Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 6 votes

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
3683 replies to this topic

#1576    Ellapennella

Ellapennella

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,310 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012

Posted 07 May 2013 - 05:11 PM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 05 May 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

Sky we could play that a Million times and the C.T`s will still say it was a bomb,missle,UFO,Swampgas special weapon of mass destruction ! It will never change ! What Happened is what we know Happened !  Four Aircraft and people were lost that day to a Terriost attack ! :tu:
GOD whares the Logic in here ?
Why do you suppose the trial regarding benghazi is still going on too? and that Military officials are coming forward with inside information that's been covered up ,yeah a cover up is what officais are saying has taken place in Benghazi. Are they too to be mocked  as CT's in your mind ?


#1577    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013

Posted 07 May 2013 - 05:26 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 May 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

Okay, because the charts show the collapse of the WTC buildings, but no evidence of explosions.

Again, according to the only evidence you want to accept.  Even though better, more recent, more accurate evidence from a better qualified and more experienced source repudiates the hell out of popular mechanics out-dated, badly researched junk.

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#1578    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 07 May 2013 - 08:14 PM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 07 May 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

Again, according to the only evidence you want to accept.  Even though better, more recent, more accurate evidence from a better qualified and more experienced source repudiates the hell out of popular mechanics out-dated, badly researched junk.

I have been through war and spent many months experiencing the sound of explosions to know that there were no bomb explosions evident at ground zero, which explains why demolition experts in the area stated they saw no evidence of explosions and I concur.You don't just hear explosions, you can feel the effects as well.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1579    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:27 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 May 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

I have been through war and spent many months experiencing the sound of explosions to know that there were no bomb explosions evident at ground zero, which explains why demolition experts in the area stated they saw no evidence of explosions and I concur.You don't just hear explosions, you can feel the effects as well.

Were you there on 9/11?  'Cause unless you're calling the emergency services that WERE there liars; your testimony is secondary to theirs.  I'm not doubting you, but dozens upon dozens of people reported explosions (note, I have not used the word 'bomb') on the day.

Regardless, the discussion was centred around seismic disturbances (Again, note the usage. 'disturbance'; a neutral word.  I'm not saying 'bombs', I'm not saying 'explosions')  Now there is the info from Columbia University that says there needs to be more investigation.  There is the Popular Mechanics research debunking it and there is also Roussou's research, which corroborates the idea that more investigation is needed as the official story does not match the disturbances.

I'm of the opinion, that Roussou's research and experience are much more worthwhile and valid than Popular Mechanics'.

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#1580    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:44 PM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 07 May 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

Were you there on 9/11?

On Travis AFB, CA., and a member of the Air Wing whose commanding officer was in the Pentagon at the time of the 911 attack.

Quote

'Cause unless you're calling the emergency services that WERE there liars; your testimony is secondary to theirs.

They didn't hear nor see bomb explosions either, and additionally, they did not recover evidence of bombs at ground zero.

Quote

regardless, the discussion was centred around seismic disturbances (Again, note the usage. 'disturbance'; a neutral word.  I'm not saying 'bombs', I'm not saying 'explosions')  Now there is the info from Columbia University that says there needs to be more investigation.  There is the Popular Mechanics research debunking it and there is also Roussou's research, which corroborates the idea that more investigation is needed as the official story does not match the disturbances.

Looking at the charts, I see no evidence of bomb explosions.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1581    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013

Posted 07 May 2013 - 10:10 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 May 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

On Travis AFB, CA., and a member of the Air Wing whose commanding officer was in the Pentagon at the time of the 911 attack.

So, to clarify, is that closer or further away than the Police and Fire crews on the scene?

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 May 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

They didn't hear nor see bomb explosions either, and additionally, they did not recover evidence of bombs at ground zero.

Gonna have to resort to quoting myself here.  "dozens upon dozens of people reported explosions (note, I have not used the word 'bomb') on the day."


View Postskyeagle409, on 07 May 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

Looking at the charts, I see no evidence of bomb explosions.

Right.  First of all, I shall again quote myself, as you seem to be skim-reading my posts.

" (Again, note the usage. 'disturbance'; a neutral word.  I'm not saying 'bombs', I'm not saying 'explosions') "

As a Pilot, and something of an aircraft expert, you have much to bring to ANY 9/11 discussion, knowledge of flight plans/paths, Aircraft specs....  Your interpretation of seismographic data is, however, next to worthless.

Andre Roussou has much experience, much knowledge and his research is thorough.  He has come to the conclusion that the official explanation does not come close to matching the Seismic data.  His data is refuting the Popular Mechanics data you have used to illustrate your point.

I believe Popular Mechanics are wrong on this subject.  I believe Roussou is correct.  The Seismic information does not back up the official story.  More investigation is needed.

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#1582    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,089 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 08 May 2013 - 12:01 AM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 07 May 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

Were you there on 9/11?  'Cause unless you're calling the emergency services that WERE there liars; your testimony is secondary to theirs.  I'm not doubting you, but dozens upon dozens of people reported explosions (note, I have not used the word 'bomb') on the day.

Regardless, the discussion was centred around seismic disturbances (Again, note the usage. 'disturbance'; a neutral word.  I'm not saying 'bombs', I'm not saying 'explosions')  Now there is the info from Columbia University that says there needs to be more investigation.  There is the Popular Mechanics research debunking it and there is also Roussou's research, which corroborates the idea that more investigation is needed as the official story does not match the disturbances.

I'm of the opinion, that Roussou's research and experience are much more worthwhile and valid than Popular Mechanics'.

Mind posting Roussou's peer reviewed and published by a reputable scientific journal papers please.

Thanks.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1583    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,089 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 08 May 2013 - 12:08 AM

View Postdmgspycat, on 04 May 2013 - 04:22 AM, said:

The obvious answer to that is because the steel was shipped out of the country too fast to test. The government didn't give any samples to investigators.

Considering the first shipment didn't leave till late January or early February,  that gave 5 months of holding prior being shipped.  5 months doesn't seem all that "fast" if you want my opinion.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1584    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 08 May 2013 - 12:45 AM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 07 May 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

So, to clarify, is that closer or further away than the Police and Fire crews on the scene?

It doesn't make any difference because the videos spoke for themselves. There were no secondaries observed nor explosions heard and I have posted videos to backup my claim. It was very lear that fires were weakening the structures of the WTC buildings because the buildings were observed buckling, which is a clear indication of thermal expansion of the steel structures, which was the result of those fires and nothing to do with explosives.

In addition, just because someone heard what they perceived as explosions doesn't mean the sounds they heard were the result of explosives. Check it out.

Quote

Testimony of those who heard such sounds but later attributed those sounds other than to explosives. Since it seems that you have forgotten, do a review here.

Explosions

"When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go.The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down."

He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.

http://www.debunking.../explosions.htm


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dominick Derubbio

t was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FDNY Batallion Chief Brian Dixon

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://www.911myths....uote_abuse.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------


So once again, just because someone heard the sound of explosions, is not evidence that bombs were involved.
And just because someone heard...
  • Rivets popping.
  • Floors Collapsing.
  • An explosion that blew out the floors which wasn't an explosions.
Nothing there indicating the use of explosives. There is no video of bomb explosions and no audio of bomb explosions and no evidence of bombs within the rubble of the WTC buildings and no seismic data of bomb explosions.

Verdict!! No bombs.

As you can see, the firefighters attributed the sounds to things other than explosives, however, what importance do you place on the sounds they heard?

Quote

As a Pilot, and something of an aircraft expert, you have much to bring to ANY 9/11 discussion, knowledge of flight plans/paths, Aircraft specs....  Your interpretation of seismographic data is, however, next to worthless.

All I asked was for you to show us where the characteristics of explosions were evident on the charts.

Quote

Andre Roussou has much experience, much knowledge and his research is thorough. He has come to the conclusion that the official explanation does not come close to matching the Seismic data.  His data is refuting the Popular Mechanics data you have used to illustrate your point.

I can easily debunk the work of Andre Roussou by showing  you this video. Seismic recordings as the WTC buildings collapsed are noted in the charts but there is nothing in those charts that depict explosions. Andre Roussou should have known better than that.



Apparently, there are no explosions seen nor heard as the WTC buildings collapsed. Now, tie the video with the seismic charts provided earlier and you will see a clear discrepancy in Andre Roussou's seismic research because the charts depicted the collapse of the WTC buildings, but no explosions, which explains why no WTC explosions are seen nor heard in the video.

Edited by skyeagle409, 08 May 2013 - 12:59 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1585    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,838 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 08 May 2013 - 02:59 AM

View PostReann, on 07 May 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

Why do you suppose the trial regarding benghazi is still going on too? and that Military officials are coming forward with inside information that's been covered up ,yeah a cover up is what officais are saying has taken place in Benghazi. Are they too to be mocked  as CT's in your mind ?
For Real ? THat was nothong more than a Terriost attack !  No Government involvment !

This is a Work in Progress!

#1586    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,554 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 08 May 2013 - 12:48 PM

Spinebreaker

Have not read Roussou's work, but the work of Ross & Furlong contradict the official story, and corroborates the story of Rodriguez.  The seismic evidence contradicts the official story.


#1587    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013

Posted 08 May 2013 - 01:30 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 08 May 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:

Mind posting Roussou's peer reviewed and published by a reputable scientific journal papers please.

Thanks.

Shall do, but it'll be this evening.  It's pretty recent research though.  December 2012 I think.

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 May 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

It doesn't make any difference because the videos spoke for themselves.

OK.  For the video's to "speak for themselves" I'd want a plan of  where the cameraman was on the day, with a full diagram of every noise and movement, the technical specs of the camera, particularly the inbuilt microphone or additional microphones if used.  Plus a stack of information about compression and quality when it was uploaded.  Then and  only then will a video "speak for itself."

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 May 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

There were no secondaries observed nor explosions heard and I have posted videos to backup my claim.

I, and others, have posted lots and lots of quotes of people saying they did see and hear such things...

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 May 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

As you can see, the firefighters attributed the sounds to things other than explosives, however, what importance do you place on the sounds they heard?

Afterwards, even if there was no corruption involved, other people's expectation will have affected their subsequent opinion.  Eyewitness testimony  is useful immediately, later on, people will invariably say what they're expected to say.

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 May 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

All I asked was for you to show us where the characteristics of explosions were evident on the charts.

I'll have a look at the basics of seismographic interpretation later, though I would recommend you accept the word of an expert with 20-odd years experience over my opinions.

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 May 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

I can easily debunk the work of Andre Roussou by showing  you this video. Seismic recordings as the WTC buildings collapsed are noted in the charts but there is nothing in those charts that depict explosions. Andre Roussou should have known better than that.

No, you can't.  You can repudiate or refute.  YOU cannot debunk it.  Not without a career change and 20 years doing nothing else.  He looked at the evidence in detail, and made his observations based on that.  Rather than your approach, which appears to be to decide what happened first, and then only listen to sources that agree with you.  Behaviour normally found in hardcore conspiracy theorists.

And again, one more time.  Hoping it sinks in.

seismic
disturbance
not 'bomb'
not 'explosion'
not 'bomb explosion'


This discussion would be a lot simpler if you could stick to disagreeing with what I actually say, rather than what you choose to read.


Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#1588    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,563 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 08 May 2013 - 03:20 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 May 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

I have been through war and spent many months experiencing the sound of explosions to know that there were no bomb explosions evident at ground zero, which explains why demolition experts in the area stated they saw no evidence of explosions and I concur.You don't just hear explosions, you can feel the effects as well.
You were not at GZ to counter the claim of those people.....lol

Demolition experts in the area?? lol

Jesus, the delusions are still in abundant on this one...lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1589    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 08 May 2013 - 05:50 PM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 08 May 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

OK.  For the video's to "speak for themselves" I'd want a plan of  where the cameraman was on the day, with a full diagram of every noise and movement, the technical specs of the camera, particularly the inbuilt microphone or additional microphones if used.  Plus a stack of information about compression and quality when it was uploaded.  Then and  only then will a video "speak for itself."

Still no evidence of bomb explosions heard in the videos.

Quote

I, and others, have posted lots and lots of quotes of people saying they did see and hear such things...

And, I have posted quotes from people at ground zero who have attributed the sounds to things else other than explosives.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1590    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 08 May 2013 - 05:54 PM

View PostStundie, on 08 May 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

You were not at GZ to counter the claim of those people.....

And those on the clean-up crews at ground zero have found zero evidence of explosives, and remember, zero evidence means you have no case.

Quote

Demolition experts in the area??

That's right and they found ZERO evidence of explosives at ground zero.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX