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This topic has been archived.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

#1921    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,311 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 13 July 2013 - 08:28 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 13 July 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

Evidence speaks louder than words, and since there is no evidence of explosives, what more is there to say? The proof can be determined here:

*   No bomb explosions seen

*   No bomb explosions heard

*   No bomb explosions detected on seismic monitors (which should have told you that no bombs were used).

*   No evidence of bombs recovered from ground zero.

With no evidence of bombs, you have no case.

That's how to investigate all crimes, First, remove all the evidence of a crime, then conduct the investigation.

See any proof ? None.

So it wasn't a crime, right?

Nice try.


#1922    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

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

Posted 13 July 2013 - 12:53 PM

View Postturbonium, on 13 July 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Truth is all that matters in the end.

If evidence is removed, who can really know the truth?  

Ask yourself who would want to remove evidence, and bury the truth,

Look at 9/11.
The truth doesn't matter in the end or at the beginning.  The truth just is.  Belief is irrelevant with regards to the truth.  The truth is not incumbent upon belief in order to be...it just is.
But there are ways of discerning truth...one way is to logically remove that which is provable to be...not truth.
No matter how strongly you may believe that the Towers were wired with explosives...doesn't change the truth.
The truth is that when a building is demolished by demolition there is absolutely no way to hide that fact.  The NOISE of the explosions is remarkably loud...not...shhh, listen, did you hear that? shhh, explosions, listen....huh uh...Sky Eagle and others have shown over and over and over through countless videos and other factual elements that no explosions were used.  If you take away the 'explosive' then the entire Conspiracy Theory pancakes to the ground itself!

Edited by joc, 13 July 2013 - 12:54 PM.

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

ReverbNation

#1923    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 15 July 2013 - 09:22 AM

Here is the "Atheist Experience" dealing with a 9-11 troother.
The similarity to a fanatic religionist is striking...



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

#1924    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 15 July 2013 - 10:17 AM

View Postjoc, on 13 July 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

The truth is that when a building is demolished by demolition there is absolutely no way to hide that fact.  The NOISE of the explosions is remarkably loud...not...shhh, listen, did you hear that? shhh, explosions, listen....huh uh...Sky Eagle and others have shown over and over and over through countless videos and other factual elements that no explosions were used.  If you take away the 'explosive' then the entire Conspiracy Theory pancakes to the ground itself!

You don’t seem aware of the explosive testimony or the method of demolition proposed.

The truth is that many explosions were reported leading up to the collapses.  These were witnessed by firefighters, other responders, office occupants and media reporters, occurring not in the impact/fire zones but many floors lower, throughout the buildings.

This led trained firefighters to suspect bombs.

From FDNY veteran Lou Cacchioli on the 24th floor of WTC1: -

“we heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb ... When I began to try and direct down, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later, although it's hard to tell, but I'm thinking, 'Oh. My God, these b******* put bombs in here like they did in 1993!”


To FDNY premiere building collapse expert, Ray Downey, following the WTC2 collapse: -

“I remember asking Ray Downey was it the jet fuel that blew up. He said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even ... So his original thought was that he

thought it was a bomb up there as well.”


To media reporters: -

“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.”


There are a mountain of similar reports and the explosions were such that on the morning of 9/11, both the FDNY and NYPD worked to the theory that “secondary devices” were planted in the buildings: -



Following that explosive weakening of the buildings, it has long been proposed that thermite devices were used to finally initiate the collapses thus negating the ‘giveaway’ loud string of explosions that immediately precede conventional demolition.  And once those collapses propagate, the noise level of the building destruction itself is enough to disguise further explosions used to complete the collapses.

So we see there are no grounds to deny the possible presence of explosives to weaken the structures prior to the collapses or to continue the collapse propagation.  Explosions are only demonstrably absent immediately prior collapse initiation, but that is where it is proposed the quieter method of thermite devices were employed - the theory states that the demolition was intended to be covert and blamed on other factors, after all.

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.

#1925    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

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

Posted 15 July 2013 - 12:10 PM

Quote

You don’t seem aware of the explosive testimony or the method of demolition proposed.
There were indeed explosions.  But NOT Demotlition Explosions.  As per my last post...SkyEagle has well documented what these 'explosions' were...and what I was saying and what others are saying about 'explosions' is that Demolition Explosions do not cause people to say, 'OMG it sounded like an explosion!"....Demolition Explosions cause people to just stand there with their mouths open...mumbling...omg...omg...omg..

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

ReverbNation

#1926    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

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

Posted 15 July 2013 - 12:14 PM

This is what a skyscraper demolition looks like and SOUNDS like.  Any resemblance to 911?  No.  None.



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

ReverbNation

#1927    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 15 July 2013 - 02:27 PM

View Postjoc, on 15 July 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

There were indeed explosions.  But NOT Demotlition Explosions.  As per my last post...SkyEagle has well documented what these 'explosions' were...and what I was saying and what others are saying about 'explosions' is that Demolition Explosions do not cause people to say, 'OMG it sounded like an explosion!"....Demolition Explosions cause people to just stand there with their mouths open...mumbling...omg...omg...omg..

I don’t read the majority of skyeagle’s posts which consist of too much cut and paste links and are an affront to any form of rationale, or even coherent, discussion.  If anyone could truly document what each and every one of the explosions were in the WTC buildings I’d be mightily impressed but I’m sure that would be impossible.  I’d settle for a plausible theory of what each explosion might have been as opposed to secondary devices which tick all the boxes.

I think your own explanation above for writing-off secondary devices is poor considering both the FDNY and NYPD, whose impressions deserve much respect, worked to that theory on the morning of 9/11 exactly due to the explosions, with many witnesses comparing them specifically to “bombs”.  I could also link you to video of witnesses watching the tower collapses, with their mouths open, mumbling, “omg omg omg” but I wouldn’t consider that evidence of secondary devices.

The video you linked is a conventional, industry standard, demolition.  You do know that is not the only method or sequence of explosions that will demolish a building?  And no one expects the covert WTC demolitions to be performed through a conventional method?

So in the end, you have written off demolition charges because  1) people didn’t say “omg omg omg” and 2) because the WTC demolitions do not match conventional, overt demolition.  Jeez, the standards of remaining official story supporters sure aren't getting any better.

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.

#1928    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

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

Posted 15 July 2013 - 02:30 PM

View PostQ24, on 15 July 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

I don’t read the majority of skyeagle’s posts which consist of too much cut and paste links and are an affront to any form of rationale, or even coherent, discussion.  If anyone could truly document what each and every one of the explosions were in the WTC buildings I’d be mightily impressed but I’m sure that would be impossible.  I’d settle for a plausible theory of what each explosion might have been as opposed to secondary devices which tick all the boxes.

I think your own explanation above for writing-off secondary devices is poor considering both the FDNY and NYPD, whose impressions deserve much respect, worked to that theory on the morning of 9/11 exactly due to the explosions, with many witnesses comparing them specifically to “bombs”.  I could also link you to video of witnesses watching the tower collapses, with their mouths open, mumbling, “omg omg omg” but I wouldn’t consider that evidence of secondary devices.

The video you linked is a conventional, industry standard, demolition.  You do know that is not the only method or sequence of explosions that will demolish a building?  And no one expects the covert WTC demolitions to be performed through a conventional method?

So in the end, you have written off demolition charges because  1) people didn’t say “omg omg omg” and 2) because the WTC demolitions do not match conventional, overt demolition.  Jeez, the standards of remaining official story supporters sure aren't getting any better.
The elevators crashed to the ground causing some of the explosions heard at the bottom.
There are indeed other ways to demolish a building.
But if you want to bring a building straight down...there are only a few.

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

ReverbNation

#1929    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 15 July 2013 - 03:38 PM

View Postjoc, on 15 July 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

The elevators crashed to the ground causing some of the explosions heard at the bottom.

I’m sure there is a possibility that a couple of explosive-like sounds may have been caused by falling elevator cars.  However, this does not explain the continuous explosions after the initial impact which led right up to the collapse.  Neither does it explain the volume of explosions at lower levels, since the lower elevator shafts were segregated from the impact zone.  I also read, in NIST NCSTAR 1-8, that after the impact an elevator supervisor contacted the majority of cars, at least in WTC1, suggesting they were not destroyed.  And you might like to check the Otis safety elevator design, introduced so far back as 1852 for another reason why falling elevator cars are not a good explanation of the numerous and continuous explosions.

It also does the FDNY a disservice to claim they mistook falling elevator cars for secondary devices.

Tell me honestly...



... does this WTC explosion really resemble a falling elevator car, or a shaped charge?

In conclusion, elevator cars fall a million miles short of explaining the explosions witnessed on 9/11.


View Postjoc, on 15 July 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

There are indeed other ways to demolish a building.
But if you want to bring a building straight down...there are only a few.

I want to bring a building down like the twin towers on 9/11.

How do those few ways preclude explosive weakening followed by a thermite based initiation?

Edited by Q24, 15 July 2013 - 03:42 PM.

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.

#1930    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012

Posted 15 July 2013 - 04:13 PM

View PostQ24, on 15 July 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

2) because the WTC demolitions do not match conventional, overt demolition.  Jeez, the standards of remaining official story supporters sure aren't getting any better.

But you then flip it and partially write off the collapses because you don't find precedent for 'steel-structured building collapsing from fire'.  What is your precedent for actual explosives being used to 'weaken' a structure significantly before a thermite demolition?  Precedent:  important evidence... except when it's not.  At least some of us CT-critics actually have standards.

If they are going to use audible explosives to bring down the towers, what exactly is the purpose of ramming planes into them?  Do we have evidence of windows being blown out in the tower when these supposed pre-explosives go off, since for some reason while the tower is collapsing air being blown out on lower stories is not just from air pressure and supposedly indicative of demolitions?

"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

#1931    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,031 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:10 PM

View PostQ24, on 15 July 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

I’m sure there is a possibility that a couple of explosive-like sounds may have been caused by falling elevator cars.  However, this does not explain the continuous explosions after the initial impact which led right up to the collapse.  Neither does it explain the volume of explosions at lower levels, since the lower elevator shafts were segregated from the impact zone.  I also read, in NIST NCSTAR 1-8, that after the impact an elevator supervisor contacted the majority of cars, at least in WTC1, suggesting they were not destroyed.  And you might like to check the Otis safety elevator design, introduced so far back as 1852 for another reason why falling elevator cars are not a good explanation of the numerous and continuous explosions.

It also does the FDNY a disservice to claim they mistook falling elevator cars for secondary devices.

Tell me honestly...



... does this WTC explosion really resemble a falling elevator car, or a shaped charge?

In conclusion, elevator cars fall a million miles short of explaining the explosions witnessed on 9/11.

I want to bring a building down like the twin towers on 9/11.

How do those few ways preclude explosive weakening followed by a thermite based initiation?

There are many things that can produce such sounds. You will notice the WTC buildings remained standing. in addition, as the WTC buildings collapsed, there are no sounds of bomb explosions, which once again explains why no evidence of explosive was ever found at ground zero.

The collapse of the WTC buildings began at the locations where they were struck by the aircraft yet there are no secondary explosions and since the impacts were violent enough to dislodge fire protection from the structures,  it makes sense that explosives placed on structural columns in that particular location would have been rendered ineffective, but then again, who would transport tons of explosives and hardware many stories above street level and place explosives in the exact locations where the collisions occurred?

Remember, there were no secondary bomb explosions during the impacts and no sound of bomb explosions as the WTC buildings fell and again, no evidence of explosives found at ground zero.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1932    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:13 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 15 July 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

But you then flip it and partially write off the collapses because you don't find precedent for 'steel-structured building collapsing from fire'.  What is your precedent for actual explosives being used to 'weaken' a structure significantly before a thermite demolition?  Precedent:  important evidence... except when it's not.  At least some of us CT-critics actually have standards.

There is no ‘flip’, LG.  We only need to appreciate that precedent is important to consider when it exists, not when it does not.

For instance, there is plenty of precedent for high-rise building fire and damage.  I can use this precedent to declare that no high-rise building fire and damage has ever caused global collapse of such a structure.  This is relevant particularly in the case of WTC7 which the official story states suffered an office fire based, global collapse.  Were there actually no precedent for high-rise building fire and damage, then I would not have an argument.

So similarly, when there is no precedent for, “actual explosives being used to 'weaken' a structure significantly before a thermite demolition” – it is a non-issue either way and it becomes purely a case of possibilities, of course congruent with and explaining the existing evidence.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 15 July 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

If they are going to use audible explosives to bring down the towers, what exactly is the purpose of ramming planes into them?

The planes are the cover story for the demolition – to blame the foreign enemy.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 15 July 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

Do we have evidence of windows being blown out in the tower when these supposed pre-explosives go off, since for some reason while the tower is collapsing air being blown out on lower stories is not just from air pressure and supposedly indicative of demolitions?

It is feasible that charges utilising cover of the collapse progression could be more violent than those prior to the collapse.  Still, yes, numerous focussed/isolated squibs of various intensities are visible both before and during the collapses.  This one, unfortunately for the perpetrators, comes complete with what appears to be geotextile wrap, intended to contain debris: -



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.

#1933    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,031 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:25 PM

View PostQ24, on 15 July 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

There is no ‘flip’, LG.  We only need to appreciate that precedent is important to consider when it exists, not when it does not.

For instance, there is plenty of precedent for high-rise building fire and damage.  I can use this precedent to declare that no high-rise building fire and damage has ever caused global collapse of such a structure.  This is relevant particularly in the case of WTC7 which the official story states suffered an office fire based, global collapse.  Were there actually no precedent for high-rise building fire and damage, then I would not have an argument.

So similarly, when there is no precedent for, “actual explosives being used to 'weaken' a structure significantly before a thermite demolition” – it is a non-issue either way and it becomes purely a case of possibilities, of course congruent with and explaining the existing evidence.

The planes are the cover story for the demolition – to blame the foreign enemy.

It is feasible that charges utilising cover of the collapse progression could be more violent than those prior to the collapse.  Still, yes, numerous focussed/isolated squibs of various intensities are visible both before and during the collapses.

A squib is not evidence of explosives because squibs are also produced during non-explosive demolitions.

Quote

"Squibs"

During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe.  The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them.  It's said that the towers were about 95% air.  But not all the air went so easily out the window space.

There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns.  So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core.  The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up.  Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could.

According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core...



Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”
Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”


Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.

http://www.acfd.com/...r_company_6.htm


http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm


Posted Image



Posted Image



Quote

This one, unfortunately for the perpetrators, comes complete with what appears to be geotextile wrap, intended to contain debris: -

Still not evidence. There were no bomb explosions seen nor heard.



Edited by skyeagle409, 15 July 2013 - 05:48 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1934    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

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

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:43 PM

These buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 747...and they did!   But what occurred after that was indeed a pancake effect of one floor crashing onto the other...all the way down.   This is  'another' way you demolish a building.


Vérinage Compilation - Explosiveless Demolition

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

ReverbNation

#1935    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 15 July 2013 - 06:13 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 15 July 2013 - 05:25 PM, said:

A squib is not evidence of explosives because squibs are also produced during non-explosive demolitions.

The pictures you posted are just debris clouds, not focussed/isolated squibs as witnessed in demolition and the WTC event.  I’m sorry you are too unobservant to notice the difference.


View Postjoc, on 15 July 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

These buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 747...and they did!   But what occurred after that was indeed a pancake effect of one floor crashing onto the other...all the way down.   This is  'another' way you demolish a building.

As well as the hypothetical impact of a Boeing 707 travelling at 600 mph, the WTC design engineers carried out a separate analysis to determine effect of the resultant fire.  It should be noted that the Boeing 707 had a similar fuel capacity to the Boeing 767.  The conclusion of all studies is that the structures would remain standing: -

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building.  There would be a horrendous fire.  A lot of people would be killed.  The building structure would still be there.”

John Skilling – WTC design engineer


That earlier 1964 study is in line with NIST’s more recent base case impact/fire simulation which also showed no collapse would initiate.

You are correct that the buildings were designed to withstand an airliner impact... and they did!  What you don’t explain is how the collapses initiated or the floors crashed down despite the huge, continuous, core column structure.  I have a plausible and evidenced theory – demolition.

Anyhow joc, I see you posting a link to the verinage demolition method, but you still haven’t explained how you rule out the WTC explosions being demolition charges with a thermite based collapse initiation.

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.