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.


* * * - - 5 votes

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken


  • Please log in to reply
3414 replies to this topic

#1246    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:41 PM

View PostStundie, on 26 March 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Yes because the NIST model of how the building collapse is such a great match for the reality of how it collapsed.... :blink: lol


Of course, that is if you can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality....lol

Actually, the WTC7 video proves beyond any doubt that the building collapsed due to fire.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1247    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:43 PM

View PostStundie, on 26 March 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

Not sure which part you do not understand, so lets put in a nice and easy to read way so that you might actually UNDERSTAND.

It goes to show that no evidence of explosives was found within the rubble of WTC7.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1248    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,392 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:01 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 March 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

Actually, the WTC7 video proves beyond any doubt that the building collapsed due to fire.
Only in Skyeagles world does the video prove beyond doubt......that the building collapsed due to fire. lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 March 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

It goes to show that no evidence of explosives was found within the rubble of WTC7.
As it was never looked for, but you knew that didn't you....lol

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

#1249    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:06 PM

View PostStundie, on 26 March 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

Only in Skyeagles world does the video prove beyond doubt......that the building collapsed due to fire.

Which is the conclusion of investigators, structural and civil engineers.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1250    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:08 PM

View PostStundie, on 26 March 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

As it was never looked for, but you knew that didn't you....lol

What has been posted on many occasions in that regard? If you can't answer that question, then you haven't been paying any attention.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1251    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,392 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:11 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 March 2013 - 08:06 PM, said:

Which is the conclusion of investigators, structural and civil engineers.
They didn't conclude this by looking at this video....lol

They concluded this from the NIST report, which didn't examine any of the steel....lol

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

#1252    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:13 PM

View PostStundie, on 26 March 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

They didn't conclude this by looking at this video....

They concluded using facts and evidence, not fantasies of 911 Truthers.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1253    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,392 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:13 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 March 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

What has been posted on many occasions in that regard? If you can't answer that question, then you haven't been paying any attention.
That the NIST never looked for explosives...lol

2. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

Although in the case of WTC7, they couldn't test none even if they wanted to because they didn't actually examine any of the steel...lol

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

#1254    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:14 PM

View PostStundie, on 26 March 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

That the NIST never looked for explosives..

They didn't have to. If explosives were used, clean-up crews and investigators would have had trouble avoiding from tripping over the evidence. So once again, where's the 'explosives' money?

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 March 2013 - 08:14 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1255    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,392 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:15 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 March 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

They concluded using facts and evidence, not fantasies of 911 Truthers.
Facts and evidence from the steel they didn't examine...lol

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

#1256    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:17 PM

View PostStundie, on 26 March 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

Facts and evidence from the steel they didn't examine...lol

They didn't need to examine steel for explosives.


World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.

Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

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

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories contend that the collapse of the World Trade Center was not caused by the airliner crash damage that occurred as part of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the resulting fire damage, but by explosives installed in the buildings in advance. Early advocates such as physicist Steven E. Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, and theologian David Ray Griffin, argued that the aircraft impacts and resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings sufficiently to initiate a catastrophic collapse, and that the buildings would not have collapsed completely, nor at the speeds that they did, without additional energy involved to weaken their structures.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the magazine Popular Mechanics examined and rejected these theories. Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

NIST did not test for explosive compound residue in steel samples, stating the potential for inconclusive results, and noting that similar compounds would have been present during construction of the towers.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 March 2013 - 08:20 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1257    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,392 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:22 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 March 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

They didn't have to. If explosives were used, clean-up crews and investigators would have had trouble avoiding from tripping over the evidence. So once again, where's the 'explosives' money?
As you kept telling me..."Firefighters are not metallurgists!"...though they need to be apparently to identify molten steel...even though I never claimed they were metallugists.....lol

So in a Skyeagle stylee.... "Clean up crews" are not experts in demolitions...even though you have never claimed they are, but I might as well attribute this argument to you in honour of the style of debate I have come to receive...lol

Skyeaglisms...101!!
Why oh why do you keep repeating the notion that the clean up crews are explosive experts!
You keep arguing that clean up crews have the necessary skills and qualifications to demolish buildings!
Only a demolition expert has the knowledge to identify used explosives and clean up crews are not demolition experts as you keep implying.
Demolition experts are the only people who are capable of identifying explosives, yet you seem to think that the clean up crew are more qualified than demo experts!

That should do for my strawman attack....lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 March 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

They didn't need to examine steel for explosives.


World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.

Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

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

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories contend that the collapse of the World Trade Center was not caused by the airliner crash damage that occurred as part of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the resulting fire damage, but by explosives installed in the buildings in advance. Early advocates such as physicist Steven E. Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, and theologian David Ray Griffin, argued that the aircraft impacts and resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings sufficiently to initiate a catastrophic collapse, and that the buildings would not have collapsed completely, nor at the speeds that they did, without additional energy involved to weaken their structures.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the magazine Popular Mechanics examined and rejected these theories. Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

NIST did not test for explosive compound residue in steel samples, stating the potential for inconclusive results, and noting that similar compounds would have been present during construction of the towers.
They did if they want to prove that no explosives were used. Then those twoofin twoofhers wouldn't be able to claim there the possibility of explosives.

Edited by Stundie, 26 March 2013 - 08:24 PM.

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

#1258    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:25 PM

View PostStundie, on 26 March 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

As you kept telling me..."Firefighters are not metallurgists!"...though they need to be apparently to identify molten steel...even though I never claimed they were metallugists...

Then why did you try to take their word as if they were metallurgists? There was no molten steel at ground zero nor anything other than torches and wand, capable of producing molten steel at ground zero.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1259    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,392 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:34 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 March 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

Then why did you try to take their word as if they were metallurgists?
I didn't take their word for it as if they were metallurgists.

I took there word for it because these guys were putting out the fires and because so many other witnesses refer to it as molten steel and not aluminium.

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 March 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

There was no molten steel at ground zero nor anything other than torches and wand, capable of producing molten steel at ground zero.
Just like there was no explosions, except for the mutiple eyewitness accounts and videos.

Its amazing really...Lets round this up in to a Skyeagle logic gate.

There is no molten steel cause even though there are plenty of eyewitness,there is no video of it.
There is no explosions cause even though there are plenty of eyewitness and video of it.

Highlighting again how much of a hypocrite you are because according to your logic.....

There is molten aluminiumcause even though there are no eyewitnesses, there is also NO video of it.
There is elevators crashing  cause even though there are eyewitness, there is also NO video of it.

Truly pathetic debunking, but the problem is that you are too simple to realise that you've got the dunce cap on and are sat in the corner..lol

Edited by Stundie, 26 March 2013 - 08:42 PM.

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

#1260    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:43 PM

View PostStundie, on 26 March 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

I didn't take their word for it as if they were metallurgists.
Should I go back and reproduce your comments on the issue?

I took there word for it because these guys were putting out the fires and because so many other witnesses refer to it as molten steel and not aluminium.

They do not possess the knowledge needed to differentiate molten steel from molten aluminum. In addition, we have videos and photos as molten aluminum is flowing out of WTC and since that area is where tons of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest and the fires that can be seen in that ares which are burning at temperatures above the melting point of aluminum, it is safe to say that the molten flow is aluminum, which can also be confirmed by the fact that silvery aluminum droplets can be clearly seen falling from that point.

Most of the molten aluminum would have been contained within  the WTC building from where the aluminum flow commenced, so where did  you think that tons of molten aluminum from the airframe of United 175 would end up after WTC2 collapsed? There would have been tons of  molten aluminum within the rubble.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 March 2013 - 08:44 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users