WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

[+joc]

This is what a skyscraper demolition looks like and SOUNDS like. Any resemblance to 911? No. None.

[Q24]

There were indeed explosions. But NOT Demotlition Explosions. As per my last post...SkyEagle has well documented what these 'explosions' were...and what I was saying and what others are saying about 'explosions' is that Demolition Explosions do not cause people to say, 'OMG it sounded like an explosion!"....Demolition Explosions cause people to just stand there with their mouths open...mumbling...omg...omg...omg..

I don’t read the majority of skyeagle’s posts which consist of too much cut and paste links and are an affront to any form of rationale, or even coherent, discussion. If anyone could truly document what each and every one of the explosions were in the WTC buildings I’d be mightily impressed but I’m sure that would be impossible. I’d settle for a plausible theory of what each explosion might have been as opposed to secondary devices which tick all the boxes.

I think your own explanation above for writing-off secondary devices is poor considering both the FDNY and NYPD, whose impressions deserve much respect, worked to that theory on the morning of 9/11 exactly due to the explosions, with many witnesses comparing them specifically to “bombs”. I could also link you to video of witnesses watching the tower collapses, with their mouths open, mumbling, “omg omg omg” but I wouldn’t consider that evidence of secondary devices.

The video you linked is a conventional, industry standard, demolition. You do know that is not the only method or sequence of explosions that will demolish a building? And no one expects the covert WTC demolitions to be performed through a conventional method?

So in the end, you have written off demolition charges because 1) people didn’t say “omg omg omg” and 2) because the WTC demolitions do not match conventional, overt demolition. Jeez, the standards of remaining official story supporters sure aren't getting any better.

[+joc]

I don’t read the majority of skyeagle’s posts which consist of too much cut and paste links and are an affront to any form of rationale, or even coherent, discussion. If anyone could truly document what each and every one of the explosions were in the WTC buildings I’d be mightily impressed but I’m sure that would be impossible. I’d settle for a plausible theory of what each explosion might have been as opposed to secondary devices which tick all the boxes.

I think your own explanation above for writing-off secondary devices is poor considering both the FDNY and NYPD, whose impressions deserve much respect, worked to that theory on the morning of 9/11 exactly due to the explosions, with many witnesses comparing them specifically to “bombs”. I could also link you to video of witnesses watching the tower collapses, with their mouths open, mumbling, “omg omg omg” but I wouldn’t consider that evidence of secondary devices.

The video you linked is a conventional, industry standard, demolition. You do know that is not the only method or sequence of explosions that will demolish a building? And no one expects the covert WTC demolitions to be performed through a conventional method?

So in the end, you have written off demolition charges because 1) people didn’t say “omg omg omg” and 2) because the WTC demolitions do not match conventional, overt demolition. Jeez, the standards of remaining official story supporters sure aren't getting any better.

The elevators crashed to the ground causing some of the explosions heard at the bottom.

There are indeed other ways to demolish a building.

But if you want to bring a building straight down...there are only a few.

[Q24]

The elevators crashed to the ground causing some of the explosions heard at the bottom.

I’m sure there is a possibility that a couple of explosive-like sounds may have been caused by falling elevator cars. However, this does not explain the continuous explosions after the initial impact which led right up to the collapse. Neither does it explain the volume of explosions at lower levels, since the lower elevator shafts were segregated from the impact zone. I also read, in NIST NCSTAR 1-8, that after the impact an elevator supervisor contacted the majority of cars, at least in WTC1, suggesting they were not destroyed. And you might like to check the Otis safety elevator design, introduced so far back as 1852 for another reason why falling elevator cars are not a good explanation of the numerous and continuous explosions.

It also does the FDNY a disservice to claim they mistook falling elevator cars for secondary devices.

Tell me honestly...

[media=]

[/media]

... does this WTC explosion really resemble a falling elevator car, or a shaped charge?

In conclusion, elevator cars fall a million miles short of explaining the explosions witnessed on 9/11.

There are indeed other ways to demolish a building.

But if you want to bring a building straight down...there are only a few.

I want to bring a building down like the twin towers on 9/11.

How do those few ways preclude explosive weakening followed by a thermite based initiation?

Edited July 15, 2013 by Q24

[+Liquid Gardens]

2) because the WTC demolitions do not match conventional, overt demolition. Jeez, the standards of remaining official story supporters sure aren't getting any better.

But you then flip it and partially write off the collapses because you don't find precedent for 'steel-structured building collapsing from fire'. What is your precedent for actual explosives being used to 'weaken' a structure significantly before a thermite demolition? Precedent: important evidence... except when it's not. At least some of us CT-critics actually have standards.

If they are going to use audible explosives to bring down the towers, what exactly is the purpose of ramming planes into them? Do we have evidence of windows being blown out in the tower when these supposed pre-explosives go off, since for some reason while the tower is collapsing air being blown out on lower stories is not just from air pressure and supposedly indicative of demolitions?

[skyeagle409]

I’m sure there is a possibility that a couple of explosive-like sounds may have been caused by falling elevator cars. However, this does not explain the continuous explosions after the initial impact which led right up to the collapse. Neither does it explain the volume of explosions at lower levels, since the lower elevator shafts were segregated from the impact zone. I also read, in NIST NCSTAR 1-8, that after the impact an elevator supervisor contacted the majority of cars, at least in WTC1, suggesting they were not destroyed. And you might like to check the Otis safety elevator design, introduced so far back as 1852 for another reason why falling elevator cars are not a good explanation of the numerous and continuous explosions.

It also does the FDNY a disservice to claim they mistook falling elevator cars for secondary devices.

Tell me honestly...

[media=]

[/media]

... does this WTC explosion really resemble a falling elevator car, or a shaped charge?

In conclusion, elevator cars fall a million miles short of explaining the explosions witnessed on 9/11.

I want to bring a building down like the twin towers on 9/11.

How do those few ways preclude explosive weakening followed by a thermite based initiation?

There are many things that can produce such sounds. You will notice the WTC buildings remained standing. in addition, as the WTC buildings collapsed, there are no sounds of bomb explosions, which once again explains why no evidence of explosive was ever found at ground zero.

The collapse of the WTC buildings began at the locations where they were struck by the aircraft yet there are no secondary explosions and since the impacts were violent enough to dislodge fire protection from the structures, it makes sense that explosives placed on structural columns in that particular location would have been rendered ineffective, but then again, who would transport tons of explosives and hardware many stories above street level and place explosives in the exact locations where the collisions occurred?

Remember, there were no secondary bomb explosions during the impacts and no sound of bomb explosions as the WTC buildings fell and again, no evidence of explosives found at ground zero.

[Q24]

But you then flip it and partially write off the collapses because you don't find precedent for 'steel-structured building collapsing from fire'. What is your precedent for actual explosives being used to 'weaken' a structure significantly before a thermite demolition? Precedent: important evidence... except when it's not. At least some of us CT-critics actually have standards.

There is no ‘flip’, LG. We only need to appreciate that precedent is important to consider when it exists, not when it does not.

For instance, there is plenty of precedent for high-rise building fire and damage. I can use this precedent to declare that no high-rise building fire and damage has ever caused global collapse of such a structure. This is relevant particularly in the case of WTC7 which the official story states suffered an office fire based, global collapse. Were there actually no precedent for high-rise building fire and damage, then I would not have an argument.

So similarly, when there is no precedent for, “actual explosives being used to 'weaken' a structure significantly before a thermite demolition” – it is a non-issue either way and it becomes purely a case of possibilities, of course congruent with and explaining the existing evidence.

If they are going to use audible explosives to bring down the towers, what exactly is the purpose of ramming planes into them?

The planes are the cover story for the demolition – to blame the foreign enemy.

Do we have evidence of windows being blown out in the tower when these supposed pre-explosives go off, since for some reason while the tower is collapsing air being blown out on lower stories is not just from air pressure and supposedly indicative of demolitions?

It is feasible that charges utilising cover of the collapse progression could be more violent than those prior to the collapse. Still, yes, numerous focussed/isolated squibs of various intensities are visible both before and during the collapses. This one, unfortunately for the perpetrators, comes complete with what appears to be geotextile wrap, intended to contain debris: -

[media=]

[/media]

[skyeagle409]

There is no ‘flip’, LG. We only need to appreciate that precedent is important to consider when it exists, not when it does not.

For instance, there is plenty of precedent for high-rise building fire and damage. I can use this precedent to declare that no high-rise building fire and damage has ever caused global collapse of such a structure. This is relevant particularly in the case of WTC7 which the official story states suffered an office fire based, global collapse. Were there actually no precedent for high-rise building fire and damage, then I would not have an argument.

So similarly, when there is no precedent for, “actual explosives being used to 'weaken' a structure significantly before a thermite demolition” – it is a non-issue either way and it becomes purely a case of possibilities, of course congruent with and explaining the existing evidence.

The planes are the cover story for the demolition – to blame the foreign enemy.

It is feasible that charges utilising cover of the collapse progression could be more violent than those prior to the collapse. Still, yes, numerous focussed/isolated squibs of various intensities are visible both before and during the collapses.

A squib is not evidence of explosives because squibs are also produced during non-explosive demolitions.

"Squibs"

During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It's said that the towers were about 95% air. But not all the air went so easily out the window space.

There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns. So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core. The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up. Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could.

According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core...

Matt Komorowski:

“The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back

. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”

Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”

Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel.

It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.

”

http://www.acfd.com/...r_company_6.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

This one, unfortunately for the perpetrators, comes complete with what appears to be geotextile wrap, intended to contain debris: -

Still not evidence. There were no bomb explosions seen nor heard.

Edited July 15, 2013 by skyeagle409

[+joc]

These buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 747...and they did! But what occurred after that was indeed a pancake effect of one floor crashing onto the other...all the way down. This is 'another' way you demolish a building.

[Q24]

A squib is not evidence of explosives because squibs are also produced during non-explosive demolitions.

The pictures you posted are just debris clouds, not focussed/isolated squibs as witnessed in demolition and the WTC event. I’m sorry you are too unobservant to notice the difference.

These buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 747...and they did! But what occurred after that was indeed a pancake effect of one floor crashing onto the other...all the way down. This is 'another' way you demolish a building.

As well as the hypothetical impact of a Boeing 707 travelling at 600 mph, the WTC design engineers carried out a separate analysis to determine effect of the resultant fire. It should be noted that the Boeing 707 had a similar fuel capacity to the Boeing 767. The conclusion of all studies is that the structures would remain standing: -

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. The building structure would still be there.”

John Skilling – WTC design engineer

That earlier 1964 study is in line with NIST’s more recent base case impact/fire simulation which also showed no collapse would initiate.

You are correct that the buildings were designed to withstand an airliner impact... and they did! What you don’t explain is how the collapses initiated or the floors crashed down despite the huge, continuous, core column structure. I have a plausible and evidenced theory – demolition.

Anyhow joc, I see you posting a link to the verinage demolition method, but you still haven’t explained how you rule out the WTC explosions being demolition charges with a thermite based collapse initiation.

[+joc]

The pictures you posted are just debris clouds, not focussed/isolated squibs as witnessed in demolition and the WTC event. I’m sorry you are too unobservant to notice the difference.

As well as the hypothetical impact of a Boeing 707 travelling at 600 mph, the WTC design engineers carried out a separate analysis to determine effect of the resultant fire. It should be noted that the Boeing 707 had a similar fuel capacity to the Boeing 767. The conclusion of all studies is that the structures would remain standing: -

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. The building structure would still be there.”

John Skilling – WTC design engineer

That earlier 1964 study is in line with NIST’s more recent base case impact/fire simulation which also showed no collapse would initiate.

You are correct that the buildings were designed to withstand an airliner impact... and they did! What you don’t explain is how the collapses initiated or the floors crashed down despite the huge, continuous, core column structure. I have a plausible and evidenced theory – demolition.

Anyhow joc, I see you posting a link to the verinage demolition method, but you still haven’t explained how you rule out the WTC explosions being demolition charges with a thermite based collapse initiation.

There isn't any proof at all of any such demolition charges. It is speculation..pure speculation.

As to the 'core column structure'...it didn't hold up very well did it? But we are supposed to believe that the only way this 'core structure' could be destroyed is by 'thermite explosives'?

The 'core' was built floor by floor...just as was the rest of the building...with rivets, etc. It was designed that way so that if a jet airliner did go off course and actually hit the tower, the tower wouldn't fall horizontally destroying a huge part of Manhattan and killing hundreds of thousands of people. But the towers fell...and we are supposed to believe that the only way on God's grey earth that this could happen is if CIA agents placed thermite explosives in key places.

Fact: Airliners hit the towers. Fact: huge explosions of jet fuel took out most of the support of the floor where the impact occurred. FACT: The support columns buckled and the weight of the stories above collapsed down and continued a collapse that ended at ground zero.

Speculation: Thermite exlosives were used.

Speculation: the buildings were wired by professionals

Speculation: The airliners crashing into the buildings were just a front and didn't actually cause any destruction above or below those floors.

Isn't it time really to just embrace the facts....and end the insanity that the Conspiracy really is?

[skyeagle409]

The pictures you posted are just debris clouds, not focussed/isolated squibs as witnessed in demolition and the WTC event.

There are no sounds of explosions associated with the air compressed squibs seen as the WTC buildings collapsed.

As well as the hypothetical impact of a Boeing 707 travelling at 600 mph, the WTC design engineers carried out a separate analysis to determine effect of the resultant fire. It should be noted that the Boeing 707 had a similar fuel capacity to the Boeing 767. The conclusion of all studies is that the structures would remain standing: -

Fire weakened the remaining structures at the location of the impacts which were supporting redistributed structural loads. The redistributed structural loads were due to impacts.

[Q24]

There isn't any proof at all of any such demolition charges. It is speculation..pure speculation.

The mountain of circumstantial evidence that exists in support of demolition charges is not speculation. For just one instance, you have yet to explain how we can rule out demolition charges as cause of the WTC explosions and/or squibs.

Anyone could equally claim it is pure speculation that fire significantly weakened any of the WTC steel, since not one of the pieces recovered for analysis displayed such. However, once thick steel pieces were recovered that displayed complete corrosion straight through by some other process.

As to the 'core column structure'...it didn't hold up very well did it? But we are supposed to believe that the only way this 'core structure' could be destroyed is by 'thermite explosives'?

Of course the core didn’t hold up - dedicated 2,000^oC+ thermite and explosive charges are far more efficient than a waxing and waning fire, especially in the core structure where with little to burn the NIST fire simulations showed relatively low temperatures in the couple of hundreds of degrees.

The 'core' was built floor by floor...just as was the rest of the building...with rivets, etc. It was designed that way so that if a jet airliner did go off course and actually hit the tower, the tower wouldn't fall horizontally destroying a huge part of Manhattan and killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Where on Earth did you get that from??

But the towers fell...and we are supposed to believe that the only way on God's grey earth that this could happen is if CIA agents placed thermite explosives in key places.

I don’t think CIA.

More likely a group linked to the Israeli agents who celebrated the collapses and in whose van sniffer dogs indicated remained an explosive residual scent, upon which they were detained and failed lie detector tests for weeks on end until release for political reason.

Fact: huge explosions of jet fuel took out most of the support of the floor where the impact occurred.

A jet fuel pressure wave is actually quite weak compared to huge steel columns. If you read the official study you will find that the airliner itself actually did the damage. You will also see that nothing at all like, “most of the support of the floor” was taken out – it was actually relatively few core columns. We need to address these misconceptions to understand the situation.

Speculation: Thermite exlosives were used.

Speculation: the buildings were wired by professionals

Speculation: The airliners crashing into the buildings were just a front and didn't actually cause any destruction above or below those floors.

There is very clear evidence and logic to all the above, perhaps you are just missing it.

[+joc]

joc, on 15 July 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

The 'core' was built floor by floor...just as was the rest of the building...with rivets, etc. It was designed that way so that if a jet airliner did go off course and actually hit the tower, the tower wouldn't fall horizontally destroying a huge part of Manhattan and killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Where on Earth did you get that from??

I got that from just pure 'thinking'....as it turns out...my thinking was incorrect...the real reason the core was built had mostly to do with the elevator shafts and the space saved by building it that way. I guess my 'thinking' took that direction bcause of all the theories that the core of the building had to have been demolished for the pancake effect to have happened. Why would that be? Turns out that my incorrect thought process brought to light of day the actual Facts concerning the core...the core was built to house the elevator shafts and had nothing to do with stability of the building...so in disclosure of that little known fact, goes up in smoke your whole theory of thermite.

The Reason for the Core

Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways

Edited July 15, 2013 by joc

[skyeagle409]

The mountain of circumstantial evidence that exists in support of demolition charges is not speculation. For just one instance, you have yet to explain how we can rule out demolition charges as cause of the WTC explosions and/or squibs.

False! The following list indicates why no demolition charges were involved.

* No demolition explosions seen as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No demolition explosions heard as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No demolition explosions detected as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No evidence of demolition charge discovered within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Anyone could equally claim it is pure speculation that fire significantly weakened any of the WTC steel, since not one of the pieces recovered for analysis displayed such.

Let's take another look.

