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This topic has been archived.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

#196    coolguy

coolguy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,919 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011

Posted 26 January 2013 - 05:15 AM

There was a show on the history channel about the twin towers and they said the towers could with stand a jet plane hit.and the show was never aired again the show was modern marvels.. some thing went on that day.


#197    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 26 January 2013 - 05:16 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 January 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

And, there was no way that it would have caused a collapse. Even the steel columns remained standing despite sitting in the crater created by the huge bomb blast. Furthermore, I have posted photos of buildings in Iraq that took direct hits from multiple bomb and missile strikes and yet their structures remained standing.

It's random damage, with the expected results. And that means no global collapse.


View Postskyeagle409, on 20 January 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

Since some columns were damaged by the impacts, structural loads were redistributed. The remaining columns were exposed to the effects of high temperatures that resulted in failure of the steel columns, which was evident when witnesses reported that the WTC buildings were buckling just prior to their collapse; a clear indication that high temperature was expanding and weakening the steel structures.  

Nonsense.

How many times has random damage initiated total collapse of a steel-framed hi-rise, prior to 9/11? Not once.

But you argue it happened 3 times, on the very same day!

That's some really amazing 'random' damage, indeed!!

Your 'witnesses' must have Superman-like 'telescopic vision', to see it 'buckling' at 80+ stories up!!   

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 January 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

Even then, there was no way anyone could have prepared the WTC buildings for demolition and not attract a lot of attention. It took about half a year just to prepare a bridge for demolition at ground level.

? Who cares if a maintenance crew is working in the building for a few months? It's normal. Do you think it's like Wile. E. Coyote, with 'TNT' marked on the crates?!!  

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 January 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

Just because they heard sounds like explosions doesn't mean they were. After all, no bomb explosions were seen nor heard on audio nor detected by seismic monitors, and to sum that up, there is no evidence that explosives were used despite what 911 conspiracist have claimed. In fact, they cannot even provide evidence of detonation wires and blasting caps within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

There were some witnesses who knew what explosives sounded like, from prior experience. They're certainly more reliable than your 'super-vision' witnesses.


#198    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:03 AM

View Postturbonium, on 26 January 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

It's random damage, with the expected results. And that means no global collapse.

Apparently, you do not understand the science of the collapse themselves, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Quote

Nonsense.

Nonsense? Apparently, I have the reports of buckling regarding the WTC buildings and have posted those reports, so your comment is moot by that very fact. Should I repost those reports you claim is nonsense?.

Quote

How many times has random damage initiated total collapse of a steel-framed hi-rise, prior to 9/11? Not once.

How many buildings were struck by B-767s prior to the 911 attacks? Once again, your comment is moot. Did the Windsor building in Spain suffer a collapse of its steel structure due to fire? Yes, it did and the only thing standing was nothing but concrete.

Quote

But you argue it happened 3 times, on the very same day!

Well, B-767s, one each, struck WTC1 and it collapse, and another B-767 struck WTC2 and it collapse. WTC7 collapse and suffered from serious impact damage and it collapsed as well. You can't argue with those facts.

Quote

Your 'witnesses' must have Superman-like 'telescopic vision', to see it 'buckling' at 80+ stories up!!

Apparently,  you are unaware of what has already been posted in regards to the buckling included close-up video and photos of the WTC buildings buckling just before they collapsed and I posted those reports as well and look what you posted.  Check it out.

Quote


WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

http://www.represent...Explosives.html


NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says (Update2)

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall.


http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news
  

This close-up video shows buckling, which you said, was nonsense.  



Quote

? Who cares if a maintenance crew is working in the building for a few months? It's normal. Do you think it's like Wile. E. Coyote, with 'TNT' marked on the crates?!!

Apparently, you do not understand the process of preparing a building for demolition, and if you did, you would not have made such a ridicules comment. It took about half a year just to prepare a bridge in Corpus Christi, TX for demolition at ground-level, but in regards to the WTC buildings, we are talking hundreds of feet above street level, in other words, you do not understand the process of what the demolition process is all about.

To sum it up, start doing your homework and stop speculating.

Quote

There were some witnesses who knew what explosives sounded like, from prior experience.

I have been in war and seen, heard and felt my share of many explosions and I saw no evidence of bomb explosions in any WTC video. In addition, demolition experts in the area reported they saw no evidence of explosives and seismic monitors detected no bomb explosions and to underline that point, clean-up crews did not recovered evidence of explosives either.

In other words, you have NO valid argument by those very facts and you are proving to us that you are not knowledgeable about explosives nor the demolition process involving building demolitions that use RDX and dynamite.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 January 2013 - 07:44 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#199    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:30 AM

View Postturbonium, on 26 January 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:


Nonsense....Your 'witnesses' must have Superman-like 'telescopic vision', to see it 'buckling' at 80+ stories up!!

Apparently, you do not deal in facts and evidence and it has been shown and proven that you deal in fantasy and falsehoods. After all, we have your own messages as undeniable proof.  Check out what you claimed was nonsense.



Edited by skyeagle409, 26 January 2013 - 08:30 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#200    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:53 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 January 2013 - 07:03 AM, said:


How many buildings were struck by B-767s prior to the 911 attacks? Once again, your comment is moot. Did the Windsor building in Spain suffer a collapse of its steel structure due to fire? Yes, it did and the only thing standing was nothing but concrete.



Well, B-767s, one each, struck WTC1 and it collapse, and another B-767 struck WTC2 and it collapse. WTC7 collapse and suffered from serious impact damage and it collapsed as well. You can't argue with those facts.


The Windsor building didn't have a total collapse, with far worse fires, burning about 10 times longer. It still didn't come down fully like the towers and WTC 7  did.

This shows how even very extreme cases of random fire and damage do not result in a global collapse. So it certainy can't be the cause of the three global collapses on 9/11. No way.


#201    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,849 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:28 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 25 January 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

IF aluminum were boiling down below...
If you think there was any boiling metal, you're in a minority of one.

Quote

What advantage would there be to using aluminum over steel in such an application?
What advantage is there in arguing with someone who denies accepted facts?

Quote

You never did answer my question earlier as to why YOUR judgement in such matters is greater than, superior to, the judgment of Tully and Loizeaux?

You never answered my question as to how they could identify a molten metal.  If you can't explain that, then their judgement is indeed no better than mine.

Edited by flyingswan, 26 January 2013 - 10:39 AM.

"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- )

#202    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:37 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 January 2013 - 07:03 AM, said:

Nonsense? Apparently, I have the reports of buckling regarding the WTC buildings and have posted those reports, so your comment is moot by that very fact. Should I repost those reports you claim is nonsense?.



Apparently,  you are unaware of what has already been posted in regards to the buckling included close-up video and photos of the WTC buildings buckling just before they collapsed and I posted those reports as well and look what you posted.  Check it out.


If these cops knew collapse was imminent, they must have warned the firehalls, fire chiefs, to evacuate immediately, right?

So did they?

No.

And why not?

Were they all morons? No.

Were they all evil? No.

Was it just to back up the official story? Seems to be.

No other option makes any sense, imo.


#203    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:03 AM

View Postturbonium, on 26 January 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

The Windsor building didn't have a total collapse, with far worse fires,

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

Quote

...It still didn't come down fully like the towers and WTC 7  did.

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

Quote

The Windsor Building Fire

Structural failure happened with the collapse of the steel perimeter columns which resulted with the floor slabs collapsing as the edge support was taken away. The massive concrete transfer slab at the 20th floor prevented further progressive failure.

Posted Image

What you see above is the concrete reinforced core. 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.

So once again, you have broadcasted your lack of knowledge for all to see.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 January 2013 - 11:49 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#204    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:06 AM

View Postturbonium, on 26 January 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

If these cops knew collapse was imminent, they must have warned the firehalls, fire chiefs, to evacuate immediately, right?

I guess reality left you out in the cold because everyone else were aware of those warnings by firefighters and the police in the helicopters, and  of course, there were photos and videos of the buckling as well and look what you posted!.

What better way to reveal your lack of knowledge than to allow you to do it for us.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 January 2013 - 11:27 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#205    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:46 AM

View Postturbonium, on 26 January 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

If these cops knew collapse was imminent, they must have warned the firehalls, fire chiefs, to evacuate immediately, right?

So did they?

No.

You be the judge.

Quote

*   The OEM Issued a WTC Collapse Warning


*   Guiliani and the WTC Warning


The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse

    Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

Before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. As already mentioned, flying around outside the WTC, the NYPD helicopters reported "an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed." Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."

Callan's warnings about the north tower, WTC 1, reached the Office of Emergency Management, OEM. Other people learned from OEM that the WTC buildings were going to collapse. EMT Richard Zarrillo was told to deliver the message. In an Oct 25, 2001 interview Zarrillo explianed, "I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out. ... I said, listen, I was just at OEM. The message I was given was that the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down and that's when the building came down, the first tower came down." 9110161.PDF http://nistreview.org/histories.php

http://www.represent...xplosives2.html

So once again, you have broadcasted your lack of knowledge on the WTC warnings among many other things.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 January 2013 - 11:47 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#206    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:01 PM

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.

Which means there's not a total collapse, even with a concrete core, Same as a steel core.

You try to compare Windsor's thin steel to WTC's thick structural steel, which is utter nonsense. All you say is its "steel structure" collapsed, and you think that applies to WTC steel??

A thin steel structure is not the same. So get real.


#207    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:08 PM

View Postturbonium, on 26 January 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

Which means there's not a total collapse, even with a concrete core, Same as a steel core.

That doesn't work for you. :no: Do your homework, and do it right because you have once again, broadcasted your lack of knowledge, and  done so for all to see.

Quote

The Windsor Building Fire

Around midnight, on Saturday, February 12, 2005, a fire was detected on the 21st floor. The fire spread quickly throughout the entire building, leading to the collapse of the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors

The Damage
The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure

at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished. The estimated property loss was €72m before the renovation.

Based on the footages of available media filming, Table 2 summarises the estimated time frame for the structural collapses of the Windsor Tower.


Table 2 Estimated time frame of collapses (NILIM 2005)


Time


Collapse Situation


1:29

East face of the 21st floor collapsed

1:37

South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed

1:50

Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:02

Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:11

Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:13

Floors above about 25th floor collapsed
Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor

2:17

Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:47

Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed

2:51

Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed

3:35

South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed
Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor

3:48

Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor

4:17

Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down

Posted Image

Buckling of unprotected steel perimeter columns at the 9th floor



Edited by skyeagle409, 26 January 2013 - 12:19 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#208    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:28 PM

View Postturbonium, on 26 January 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:


Was it just to back up the official story? Seems to be.

Facts and evidence backup the official story.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#209    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,378 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:40 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 26 January 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

If you think there was any boiling metal, you're in a minority of one.What advantage is there in arguing with someone who denies accepted facts?

You never answered my question as to how they could identify a molten metal.  If you can't explain that, then their judgement is indeed no better than mine.

A minority of one?  THAT is classic denial.

In addition to Tully and Loizeaux, there were many others including firemen, and pictures taken of the phenomenon, including from satellites overhead.

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?  You and me are equally qualified to judge as an 8 stage rotating drum impactor monitored by DOE and college professors?

What a dreamer you are sir! :yes:


#210    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,849 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:05 PM

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

A minority of one?  THAT is classic denial.

In addition to Tully and Loizeaux, there were many others including firemen, and pictures taken of the phenomenon, including from satellites overhead.
They are all saying "molten".  It's only you saying "boiling".  There's an enormous temperature difference between the two.

Quote

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?  

If there's no way to tell which metal it is, what does it matter whether you're on the scene or not?

Quote

You and me are equally qualified to judge as an 8 stage rotating drum impactor monitored by DOE and college professors?
What do those professors say about the sources of the particles they collect?  Do they say they come from "boiling metal" or do they say "a dry, hot source"?  Here's a hint:
http://www.ecoisp.co...spectives29.asp
Incidentally, they do not, as you claim, mention iron microspheres in that link.  What was your source for that?

Edited by flyingswan, 26 January 2013 - 03:09 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- )