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This topic has been archived.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

#1831    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:07 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 11 June 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

The last picture in your post 1825 above shows clearly that the collapse of the towers was really an explosion of the towers.

Nope, that is not the case! No sound of explosions were heard on audio nor seen on video, nor detected on seismic monitors as that building collapsed, so by that very fact, we can safely dismiss the use of explosives. To further add, no evidence of explosives were found in the rubble of the WTC buildings. Question is; where did 911 conspiracist get the idea that explosives were used when there is not one shred of evidence of explosives?

Quote

That picture clearly shows that whatever brought down the tower, it WAS NOT jetfuel and gravity.

The fuel got the balling rolling, which ignited other objects inside the WTC building and they raised temperatures high enough to weaken steel to the point of collapse, which were already carrying redistributed structural loads after the collision and the rest is now history. No explosives were required.

Edited by skyeagle409, 11 June 2013 - 08:11 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1832    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 12 June 2013 - 01:11 AM

View PostStundie, on 11 June 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

A
You don't see molten metal flowing other locations on WTC2 building, which is another hint that thermite was responsible for the flow because the point of the molten flow is where the steel was exposed.

Where the steel was exposed to temperatures high enough to weaken steel. I might add that the location where the molten aluminum is flowing from is where the landing gear, part of the engine and fuselage had exited WTC2.

Posted Image


We know that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings because the buildings buckled in the moments before they collapsed, which is a prime indicator that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of WTC1,WTC2, WTC7 and the internal structural collapse of WTC5.

Now, we can take a look at where the collapse of the two WTC towers originated, which of course, is where the aircraft collisions occurred.


Posted Image

Since the collisions were extremely violent, planted explosives or thermite would have been rendered useless. There were no secondary bomb explosions nor evidence of thermite at the locations where WTC1 and WTC2 were struck by B-767s.

Quote


"Melted" Steel

CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide ToFireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


Edited by skyeagle409, 12 June 2013 - 01:31 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1833    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,433 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 14 June 2013 - 03:49 AM

They will never understand Skyeagle ! ITs all about the mass, the math the physics ! Nothing more, Nothing Less ! A real mess I would say ! :tu:

This is a Work in Progress!

#1834    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011

Posted 14 June 2013 - 04:10 AM

I have been recently listening to the program "The Atheist experience" on Youtube, and what struck me is the simllarity between Christian bible-thumping boneheads and 911 conspiracy nuts.

Like the former, the latter seem completely resistant to logical thinking, evidence, and the scientific method. Instead they pick and choose from whatever available source whatever convenient snippets they can find to cling to their faith.

So... is 911 trootherism a religion substitute? From a psychological point of view, I would say yes.

Edited by Zaphod222, 14 June 2013 - 04:12 AM.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#1835    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:27 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 14 June 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

They will never understand Skyeagle ! ITs all about the mass, the math the physics ! Nothing more, Nothing Less ! A real mess I would say ! :tu:

It is amazing that despite the huge amount of destruction those airliners caused, they think that explosives would have remained firmly attached to the steel columns and despite the fact that no evidence of explosives was found.





Edited by skyeagle409, 14 June 2013 - 05:37 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1836    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 22 June 2013 - 03:37 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 09 June 2013 - 04:51 AM, said:

That doesn't make any difference because no evidence of explosives were found nor recovered by clean-up crews at ground zero anyway.

It is still evidence, period.

Removal of evidence is a crime, period.

If you sought the truth, this crime would bother you. .

You say it wouldn't make any difference to have had this evidence.  

So the removal of some evidence is not a crime? Only removing evidence deemed to be relevant is a crime!!  


Or perhaps it's just used as a lame excuse?


#1837    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 22 June 2013 - 03:48 AM

View Postturbonium, on 22 June 2013 - 03:37 AM, said:

It is still evidence, period.

Your remark is false, and  you know it. :yes:

Quote

Removal of evidence is a crime, period.

Evidence for what?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1838    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:32 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 June 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:


Evidence for what?

Hmm..maybe for THEIR INVESTIGATION OF THE COLLAPSES

Heard about it?


#1839    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 22 June 2013 - 07:27 PM

View Postturbonium, on 22 June 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

Hmm..maybe for THEIR INVESTIGATION OF THE COLLAPSES

Heard about it?


Since it was evident there was no evidence of explosives during the collapse of the WTC buildings nor during clean-up operations, there was no need to look for something they knew wasn't there. Add to the fact that investigators knew that temperatures were high enough to weaken the remaining steel structures within the WTC buildings, which were already carrying additional and redistributed structural loads after the impacts, and yes, even WTC7 suffered impact damage as well.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1840    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 29 June 2013 - 02:19 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 June 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

Since it was evident there was no evidence of explosives during the collapse of the WTC buildings nor during clean-up operations, there was no need to look for something they knew wasn't there. Add to the fact that investigators knew that temperatures were high enough to weaken the remaining steel structures within the WTC buildings, which were already carrying additional and redistributed structural loads after the impacts, and yes, even WTC7 suffered impact damage as well.

So that's a proper, thorough investigation to you?

Right!

They saw no evidence of explosives being used in the collapses before they started the investigation...is that right?

And they found no evidence of explosives during their subsequent investigation...right?

Who cares if a lot of evidence was missing. they had enough..right?

Amazing....


It doesn't matter how "evident" anything looks like, ALL the evidence must be taken into account, and thoroughly examined.

You can't make excuses for removing ANY OF IT prior to the investigation, period.

Edited by turbonium, 29 June 2013 - 02:40 AM.


#1841    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,433 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 29 June 2013 - 02:35 AM

WHat part of "No Evidence" Is getting past you Turbo ? DId you watch the Two Aircraft Fly into the Twin Towers? :tu:

This is a Work in Progress!

#1842    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 29 June 2013 - 03:09 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 29 June 2013 - 02:35 AM, said:

WHat part of "No Evidence" Is getting past you Turbo ? DId you watch the Two Aircraft Fly into the Twin Towers? :tu:

The part removed illegally, which got past everybody. Do you know about that, or pretend it's all fine and dandy?


#1843    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 29 June 2013 - 04:46 AM

View Postturbonium, on 29 June 2013 - 03:09 AM, said:



The part removed illegally, which got past everybody. Do you know about that, or pretend it's all fine and dandy?
  

There was no evidence of explosives at ground zero.



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1844    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 29 June 2013 - 07:17 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 29 June 2013 - 04:46 AM, said:

There was no evidence of explosives at ground zero.

Don't you mean the evidence that wasn't already removed illegally?

That evidence isn't needed, of course.

Fine and dandy, all done here.


#1845    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 29 June 2013 - 08:42 AM

View Postturbonium, on 29 June 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

Don't you mean the evidence that wasn't already removed illegally?

There was no way that evidence of explosives could have been removed illegally because the explosive evidence would have been evident all over ground zero. In other words, clean-up crews would have had a difficult time avoiding any explosive evidence.

There was never evidence of explosives because bombs make a lot of noise. In Vietnam, we could hear bomb explosions from B-52 strikes from many miles away and yet there were videos within close proximity of the WTC buildings as they collapsed and there was not one sound of a bomb explosion as they fell.

Question is; How many people were responsible for fabricating  false stories that explosives were used to demolish the WTC buildings and do so without a shred of evidence?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX