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This topic has been archived.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

#1621    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 10 May 2013 - 07:56 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 May 2013 - 12:42 AM, said:

You didn't understand a word I meant when I said, "timing." What do buttons have to do with landing an airplane and the data timing I am speaking of? For the record and for all to see, are you implying that "data timing" is not important when comparing the impact data on the seismic charts?

For the record, I do not believe myself, or yourself are qualified to interpret complex seismic data like this at all.  Anything I, or you say about the data is worthless and not worth writing, or reading.  If ONLY we had access to the work of people more qualified than we are in the subjects.  Experts perhaps.

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 May 2013 - 12:42 AM, said:

Then, confirm for us all, the importance of data timing for which I am referring, and remember, your response will be added to the record book.

Man you have a nerve.  4 times now since I joined this board a few weeks ago, I've seen you go back, and edit your responses after the fact, to alter your statements.  Your record book magically changes to remove errors and fallacies people point out.  No wonder you're such a backer of the official line.  You're as false and corrupt as any government out there.

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.

#1622    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 10 May 2013 - 08:07 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 10 May 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

Of course it matter where it was published.  Any other non-reputable "journal" does not hold the same standards in peer review by a section of the expert's peers who can confirm or deny the validity of the "expert's" claims.

And your knowledge of the scientific publishing world comes from?  Just curious.

View PostRaptorBites, on 10 May 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

OF COURSE Journal for 9/11 Studies is interested in his research.  They are a 9/11 truther site.  Considering they post NONE of the peer reviewed and published papers of "experts" that confirm the validity of the NIST reports and the Official Story, it does make sense they they would show interest in Rousseau's paper.  

Yes, obviously.  That works the other way round too.

View PostRaptorBites, on 10 May 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

At what point did I say his other research is invalid?  We are talking about his 9/11 research.  Stick to the subject at hand.

This is the subject at hand.  Surely his research has a static level of 'quality' this is his field after all.

View PostRaptorBites, on 10 May 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

That is not the link to his paper.  Care to provide me what I asked for days ago?

There's a link to the paper in that link, I thought you might wanna read a few of Roussou's credentials.

You're not gonna like the website;  TBH, neither do I,  but I think his research is well done. http://911truth.org/...120120134709791.

He comes to the 'explosive demolition' conclusion, which I, personally, don't believe, but the basic anomalous data needs thorough investigation.

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.

#1623    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 10 May 2013 - 09:20 AM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 10 May 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

For the record, I do not believe myself, or yourself are qualified to interpret complex seismic data like this at all.

There is a bit more to the story in regards to myself and what is depicted in that data, which is why I added "timing data" to the mix in the charts.  

Quote

Man you have a nerve.  4 times now since I joined this board a few weeks ago, I've seen you go back, and edit your responses after the fact, to alter your statements.

Nothing new, but the facts and evidence remained the same and sometimes I like to add to my post. Question is: where's your evidence that refutes the evidence that I have presented?

You see, it is like this, I tend to drive home the fact that 911Truthers don't bother to do their homework properly and have failed to produce such evidence and instead, they run to those conspiracry websites which are notorious for their brand of disinformation and misinformation and their lack of awareness when it comes to accepting false and misleading information and hoaxed videos.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1624    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,998 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 10 May 2013 - 01:00 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 09 May 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

Using Spinebreakers own analysis of what is classified as meaningful, what are Ross and Furlongs's qualification on analyzing Seismic data?

I'll give you a while to think about that.

I've thought about it Raptor, and you and I have discussed it here, as I'm sure you remember.

Ross & Furlong's qualifications are far superior to yours and mine, far superior to Puppet Mechanics, and far superior to anybody that sat on the Zelikow Commission.  Further, I suspect their honesty and integrity are far superior anybody on that Commission, in the NIST organization, or any individual that served in the Bush Administration.

How hard can it be to analyze recorded seismic data and time intervals?

Spinebreaker is learning the hard way how much deception is practiced by Sky, as he observes posting practices that I was never even aware of.  I'm not surprised that his observations are true, but I am too much of a computer klutz to have even been aware of those practices.  But I have known for a few years now that Sky will post a deceptive and untrue video at the drop of a hat.

Having defended the OCT for a few years myself, I know the feeling of trying to put the square peg into the round hole.  It is that frustration that causes OCT advocates to post untrue videos and advocate all manner of inaccurate and misleading statements.

Your trying to discredit the work of people on this seismic evidence is an example of that frustration.  Deny the evidence first, and ridicule those presenting it, are the stock-in-trade for those advocating the OCT.  Avoid the big picture at all costs, deny the evidence and ridicule those presenting it.  Sad story.


#1625    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 10 May 2013 - 04:31 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 May 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

Nothing new, but the facts and evidence remained the same and sometimes I like to add to my post. Question is: where's your evidence that refutes the evidence that I have presented?

Our opinions on the data is worthless, we are not qualified.  As for "Sometimes I like to add to my post".  SURELY you mean, "Sometimes I like to go back and change things I've written to make me sound like I knew what I was talking about all along, because I'm dishonest"

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 May 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

You see, it is like this, I tend to drive home the fact that 911Truthers don't bother to do their homework properly and have failed to produce such evidence and instead, they run to those conspiracry websites which are notorious for their brand of disinformation and misinformation and their lack of awareness when it comes to accepting false and misleading information and hoaxed videos.

You have done nothing of the sort.  What you do is bury your  head in the sand and ONLY tolerate evidence that fits your decisions and opinions.  You claim Conspiracy Website are notorious for disinformation, and on that point I would partly agree.  But you keep running to Popular Mechanics, which is JUST as notoriously full of bad research, gimmick science and amateur, lowest common denominator drivel.

You are guilty of EVRYTHING you accuse 'truthers' of.  Your arguments are counter-intuitive, and frequently nonsensical, you're opinion of evidence is biased and blinkered.  There's a saying, "You always become the thing you hate."  Every one of your posts makes you sound more like Alex Jones.

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.

#1626    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 10 May 2013 - 08:29 PM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 10 May 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Our opinions on the data is worthless, we are not qualified.  As for "Sometimes I like to add to my post".  SURELY you mean, "Sometimes I like to go back and change things I've written to make me sound like I knew what I was talking about all along, because I'm dishonest"

Let me put it this way; I have worked in certain positions to know what is true, and what is not true in regards to 911 evidence. For an example, there were those who have said that molten steel was found at ground zero despite the fact the temperatures were far too low to melt steel, so one person decided to say that temperatures beneath the rubble could have been at such high temperatures to melt steel. What was the proof? A cherry red steel column that was pulled from beneath the rubble.

Using the temperature chart, cherry red color is an indication that temperature of the steel beam was not at the level needed to melt steel, but most of all, the steel beam was still in a solid state when pulled from the rubble which indicated that at no time did the temperature beneath the WTC rubble reached the melting point of steel.

Another posted provided a photo of an annealed piece of steel and once again, was not an indicator that piece of steel even reach level needed ot melt steel. At no time did that  piece of steel show signs of melting and yet, that poster tried to convince me that the piece had melted.

One of my jobs as an airframe technician was the annealing of aircraft metals, so when I saw the photo, I knew he was incorrect from firsthand experience.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1627    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 10 May 2013 - 10:36 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 May 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

Let me put it this way; I have worked in certain positions to know what is true, and what is not true in regards to 911 evidence.

What positions, and how.  What makes you qualified to 'know what is true'?

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 May 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

F
or an example, there were those who have said that molten steel was found at ground zero despite the fact the temperatures were far too low to melt steel, so one person decided to say that temperatures beneath the rubble could have been at such high temperatures to melt steel. What was the proof? A cherry red steel column that was pulled from beneath the rubble.

Here you go again.  You feel you can no longer continue to argue your case with any credibility so you drag up a point no-one else is arguing or discussing in any way.

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 May 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

One of my jobs as an airframe technician was the annealing of aircraft metals, so when I saw the photo, I knew he was incorrect from firsthand experience.

OK, so your knowledge is useful in regards to details in one photo.  Well done.  In future reciprocate this courtesy by listening to expert testimony in  other areas.

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.

#1628    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 10 May 2013 - 10:43 PM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 10 May 2013 - 02:09 AM, said:

The Wheels on this Buss Keep going round& Round ! THere will be no proof from the Cheap seats on this subject ! We all can prove that ! Keep Reading there replies !
THe Towers were brought down by Two Aircraft Hitting them and the resultant  Fires and structural colapses!

Yes indeed, but it seems they ignored the fact that all three WTC buildings had suffered major impact damage and that temperatures from the fires were high enough to weaken steel, but far too low to melt their steel structures.

They say that the WTC buildings fell at free fall speeds, but examination of collapse videos and photos show dust plumes and debris, which are falling at free fall speeds, outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings. Those were clear-cut indicators that the WTC buildings were not falling at free fall speeds at all, so is it any wonder why I have said that claims of conspiracy websites are ignorant-based? And yet, there are those who continue to use references from those 'ignorant-based' 911  conspiracy websites in their arguments. Simply amazing!!

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1629    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 10 May 2013 - 11:07 PM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 10 May 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

What positions, and how.  What makes you qualified to 'know what is true'?

For one thing, as a pilot, I knew the so-called "Hani  manuever" was not what conspiracist have said it was because I have performed similar maneuvers during flight training and doing so with less than 30 flying hours. The actual maneuver was very boring to say the least and did not require 'super-human' strength.

As a former military and defense contractor airframe technician, inspector and supervisor, I knew there was no way the airlines would have grounded their aircraft for months in order for someone to illegally modify their aircraft to  fly under remote control, and remember, the B-757 and the B-767 are not 'fly-by-wire' aircraft. In addition, they say that the airliners were switched. How do you switch an airliner and not draw attention?! As I have said before, I can reveal a switched airliner, or should I say, airframe, in less than 30 minutes because no two aircraft are alike, even between the same models. Each aircraft has its own unique signature. At Travis AFB, we had over 30 C-5s and each aircraft was unique from one another. I like to say that each aircraft had its own unique personality.

As far as molten metal from WTC2 is concerned, I knew from observing past aircraft incidents involving fire at Travis AFB and at NKP, Royal Thai Air Force Base,Thailand, that the molten flow from WTC2 was aluminum, which would have been mixed with other materials within that building. The silvery droplets were also indicators the molten metal was NOT molten steel.

My experience in aircraft metals also told me that they were wrong when they presented me with that photo depicting an annealed piece of steel, which was not, nor ever, in a molten state after the collapse of the WTC building, but they didn't know that because they lacked the knowledge to know the difference, which is why they posted that photo.

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 May 2013 - 11:08 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1630    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,712 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:45 AM

Let these C.T`s just get on a plane and go to New York and tour the Place ! THen they can Go to Washington D.C. theres Lots of bits and pc`s from the towers,and planes on display.
Skyeagle We gotta get outta this Place ITs lowering our I.Q `s

This is a Work in Progress!

#1631    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:25 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 11 May 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

Let these C.T`s just get on a plane and go to New York and tour the Place ! THen they can Go to Washington D.C. theres Lots of bits and pc`s from the towers,and planes on display.
Skyeagle We gotta get outta this Place ITs lowering our I.Q `s

It is amazing that that those flawed and misleading conspiracy websites are still be used as references. I can still remember when someone claimed that the aircraft which struck WTC2 didn't have passenger windows, so I posted this photo as a response.

Posted Image

I guess it is safe to say that there are passenger windows in the photo, which brings into question, the claim that aircraft did not have passenger windows. This is what I have been encountering time after time after time. A few are now saying that a missile struck the Pentagon despite the fact that no missile wreckage of any kind was recovered on the grounds of the  Pentagon.

I wouldn't be surprised if that false story was planted as well. I might add that the commander of my Wing was in the Pentagon when American 77 struck. I attended his going-away dinner recently. Afterward, I ran into another airman who was also in the Pentagon at that time.

Edited by skyeagle409, 11 May 2013 - 07:38 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1632    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,271 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:01 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 May 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

Considering that the overwhelming evidence supports the official story proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, the official story is not the fairy tale you thought it was. .

Considering who investigated it, what else would they conclude?

They had all the steel on hand for analysis / investigation. The most critical pieces of steel at points of collapse/impact.

Do you know what they did with this critical steel?

Any idea?


#1633    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,998 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 11 May 2013 - 12:53 PM

They got rid of the steel, as was mentioned in the Fire Engineering magazine, back when it was happening.


#1634    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:07 PM

View PostQ24, on 08 May 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

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.

Q, your response to swan shifts my response a little.  When you said 'specific to a fire-based collapse' I didn't necessarily interpret that as meaning 'exclusive to a fire-based collapse', which changes the argument slightly and makes more sense; I agree, verifiable evidence that shows an exclusively fire-based collapse would falsify the demolition, by definition.  I disagree that any such evidence can reasonably exist short of videos from the core of WTC or the invention of time travel.

Quote

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.

You have this so monumentally backwards:  the question is why the struggle to present some decent evidence for a demolition?  You spent 4 years on this, it's 11 years after the fact, you haven't provided anything that is exclusive to a covert demolition-based collapse.

Quote

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.

Ha, nor is it mine.  The burden of proof is on you to disprove the consensus expert opinion, or prove that the consensus does not care/is intimidated/whatever.  Good luck with that.

Here were the things that supposedly falsify your demolition:
  • 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
As far as the deformations, you've already started walling this off in your response to swan by already stating that the deformations seen in WTC do not meet the criteria and demanding that we see deformations that are similar enough, by your measurement of course, to a fire-based collapse of a building with a different construction.. oh yes, this is really looking so eminently falsifiable.  I don't even want to go into any more physics topics where you attack the loyalty, courage, impartiality, expertise, etc, of any expert that disagrees with you while you wrap the flag around the patriotic handful who do, and I know that you do not possess the expertise to provide your own scientific argument concerning the specifics of the physics of the collapse.  As far as the last point above, let me jump to your next response to me:

Quote

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.

Much like I said in what you are responding to, evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel is 100% consistent with a covert demolition.  I'm unclear why some manner of explosive or chemical or thermite or whatever could not be used to make it appear that the fire temperatures got that hot anyway, it could be part of the deception, and as you have said many times, not many people suspected that fire could cause the collapse so our conspirators would need to compensate for that, they obviously knew there'd be an investigation.  You have assembled in your mind these black-box encased thermite demolition charges based on 'these are just based on current technology' and asserted they actually existed, but they can't likewise put together something to provide this piece of evidence concerning the fire temperature that supposedly falsifies something?  Regardless just because the fire reached that temperature it does not truly falsify a demolition, the fires could have been proven to you to have reached that temperature and the demolitions could have brought the towers down, nothing mutually exclusive there.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#1635    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:51 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 11 May 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

They got rid of the steel, as was mentioned in the Fire Engineering magazine, back when it was happening.

Well, let's take a look.





KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX