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This topic has been archived.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

#211    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 12,688 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:10 PM

Here is an interesting video comparing an actual demolition highrise in China to WTC.


Posted Image
once i believed that starlight could guide me home
now i know that light is old and stars are cold

ReverbNation

#212    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 12,688 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:15 PM

And another one using the Verinage method.  This is where they intentionally collapse a building at the top ...without explosives...and then allow gravity to do the rest.  SkyEagle may have already posted this but it begs to be posted again!


Posted Image
once i believed that starlight could guide me home
now i know that light is old and stars are cold

ReverbNation

#213    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 12,688 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:23 PM

And finally...5 different Explosion Demolitions...just scroll to the point like the video says...
....Now, compare the WTC collapses, with the Explosion Demolitions...then compare it to the Verinage video.
Is it so hard really to see how jet airplanes crashing into the buildings and the subsequent fires sufficiently weakened the upper levels and allowed the collapse, and gravity did the rest?


Posted Image
once i believed that starlight could guide me home
now i know that light is old and stars are cold

ReverbNation

#214    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:32 PM

I'm no metallurgist Swan, not by a long shot.

It might be possible that molten metal does not give off microparticles.  I don't know.  But according to Dr. Thomas Cahill, who was involved in the sampling of the air, the people working on the pile were very much like working "inside the stack of an incinerator", even though Wittman lied about it.

That is, the metal was literally boiling, for about 6 weeks.  At that temperature--higher than the temp required to be molten--the metal gives off the particles that were collected by the UC Davis instrument.  "Ultra-fine particles require extremely high temperatures, namely the boiling point of the metal."

This is all covered in Christopher Bollyn's book, page 264.

No aluminum.  Iron particles and silicate, the latter suggesting that the temps were so high, even the earth beneath was boiling.

Highly irregular situation, given a jetfuel and gravity collapse.


#215    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 12,688 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:41 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 January 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

I'm no metallurgist Swan, not by a long shot.

It might be possible that molten metal does not give off microparticles.  I don't know.  But according to Dr. Thomas Cahill, who was involved in the sampling of the air, the people working on the pile were very much like working "inside the stack of an incinerator", even though Wittman lied about it.

That is, the metal was literally boiling, for about 6 weeks.  At that temperature--higher than the temp required to be molten--the metal gives off the particles that were collected by the UC Davis instrument.  "Ultra-fine particles require extremely high temperatures, namely the boiling point of the metal."

This is all covered in Christopher Bollyn's book, page 264.

No aluminum.  Iron particles and silicate, the latter suggesting that the temps were so high, even the earth beneath was boiling.

Highly irregular situation, given a jetfuel and gravity collapse.
It must be noted that there is a huge difference between the Verinage Videos and WTC.  In the Verinage videos, everything was disconnected first...no gas, no electricity, etc.  Consider the immense amount of gas inside of the buildings...you are reaching way too far to prove something that is just insane.

Posted Image
once i believed that starlight could guide me home
now i know that light is old and stars are cold

ReverbNation

#216    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,845 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:13 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 January 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

This is all covered in Christopher Bollyn's book, page 264.
I'm not interested in what Christopher Bollyn says, I'm interested in what Thomas Cahill says.  So far, all I've found is that he says that the particles he collected are typical of those from an incinerator, ie a hot dry source, and he makes no mention of iron microspheres.  The metals he mentions are those that, as chlorine compounds, vaporise at typical fire temperatures, which is very different from boiling.  This is what you'd expect if the particles were coming from combustion of building materials in long-lived underground fires.  Here's another Cahill link:
http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm

Edited by flyingswan, 26 January 2013 - 05:03 PM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#217    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,395 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:09 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 January 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

You and me, sitting here in front of a computer monitor, are no more or less qualified to judge than people who were actually on the scene?

Demolition experts, experienced investigators, and recovery crews at the scene did not report recovering evidence of explosives. In fact, experts dismissed explosives as responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings and have blamed fires for the collapse of the WTC buildings, and further proof can be found here.

Quote

What Seismic Data Revealed about the Collapse of the WTC Buildings


The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.



On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.


http://www.southernc...org/41/9-11.htm



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#218    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:46 PM

Thank you Swan, for taking us to the heart of the matter.

We will have to contact the good doctor to ask him if iron particles were there, eh?  Perhaps you could do that.

So let's get beyond the fact of the noxious air, and see if as 2 intelligent humans we can figure out what caused that noxious air, and accompanying hot spots that lasted 6 weeks.

As for me, I find it most unlikely that a jetfuel fire up high on the building is going to provide enough energy to create the heat that generated the noxious air.

How 'bout you?


#219    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,404 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:37 PM

Too funny Babe Ruth ! You an expert sitting in front of a computer say you can judge what brought down the Towers !
I have now hear it all and It makes cents ! You need to find a Hobby man .
The Demolition expert Job is filled with actual experts !

This is a Work in Progress!

#220    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,395 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 27 January 2013 - 12:06 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 January 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

So let's get beyond the fact of the noxious air, and see if as 2 intelligent humans we can figure out what caused that noxious air, and accompanying hot spots that lasted 6 weeks.

Definitely didn't have anything to do with thermite.

Quote

As for me, I find it most unlikely that a jetfuel fire up high on the building is going to provide enough energy to create the heat that generated the noxious air.
]

The fuel was the catalyst that started the fires which were fed by the contents inside the WTC buildings.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#221    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:59 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 January 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

Demolition experts, experienced investigators, and recovery crews at the scene did not report recovering evidence of explosives.

What else WOULD they say!!

Look at the fictional account below, very closely...

Government Investigator 1: "Hey, Tom! Come over here!"

Government Investigator 2: "What's up Bill?"

Government Investigator 1: "I've found something odd in the debris. What do you think it is?"

Government Investigator 2: "Hmm..I'm not absolutely sure, Bill, but it could be residue from explosives. I think it's worth sending to the lab for analysis."

Government Investigator 1: "Good idea. Let's do that. Who cares if our employer might be evil murderers? "


Soon after, in the lab...

Government Lab Tech 1: "Look at this, Peter...our analysis shows that it is indeed residue from explosives"

Government Lab Tech 2: "So that implicates our own government in the whole thing, right?"

Government Lab Tech 1: "Yes it does, Peter."

Government Lab Tech 2: "And we are a government agency, are we not?"

Government Lab Tech 1: "Right again, Peter."

Government Lab Tech 2: "So what do we do with this evidence?"

Government Lab Tech 1: "Well, that's a very good question. We have two options. If we don't report our findings, we still have our jobs. If we do report our findings, we could be discredited,  and threatened with our jobs and lives to immediately retract our findings."

Government Lab Tech 2: "So the smart thing to do is report our findings, right?"

Government Lab Tech 1: "Well, of course. Who doesn't want to be beaten to a pulp and left in a ditch?!!"


Do you understand the implications of finding and reporting evidence if explosives? It means the government is murdering its own citizens, If the investigators found any evidence of explosives, it would NEVER come out in public.

Edited by turbonium, 27 January 2013 - 05:11 AM.


#222    coolguy

coolguy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,914 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:03 AM

They can put the charges any where


#223    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,395 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:58 AM

View Postturbonium, on 27 January 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

What else WOULD they say!!

Look at the fictional account below, very closely...

Government Investigator 1: "Hey, Tom! Come over here!"

Government Investigator 2: "What's up Bill?"

Government Investigator 1: "I've found something odd in the debris. What do you think it is?"

Government Investigator 2: "Hmm..I'm not absolutely sure, Bill, but it could be residue from explosives. I think it's worth sending to the lab for analysis."

Government Investigator 1: "Good idea. Let's do that. Who cares if our employer might be evil murderers? "


Soon after, in the lab...

Government Lab Tech 1: "Look at this, Peter...our analysis shows that it is indeed residue from explosives"


The residue that 911conspiracist have confused as explosive residue was found to have come from materials used in the construction of the WTC buildings and a reason why no one found evidence of explosives, which explains why there were no explosions evident in the videos not heard and why seismic monitors did not detect bomb explosions and to add to that, why no one found evidence of explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings nor at the Fresh Kills landfill.

Quote

Government Lab Tech 2: "So the smart thing to do is report our findings, right?"

Government Lab Tech 1: "Well, of course. Who doesn't want to be beaten to a pulp and left in a ditch?!!"



Apparently, you failed the understand that the majority of investigators, architects, demolition experts who have concurred with the official story, have no ties to the US government. You also failed to understand that American Airlines and United Airlines are not government agencies and yet they have confirmed that their aircraft were loss during the 911 attacks.

Quote

Do you understand the implications of finding and reporting evidence if explosives? It means the government is murdering its own citizens, If the investigators found any evidence of explosives, it would NEVER come out in public.

Once again, most of the folks who have concurred with the official story have no ties to the US government.

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 January 2013 - 06:00 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#224    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,395 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 27 January 2013 - 06:17 AM

View Postcoolguy, on 27 January 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

They can put the charges any where

People get the wrong idea that placing explosives inside a steel frame building bring it down. I have posted photos where buildings in Iraq took multiple strikes from cruise missiles and JDAM bombs and yet the structures remained standing. Why?! Because the blast waves flow around steel frames like wind flowing around the wing of an airplane. Here is another example of what I am taking about.Notice the structural columns are sitting in the middle of a crater after more than 1000 pounds of explosive was detonated beneath WTC1 in 1993.

Posted Image

If explosives are not properly placed and firmly attached to the structural columns and the columns are not pre-weakened, then the building will remain standing because the blast wave will simply flow around the columns, which clearly was the case in the above photo.

RDX is much more effective than thermite yet structural pre-weakening and other explosives are still required to bring down a building during an implosion process. It is difficult to imagine why 911 CT folks think that thermite alone could have brought down the WTC buildings, but that tells me they are not tuned in to the way things are done in the real world of the demolition process where explosives are used.

They seem to think that a large quantity of explosive can be planted and detonated inside a steel frame building and the building will automatically come down.

Let's take a look at other bombed buildings.

Posted Image

Posted Image

The hole you see at the top of the dome is where a 5000 pound bomb entered and detonated inside the building.

Posted Image

A bomb blast can blow out windows and sometimes, walls, otherwise, the blast will simply flow around steel and concrete columns. What you see in Hollywood movies doesn't always apply to way things happen in the real world.

As I have mentioned before, no one saw or heard real bomb explosions during the 911 attack nor felt blast waves from bombs.

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 January 2013 - 06:36 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#225    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 27 January 2013 - 09:28 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 January 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

Do your homework. The steel structure of the Windsor building collapsed.



The only thing left standing of the Windsor building was the concrete core. Check it out.

What's missing is the steel around the core of the upper floors which was not covered in concrete. As with the towers, it weakened and collapsed early in the fire.

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




The steel structure collapsed into the heap of rubble and all that is left standing is a concrete core and the amazing thing about that is, the Windsor building wasn't struck by a B-767 when the steel structure collapsed due to fire.


You failed to address my points, just repeated the same nonsense.

The Windsor's steel, as noted below...



"The steel columns at outer wall were made of two 7mm C-type steels.


Though the sizes of the steel columns at the outer walls were small and thin, they had almost no fire protection and were easy to lose the strength.


There was no structural damage under 3rd floor. The reason of not collapsing of the structure under 16th floor can be thought that the steel columns had fire protection and the effective activity of fire brigade."


http://www.ncdr.nat....2 PDF/s12-1.pdf