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This topic has been archived.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

#1996    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 29 July 2013 - 02:40 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 29 July 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

RB

The other way to look at it my friend is that a year later, you are still in denial. :tu:

Ross & Furlong's data rains on your parade, so you would like to say it's meaningless.  I get it.

OTOH, if it's true and accurate, it corroborates Willie's story and the testimony of many others.

Did I say the study was meaningless?  What the study does corroborate is a large magnitude impact, which does agree with a plane hitting a building.

Where Ross and Furlong got it wrong is claiming that the FAA and NTSB's impact timing is not an estimate but an exact time, which is clearly a misrepresentation of fact.  You being a pilot should know a little bit about radar sweep timing yet you still support the study as being accurate?  That's seems pretty lazy to me.

BTW.  Tell me again how an explosion below the basement corroborates a controlled demolition theory?

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1997    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 29 July 2013 - 05:45 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 29 July 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

The sound of controlled demolition explosions are loud enough to be recorded by video and audio, yet no video recording with audio captured them in all 3 recorded collapses?

Incorrect.

As if all of the first hand witness testimony were not enough, here is video footage too: -

http://www.unexplain...75#entry2865023
http://www.unexplain...60#entry4847259
http://www.unexplain...35#entry4860511

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.

#1998    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 29 July 2013 - 07:11 PM

RB

Explosions in the basement show that it wasn't jetfuel & gravity.  They show that somebody was planning something, and pulled the pin seconds too soon.


#1999    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 29 July 2013 - 08:07 PM

View PostQ24, on 29 July 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:



Incorrect.

As if all of the first hand witness testimony were not enough, here is video footage too: -

http://www.unexplain...75#entry2865023
http://www.unexplain...60#entry4847259
http://www.unexplain...35#entry4860511

Actually correct.

Witness testimony is hardly evidence that actual bombs went off.  The sounds of explosions are typical in fires and collapses


http://www1.whdh.com.../#ixzz2Wr7RYbf7

No bombs here, yet witness says he heard an explosion...hmmm interesting witness report.



No bombs there, yet witness/home owner stated it sounded like a bomb.


http://www.northernl...il-sudbury.aspx

No bombs here, just a train derail, yet witness claimed it sounded like a bomb as well.

Funny enough, you want me and others to believe that witnesses providing a simile of their experiences as proof of bombs.

No discernable audio of explosions in any video record that coincide with actual demolition charges going off.  That is the simple fact you fail to address.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#2000    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 29 July 2013 - 08:08 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 29 July 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

RB

Explosions in the basement show that it wasn't jetfuel & gravity.  They show that somebody was planning something, and pulled the pin seconds too soon.

Pulled the pin?  

I see we are into comedy now BR?



No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#2001    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 July 2013 - 09:11 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 29 July 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

RB

Explosions in the basement show that it wasn't jetfuel & gravity.  They show that somebody was planning something, and pulled the pin seconds too soon.

No demolition explosions were seen nor heard.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2002    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 30 July 2013 - 02:58 AM

OMG ! Babe Ruth Give it Up !

This is a Work in Progress!

#2003    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 30 July 2013 - 03:26 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 30 July 2013 - 02:58 AM, said:

OMG ! Babe Ruth Give it Up !

Simply amazing!!

Babe Ruth thinks no one has figured him out, but he thought wrong! Even those within the 911 Truther movement have turned their backs on him. He should also be reminded that three strikes means a trip to the dugout or to the outfield and not overstay his visit at home plate.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2004    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 30 July 2013 - 01:07 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 29 July 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

Actually correct.

Witness testimony is hardly evidence that actual bombs went off.  The sounds of explosions are typical in fires and collapses


http://www1.whdh.com.../#ixzz2Wr7RYbf7

No bombs here, yet witness says he heard an explosion...hmmm interesting witness report.



No bombs there, yet witness/home owner stated it sounded like a bomb.


http://www.northernl...il-sudbury.aspx

No bombs here, just a train derail, yet witness claimed it sounded like a bomb as well.

Funny enough, you want me and others to believe that witnesses providing a simile of their experiences as proof of bombs.

No discernable audio of explosions in any video record that coincide with actual demolition charges going off.  That is the simple fact you fail to address.

Do you consider Occam's Razor to be valid or useful?


#2005    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 30 July 2013 - 01:36 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 29 July 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

Witness testimony is hardly evidence that actual bombs went off.  The sounds of explosions are typical in fires and collapses

...

Funny enough, you want me and others to believe that witnesses providing a simile of their experiences as proof of bombs.

Of course witness testimony can be evidence of actual explosions/bombs/secondary devices.  You would be accurate to say that witness testimony is not implicit proof, and I would agree, though it is still circumstantial evidence that forms part of a larger corroborating case.

I also agree that explosions are typical in fires though I think you do experienced firefighters an injustice in disregarding their reactions.  It was no simile they were using in many cases, but a straightforward description; they said “explosion/bomb” and they thought “explosion/bomb“.  That is noted by such comments (just a small selection): -

“I was fearful that there were bombs in the building. That was my first thought, being the military kind of guy that I am.”
~George DeSimone, FDNY Lieutenant

“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.”
~John Delendick, FDNY, quoting FDNY Chief, Ray Downey (FDNY pre-eminent expert on building collapses)

“The sound it made. As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the building.”
~James Drury, FDNY

“I thought maybe there was bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know, secondary device.  I was convinced for a week it was secondary devices.”
~Timothy Julian, FDNY

“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!”
~Lou Cacchioli, FDNY



These descriptions are given not only during the collapses or in the fire zones but many floors lower and long after the airliner impacts.  Why do you think the FDNY were working to the theory there were “secondary-devices” planted in the buildings on the morning of 9/11?  It is patronising to believe the experienced FDNY simply jumped to the conclusion without just cause.


View PostRaptorBites, on 29 July 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

No discernable audio of explosions in any video record that coincide with actual demolition charges going off.  That is the simple fact you fail to address.

That is an awfully strange thing to say since I just provided you links to video/audio of at least three separate explosions, one immediately preceding the WTC7 collapse.

Perhaps it is that you are expecting a sequence of explosions such as in conventional demolition?  The problem is, no one ever said the WTC demolitions were conventional.

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.

#2006    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 30 July 2013 - 05:48 PM

View PostQ24, on 30 July 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

Of course witness testimony can be evidence of actual explosions/bombs/secondary devices.  You would be accurate to say that witness testimony is not implicit proof, and I would agree, though it is still circumstantial evidence that forms part of a larger corroborating case.

Not in the case of the 911 attacks, and furthermore, there was no corroborating evidence of bomb explosions and it is very simple to understand because in regard to bomb explosions and 911, no bomb explosions were seen, heard, detected nor bomb evidence recovered in the WTC rubble.

Question is;  who made up the false story that explosives were used during the 911 attacks?

Quote

I also agree that explosions are typical in fires though I think you do experienced firefighters an injustice in disregarding their reactions.  It was no simile they were using in many cases, but a straightforward description; they said “explosion/bomb” and they thought “explosion/bomb“.  That is noted by such comments (just a small selection): -

“I was fearful that there were bombs in the building. That was my first thought, being the military kind of guy that I am.”
~George DeSimone, FDNY Lieutenant


“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.”
~John Delendick, FDNY, quoting FDNY Chief, Ray Downey (FDNY pre-eminent expert on building collapses)

“The sound it made. As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the building.”
~James Drury, FDNY

“I thought maybe there was bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know, secondary device.  I was convinced for a week it was secondary devices.”
~Timothy Julian, FDNY

“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!”
~Lou Cacchioli, FDNY


The difference between the 1993 bombing of WTC1, and the 911 attacks,  explosives evidence was found in the 1993 attack, whereas, NO evidence of explosives was seen nor heard nor found during clean-up operations at ground zero , which explains why demolition and structural experts on the scene have said they saw nor heard NO bomb explosions.

Quote

These descriptions are given not only during the collapses or in the fire zones but many floors lower and long after the airliner impacts.  Why do you think the FDNY were working to the theory there were “secondary-devices” planted in the buildings on the morning of 9/11?  It is patronising to believe the experienced FDNY simply jumped to the conclusion without just cause.

Stories of planted explosives were found to be false, which is evident by the fact that the collapse of the WTC towers commenced at the points of impacts and yet, there are no secondary explosions, and since the impacts were severe enough to dislodge fire protection from the structures of the WTC towers, any planted explosive would have been rendered ineffective. In other words, the claim that explosives were used was nothing more than  false and misleading information, and remember, the WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory.

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

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2007    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 30 July 2013 - 06:15 PM

View PostQ24, on 30 July 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

That is an awfully strange thing to say since I just provided you links to video/audio of at least three separate explosions, one immediately preceding the WTC7 collapse.


That is false! Where's your evidence because investigators, demolition and structural experts and clean-up crews found no such evidence.



Quote


WTC7

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Captain Chris Boyle

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post.

Chief Daniel Nigro


Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

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)


https://sites.google...ide/danielnigro



Nothing there about bombs taking out WTC7.

About Mr. Silverstein and his "Pull it" remark

Quote




On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

Nothing there about Mr. Silverstein using the term; "Pull it" in the sense he meant the use of explosives which can be underlined in the following message.

Quote


Implosionworld "Pull It" Comment  

"There is no such phrase in explo-demo. Most likely he meant "pull out" as in have people evacuate. Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally."

Implosionworld

So once again, conspiracy theorist failed to read and understand what was written on the wall.

Edited by skyeagle409, 30 July 2013 - 07:02 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2008    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 30 July 2013 - 06:49 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 30 July 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

Not in the case of the 911 attacks, and furthermore, there was no corroborating evidence of bomb explosions and it is very simple to understand because in regard to bomb explosions and 911, no bomb explosions were seen, heard, detected nor bomb evidence recovered in the WTC rubble.

The definition of evidence didn’t change on 9/11, skynut.  It’s all very well repeatedly stating your denials whilst continually avoiding evidence, discussion and refusing to answer any question, but for that to have the slightest merit you first need to explain how you conclusively rule out explosions in the witness and video record as those of demolition charges.

For example: -



And here: -



And here: -

http://www.unexplain...35#entry4860511

Important question:  How do you rule out these explosions as due to demolition charges?

The last time I asked, you posted a link to a big blue crane that was not present at the WTC on 9/11 and then declined to elaborate, leaving the question outstanding.  What betting I won’t get a logical or relevant answer from you this time either?


View Postskyeagle409, on 30 July 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

Question is;  who made up the false story that explosives were used during the 911 attacks?

It's very strange you ask that question since I just provided quotes and links which showed the claim originated in large part through firefighter witness testimony and the audio record of explosions, of course combined with the subsequent controlled demolition imitating collapse features of the buildings and recovered melted steel which corroborate the case.


View Postskyeagle409, on 30 July 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

That is false! Where's your evidence because investigators, demolition and structural experts and clean-up crews found no such evidence.

Well sorry, shout out your denials for everyone to hear, but I just provided links to video/audio of at least three separate explosions, one immediately preceding the WTC7 collapse.  It appears that whichever investigators you are choosing to promote clearly failed to view and/or consider all of the available evidence when drawing conclusion.

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.

#2009    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 30 July 2013 - 07:05 PM

Oh noes Q.....Prepare for a spam onslaught which doesn't actually address anything you said...lol

Edited by Stundie, 30 July 2013 - 07:06 PM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2010    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 30 July 2013 - 07:20 PM

View PostQ24, on 30 July 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

The definition of evidence didn’t change on 9/11, skynut.  It’s all very well repeatedly stating your denials whilst continually avoiding evidence, discussion and refusing to answer any question, but for that to have the slightest merit you first need to explain how you conclusively rule out explosions in the witness and video record as those of demolition charges.

I asked for evidence of explosions/explosives and you come up a can short of a six pack. Now, where is your evidence in light of the following that you somehow missed before?

Quote

Explosions

"When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go.The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down."

He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.

http://www.debunking.../explosions.htm


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dominick Derubbio

t was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FDNY Batallion Chief Brian Dixon

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://www.911myths....uote_abuse.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------


So once again, just because someone heard the sound of explosions, is not evidence that bombs were involved.
And just because someone heard...
  • Rivets popping.
  • Floors Collapsing.
  • An explosion that blew out the floors which wasn't an explosions.

Nothing there indicating the use of explosives. There is no video of bomb explosions and no audio of bomb explosions and no evidence of bombs within the rubble of the WTC buildings and no seismic data of bomb explosions. Verdict!! No bombs.

Quote

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.

"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." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says


Several minutes before the WTC buildings collapsed, the structures of the buildings were clearly failing and the exterior steel columns could be seen buckling. This simply would not be happening if explosives caused the collapse because explosives don't go off in slow motion for several minutes. Explosives don't slowly buckle steel columns over several minutes.

Obviously, the way an actual controlled explosion happens is the explosives all go off in a matter of seconds. There simply would not be warning signs that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosives, it would of course just suddenly happen. But that is not what happened, the buildings did notsuddenly collapse without any indications that they would. Instead, the fires were compromising the structural integrity of the buildings and the buildings' support structures failed.

Exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)
Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse." - Latest Findings From NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released

"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towersopposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

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

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

There are  120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

https://sites.google...wtc7resembledac


Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:14 AM
Posted Image


Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002
Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/



In light of the fact that experts and clean-up crews at ground zero found no evidence of bombs, and the fact that no one heard nor seen bomb explosions, where is your evidence?

View PostStundie, on 30 July 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

Oh noes Q.....Prepare for a spam onslaught which doesn't actually address anything you said...lol

You meant, prepare for an onslaught of reality. BTW, I am still waiting for your evidence.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX