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This topic has been archived.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

#241    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,804 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 28 January 2013 - 12:12 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 27 January 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

Actually, there is much evidence that high temperatures occurred, including satellite photos from US satellites, photographic and witness testimony from the ground, and air samples taken on scene.  
Your saying it doesn't make it so.  What actual evidence is there for temperatures above the melting point of steel?

Quote

And quite a few dozen firefighters and such who are sick, many have already died, from exposure to that poisoned air.  That EPA pretended did not exist.

I'm not disputing that.  While it has relevance to both the dust created in the collapse and to the underground fires in the debris pile, it has no relation to the molten steel claim.

"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- )

#242    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,183 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 28 January 2013 - 03:45 PM

What part are you denying now Swan?  Satellite photos, statements from persons there, or the air samples?

Persons saw molten metal, and the air samples gathered show iron, strongly suggesting that the metal releasing the particles was iron.  According to experts like Cahill and others, the only way such particles can be released is when the metal is boiling.


#243    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,804 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:11 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 January 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

What part are you denying now Swan?  Satellite photos, statements from persons there, or the air samples?

Persons saw molten metal, and the air samples gathered show iron, strongly suggesting that the metal releasing the particles was iron.  According to experts like Cahill and others, the only way such particles can be released is when the metal is boiling.
What satellite photo shows such high temperatures?  What eyewitness statement of molten metal shows either analysis to prove steel or measurement of such high temperatures?  Where does Cahill, as opposed to someone (mis)quoting him, say anything about either iron microspheres or boiling metal?

Edited by flyingswan, 28 January 2013 - 04:12 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- )

#244    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,135 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:20 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 January 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

What part are you denying now Swan?  Satellite photos, statements from persons there, or the air samples?

Persons saw molten metal, and the air samples gathered show iron, strongly suggesting that the metal releasing the particles was iron.  According to experts like Cahill and others, the only way such particles can be released is when the metal is boiling.

Asking you to provide actual evidence for what you are claiming, rather than your biased and uninformed opinion / interpretation, is NOT the same as denying the existence of whatever it is you are claiming. You *really* need to learn that difference.

It is just a request for evidence, a request you have never been able (or at least, you've proven that you've previously lied about not being able) or willing to fulfill.

Your way of handling it just makes you look biased, willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest (ever determine the definition of that one yet...?)






Cz.

Edited by Czero 101, 28 January 2013 - 04:22 PM.

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf

#245    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,183 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:16 PM

Swan

You are unfamiliar with satellite photos of hotspots?  You do not accept the statements of Tully and Loizeaux?  You do not accept the statements of men on the scene?  You do not accept the USGS Particle Atlas of WTC Dust from 2005?

Sounds to me like chronic denial symptoms, or perhaps just a lack of knowledge?  Either way, that is a personal problem.

The Official Conspiracy Theory is contradicted by all the evidence, from start to finish.  That is the fact you refuse to see, and it's quite OK, really.  It is true that in many cases, ignorance, self-induced or otherwise, is to some measure blissful.


#246    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,006 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:24 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 January 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

Swan

You are unfamiliar with satellite photos of hotspots?...Sounds to me like chronic denial symptoms, or perhaps just a lack of knowledge?  Either way, that is a personal problem.

We know that you have certain problems, but once again, show us where temperatures exceeded 2700 degrees in the images provided.

Quote

The Official Conspiracy Theory is contradicted by all the evidence, from start to finish.

We already know that claims of  911 conspiracist  have been debunked by facts and evidence.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#247    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,006 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:38 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 January 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

What part are you denying now Swan?  Satellite photos, statements from persons there, or the air samples?

Persons saw molten metal...

Molten metal you say, and yet, you refuse to answer the question as to the amount of aluminum that is was in the construction of a typical B-767-200 and the amount of  aluminum  used in the facade of the WTC buildings.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#248    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,852 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:05 AM

I want to know this eyeWitness ! I have a Stiff thumb I know where to put !

This is a Work in Progress!

#249    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,804 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 29 January 2013 - 11:40 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 January 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

Swan

You are unfamiliar with satellite photos of hotspots?  
I'm familiar with them, they show temperature too low to melt steel.

Quote

You do not accept the statements of Tully and Loizeaux?  You do not accept the statements of men on the scene?  
I accept Tully saw molten metal, though it appears that Loizeaux didn't, he simply accepted the word of others for it.  However, unless someone can explain how anyone, however qualified, can tell what metal it was just by eye, I cannot accept the identification of it as steel.

Quote

You do not accept the USGS Particle Atlas of WTC Dust from 2005?
I accept the presence of iron microspheres, but they are a common result of metal working and do not indicate molten steel.

Quote

Sounds to me like chronic denial symptoms, or perhaps just a lack of knowledge?  Either way, that is a personal problem.
I am not denying evidence of molten steel, as you have not produced any.

Sounds to me like you want the evidence to mean molten steel, whether it does or not.  Your personal problem is confirmation bias.

Edited by flyingswan, 29 January 2013 - 12:06 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- )

#250    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 12,685 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003

Posted 29 January 2013 - 02:09 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 January 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

Swan

You are unfamiliar with satellite photos of hotspots?  You do not accept the statements of Tully and Loizeaux?  You do not accept the statements of men on the scene?  You do not accept the USGS Particle Atlas of WTC Dust from 2005?

Sounds to me like chronic denial symptoms, or perhaps just a lack of knowledge?  Either way, that is a personal problem.

The Official Conspiracy Theory is contradicted by all the evidence, from start to finish.  That is the fact you refuse to see, and it's quite OK, really.  It is true that in many cases, ignorance, self-induced or otherwise, is to some measure blissful.
There is an Official Conspiracy Theory?  What does that make all the 'other' Conspiracy Theories?  UnOfficial? :clap:

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

ReverbNation

#251    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,183 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:20 PM

Swan

I offered a comment regarding perhaps a common sense way to understand which metal comprises the molten metal, but unless I missed it, you did not respond.

I think it was Sky who claimed that x amount of aluminum was used in the construction of the towers.  For the sake of argument, let's assume his number is true and accurate.

I have seen others offer a number y that is the amount of steel used in the construction of the towers.  Do you think it is possible to come to an agreement regarding these two numbers?  Can we arrive at an estimate of the ratio between aluminum used v. steel used in the construction of the towers?

Using that ratio, is it possible to extrapolate a probability as to which metal, x or y, would most likely be found in any given pool of molten metal?

And perhaps come to an understanding that Cahill might be right--the presence of iron particles MAY be the result of boiling metal?


#252    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,183 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:24 PM

View Postjoc, on 29 January 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

There is an Official Conspiracy Theory?  What does that make all the 'other' Conspiracy Theories?  UnOfficial? :clap:

Exactly right.

Using the definition of a conspiracy--the planning of a crime by TWO persons or more--what happened on 11 September was certainly the result of a conspiracy.  Unless, YOU happen to propose that only ONE person was responsible for those events?  I doubt that is your position.

So, there is no question there was a conspiracy being fulfilled.  The only question Joc, is whether it was 19 arabs with box cutters as described in the Official Theory, or somebody else?  The only realy question is just exactly who the conspirators were.


#253    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,006 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:45 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 29 January 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

I offered a comment regarding perhaps a common sense way to understand which metal comprises the molten metal, but unless I missed it, you did not respond.
I think it was Sky who claimed that x amount of aluminum was used in the construction of the towers.  For the sake of argument, let's assume his number is true and accurate.

I have seen others offer a number y that is the amount of steel used in the construction of the towers.  Do you think it is possible to come to an agreement regarding these two numbers?  Can we arrive at an estimate of the ratio between aluminum used v. steel used in the construction of the towers?

That is moot if  temperatures never reached the level to melt steel. Once again, you are being asked to supply information on the amount of aluminum that was used in the construction of the facade of the WTC buildings.

Quote

Using that ratio, is it possible to extrapolate a probability as to which metal, x or y, would most likely be found in any given pool of molten metal?

Once again, you are being asked to use the thermal images to show us where temperatures reached the level to melt steel.

Quote

And perhaps come to an understanding that Cahill might be right--the presence of iron particles MAY be the result of boiling metal?

The following photos depict cuts made by workers.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#254    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,006 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:51 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 29 January 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

Using the definition of a conspiracy--the planning of a crime by TWO persons or more--what happened on 11 September was certainly the result of a conspiracy.  Unless, YOU happen to propose that only ONE person was responsible for those events?  I doubt that is your position.

So, there is no question there was a conspiracy being fulfilled.  The only question Joc, is whether it was 19 arabs with box cutters as described in the Official Theory, or somebody else?  The only realy question is just exactly who the conspirators were.

The terrorist are guilty simply because of the overwhelming evidence tying those terrorist to the 911 attacks, and no evidence implicating the US government.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#255    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,006 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 January 2013 - 10:12 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 29 January 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

.. is whether it was 19 arabs with box cutters as described in the Official Theory, or somebody else?


Did pilots of the 911 hijacked airliners convey to ATC personnel that they lost control of their aircraft? What significance can you place on the fact that pilots did not indicate to ATC that they lost control over their aircraft?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX