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This topic has been archived.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

#1591    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 08 May 2013 - 05:55 PM

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

No, you can't.  You can repudiate or refute.

I already have! All he had to do is to compare the videos with the seismic data.

Quote

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

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



Of course no bombs, no explosions, no bomb explosions, and those facts can be determined using the videos, audio equipment, and seismic data and once again, the seismic data recorded the collapse of the WTC buildings, but no explosions.

Edited by skyeagle409, 08 May 2013 - 06:00 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1592    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 08 May 2013 - 06:11 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 08 May 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

That won't be necessary since, despite many posts where you implored me to take into account your entire argument and how no one piece of your evidence is really that convincing and everything must be looked at as a whole to truly see the strength of it, you subsequently turn around and provide examples that ignore your very same 'big picture'.  What was the purpose of the discussion of the squibs then?  I thought those best matched a demolition and I thought it was you who got all incredulous about how those appeared as the result of the collapse, so how does a fire-based collapse falsify that point or have anything to do with it?  Why drag anyone through the tortured 'molten flow' argument, matching colors from a video to charts and pontificating about the effects of the destruction and fire in a room full of UPS units, again the cause of the actual collapse is irrelevant to that point?  If we can falsify the demolition by providing evidence of a fire-based collapse then apparently the squibs and flow aren't that convincing of arguments after all, if they can be falsified by something that is orthogonal to your argument for either of those points.  Way to weaken your own evidence.

Wait... I provide you with suggestions for the type of hypothetical evidence that could falsify the demolition theory, i.e. physical analysis of high fire temperatures in the steelwork, conspicuously ‘missed’ by the official investigation, despite their ‘best’ efforts... and you come back with this?  Why not keep to the point and accept the fire collapse theory is shot full of more evidence holes than you proclaim even demolition is?  At least we should expect to see evidence holes given a demolition (or any covert operation), whereas everyone should know that the competent investigation we are supposed to have demands evidence.

So where to start with the response that I did get?  Ok, first you are misrepresenting me:  “no one piece of evidence is really that convincing”??  No, this is what I said (end of post #230).  Each piece of evidence is convincing in its own right and to its own degree.  I don’t think one is the outstanding piece, but the complete set of facts derived from them, held together, reveal the big picture; false flag.

Regarding discussion of the squibs and WTC2 thermite flow, if, by some miraculous chance, evidence proving the fire collapse case arose, I’d have two options 1) accept a planned demolition but that fire beat ’em to it, or 2) accept that the astronomically unlikely occurred.  I’d likely shift to 1) as a first port of call, but either way it would destroy the relevance of any demolition theory, for me, personally.

Of course, my real points to flyingswan are 1) that the demolition is falsifiable in theory, it’s just that no one is able to produce the evidence to achieve it, and 2) that hypothetical evidence to falsify the demolition is most likely just that, hypothetical, it does not exist to begin, otherwise why such the struggle to present its use for investigation.  And I’m not simply talking about physical samples of steelwork here, but all manner of 9/11 questions that could and should have been answered.

That really isn’t my problem, nor is it because the demolition theory is so boo-hoo-unfair-unfalsifiable as Swanny likes to fool himself.  It’s a problem of lacking evidence and/or logic to the official collapse theory which facilitates the demolition to number one spot.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 08 May 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

Evidence of a fire-based collapse is 100% congruent with a covert demolition, this isn't just your average mom-and-pop demolition team setting this up.

I’ll just say you need to give me more credit than coming out with this sort of thing that is not reflective of either reality or my opinion.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 08 May 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

Yea, you need to think a bit more on what really falsifies your argument because the above doesn't do it, I personally think you require a lot more.  In the past you've gotten sensitive when I've stated what I thought your argument would be if some piece of evidence was produced, you may have even asked for a retraction I don't recall specifically, but it's pretty bad that the alternative is that I have to temporarily assume your point of view and use your own argument against you.  You should be doing that.

I see, so you just, “temporarily assume” my view this time rather than, “stated what I thought your argument would be”.  Yeah, whole lot of difference there.  Well, you got it mistaken both times.  I think I’ll just refer you back to my opening paragraph of this post.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1593    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 08 May 2013 - 06:17 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 08 May 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

View PostQ24, on 07 May 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

Your supposed analogy is not relevant to the 9/11 case one bit.

1.    There is no evidence specific to a fire based collapse.
2.    Demolition theories are not “cunningly created” but inherent in the covert nature of the operation.
3.    Why would God be “a cunning creator” anyway?  A covert creation theory is entirely fantasy to begin.  In other words, again it is not an analogy for 9/11 where solid precedent, motive and evidence exist.
4.    The demolition is absolutely possible to refute in theory, I even told you how.  It’s simply that the evidence is not available to do so.  I wonder why.
5.    There is no evidence against the covert demolition.

In all you continue to show the lack of understanding which explains your overall views.

As  to your first point, without going too far into specifics, the following facts all favour a fire-based collapse:
The buildings were on fire at the time and the collapses initiated at the fire locations.
The gradual onset of collapse, as shown by the bowing of the tower walls at the fire locations and the penthouse collapse at WTC7.
NIST computer modelling of collapse initiation process, within the measurement error of the impact damage for the towers.
You can throw in the sheer implausibility of setting up covert demolition systems in occupied buildings, in the case of the towers at the exact floors where the aircraft hit, using two different demolition methods, both hitherto unknown and not involving high explosives, and having these systems survive a high-speed aircraft impact and/or an uncontrolled fire.

Your remaining points simply demonstrate again your self-delusion about your unfalsifiable hypothesis.

First fail.  I said, “specific to a fire based collapse”, e.g. evidence which exclusively supports a fire based collapse.  Simply the presence of fire in the building does not 1) indicate a structure will necessarily collapse, or 2) preclude the collapse through demolition.  So of course it does not falsify the demolition based collapse – I’m surprised that needs explaining.  

Next fail.  The NIST impact and fire computer modelling shows a greater range where the towers will not collapse.  You openly admit it – you didn’t have much choice after I pinned you to that fact after pages of your denials.  Anyhow, this finding is backed by the original WTC engineers and all known precedent.  How in the world do you present it as exclusive evidence for the official theory?  That showpiece official story evidence is actually if anything more in favour of demolition.  It gets worse when we realise that NIST’s collapse range was stretched right to the periphery of a measurement error of their choosing and also interjected with further tweaks specifically to induce collapse initiation in the model.  It becomes altogether untenable when we know the result of that imparted more damage to the simulated models than was ever done to the towers in reality.  That isn’t science, it’s fitting the ‘right’ answer on paper.

Third fail.  There is nothing implausible about the demolition setup, neither are thermite or explosive based demolitions unknown.  If you understood the possibilities presented for the setup, briefly researched and accepted historical precedent for tertiary explosives and thermite, then you wouldn’t need to be putting forward such weak arguments.

What you need here, is a feature of the physical building collapse that can only be a result of fire.  Three such features are described on the AE911T homepage noting the WTC collapses: -

Quote

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
  • Slow onset with large visible deformations
  • Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  • Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

Of course, before you say it, the first point does not include a simple bulge or bowing which could be brought on by any manner of unbalancing a structure.  Again, if it can be caused by demolition then it’s no good.  The point refers specifically to slow and large deformations as clearly caused by fire prior to the Windsor building partial collapse.

Given your current lacking answers matching the above and presence of anything better, this is insufficient to prove the official collapse theory or falsify the WTC demolition.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1594    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 08 May 2013 - 06:26 PM

View PostQ24, on 08 May 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

First fail.  I said, “specific to a fire based collapse”, e.g. evidence which exclusively supports a fire based collapse.  Simply the presence of fire in the building does not 1) indicate a structure will necessarily collapse, or 2) preclude the collapse through demolition.

You have to understand that no explosive evidence of any kind was ever found at ground zero.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1595    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 08 May 2013 - 06:29 PM

View PostQ24, on 08 May 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

Third fail.  There is nothing implausible about the demolition setup, neither are thermite or explosive based demolitions unknown.

First of all, no evidence of planted thermite nor evidence of explosives were ever found at ground zero.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1596    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,840 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:41 PM

Skyeagle ITs never going to end,ITs like the Bin Laden thread,or Landing on the Moon, od Sandy Hook. C.T`s are just what it describes them as ! All Conspiracies people ! Make Believer`s !

This is a Work in Progress!

#1597    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 08 May 2013 - 11:11 PM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 08 May 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

Skyeagle ITs never going to end,ITs like the Bin Laden thread,or Landing on the Moon, od Sandy Hook. C.T`s are just what it describes them as ! All Conspiracies people ! Make Believer`s !

I heard that!! :tu:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1598    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 08 May 2013 - 11:51 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 May 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

Still no evidence of bomb explosions heard in the videos.

And?  Without all the specific information I requested before, with details of camera type, position, microphones, quality, compression and so on, I refuse to even discuss video footage with you.

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 May 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

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

Not concerned.  We have both posted testimony that disagrees. Meh.

As far as I can see, all your quotes are well after the fact.  As such, they are less reliable.

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 May 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

I already have! All he had to do is to compare the videos with the seismic data.

No.  You haven't.  You may refute.  You may attempt to repudiate. In this situation, on this subject, with your skills and your knowledge you may not debunk.  If you still disagree I recommend a dictionary to learn the definitions of those words.

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 May 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

Of course no bombs, no explosions, no bomb explosions, and those facts can be determined using the videos, audio equipment, and seismic data and once again, the seismic data recorded the collapse of the WTC buildings, but no explosions.

Sigh. This is beginning to resemble talking to my son.

Read this very carefully, because I suspect you are not reading posts as carefully as you obviously need to.

1 - a number of researchers have found seismic anomalies in the data for September 11.
2 - the research done by popular mechanics is, not to put too finer point on it, bulls**t.
3 - these seismic anomalies have not been explained.

Now, if you wish to respond and have me not just click on 'ignore' I'd like you to follow 4 rules.

1 - I haven't said bomb, or explosion.  Neither can you.
2 - don't post a list of horribly researched nonsense as a response.
3 - respond to what I have actually WRITTEN, not what you IMAGINE I've said.
4 - do not use, or respond to, any words you do not understand.

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.

#1599    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 08 May 2013 - 11:57 PM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 08 May 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

And?  Without all the specific information I requested before, with details of camera type, position, microphones, quality, compression and so on, I refuse to even discuss video footage with you.

Doesn't make any difference what kind of equipment because there were many in the general area and none depicted no explosions, either on video nor audio or even on seismic monitors. Living in a world of denial and not presenting evidence to refute what I have posted doesn't work here.

Quote

1 - a number of researchers have found seismic anomalies in the data for September 11.
2 - the research done by popular mechanics is, not to put too finer point on it, bulls**t.
3 - these seismic anomalies have not been explained.

Looking at the charts, there is nothing on those charts that even remotely suggest what 911 Truther have claimed. In other words, if the evidence is not there, then, the evidence is not there. It seems that 911 Truther websites have this thing about not doing their homework properly.

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 May 2013 - 12:04 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1600    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 09 May 2013 - 12:09 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 May 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

Doesn't make any difference what kind of equipment because there were many in the general area and none depicted no explosions, either on video nor audio or even on seismic monitors. Living in a world of denial and not presenting evidence to refute what I have posted doesn't work here.

As I appear to be dealing with the intellect of a 9 year old,  I'll lower to that level myself...   You would know all about denial and lack of evidence.

You make a claim about video footage
I repudiate that claim.

that's how a coherent discussion looks... (Also, note repudiate in it's proper context...)

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 May 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

Looking at the charts, there is nothing there to suggest explosions.

You wrote one sentence, and still managed to break rule number one...  I'm genuinely impressed by your stubborn will to not read anything properly.

but I'll play along...  So in your opinion of those charts...  tell me again your seismography qualifications and experience...

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.

#1601    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 09 May 2013 - 12:13 AM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 09 May 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

As I appear to be dealing with the intellect of a 9 year old,  I'll lower to that level myself...   You would know all about denial and lack of evidence.

Let me put it in another way;  If you are unable to provide evidence to the contrary, then you have no case.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1602    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 09 May 2013 - 12:26 AM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 09 May 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

You wrote one sentence, and still managed to break rule number one...  I'm genuinely impressed by your stubborn will to not read anything properly.

but I'll play along...  So in your opinion of those charts...  tell me again your seismography qualifications and experience...


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.

#1603    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 09 May 2013 - 12:28 AM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 09 May 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:


Remember, "EVIDENCE" is the name-of-the-game.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1604    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 09 May 2013 - 12:35 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 May 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

Looking at the charts, there is nothing on those charts that even remotely suggest what 911 Truther have claimed. In other words, if the evidence is not there, then, the evidence is not there. It seems that 911 Truther websites have this thing about not doing their homework properly.

First of all, nice edit.  But still irrelevant.

The best, most accurate current research has discrepancies that do not tally with the official story.

View PostSpinebreaker, on 09 May 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

You wrote one sentence, and still managed to break rule number one...  I'm genuinely impressed by your stubborn will to not read anything properly.

but I'll play along...  So in your opinion of those charts...  tell me again your seismography qualifications and experience...


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.

#1605    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 09 May 2013 - 12:42 AM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 09 May 2013 - 12:35 AM, said:

First of all, nice edit.  But still irrelevant.

Where is your evidence? No evidence, no case. :no:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX