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.


* * * - - 2 votes

911


  • Please log in to reply
990 replies to this topic

#946    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:17 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 18 October 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

Yes, I do agree its possible, and I do believe that some of the "sounds of explosions" heard that day may have actually been things that actually exploded, but that it is extremely more likely that they were things that could be found in any office building anywhere on the planet that could explode in a fire or when crushed, rather than "bombs" or "secondary explosive devices" claimed by some CT's.

Objection...

Reference to “bombs” and “secondary devices” were reported by firefighters, witnesses and police officials on scene that morning, they were not “claimed by some CT’s”.

A selection of reports: -
  • News reporter, Pat Dawson, “Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, he received word of a possibility of a secondary device; that is another bomb going off, there was another explosion which took place, according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.”
  • Eyewitness, “It just went ba-boom, it was like a bomb went off and it was like holy hell coming down them stairs…”
  • Eyewitness evacuating from 47th floor, “There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons.  There was another explosion.. and another.. I didn't know where to run.”
  • Firefighter on 24th floor of WTC1 after hearing an explosion, “I'm thinking, Oh. My God, these b******* put bombs in here like they did in 1993!??”
  • Firefighter, “It was a secondary explosion probably a device either planted before or upon the aircraft that did not explode until an hour later.”
  • News reporter, “We presume because of the initial explosion there may have been secondary explosions as well that were detonated in the building by these terrorists.”
  • News reporter, “We’re obviously having a bit of trouble right now maintaining our location because we just heard one more explosion… do you know anything about those extra explosions we heard?  Were they car bombs?”
I believe those on scene, in particular the firefighters, were best placed to discern what is normal result of a fire situation and what is unusual, raising concerns of “bombs” and “secondary devices”.


View PostCzero 101, on 18 October 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

So, given the discussion so far, would you agree that its likely that at least some of the reports of explosions could have actually been the mis-identified sounds of elevator cars falling from great heights and impacting either in the sub basements, or (for those who claim there were explosions mid-way up the buildings) impacting one of the different transfer floors (called Sky Lobbies) between different banks of elevators as seen in the illustration below:

No, the emergency brakes should stop that occurring when the cables are severed.  If it did occur then it should have been at the time of impact, not continuously leading up to the collapse.  Also in WTC1 the majority of cars in shafts below the impact and fire zone (lower floors where the explosions were reported to have taken place) were contacted by an elevator supervisor, suggesting they were not destroyed.  The falling elevator car theory is therefore a poor explanation for the many reports of explosions that took place from the impacts up to the collapses.

However, the elevator shafts would be prime location for access to the core columns, placement and concealment of demolition charges.  It also happens that the towers tilted in direction not congruent with the impacts, but in direction of the main body of elevator banks.  We know that elevator doors were blown right off (firefighter: “So we’re standing there in the lobby getting all together, all of a sudden we hear [simulates explosive sound], I look down to my right and the elevator has exploded like something like out of a Bruce Willis Die Hard movie”), and in the case of WTC7, which did not even suffer an airliner impact, a car was somehow ejected right out of its shaft.  This evidence indicates demolition charges placed in the elevator shafts, detonated a time apart to weaken the building and conceal the demoltion.

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.

#947    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,954 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:31 AM

View PostQ24, on 18 October 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

Objection...

Reference to “bombs” and “secondary devices” were reported by firefighters, witnesses and police officials on scene that morning, they were not “claimed by some CT’s”.

A selection of reports: -
  • News reporter, Pat Dawson, “Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, he received word of a possibility of a secondary device; that is another bomb going off, there was another explosion which took place, according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.”
  • Eyewitness, “It just went ba-boom, it was like a bomb went off and it was like holy hell coming down them stairs…”
  • Eyewitness evacuating from 47th floor, “There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons.  There was another explosion.. and another.. I didn't know where to run.”
  • Firefighter on 24th floor of WTC1 after hearing an explosion, “I'm thinking, Oh. My God, these b******* put bombs in here like they did in 1993!??”
  • Firefighter, “It was a secondary explosion probably a device either planted before or upon the aircraft that did not explode until an hour later.”
  • News reporter, “We presume because of the initial explosion there may have been secondary explosions as well that were detonated in the building by these terrorists.”
  • News reporter, “We’re obviously having a bit of trouble right now maintaining our location because we just heard one more explosion… do you know anything about those extra explosions we heard?  Were they car bombs?”
I believe those on scene, in particular the firefighters, were best placed to discern what is normal result of a fire situation and what is unusual, raising concerns of “bombs” and “secondary devices”.

But, there is no evidence that explosives were used! Let me break it down.

* No bomb explosions were seen in the videos

* No bomb explosions were heard in the videos nor on audio

* No bomb explosions were detected on seismic monitors in the general area

* No evidence of explosives were found in the rubble of the WTC buildings


Question is, where did 9/11 conspiracist get the idea that explosives were used when there is no shred of evidence that explosives were used in the first place? If you cannot provide evidence of explosives, and you have no case. :no:

Remember, just because someone who says they heard an explosion, is not evidence that explosives were used because there are many cases where people reported the sound of explosives only to find the sounds were attributed to sources other than explosives.

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 October 2012 - 03:56 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#948    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:30 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 18 October 2012 - 03:31 AM, said:

But, there is no evidence that explosives were used!

What a silly thing to say right after I provided evidence indicative of explosives.


View Postskyeagle409, on 18 October 2012 - 03:31 AM, said:

* No bomb explosions were seen in the videos

Wrong – the ‘squibs’ seen during the collapses match those of recorded demolitions.


View Postskyeagle409, on 18 October 2012 - 03:31 AM, said:

* No bomb explosions were heard in the videos nor on audio

Wrong again – along with the witness testimony already provided, explosions are heard in video footage.


View Postskyeagle409, on 18 October 2012 - 03:31 AM, said:

* No bomb explosions were detected on seismic monitors in the general area

Daft - neither was the 1993 explosion detected on seismic monitors, but it happened.


View Postskyeagle409, on 18 October 2012 - 03:31 AM, said:

* No evidence of explosives were found in the rubble of the WTC buildings

Daft again – no one looked for evidence of explosives in the WTC rubble.

Though evidence of weakening/melting of steel members, at temperatures the fires could not achieve, and which FEMA stated could have began prior to the collapse, was found.


View Postskyeagle409, on 18 October 2012 - 03:31 AM, said:

Remember, just because someone who says they heard an explosion, is not evidence that explosives were used because there are many cases where people reported the sound of explosives only to find the sounds were attributed to sources other than explosives.

The cases where the explosions are attributed to other sources fall short.  For instance, explosions at locations where there was no impact or fire to cause them, and elevators which did not continuously fall.  The simplest and most fitting explanation for the body of explosions reported and the results witnessed, is demolition charges.  This is why fire department and police officials (who were much better placed than you to decide) worked to the theory, "that there were actually devices that were planted in the building",on the morning of 9/11.

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.

#949    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,128 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:25 AM

Fancy seeing you here, Q.... one would have thought you were too busy having your hind quarters handed to you by LG in the other thread to bother diving into another one... :)


ETA...

On and...

Objection Overruled.








Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 18 October 2012 - 05:29 AM.

"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

#950    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,954 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 18 October 2012 - 06:02 AM

View PostQ24, on 18 October 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

What a silly thing to say right after I provided evidence indicative of explosives.

Wrong – the ‘squibs’ seen during the collapses match those of recorded demolitions.

Apparently, you didn't review the video I posted before, so here it is again, and notice the squibs and take note that no explosives are used.  Remember, as the buildings collapse, all of that air is going to be forced out. Check it out and notice the squibs and remember no explosives are used.



Quote

Wrong again – along with the witness testimony already provided, explosions are heard in video footage.

Let's take a look.



No sound of explosions anywhere within that video. :no:

Quote

Daft - neither was the 1993 explosion detected on seismic monitors, but it happened.

The demolition expert whose monitors I spoke of, denied that his monitors detected explosions. In addition to Protec, how about these companies;

Quote

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

Manafort Brothers

Tully Construction,


Quote

Daft again – no one looked for evidence of explosives in the WTC rubble.

They would not have had to look very hard because they would have had trouble avoiding thousands of feet of detonation wires if explosives were used.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Upon examination of the steel at the Fresh Kills landfill, no evidence of explosives nor thermite cutting on steel  from the WTC buildings were found and remember, thermite is not a high energy explosive nor widely used by demolition companies.

Here is what bombed buildings look like when not pre-weaken.

Posted Image

1993 WTC1 Bombing

As you can see, WTC1 remained standing.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image


Quote

Though evidence of weakening/melting of steel members, at temperatures the fires could not achieve, and which FEMA stated could have began prior to the collapse, was found.

Temperatures from the fires were high enough to weaken steel, not melt steel.

Quote

The cases where the explosions are attributed to other sources fall short.  For instance, explosions at locations where there was no impact or fire to cause them, and elevators which did not continuously fall.  The simplest and most fitting explanation for the body of explosions reported and the results witnessed, is demolition charges.

They were mistaken because seismic monitors did not detect explosions, nor are explosions seen on video, and once again, demolition experts and recovery crews did not find evidence of explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Quote

This is why fire department and police officials (who were much better placed than you to decide) worked to the theory, "that there were actually devices that were planted in the building",on the morning of 9/11.

There were no explosive devices planted either and remember, no one found evidence of explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 October 2012 - 06:15 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#951    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 18 October 2012 - 12:48 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 18 October 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

Fancy seeing you here, Q.... one would have thought you were too busy having your hind quarters handed to you by LG in the other thread to bother diving into another one...  

Well... if that constitutes not addressing real points on the Talking Turkey thread in favour of making minor speculative arguments elsewhere – grasping at straws that unequal standards applied to authors somehow presents a fair discussion, and that 9/11 discussion in the mainstream has no political strings attached... then one would have thought so.  Though apparently I’m here rather than busy there right now, so I guess you were mistaken.


View PostCzero 101, on 18 October 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

Objection Overruled.

Objection upheld - on record evidence should not be misrepresented/downplayed simply as ‘CT claims’ when it is actually sourced from eyewitnesses, reporters and firefighters.

Any advances on your falling elevator theory, which is clearly not a comprehensive or even partly good match to the reports and evidence of explosions?

Perhaps, they were falling elevator cars packed with shaped charges?

Oh look, here’s one now from WTC7: -



Elevator car my ***.


Posted Image


The claim that fire caused this complete collapse (not to mention sudden, symmetrical and freefall) is absurd – it’s not even possible – any research of indeterminate structures and all known precedent will tell you why.  People who think it is reasonable clearly do not understand the construction of the building nor office fires.  And after the building owner had that very morning been seeking authorisation for the demolition of WTC7... a plan that many on scene knew was taking place and even media reporters picked up on (though you will find no investigation of this evidence or questioning of these individuals in official reports, not a shred – investigation, pfft - how can anyone defend that?)... then woah, fire beat them to it, surrre.

If I were an official story adherent I wouldn't even try to argue this one.  I'd say ok, it was a demolition performed for safety reasons and it's been covered up as some sort of agreed insurance scam - to make the claim as part of the terrorist attack.  Though I guess that opens up a whole can of worms when we look further into the detail.

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.

#952    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,513 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:26 PM

View PostQ24, on 18 October 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

Well... if that constitutes not addressing real points on the Talking Turkey thread in favour of making minor speculative arguments elsewhere – grasping at straws that unequal standards applied to authors somehow presents a fair discussion, and that 9/11 discussion in the mainstream has no political strings attached... then one would have thought so.  Though apparently I’m here rather than busy there right now, so I guess you were mistaken.

Which 'real' points am I not addressing again Q?  I've seen what you mean by 'real points', it consistently means 'circumstantial' at best, and when pressed on a topic, we get to 'well it could be, it'd be naive to think it's not a possibility'.  Or maybe on whatever real point you were just being over-certain and what you say can't actually be taken as having evidence behind it.  That's a lot of irrelevant and illogical muck for me to wade through and unpack to get to the non-embellished facts behind your 'real points', if they exist at all.  Ya see, I'm skeptical, including of myself; your mileage may vary.  And from a skeptical standpoint, only having circumstantial evidence for your conclusions is strike one and two.  And is that what 'journals proven to be biased due to political sensitivity' has now been transformed to, the strawman of, 'the 9/11 discussion in the mainstream has no political strings attached'?  I understand you needing to back away from your original bs there, I wish I could say that I could 'trust you to retract it' instead of hand-waving.

But agreed, our argument about our argument is boring.  On point, what is your proof that the explosions are actually from explosives and not things falling?  How have you determined they are not from myriad things that will explode when exposed to fire?  What does the analysis of truthers' show should have happened to the millions of square feet of air when the building collapsed, if you disagree that that is what the 'squibs' visible actually are?

"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

#953    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,513 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:36 PM

View PostQ24, on 18 October 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

And after the building owner had that very morning been seeking authorisation for the demolition of WTC7... a plan that many on scene knew was taking place and even media reporters picked up on (though you will find no investigation of this evidence or questioning of these individuals in official reports, not a shred – investigation, pfft - how can anyone defend that?)... then woah, fire beat them to it, surrre.

And your evidence that the building owner was seeking authorization to demolish 7 that morning is?  The evidence that he is not referring to having to demolish 7 if it remains standing after the fire and damage sometime in the future is?  And in the unlikelihood that you are correct, the reason the building owner is so stupid to allow us even to know about this conversation is?  Is there a problem with confronting your speculation with opposing speculation?

"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

#954    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:44 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 October 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

Which 'real' points am I not addressing again Q?

The real points on the Talking Turkey thread which were addressed to you in post #543 along with the additional information I have provided since.  Though you seem to have time to argue a minor point that an author granted 2-3 times the word count of another in discussion is somehow fair.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 October 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

I've seen what you mean by 'real points', it consistently means 'circumstantial' at best, and when pressed on a topic, we get to 'well it could be, it'd be naive to think it's not a possibility'.  Or maybe on whatever real point you were just being over-certain and what you say can't actually be taken as having evidence behind it.  That's a lot of irrelevant and illogical muck for me to wade through and unpack to get to the non-embellished facts behind your 'real points', if they exist at all.  Ya see, I'm skeptical, including of myself; your mileage may vary.  And from a skeptical standpoint, only having circumstantial evidence for your conclusions is strike one and two.

Apparently you underestimate circumstantial evidence: -

"A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence"."


http://en.wikipedia....antial_evidence


Not only can circumstantial evidence be powerful, but surrounding 9/11 it forms a case of corroborating evidence which is more convincing still.  Then we see there are numerous occurrences of corroborating evidence for a false flag attack in every area of 9/11 – this should not be the case given a ‘natural’ terrorist attack.  There comes the point where you cannot keep breaking it down into single isolated points requiring a multitude of disparate explanations and 'coincidences' to write it off in each instance, where the single answer of a false flag operation covers all occurrence in one fell swoop.

In addition, if you want the non-embellished facts/sources you only need ask.  I used to be good with supplying links for every piece of evidence but admit to getting sloppy lately since a lot of the points are second nature to me.

By the way, what sort of evidence do you think bin Laden’s responsibility for the attack is based on?  That is circumstantial too – he had a dislike of American policy and associated with the hijackers - but I don’t see you opposing it any, thus another reason I’m beginning to think you have rather pseudo-skeptical tendancies.  Come on, show me the direct evidence that bin Laden picked a flight, selected a target, gave an order or provided any of the funding.  Then again, don’t waste your time trying.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 October 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

And is that what 'journals proven to be biased due to political sensitivity' has now been transformed to, the strawman of, 'the 9/11 discussion in the mainstream has no political strings attached'?  I understand you needing to back away from your original bs there, I wish I could say that I could 'trust you to retract it' instead of hand-waving.

No I don’t back away from it at all.  To me the bias and political sensitivity that abounds in mainstream journals is as apparent as Rupert Murdoch’s pro-war coverage.  I’m sorry that you don’t appear to apply the same standards to each.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 October 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

On point, what is your proof that the explosions are actually from explosives and not things falling?  How have you determined they are not from myriad things that will explode when exposed to fire?  What does the analysis of truthers' show should have happened to the millions of square feet of air when the building collapsed, if you disagree that that is what the 'squibs' visible actually are?

As I’ve said – the explosions were reported in areas outside the impact and fire zone and considerable time after the initial impacts.  In addition I respect the uninfluenced reactions of trained firefighters in a fire situation.  I also trust my own ears – when I hear an explosion that sounds like a demolition charge (as in the video of my previous post), I’m not going to clutch at straws to claim it’s a bottle of exploding cleaning chemicals or some such stretch.  I neither find falling elevator cars a good explanation as described in my previous posts.  I also have knowledge of the far wider body of corroborating evidence which fits the conclusion the explosions witnessed were a part of the demolition.

Regarding the ‘squibs’, I would expect demolition charges to be expelled at isolated locations generally at the centre face of the building, which is what we see.  I would expect millions of feet of compressed air to be expelled at dispersed locations across the whole building facade, which is also what we see with the debris clouds at the collapse front.  I believe the two different types of ejections are both visible and the result of different cause.

I would also be interested to hear your opinion on cause of the molten metal flow from WTC2 which initiated shortly prior to the collapse.  I don’t see it could possibly be anymore fitting of a thermite reaction used to bring the building down (every expected observable is present, from the appearance to the timing) and I have found all alternative explanations to fall short to some degree – I’ll explain why if you present any.  I’ve raised this before but you declined to answer, so second time lucky.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 October 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

And your evidence that the building owner was seeking authorization to demolish 7 that morning is?  The evidence that he is not referring to having to demolish 7 if it remains standing after the fire and damage sometime in the future is?  And in the unlikelihood that you are correct, the reason the building owner is so stupid to allow us even to know about this conversation is?  Is there a problem with confronting your speculation with opposing speculation?

I said that the building owner had been seeking authorisation to demolish WTC7 that morning and that many on scene knew this – that is not speculation, it is reported fact.  You complained that you don’t like my embellishment, so I’ll leave you to decide if you think your speculation, that Silverstein was seeking authorisation for demolition at a later date, to be reasonable.  I’ll also leave you to your speculation at how the journalist and many on scene came to find this information and why it was not reported for a decade or covered in the official investigation.

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.

#955    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:55 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 18 October 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

Apparently, you didn't review the video I posted before, so here it is again, and notice the squibs and take note that no explosives are used.  Remember, as the buildings collapse, all of that air is going to be forced out. Check it out and notice the squibs and remember no explosives are used.





Let's take a look.



No sound of explosions anywhere within that video. :no:



The demolition expert whose monitors I spoke of, denied that his monitors detected explosions. In addition to Protec, how about these companies;





They would not have had to look very hard because they would have had trouble avoiding thousands of feet of detonation wires if explosives were used.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Upon examination of the steel at the Fresh Kills landfill, no evidence of explosives nor thermite cutting on steel  from the WTC buildings were found and remember, thermite is not a high energy explosive nor widely used by demolition companies.

Here is what bombed buildings look like when not pre-weaken.

Posted Image

1993 WTC1 Bombing

As you can see, WTC1 remained standing.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image




Temperatures from the fires were high enough to weaken steel, not melt steel.



They were mistaken because seismic monitors did not detect explosions, nor are explosions seen on video, and once again, demolition experts and recovery crews did not find evidence of explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings.



There were no explosive devices planted either and remember, no one found evidence of explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

I would like your opinion about Barry Jennings, and not did he actually hear explosions or feel them...but the dead bodies he walked over while leaving the building, where FF's had to rescue him because of an 'explosion' or whatever you want to call it.......the OFFICIAL story says NO loss of life in WTC 7.........I'm not asking for any leap to this is proof of conspiracy...just why the lies?


#956    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,954 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:00 PM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 18 October 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

I would like your opinion about Barry Jennings, and not did he actually hear explosions or feel them...but the dead bodies he walked over while leaving the building, where FF's had to rescue him because of an 'explosion' or whatever you want to call it.......the OFFICIAL story says NO loss of life in WTC 7.........I'm not asking for any leap to this is proof of conspiracy...just why the lies?

He definitely didn't hear bomb explosions because the sound of bombs would have been heard all over Manhattan.  There are many sounds he could have perceived as explosions just as people in Hawaii during a wind storm confused the sound of buildings as they broke apart as explosions.

In case you missed this video before, compare the sound of explosions with the sound of the collapse of WTC7.



Now, WTC7.



You didn't hear explosions as WTC7 collapsed, unlike the sound of explosions heard during building demolitions in the first video. It takes many months to prepare a building for demolition and the structure must be re-weaken otherwise there may be problems.

In regards to no loss of lives in WTC7, perhaps this message will provide an answer.

Quote

Clearing a Collapse Zone around WTC7


1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)
http://911guide.goog...com/danielnigro


Edited by skyeagle409, 18 October 2012 - 04:09 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#957    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:14 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 18 October 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

He definitely didn't hear bomb explosions because the sound of bombs would have been heard all over Manhattan.  There are many sounds he could have perceived as explosions just as people in Hawaii during a wind storm confused the sound of buildings as they broke apart as explosions.

In case you missed this video before, compare the sound of explosions with the sound of the collapse of WTC7.



Now, WTC7.



You didn't hear explosions as WTC7 collapsed, unlike the sound of explosions heard during building demolitions in the first video. It takes many months to prepare a building for demolition and the structure must be re-weaken otherwise there may be problems.

In regards to no loss of lives in WTC7, perhaps this message will provide an answer.

My question was, why the lies? Jennings saw dead bodies. Official story says no one died in there.


#958    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,954 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:22 PM

View PostQ24, on 18 October 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:


Any advances on your falling elevator theory, which is clearly not a comprehensive or even partly good match to the reports and evidence of explosions?

But, there were no sound of bomb explosions.

Quote

Perhaps, they were falling elevator cars packed with shaped charges?

That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would they plant explosives in elevators?

Quote

Oh look, here’s one now from WTC7: -



I still didn't hear the sound of bomb explosions as WTC7 collapsed. :no:  Now, let's listen to the sound of real explosions.



As you plainly heard, explosions were clearly evident in the video, which is not what you heard when WTC7 collapsed. :no:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#959    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,954 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:42 PM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 18 October 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

My question was, why the lies? Jennings saw dead bodies. Official story says no one died in there.

Looking at his interview.

Quote

"Upon arriving into the OAM POC, we noticed that everybody was gone... only me and Mr. Hess were up there. After I called several individuals, one individual told me to leave and leave right away. Mr. Hess came running back in and said, "We're the only ones up here, we gotta get out of here."

Considering the area around WTC7 was cleared long before the collapse of WTC7, there should have been no one in WTC7 when it collapsed.

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 October 2012 - 04:44 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#960    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,954 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:49 PM

View PostQ24, on 18 October 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

I said that the building owner had been seeking authorisation to demolish WTC7 that morning and that many on scene knew this – that is not speculation, it is reported fact.  You complained that you don’t like my embellishment, so I’ll leave you to decide if you think your speculation, that Silverstein was seeking authorisation for demolition at a later date, to be reasonable.  I’ll also leave you to your speculation at how the journalist and many on scene came to find this information and why it was not reported for a decade or covered in the official investigation.

Larry Silverstein did not make a decision to demolish WTC7.



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users