Again, the demolition explosives - by a scientist
These are fascinating interviews. They are worth putting together here again, I feel, all in one post:
V
There is a theory (not a conspiracy one, I hasten to add - although that might be a smokescreen :D) posited/cited (can't remember which) by David Aaronavitch in Voodoo Histories.
This is that conspiracy theories exist to fill the vaccum left by lack of genuine political ideology and difference, so 'debate' becomes ever more fantastical, with unsubstantiated, and therefore, unarguable 'facts' flying around left, right and centre. That is why I would never argue with a conspiracy theorist - it could go on for months, nay years 😮
This he also attributes to the decline of belief systems (religion) and the rise of secularism leaving some of us crying out for explanations for things which are, and may well just be, meaningless acts of violence - maybe not meaningless in the political context, but in our being able to make rational sense of them, and cope with the fear they provoke in us. Instead of spiritual solace, conspiracy theories fill that void, providing an explanation, however spurious, that makes the believer feel they are in control, in a world, which in reality, we have so very little control over.
Just a theory, one of many I'm sure, about why & how this stuff has become so prolific
El
Hi Elodie,
I take your point. It could really be another thread, but never mind. Whether this is a theory or a concept, it does have some validity. "Conspiracy theory" does indeed get wacky at times (I mean when it's just wild speculation with NO evidence, NO hard facts). Then, something along the lines you mention could indeed be happening.
However ...
1. There are conspiracies. To believe that there are not, in this world, would be tantamount to being insane. I mean, everything from work colleagues conspiring to get promotion over you, to the way some UK PMs are ousted by their party, and then moving up to the Bay of Tonkin incident staged by the US to justify its real entrance into the Vietnam War, or the fact that an official investigation into the death of JFK concluded it was "probably" a conspiracy. The famed case of the Bavarian Illuminati, much-mentioned, was a real conspiracy of the late 1700s to take over Europe by revolutions. The culprits were actually found, by chance, and stopped. (Not saying they would have succeeded.) In short, conspiracies obviously exist: it's just a question of which ones we choose to believe in, or not.
2. Adding to the fact that conspiracies exist, let's not forget that the official version of 9/11 also cites a conspiracy - by multiple terrorists, planned long in advance, supposedly learning to fly, planned supposedly from Pakistan. Again then, conspiracies exist - it just depends which ones one chooses to be open to.
3. There's an element of theory involved when it comes to speculating upon "who was behind it", but there's no "theory" about hard facts. For example, plane crashes and normal fire could not melt metal girders - that's fact. The heat isn't anywhere near hot enough. Pools of molten metal gathered in the basements of all three towers - even #7 which suffered no plane impact at all. Chemists and architects say that only thermite or thermate can melt metal girders like this. And even the girders in #7 melted. The metal was still pooled and molten after three weeks - it was a chemical reaction. According to the over-1000 architects and other scientists who are part of the Truth Movement, only thermite and thermate could do this ... and these chemicals have been found on the girders.
So this isn't theory at all. It's hard fact. Theory only begins when we get to the stage of asking, "Who placed the explosives, and why?" As the Dane, Neils Harrit says in my top link above, once you realise demolition explosives can be found in the 9/11 debris, "You either speak out, or you should be ashamed".
This world does not all run and work in the nice, comfortable way so many people would like to believe.
V
So this isn't theory at all. It's hard fact. Theory only begins when we get to the stage of asking, "Who placed the explosives, and why?" As the Dane, Neils Harrit says in my top link above, once you realise demolition explosives can be found in the 9/11 debris, "You either speak out, or you should be ashamed".
This world does not all run and work in the nice, comfortable way so many people would like to believe.
V
Well said Venetian
Let's spell it out
I was in good conversation with someone over all this in RL yesterday, and it only then started to dawn on me that many people might not realise what is being suggested. In as few words as possible, the general "conspiracy theory" tends to run like this, but with various opinions -
Of course, and obviously, a certain number of airliners were hijacked. TBH it isn't yet quite clear to me what happened at the Pentagon. I'd love to see the passenger list for that alleged plane, and then to sadly find that all passengers are indeed deceased. I'm pretty sure they are. But was it the plane that hit the Pentagon?
Anyway, we've all seen the footage re the WTC. Two planes certainly hit. There's no doubt there were innocent passengers aboard.
Questions arise because according to over a thousand US engineers and architects, the towers were built to withstand plane-impact, and fire has never ever brought a skyscraper down. Assuming that the US secret services are very efficient, did they truly not know about the plan to hit these buildings? (And any others?) So to spell it out, a general consensus among people disbelieving in the official version would be that the terrorist plot existed to some degree - but as is typical of 'false flag'-type scenarios, they were allowed to go ahead. That's why all protective fighter jets were stood down or inefficeint on that one day over Washington and New York.
But the planes may not have hit the targets well, goes the theory. So to ensure public backing for incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan, demolitions were planted. It was the (found) demolitions which actually collapsed the towers. They were already planted within the third tower, so would have been discovered. What other option than to set those off as well - even several hours after the larger towers fell, and even though no plane hit tower #7? Since then, the mass media has been ridiculously quiet about that third downed tower.
That is a thumb-nail sketch, then, of what skeptics of the official story will tend to think. I'd like to add that I'm always open-minded and simply that. I don't personally go gung-ho for any alleged conspiracy. I feel we should be very open-minded indeed about 9/11, but I do look at evidence from both directions and keep an open mind, which is the scientific way.
V
Tower 7's collapse
Sorry to go on re this subject, but though it's nine years on I feel just so much is unexplained; and the fact is I'm in an RL discussion which prompts me to post here too.
Regarding the tower that was not even hit, read: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html
I have known for years that the controller of tower 7 actually asked for it to come down, but it was beyond even myself to believe it. Anyway, excerpts from this link are:
[COLOR="Blue"]An explosion occurred in WTC 7 prior to the collapse of the twin towers
"Just before the fall of the North Tower, we saw a large explosion coming from the street-level area around World Trade Center 7. I remember thinking that it looked distinctly like a bomb had been detonated underneath the city, and, of course, that's exactly what I thought had occurred." [Web Archive]
Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall. [FOXNews]
At 4:38 p.m. all of the windows between 13-44A and 13-47C were open, and the fires responsible for opening the windows had died down to the point where they could no longer be observed. Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. The event that caused this unusual behavior has not been identified. [NIST Report]
The following video (screenshot left) compares the collapse of WTC 7 to a controlled demolition. The characteristics and speed of the collapses are all but identical.
WMV video download (190kB)
Molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2]," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. [American Free Press]
Molten steel is a by-product of a thermite reaction.
V
I think the butler done it.
Meta
I actually do love humour, so yeah. 🙂
But ... always good to have serious, informed data like that, from someone who really cares about the topic. 😎
Er - we are only talking about the immediate deaths of 3,000 people, and then tens of thousands of people killed with the incursion into Iraq as a result. Still in Afghanistan.
How funny is that...?
V
Hi Venetian
Just to make some distinctions.
Not believing in or giving credence to the explanations offered by conspiracy theories is not the same thing as believing that "this world runs and works in the nice, comfortable way so many people would like to believe." I borrowed the quote below from the Guardian, because it says it so well:
"Conspiracy theories often have their root in intellectual arrogance: "I know something you don't know, and if you disagree with me it's because you are too stupid to see the connections".
I agree with that statement. Does my agreement make it true? Does it make me right?
The world is neither an entirely "nice comfortable place", but nor is it entirely an evil, dark one, full of unexplained, lurking intent. The world can be all kinds of things, all happening simultaneously, but rarely is it either/or. Maybe when it comes to analysing historical events, the world is composed of grey, not black and white. Perhaps when grey comes into the equation, 'facts' become opinions?
To use one of the facts you cite about molten metal being pooled after three weeks - there is such a huge amount of material on the net, I reckon if I googled an alternative report, I might find there was molten metal pooled there after seven weeks, or that it disappeared after five days. You suggest "Chemists and architects say that only thermite or thermate can melt metal girders like this". Which Chemists and architects? Are there any that say otherwise? There might even be some who are undecided! I found this from Debunking 9/11:
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
These are also 'facts' - albeit alternative ones - does that make them any less 'true'?
I don't agree with your point about fact and theory, or the order in which they happen (the world is just not that orderly) It is absolutely possible, to have a theory - like the 9/11 conspiracy one - and then seek to prove that theory, by finding the facts that fit. This may be particularly true of scientific endeavour?
"In 1905 Einstein received his doctorate from the University of Zürich for a theoretical dissertation on the dimensions of molecules, and he also published three theoretical papers of central importance to the development of 20th-century physics. In the first of these papers, on Brownian motion, he made significant predictions about the motion of particles that are randomly distributed in a fluid. These predictions were later confirmed by experiment."
I'm all for healthy scepticism, but conspiracy theories are not that, they're cynical and lazy, or more gently they fill the void Aaronavitch described. They also peddle and see only the very worst, generating the most awful paranoia and distrust, and to what end? Just because I don't buy into conspiracy theories doesn't mean I think the world's a fluffy place.
El
Hi Elodie,
I may have sudden time-constraints so I'll see how far I can get with a response?
I do agree with some of your points, not others. So this post is really just about differences of opinion.
Not believing in or giving credence to the explanations offered by conspiracy theories is not the same thing as believing that "this world runs and works in the nice, comfortable way so many people would like to believe."
Oh, sorry, I never thought to say that that was a general comment, not personally to you.
"Conspiracy theories often have their root in intellectual arrogance: "I know something you don't know, and if you disagree with me it's because you are too stupid to see the connections".
That to me is just an opinion, since I instantly saw that "skeptics towards the skeptics" or those who mock conspiracy theories very often display great arrogance. They get pretty personal and you need a tough skin to take the jibes.
Maybe when it comes to analysing historical events, the world is composed of grey, not black and white. Perhaps when grey comes into the equation, 'facts' become opinions?
It is certainly true that some conspiracy theories have very compelling evidence - in fact some are not theories but accepted parts of the historical record. For example, it's factual history that the Bavarian Illuminati existed and were caught. On the other hand, clearly not all such theories are acceptable to most of us. I disagree with much of David Icke, and his broad sweeps; I totally disagree with the idea that man never went to the moon (though I've heard or read about 50% of younger Americans accept that). There are secret societies BTW. I've even taken part in uncovering their membership lists. These societies sometimes exist for specific conspiratorial reasons. If we take the now-outed Skull and Bones, at the very, very least it exists in order to help each other up the career ladder. But their internal documents show more and deeper long-term goals.
So sure things are grey in the sense that some conspiracy theories will be untrue, but since conspiracies do exist, some are true. If there were no conspiracies, we wouldn't even have that word in the lexicon.
Absolutely, you can usually find data that's for and data that's against, of course. Then one has to weigh both up. It's a personality-thing how one decides after that.
I'm all for healthy scepticism, but conspiracy theories are not that, they're cynical and lazy, or more gently they fill the void Aaronavitch described. They also peddle and see only the very worst, generating the most awful paranoia and distrust, and to what end? Just because I don't buy into conspiracy theories doesn't mean I think the world's a fluffy place.
El
Not to buy into ANY conspiracy theories is utterly illogical. It's tantamount to saying there are no conspiracies in this world. A few posts above, I give a link to "false flag" attacks - a thread here on HP. So far as I recall, all those conspiratorial false-flag attacks are historically documented, and now accepted historically. At least, most are. Take a look at the thread that link takes you to.
The evidence that JFK was killed by a conspiracy is also IMHO overwhelming. The evidence and witness-reports is overwhelming that multiple bullets were fired in rapid succession from at least two directions including the famed grassy knoll. Probably from more than two directions. The final, official investigation into the assassination concluded in the 1970s (hedging their bets) that it "probably" was a conspiracy. So your attitude is simply to dismiss or disagree with what are official findings. In the case of the false flag attacks, you are disagreeing with accepted history.
It may be that you have a different idea to me as to what "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" means? You may just be thinking of the more wacky end of the spectrum? I'm writing about the terms in general. Generally, of course there are conspiracies in this world.
V
If this was a court case it is my belief that there is enough doubt about the evidence to warrant a full inquiry - instead hardly any money was spent on the inquiry, it was glossed over in a manner to me that says someone wanted to sweep the whole thing under the carpet - if that is the case then that at least is the reason to life the corner of the conspiracy carpet and look to see what is there.
The fact that traces of high explosives have been found should alone be enough, the question is does the nobel peace prize winner have the bottle to reopen it in an open and honest manner....??
Until then the conspiratoralists will continue to seek the truths that they believe they are not being allowed sight of.
chris
If this was a court case it is my belief that there is enough doubt about the evidence to warrant a full inquiry - instead hardly any money was spent on the inquiry, it was glossed over in a manner to me that says someone wanted to sweep the whole thing under the carpet
Nobody has been charged with the crime. Not even bin Laden, as probably most people assume. Nobody is being sought for the crime. Surely even a terrorist attack per se would have distant planners, or would likely have?
The fact that traces of high explosives have been found should alone be enough, the question is does the nobel peace prize winner have the bottle to reopen it in an open and honest manner....??
Until then the conspiratoralists will continue to seek the truths that they believe they are not being allowed sight of.
chris
Good point. If up to 45% of Americans are suspicious of the official explanation, and after nine years conspiracy-beliefs are actually growing, then surely a true and thorough investigation would help put things to rest.
I actually am in a library and logged into HP to add this little P.S. I've previously given YouTube links to interviews about the demolition explosives found at the WTC site. But I just now received two little text links on this. I may as well add them:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_explosives.html
V
I'm all for healthy scepticism, but conspiracy theories are not that, they're cynical and lazy, or more gently they fill the void Aaronavitch described. They also peddle and see only the very worst, generating the most awful paranoia and distrust, and to what end?
I previously had to reply to your post in a real hurry. Just to pick up here on your end-note...
Unless you are thinking of the ultimate in wacky conspiracy theorists, I actually diametrically disagree with you head-on. Show me a reasonable instance of conspiracy theory vs. the official line (example 1 = 9/11, example 2 = JFK, example 3 = David Kelly, and then older examples you may not be aware of such as false flag attacks) and just about every time, skeptics towards the official theory do painstaking research, put their careers on the line and very often lose them in academia, and have a far greater comprehension of the overall facts since they do deep and serious research. The ultimate example of such a researcher IMHO is Antony C. Sutton.
Show me these possible conspiracy scenarios - 9/11, false flag attacks, David Kelly, JFK - and almost invariably we do find people involved who are most definitely lazy researchers. They are also most definitely cynical. And these are they who either blindly or very wilfully follow the official line that "everything's OK". They tend to do very little holistic research, and have a poor grasp of the facts. Their "rebuttals" towards serious scientists who have uncovered anomalous data tend to be personal attacks, and little more than calling people cooks. As Neils Harrit notes in the first of 4 YouTubes I've listed a little above this post, "conspiracy theorist" is itself used negatively against him, not as a neutral term.
More often than not, serious people who disagree - with hard data - with the official line are in an intellectual way heroic, and also selfless in that they often lose their careers in mainstream academia. Their critics by and large make sweeping statements, don't have a grasp of much of the real data (often don't even look at the data) and become fat cats. "To get along, you've got to go along".
In short, I find "cynical" and "lazy" to almost always apply to those who "go along" - from real experience, over decades of my life. 9/11 researchers such as Neils Harrit are serious, honest, somewhat shocked at what they find, dedicated, and risking careers.
The best of research into compellingly possible (or totally accepted) conspiracy scenarios (such as Hitler faking a false flag attack in Berlin, actually carried out by the Nazi Party in the 1930s, but used to appear against them and the state) does not "peddle the very worst" IMHO. It "peddles" investigation into Truth. As part of the ancient trio of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness, Truth is holy, not "the worst".
and to what end?
To the end of Truth, when Truth appears to many to be undergoing violation.
V
Such information is here!
I just received the following link and am in process of looking around its pages. I would urge anyone who believes 9/11 was as told officially, or the not-knows, and also the skeptics, to take a look at this:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
I'll quote just a very small proportion of it indeed, OK?
Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This page of the website is a collection of their statements. The website does not represent any organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.
Listed below are statements by more than 220 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite.
I've then moved on to read just a few, so far, of the accounts of survivors of the actual attacks, and the censored accounts of what they actually say. Just two examples are:
William Rodriguez WTC survivor. An American Building Maintenance employee for twenty years, responsible for inspection and maintenance at the World Trade Center, who held the master key for the stairs. He was the last person to leave the building on September 11 and has been credited with saving many lives. For his efforts, he received the National Hero Award from the Senate of Puerto Rico. Founder, Hispanic Victims Group.
Article 6/24/05: Regarding an explosion in the sub-basement of the World Trade Center North Tower on 9/11, prior to any airplane impact. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office. ... [Editor's note: At this point, Mr. Rodriguez was in sub-basement B1 of the North Tower, approximately 1,100 feet below the airplane's impact point at floors 93 to 98.]
"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."
But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"
David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.
"He was burned terribly," said Rodriguez. "The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn't have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I dont care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below.
"I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up. ...
"I disagree 100% with the government story," said Rodriguez. "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.
"And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn't have any answers." http://www.arcticbeacon
Editor's note: Despite hundreds of eyewitness reports of explosions throughout the Twin Towers by doomed victims, survivors, emergency service personnel, reporters, and bystanders, the 9/11 Commission Report contains virtually no mention of them and entirely ignores them in its conclusions. Graeme MacQueen's analysis of oral histories of 9/11 taken from 503 FDNY survivors reveals more than 100 FDNY personnel reported explosions in the Twin Towers.
Phillip Morelli WTC survivor. Construction worker at the World Trade Center for seven years .
Video interview: "At 8:30 he says he was headed for level B-4 in Tower One [North Tower], four stories below ground."... As I'm walking by the main freight car of the building, in the corridor, that's when I got blown. I mean the impact of the explosion, from whatever happened, it threw me to the floor. And that's when everything started happening. It knocked me right to the floor. You didn't know what it was. Of course, you're assuming something fell over on the loading dock, something very heavy, something very big. You don't know what happened. And all of a sudden you just felt the floor moving. ... [Editor's note: At this point, Mr. Morelli was in the sub-basement of the North Tower, approximately 1,100 feet below the airplane's point of impact at floors 93 to 98.]
I was racing -- I was going towards the bathroom. All of a sudden. I opened the door. I didn't know it was a bathroom And all of a sudden a big impact happened again. And all the ceiling tiles were falling down. The light fixtures were falling, swinging out of the ceiling. And I come running out the door and everything, the walls were down. And I now started running towards the parking lots."
Nearly 100 floors below where the first plane hit Phil felt the devastating impact. ...
"As I ran to the parking lots, you know, I mean, everybody screaming ... There was a lot of smoke down there. ... You gotta go clear across the whole -- from One to Two World Trade Center. That's the way you gotta run.
And then all of a sudden it happened all over again. Building Two got hit. I don't know that. I just know something else hit us to the floor. Right in the basement you felt it. The walls were caving in. Everything that was going on. I know of people that got killed in the basement. I know of people that got broken legs in the basement. People got reconstructive surgery because the walls hit them in the face." http://real.ny1.com
Editor's note: Despite hundreds of eyewitness reports of explosions throughout the Twin Towers by doomed victims, survivors, emergency service personnel, reporters, and bystanders, the 9/11 Commission Report contains virtually no mention of them and entirely ignores them in its conclusions. Graeme MacQueen's analysis of oral histories of 9/11 taken from 503 FDNY survivors reveals more than 100 FDNY personnel reported explosions in the Twin Towers.
I'm still just starting to look at the unbelievable accounts collected on this website. The accounts are real and verifiable. Still looking ... but now I have no doubt whatsoever that the WTC buildings were demolished, munitions planted there before-hand because it was known the terrorist (?) attack would take place, but to vastly increase the scale of effect of that plane-attack.
The majority of the damage, I have no doubt, was a false-flag attack i.e. most of the damage and casualties were caused by other persons and some other source, not the plane attacks.
Do join me in looking at this website, cited at the beginning, above.
V
There are a huge number of very anomalous accounts about what happened. Time for bed here, but first here are just two more accounts:
Beth Fertig WTC survivor. Senior Reporter, WNYC Radio News 1995 - present. Frequent contributor to National Public Radio. Recipient of the prestigious Alfred I. duPont Columbia University Award for broadcast journalism. Former newspaper reporter in Boston.
Women Journalists at Ground Zero by Suzanne Huffman and Judith L. Sylvesterby (2002): Ms. Fertig was standing near the World Trade Center recording the sounds and her impressions of the impact of the planes when WTC 2 (South Tower) began to collapse. She gave this interview to the authors after the event."I heard this huge rumbling noise like an elevated train above my head. I'm staring at this in disbelief. I just held my microphone out to get the sound of it and, after a few seconds started narrating what I'm seeing. ...
It just descended like a timed explosion - like when they are deliberately bringing a building down. It was the strangest thing to see. It was coming down so perfectly that in one part of my brain I was thinking, 'They got everyone out, and theyre bringing the building down because they have to.' " http://books.google.com
Brian Clark WTC survivor. Manager at Euro Brokers, WTC South Tower, 84th floor.
Interviewed in the documentary film Zero: An Investigation Into 9/11 10/26/07:"On September 11, 2001, I was employed by a company called Euro Brokers and our offices were on the 84th floor of the South Tower, which was the second building to be hit that day with an airplane. And I was working away at my computer and at 8:46 in the morning, there was this loud BOOM. ...
Two or three minutes later I started talking with one fellow named Bobby Call ... and as he was telling me this -- BOOM BOOM -- this double explosion and our building shook. ... Everything just exploded in our room. Now we're on the 84th floor. What I didn't know at the time was that the second plane had hit six floors below us on the 78th floor. ... We dusted ourselves off and I said, "Come on. Let's go home." ...
When I looked down there, I didn't see flames. I just sensed that it was the right thing to go and try and test it. We would go as far as we could until we were stopped by flames. And when we came to the 78th floor, the last layer was standing, but it was cracked, and there were flames licking up the other side of the wall, like this. It wasn't a roaring inferno. I sensed that the flames were maybe starved for oxygen right there, you know, in the interior. We kept going and we got onto the 74th floor, when we got down that far, normal conditions -- the lights were on, fresh air was coming up from below. ...
My ears were hearing loud explosions at ground level. Very mysterious. Explosions that seemed to be at ground level as opposed to high in the air."
V