 9 years there have been many Freedom Of Information Act Requests filed pertaining to the events on 9/11/01. Very little of the information that has been acquired has had any major media attention if any at all.
The recently revealed file was uploaded to YouTube on March 6th; within 4 days the video had received 8 million views.
If the towers had collapsed, we would have heard firemen saying, “the building collapsed”. Instead we heard words like; explosion, blew, erupted. It is not like all the eyewitness’ were using the wrong adjectives on 9/11/01. Thanks to ICSD911
“..they just blew, the tower blew…” – Fireman
“…a huge explosion now raining debris on all of us. We better get out-of-the-way……” – ABC News Reporter
“..then, suddenly the second tower erupted right before our eyes…” – ABC News Narrator