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This topic has been archived.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

#106    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:46 PM

View PostQ24, on 17 January 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

I don't appeal to authority as you do I use expert opinion to add credence to my own argument; I already argue that further study was required.   In contrast, you clearly have no argument of your own to begin and are entirely dependent on expert opinion to determine your thinking, seen by your inability to counter the reasonable complaints in my post #73.
You conveniently forget that I've discussed your points frequently over the years.  You've brought up nothing new.

Quote

The difference between the studies, is that the first was a factual report of findings based on a physical steel sample from the WTC whilst the latter was a speculative report of the cause (I don't need to be told, but for you, the authors do admit as much) the experiment therein failing to replicate the effect of the WTC steel sample.  How on Earth do you think the 'non-match' result of that experiment proves cause of the WTC steel melting/corrosion?  The authors of the report certainly did not believe that it did they admit to providing only a hypothesis, and did not even test alternative mechanisms.
They are scientists, of course they use cautious language in an acadmic paper, but their wording is as near as you will get to them saying they are convinced they've nailed the cause.  Sisson was far more direct in an interview.

Quote

How does this result of the latter experiment...

"the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h"


Prove cause of this...

Easy, the sample was being eroded in the debris pile for several weeks.  They identify the start of a process that will produced the observed result if left to continue.

Edited by flyingswan, 17 January 2013 - 12:51 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- )

#107    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:38 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 16 January 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:

I dispute what they heard was the result of bomb explosions. People who have never heard the sound of real explosions are inclined to mistaken a number of sounds as explosions. I posted on another thread where residents in Hawaii reported sounds of explosions during a wind storm, which was later attributed to the breakup of buildings.

In this video, you will hear sounds that many people would have reported as explosions.



In addition:



Here's more on William Rodriquez.


They say the fire from the jet fuel weakened the steel.  Most of the jet fuel went up in a ball of flame on impact.   They say there were several demolition teams on site.  Why would there be demolition teams on site?
Of course, if the buildings were wired for the purpose of demolition, they would have also taken into the account the fact that it would be necessary to execute the demolition without the tail, tail signs of loud explosions.

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

ReverbNation

#108    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:07 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 17 January 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

You conveniently forget that I've discussed your points frequently over the years.  You've brought up nothing new.

They are scientists, of course they use cautious language in an acadmic paper, but their wording is as near as you will get to them saying they are convinced they've nailed the cause.  Sisson was far more direct in an interview.


Easy, the sample was being eroded in the debris pile for several weeks.  They identify the start of a process that will produced the observed result if left to continue.

I do not recall raising this point before.  Anyhow, finally an attempt in your last paragraph to address the argument.  Right, so when the experiment, “dissolved little metal in 24 h”, how much exactly is “little”?  You must know this to begin to make the argument that it will produce holes in the steelwork over “several weeks”.  Is it in the study?  I don’t have full access to the paper, but from reading a couple of other discussions the suggestion is that the “little” amount of metal dissolved in the experiment would actually take months or years to create a hole in the steelwork.

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.

#109    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:43 PM

View PostQ24, on 17 January 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

I do not recall raising this point before.  Anyhow, finally an attempt in your last paragraph to address the argument.  Right, so when the experiment, "dissolved little metal in 24 h", how much exactly is "little"?  You must know this to begin to make the argument that it will produce holes in the steelwork over "several weeks".  Is it in the study?  I don't have full access to the paper, but from reading a couple of other discussions the suggestion is that the "little" amount of metal dissolved in the experiment would actually take months or years to create a hole in the steelwork.

I haven't seen the full paper and a brief Google doesn't show anyone else who has.  Do you have a link to those claims?

However, in such corrosion the rate is notoriously sensitive to the actual environment (temperature and materials present), so Sisson and Biederman showing that the process starts is the most significant factor.

"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- )

#110    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 05:07 PM

Total non-sence this entire thread!

This is a Work in Progress!

#111    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 05:26 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 17 January 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

I haven't seen the full paper...

HAHAHAAA!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So you are championing a paper that you haven't even seen.

That's brilliant on so many levels!

Is that how you knew it was a "detailed" study?

By not seeing it?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Ok, that'll do.

The question asked in my last post is clearly of utmost relevance and remains outstanding.  It doesn't matter that corrosion can be achieved through numerous methods - of course it can, including thermite.  It matters that a match to the severity and rate of corrosion is found to the WTC steel sample, those holes and razor edges created in a matter of "several weeks", and that a possible source can be identified in the debris pile.  In this, the study failed.

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.

#112    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 05:40 PM

View Postjoc, on 17 January 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

They say the fire from the jet fuel weakened the steel.  Most of the jet fuel went up in a ball of flame on impact.

The jet fuel started the fire and contents within the buildings sustained the fires.

Quote

They say there were several demolition teams on site.  Why would there be demolition teams on site?

There was a lot of work taking place in New York City.

Quote

Of course, if the buildings were wired for the purpose of demolition, they would have also taken into the account the fact that it would be necessary to execute the demolition without the tail, tail signs of loud explosions.

You can't just wire a building as large as the WTC towers for many months and not attract attention and wiring for explosives is just one step in the process of implosions because pre-weakening of the steel structures is another.

We know that the buildings were not wired for explosives because investigators and recovery crews found no detonation wires nor blasting caps used in the demolition process within the rubble of the WTC buildings, and we are talking thousands of feet of brightly colored wires.

As further proof that explosives were not used, there are no bomb explosions evident in the videos and once again, no bomb explosions were heard, which was evident because the seismic monitors did not detect bomb explosions, which explains why no explosions are seen in the videos.

The following video will shed light why there was no evidence of explosives. The buckling of the WTC buildings indicated that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. Now, pay very close attention to what is presented in this video.



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#113    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 05:43 PM

View PostQ24, on 17 January 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

Is that how you knew it was a "detailed" study?

When did I say it was a detailed study?  I pointed out that there was a follow-up and I quoted the abstract.  The original claim was yours.  You obviously haven't seen the paper either, why did you claim it wasn't?

Quote

The question asked in my last post is clearly of utmost relevance and remains outstanding.  It doesn't matter that corrosion can be achieved through numerous methods - of course it can, including thermite.

In the original paper, which up to now you have accepted, it says that the steel shows evidence of temperatures "approaching 1000 deg C".  What on earth makes you think that this is in any way consistent with thermite?

"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- )

#114    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 06:23 PM

View PostQ24, on 17 January 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

The question asked in my last post is clearly of utmost relevance and remains outstanding.  It doesn't matter that corrosion can be achieved through numerous methods - of course it can, including thermite.  It matters that a match to the severity and rate of corrosion is found to the WTC steel sample, those holes and razor edges created in a matter of "several weeks", and that a possible source can be identified in the debris pile.  In this, the study failed.

Try looking up exothermic reaction regarding iron.

Quote

Iron Burns

"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

http://www.debunking...m/ironburns.htm


Edited by skyeagle409, 17 January 2013 - 06:25 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#115    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 08:33 PM

Its actually quite stunning that anyone believes that the Towers were brought down by demo. The Entire Twins were brought down by Two Aircraft slamming into them the resulting fires and structral damage brought them both down, Grow up and Do the research,and use your minds. This is what Happened.
Remember the thousands of lifes that were lost that day.

This is a Work in Progress!

#116    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 08:50 PM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 17 January 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

Its actually quite stunning that anyone believes that the Towers were brought down by demo. The Entire Twins were brought down by Two Aircraft slamming into them the resulting fires and structral damage brought them both down, Grow up and Do the research,and use your minds. This is what Happened.
Remember the thousands of lifes that were lost that day.

They claim that explosives were used, yet they cannot provide the evidence. There is no evidence of explosions on video nor the sound of explosions on audio and detectors in the area did not detect bomb explosions. In addition, no evidence of structural  pre-weakening was found on the columns and no detonation cords nor blasting caps were found in the rubble.

They say the WTC buildings fell at free fall speeds yet the videos proved beyond any doubt the buildings were not fallling at free fall speeds, which is evident by the fact that debris clouds and objects are outpacing the collapse itself and once again, data from seismic monitors show that the buildings did not fall at free fall speeds.

Question is: where did they get the idea that explosives were used when there was no evidence of explosives in the first place?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#117    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:24 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 17 January 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

They claim that explosives were used, yet they cannot provide the evidence. There is no evidence of explosions on video nor the sound of explosions on audio and detectors in the area did not detect bomb explosions. In addition, no evidence of structural  pre-weakening was found on the columns and no detonation cords nor blasting caps were found in the rubble.

They say the WTC buildings fell at free fall speeds yet the videos proved beyond any doubt the buildings were not fallling at free fall speeds, which is evident by the fact that debris clouds and objects are outpacing the collapse itself and once again, data from seismic monitors show that the buildings did not fall at free fall speeds.

Question is: where did they get the idea that explosives were used when there was no evidence of explosives in the first place?
Let me say two things.
One, I got the idea that explosives were used because I just couldn't believe the coincidence of 3 buildings coming down like that in one day.  I watched and watched and watched the buildings and I thought it looked like a demolition.  Then I started watching other videos, including the one I posted.  I will admit, I have about zero knowledge of how demolitions are set up.  I am a bit more informed now than I was.
Second,  I view all opinions with an open mind.  Until something makes sense to me...it doesn't.  The entire scenario made sense...not completely...but after living through Vietnam and a lot of other things...I don't trust my government farther than I can throw the Statue of Liberty.
And finally, I will admit...SkyEagle has pretty much convinced me that there were no explosions that brought the buildings down.  It is perfectly conceivable that they buckled from the damage at the top...and we can see from the videos of Viernage Implosions...it doesnt' take many stories collapsing to bring down the entire structure.  And, that these massive towers were so tall...once that happened, it could not have been stopped...so...good job SkyEagle.  What you have presented makes more sense than what I presented.  I still have questions...but I don't think the buildings were brought down by anything other than the planes.

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

ReverbNation

#118    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:37 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 17 January 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

Question is: where did they get the idea that explosives were used when there was no evidence of explosives in the first place?

From their background beliefs. Some people are predisposed to believe that the U.S. government is inherently evil (I just think it's corrupt and incompetent like many democracies /shrug) and preys upon its citizenry for some unknown sinister purpose. And no I'm not talking paranoid schizophrenia, just normal folk who get carried away by these heady ideas of secret plots. Everyone loves a good mystery, hence UM.

And yes, I'm aware of the Northwoods plan. Look, think tanks, military planners, government planning staff, all are paid to imagine all kinds of possible scenarios, either to defend against or exploit.

I've seen secret documents (now declassified) that advocated using nuclear weapons to exploit the Canadian tar sands. The context was finding peaceful uses for nukes now that the world was scaling down the arms race at the time.

The idea was floated (by some idiot) but never acted upon. Same with Northwoods. Sometimes you get whacky ideas, but cooler (sane?) heads prevail.


#119    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:56 AM

YEah ! another educated soul welcome to the show "joc" Skyeagle has no reason to tell it any other way but the way it happened !
Two Jets brought these master pieces down ! Sad but True ! But in the End we will over come the Terror !

This is a Work in Progress!

#120    acidhead

acidhead

    Were Not Your Slaves!

  • Member
  • 10,510 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007

Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:28 AM

View Postjoc, on 17 January 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

Second,  I view all opinions with an open mind.  Until something makes sense to me...it doesn't.  The entire scenario made sense...not completely...but after living through Vietnam and a lot of other things...I don't trust my government farther than I can throw the Statue of Liberty.

I'm with ya there bro. I didn't live through Vietnam but I hear what your saying.  Most people do but they don't admit it without laughing about it.

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"