Engineer inspecting fire damage of perimeter column tree from WTC 1 or WTC 2

Seat connection in fire-damaged W14 column from WTC 7

Of course the core didn’t hold up - dedicated 2,000^oC+ thermite and explosive charges are far more efficient than a waxing and waning fire, especially in the core structure where with little to burn the NIST fire simulations showed relatively low temperatures in the couple of hundreds of degrees.

Apparently, no such evidence was ever found at ground zero. That story of thermite was made up, but conspiracy theorist took the bait anyway.

[+joc]

False! The following list indicates why no demolition charges were involved.

* No demolition explosions seen as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No demolition explosions heard as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No demolition explosions detected as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No evidence of demolition charge discovered within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Let's take another look.

[media=]

!

Apparently, no such evidence was ever found at ground zero. That story of thermite was made up, but conspiracy theorist took the bait anyway.

Awesome! Bravo!

[skyeagle409]

Awesome! Bravo!

Thanks!

Q24 was aware that fire-weakened steel was in fact, examined, which brings up questions as to why he knowingly posted false and misleading information.

[DONTEATUS]

Its All over ,but for the Praying we never get this Happening to Us again! It was what it was ! Nuff Said !

[Q24]

...the core was built to house the elevator shafts and had nothing to do with stability of the building...

*smacks head on desk*

That is all.

Except, for god sake please read-up, joc.

Let's take another look.

I looked at the pictures. None of them demonstrate that fire significantly weakened the steel. The physical analysis of steelwork performed by NIST reported: -

• “no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”
  
• “Most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped) saw no temperature T > 250 °C”
  
• “Paint analyses indicate both [core] columns < 250 °C”
  

It was what it was ! Nuff Said !

Judging by the three comments I’ve quoted in this post, support for the official story is more akin to the Muppet show.

[skyeagle409]

I looked at the pictures. None of them demonstrate that fire significantly weakened the steel. The physical analysis of steelwork performed by NIST reported: -

“no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”

• “no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”
  
• “Most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped) saw no temperature T > 250 °C”
  
• “Paint analyses indicate both [core] columns < 250 °C”
  

Let's take another look because those images definitely depicted fire-weakened steel and now, let's take a look here.

World Trade Center 5 Failure Analysis

World Trade Center 5 (WTC 5) was a 9-story office and retail building at the World Trade Center complex in New York City, NY. On September 11, 2001, flaming debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers penetrated the roof of WTC 5, causing a fire that burned unchecked until the fuel from building contents was consumed (FEMA, 2002, p. 4-4). While impact damage over a portion of the building and an intense fire throughout are not surprising given the assault this building received, engineers inspecting the building after the event were not expecting to see an interior collapse, due entirely to the influence of the fire. The floors collapsed between the 8th and the 4th levels in the eastern section of the building, where there was no initial impact damage (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Internal Collapse Area in WTC 5 (FEMA, 2002, p. 4-18).

The major fire-induced collapse that occurred in WTC 5 involved the portion of the building that had Gerber framing (girder stubs welded to columns, and simply supported central girder spans with shear connections to the ends of the stubs (Figure 2)), but not other areas of the building where girders spanned the full distance between columns. This fact, and observations at the site suggesting that the failure was early in the fire, raised the possibility that this structure had a vulnerability that led to premature failure, perhaps during the heating phase of the fire.

Yet, you incorrectly indicated that none of the steel taken from ground zero was found to be weakened by fire and that raises more questions about your attempt to push false and misleading information. Let's take another look.

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

Bearing walls and Open floor design

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Now, let's take another look.

And now, a close up as WTC2 buckles just before it collapse, which is a clear indication that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse.

Edited July 16, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Its All over ,but for the Praying we never get this Happening to Us again! It was what it was ! Nuff Said !

Yes indeed, the 911 attack is history, however, there are those who are deliberately trying to rewrite that history and substitute disinformation, misinformation and outright lies in place of reality.

[skyeagle409]

Judging by the three comments I’ve quoted in this post, support for the official story is more akin to the Muppet show.

On the contrary, the official story is backed by facts and evidence, while on the other hand, there is no evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings and remember;

* No demolition explosions seen

* No demolition explosions heard

^ No demolition explosions detected on seismic monitors

* No evidence of demolition charges found at ground zero

In case you were unaware;

[media=]

[/media] Edited July 16, 2013 by skyeagle409

[+joc]

Nice!

[skyeagle409]

Nice!

What fire can do to steel.

[DONTEATUS]

I Know Skyeagle We cant correct the world of The Insane !

We can only hope they correct themselfs !