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This topic has been archived.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

#2101    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 07 August 2013 - 10:11 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

Fire brought down the WTC buildings, which is what firefighters, investigators, demolition and structural experts have stated for the record.
Your appeal to authority is noted but actually bears no relevance to the argument even though there are firefighters, investigators, demolition experts and structural experts have stated for the record that fires alone didn't bring down the towers.

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

TC buildings buckled moments before they collapsed.
In addition to the overwhelming evidence that support the fact that fire alone did not bring down the WTC buildings as ignored in reports which mentioned the WTC 7 fell at free fall speeds before they collapsed.

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

Add to the fact there is no evidence of explosives after 12 years since the 911 attacks.
Add to the fact that there is no evidence or even a theoretical mathematical model that explains how fires did this even after all the pancake, progressive, truss failure collapse palaver, even after 12 years.

Remember the NIST report only explains up to the point of initiation and NOT the actual collapse of the building.

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

Your comment underlines the fact that you enjoy broadcasting your lack of knowledge on the demolition implosion process and the laws of physics and you did so for all to see.
And your comments highlight your lack of knowledge on why the demolition implosion process is used over fires which according to your theory, is capable of demolishing a 110 floor building in a matter of hours and reducing a 47 story building into a nice and neat and tidy pile in less than 8 hours.

Oh and I almost forgot that fire is also capable of partially demolishing an over pass and a toy factory in Thailand too. lol

Edited by Stundie, 07 August 2013 - 10:12 PM.

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

#2102    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,544 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 07 August 2013 - 11:19 PM

View PostStundie, on 07 August 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

Your appeal to authority is noted but actually bears no relevance to the argument even though there are firefighters, investigators, demolition experts and structural experts have stated for the record that fires alone didn't bring down the towers.

Richard Gage's papers have been debunked by peer reviews.

Quote

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.

And Steven Jones was found to be in error as well.



In fact, his own colleagues have said that Steven Jones was incorrect and have since, distanced themselves from him and his false claims.  To further add, Steven Jones and Richard Gage have been caught lying about explosives in regard to the 911 attacks. The overwheliming evidence doesn't support the use of explosives at ground zero and you have failed to provide evidence as well. In fact, the buckling of the WTC buildings was evidence that fire was responsible for their collapse.

We have impact damage and fire evidence but no evidence for explosives, which was evident by the fact that no one saw nor heard explosions nor was explosions detected on monitors in the area, and remember, no evidence of explosives was ever found in the rubble.

Quote

Your appeal to authority is noted but actually bears no relevance to the argument even though there are firefighters, investigators, demolition experts and structural experts have stated for the record that fires alone didn't bring down the towers.

Let's take a look at the numbers.

Quote


Posted Image

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002


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 are 123,000 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/


The question is, who made up the false story that explosives were used in the 911 attacks and did so without a shred of evidence in the first place? Just consider yourself another duped victim.

Quote

Add to the fact that there is no evidence or even a theoretical mathematical model that explains how fires did this even after all the pancake, progressive, truss failure collapse palaver, even after 12 years.

You are wrong again! The buckling of the WTC buildings proved that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. All you are doing at this point is exposing your own lack of knowledge regarding the 911 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409, 07 August 2013 - 11:43 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2103    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,544 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 07 August 2013 - 11:51 PM

View PostStundie, on 07 August 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

Remember the NIST report only explains up to the point of initiation and NOT the actual collapse of the building.

Let's take another look.

Quote


Collapse of the World Trade Center

After the planes struck the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating.

The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel. As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of higher floors. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards.

In the case of 2 WTC, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. In the case of 1 WTC, the south wall later buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.


http://en.wikipedia....ld_Trade_Center


Quote

And your comments highlight your lack of knowledge on why the demolition implosion process is used over fires which according to your theory, is capable of demolishing a 110 floor building in a matter of hours and reducing a 47 story building into a nice and neat and tidy pile in less than 8 hours.

Common sense logic has already been covered, which explained why demolition teams do not use fire for demolition implosion. but it seems the facts and evidence flew over your head. Perhaps, a simple phone call to demolition experts would indicate to you as to why they do no use fire to demolish steel frame buildings and remember, they are the same folks who have said they heard no explosions during the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Quote

I almost forgot that fire is also capable of partially demolishing an over pass and a toy factory in Thailand too.

Thanks for that because your own admission has now debunked your case!

Edited by skyeagle409, 08 August 2013 - 12:28 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2104    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,544 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 08 August 2013 - 12:39 AM

View PostStundie, on 07 August 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

You keep believing that Skyeagle, but the reality is that by people who were actually at GZ reported plenty of explosions seen, heard, detected and even felt by those at GZ.

Let's take a look at the rest of the story in regards to those who reported hearing explosions, which by no means is evidence that they were the result of bombs.

Quote

The Elevator Man's Tale

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

http://www.thrnewmed...ember/jones.htm

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

Excerpts from: "8 Hurt as Trade Center Elevator Rams Ceiling" by Dan Kadison, Adam Miller, Erika Martinez and Cathy Burke,New York Post,August 12, 2000, p.4.

The express elevator to the Sky Lobby at the World Trade Center roared 24 feet past its stop and slammed into a ceiling 960 feet above ground yesterday, injuring eight of 12 people trapped inside.
The trapped passengers - who were stuck in Elevator No. 20 about 15 feet above the 78th floor at Two World Trade Center - had to be escorted to safety in a heart-stopping operation conducted from the roof of a second, adjacent elevator.

"We didn't know if we would get out alive," Queens resident Richard Gallo, an electrical engineer at the building, told his wife, Helen. "Everyone was screaming. There was blood all over the place. We were really scared that the elevator was going to plunge to the ground...." "I've been riding the elevator for years" [added a co-worker]. "Occasionally they slip, it's not something you can focus on." Others [present] described the crash as sounding like a horrendous "boom."  People "thought it was a bomb," said Kim Dunlap, a receptionist on the 100th floor. It rocked the building.

There's never a dull moment at the World Trade Center."

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

As soon as we arrived, 84, a massive explosion goes off, and at this point we didn't know what it was. We thought it was a secondary explosion. We didn't know that it was a second plane. In fact, I didn't know there was a second plane until much later in the evening.

http://www.npr.org/d...rds/delgado.pdf

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

We figured by the time we got to the fifth or sixth floor, that’s when the south tower was hit. I had no idea the south tower was hit, and I don’t think that Chief Jonas – Captain Jonas at the time – or Lieutenant Foti knew at that point either. I remember the whole north tower literally vibrated. The only way I can explain it is if you were at the edge of a subway platform and the train was coming in, you felt that wind and the sound, but with an added effect like the floor vibrated. Everybody just cringed and really was not sure what was going on. I just assumed that it was something above us.
I had no idea that the south tower was hit.

http://www.firehouse.../gz/blaich.html

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

"As we got near the top of the escalator that brings you to ground level from five floors below, we heard what sounded like a bomb going off," Seebode said. "It was the second plane hitting World Trade Center."

http://www.hq.usace....v01/story18.htm

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

The following is an example of how 911 Truthers have been taken for a ride.

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

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.

http://prisonplanet....e_cacchioli.htm

Now, let's read the rest of the story.

Why did Louie Cacchioli become upset?

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.

http://www.arcticbea...9-Jul-2005.html


Now, further accounts of what they thought, were explosions.

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

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.

http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html

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

Susan W. F.

"We were ushered into the Port Authority office on the 78th floor... As I turned to watch some of my fellow co-workers making phone calls, there was a second ka-boom, the building shook again and debris started hitting the windows... I thought some part of the plane or some part of the building that had been hit by the plane had exploded and debris was sliding down from the floors above us. I would later learn it was a second airplane diving into the other tower and it was debris from that explosion hitting the windows."

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

And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower,somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the ai:r being compressed and that is the floor that let go.

http://www.nytimes.c...Turi_Albert.txt

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

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.

http://www.nytimes.c...Dixon_Brian.txt

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

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.

http://www.nytimes.c...ory_Stephen.txt

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

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower. . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down” (NYT, Carlsen, pp. 5-6).

http://911review.com...iffin/nyc1.html

Now, the rest of Mr. Carlen's story.

...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://graphics8.nyt...HIC/9110505.PDF

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

As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.

http://a1022.g.akama...pdf/9110287.pdf

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

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.

http://www.nytimes.c...withers_Jay.txt


And;

Quote


Harsh winter triggers New York City manhole explosions

Record snowfall is turning the city's mean streets even meaner, with 65 manholes exploding or catching fire since New Years, a utility spokesman said on Friday.

http://www.reuters.c...E71374I20110204


Manhole Explosions Set Cars On Fire In SoHo

December 29, 2012 4:22 PM

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork)Several cars were ablaze on Prince Street in SoHo Saturday afternoon, after a series of explosions in manholes below.


Posted Image
A car was left charred after a series of manhole explosions in SoHo.

Predicting the Next Deadly Manhole Explosion

Every so often in New York City, a disk of cast iron weighing up to 300 pounds will burst out of the street and fly as high as several stories before clattering back to the blacktop. Flames, smoke or both may issue from the breach, as if somebody had pulled hell’s own pop-top

Manhole explosions aren’t just spectacular; they’re dangerous. As one firefighter observed after a manhole exploded near Times Square in May: “It’s not Disneyland, people. Get the hell out of the way.”

http://www.wired.com...ole-explosions/

Explosion-Like Sounds inside Windsor Building

A raging fire swept through the upper levels of an empty, 32-story office building in downtown Madrid early Sunday, causing no serious injuries but collapsing the top floors in a shower of flaming debris...The fire started around 11:30 p.m. Saturday and was still burning out of control several hours later. At least nine upper stories were on fire and muffled explosions could be heard in the building.

The cause of the blaze was not immediately known, but emergency services spokesman Javier Ayuso said it might have been a short circuit, informs the Guardian...

http://newsfromrussi...2/13/58231.html


As I have said, such sounds are not evidence of bombs, especially without corroborating evidence for which there are none..

Quote

...and although none was found in the rubble, it was never looked we know they never found all the things they were looking for.

No bomb explosions seen nor heard or detected, simply means no reason to waste time looking for evidence for which there was no evidence to begin with.

Edited by skyeagle409, 08 August 2013 - 12:41 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2105    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,678 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:44 PM

Spameagle strikes again! :w00t:


#2106    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,544 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:50 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 August 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

Spameagle strikes again! :w00t:

Just presenting the facts! After all, it has been 12 years and yet, not one shred of evidence has surfaced implicating the U.S. government in the 911 attacks and 12 years later, still no evidence that explosives were used.

It has been shown and proven, the way a building falls is not evidence explosives were responsible, especially in absence of corroborating evidence, and of course, non-explosive Veringage and cable demolition techniques have been presented which made that point crystal clear.

Explosive-like sounds are not evidence of demolition explosive detonations because it has been shown that such sounds were attributed to things other than explosives.

We can also exclude mini-nukes as well because nukes generate extremely bright flashes upon detonation which can blind people from long distances away and yet no nuclear blast flashes are seen in the WTC videos, some of which are located in close proximity of the WTC buildings as they collapsed.

Nukes generate temperatures in the millions of degrees and yet, people were standing within a few hundred feet of the WTC buildings as they collapsed and suffered no nuclear flash burns nor radiological effects. How much noise do you think a nuke would have generated in New York City if cooler air was instantly heated to a temperature in the range of  millions of degrees? Let's throw in the massive shock wave that would have been generated my a mini-nuke.

Nukes also generate EMP,  which is very significant considering that vehicles are not normally hardened against the effects of EMP yet vehicles were still operating during the collapse of the WTC buildings. Nukes also generate intense radiation effects upon people and yet, there was no evidence of such radiological effects attributed to nukes at ground zero, which can be ascertained by viewing cleanup operations because videos and photos of cleanup crews at ground zero show they are not properly dressed for radioactive hazards as would have been expected if they were truly working within a highly radioactive environment.

It was evident to me that those advocating the hoaxed mini-nuke story had clearly demonstrated their total lack of knowledge on nuclear-related facts, which of course, is why they supported that hoaxed mini-nuke story in the first place.

Conspiracy theorist made a big deal over lack of videos at the Pentagon as American 77 struck the Pentagon, but despite a number of videos depicting B-767s striking WTC1 and WTC2, some CT folks continue to claim that no aircraft struck those buildings.

Question is; are some people deliberately posting false and misleading information and stories in order to discredit the 911 truther movement? As a reminder, let's not forget this video.



Edited by skyeagle409, 08 August 2013 - 07:14 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2107    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 09 August 2013 - 02:19 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 August 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

The evidence you speak of never existed in the first place.

The steel never existed?

The imaginary steel?

Which was loaded into imaginary trucks?


Hmm...you go right on with that one.

It's all yours.


#2108    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,544 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 09 August 2013 - 03:50 AM

View Postturbonium, on 09 August 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

The steel never existed?

The imaginary steel?

That is because the WTC buildings were constructed of wax and painted to look like steel.

Quote

Which was loaded into imaginary trucks?

Which is understandable because I saw a number of trucks on the freeway in California that day, which is evidence they couldn't have been in New York..

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2109    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 10 August 2013 - 07:19 AM

Well, now it all makes perfect sense! :su


#2110    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,544 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 10 August 2013 - 10:17 AM

View Postturbonium, on 10 August 2013 - 07:19 AM, said:

Well, now it all makes perfect sense! :su

Yes it does, especially since fire can generate temperatures high enough to soften wax. Look at these WTC wax structures.


Posted Image

Now, let's take a close-up of structural columns taken from ground zero which are constructed with wax and notice the results when fire softened the columns.


Posted Image

Posted Image

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2111    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,614 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011

Posted 10 August 2013 - 11:00 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 09 August 2013 - 03:50 AM, said:

That is because the WTC buildings were constructed of wax and painted to look like steel.

LOL, I admire your stamina, but I am afraid you will never convince the troother morons with reason.
They are resistant to logic.

I just think they are simply an embarrassment to this board.

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

#2112    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,544 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 10 August 2013 - 06:19 PM

View PostZaphod222, on 10 August 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

LOL, I admire your stamina, but I am afraid you will never convince the troother morons with reason.
They are resistant to logic.

I just think they are simply an embarrassment to this board.

A former and popular commanding officer of my Wing was inside the Pentagon when American 77 and struck and more recently, I met another airman who was inside the Pentagon when American 77 slammed into the building and it is appalling and highly disrespectful to the victims and their families for conspiracy theorist to claim the 911 attack on America was a government conspiracy.

Since I am in retirement, I have a bit of time on my hands and lots of energy to expend.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2113    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 11 August 2013 - 02:35 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

Richard Gage's papers have been debunked by peer reviews.
Seeing as you clearly have no idea of the peer review process, I am not surprised that are throwing around the term as though your point carries some weight when it clearly doesn't. The NIST, FEMA the ASCE reports have not debunked Richard Gage seeing as all these reports came out long before Richard Gage was on the scene and ,more importantly, none of those reports have been peer reviewed.

And as for Popular Mechanics.......hahahahahahahahahaha!!...

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

And Steven Jones was found to be in error as well.
Well I'm sure he will have to work harder to match the amount of errors you have made....lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

In fact, his own colleagues have said that Steven Jones was incorrect and have since, distanced themselves from him and his false claims.
His colleagues?? lol And I thought he was retired.

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

To further add, Steven Jones and Richard Gage have been caught lying about explosives in regard to the 911 attacks.
The difference is that you THINK they are lying.

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

The overwheliming evidence doesn't support the use of explosives at ground zero and you have failed to provide evidence as well.
Sorry but the overwhelming evidence supports the possibility.  Denial and ignorance doesn't change that fact.

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

In fact, the buckling of the WTC buildings was evidence that fire was responsible for their collapse.
No it is not......lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

We have impact damage and fire evidence but no evidence for explosives, which was evident by the fact that no one saw nor heard explosions nor was explosions detected on monitors in the area, and remember, no evidence of explosives was ever found in the rubble.
Utter nonsense Dorothy.

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

Let's take a look at the numbers.
You keep posting your figures which do not represent the views of every single ASCE member to support your argument because frankly, logical fallacies is all you have. lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

The question is, who made up the false story that explosives were used in the 911 attacks and did so without a shred of evidence in the first place?
I don't know, maybe it was Osama Bin Laden......lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

Just consider yourself another duped victim.
For me to be a victim, I would need to feel cheated or deceived or in some way victimised.

And I hate to disappoint you, but I certainly do not feel this way...lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

You are wrong again! The buckling of the WTC buildings proved that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. All you are doing at this point is exposing your own lack of knowledge regarding the 911 attacks.
No, I'm not wrong at all.

When you have a mathematical model which explains how the top portion of the building reduced the lower portion to rubble without ignore the laws of physics, then you come back and explain it to us all. Of course, that will never happen because you know deep down that it's not physically possible without the aid of devices to weaken the rest of the building.

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

#2114    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 11 August 2013 - 03:17 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

Let's take another look.
You can look at it as many times as you like, the collapse of the WTC is not explained.

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

Common sense logic has already been covered, which explained why demolition teams do not use fire for demolition implosion.
Common sense says that if you believe that fire is capable of demolishing 3 buildings in a matter of hours, then demolition teams would use it to save money and time if they are demolishing a building with no other buildings around.

They don't use it for the simple reason fire is crap at demolishing buildings.

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

but it seems the facts and evidence flew over your head.
Fact and evidence?? lol

Statistically speaking, the number of buildings which didn't collapse from fires versus the that have collapsed from fires excluding the WTC is overwhelming in favour of one side.

Buildings collapsed from fire :  1 high rise partially collapsed, 1 third world toy factory and an over pass. = 2 but I'll give you the over pass seeing as you are struggling, so lets call it 3!
Building that didn't collapse from fires: 5 high rise steel some of them burned for much longer. So that's 5!

5 v 3...Yep, the facts and evidence flew over my head. lol

Now lets complete the loop, this is the part where you reply that those 5 buildings didn't have planes hit it, then I respond that WTC 7 & 5 didn't have planes hit it them either. And that both WTC 7 & 5 both received damage yet even though 5 had more damage and fires than 7 in relation to the size and location to WTC 1 & 2, yet it still stood.

Then you ignore the point only for to start the jerk circle once again...:rolleyes:
I should also add that long before 9/11, the empire state building had a plane hit it and it never collapsed. Yes, we know the boeings are different B25's and the empire state building is a different design, the point is plane hit buildings and building collapses is not factually accurate when it took out not 2 but 3 buildings.

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

Perhaps, a simple phone call to demolition experts would indicate to you as to why they do no use fire to demolish steel frame buildings and remember, they are the same folks who have said they heard no explosions during the collapse of the WTC buildings.
I don't need to phone them, I understand your point. Fires are crap at demolishing buildings except on 9/11 when it brought down 267 floors of the 3 structures.

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 August 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

Thanks for that because your own admission has now debunked your case!
Sorry but a toy factory and an over pass doesn't prove your case against 5 other building fires and the other one on 9/11 you keep forgetting about.

WTC5!

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

#2115    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 11 August 2013 - 03:40 PM

View PostZaphod222, on 10 August 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

LOL, I admire your stamina, but I am afraid you will never convince the troother morons with reason.They are resistant to logic.
I take it by this you mean that Sky will never convince this toofin troother (i.e. Me! Stundie!) with reason cause I am resistant to logic?? :no:

What logic would that be? lol People have tried to explain your champion Skyeagles logic but all I see is a spambot.

View PostZaphod222, on 10 August 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

I just think they are simply an embarrassment to this board.
I'm sure I can live with your embarrassment of me as you can live with the obnoxious tone of your entire short lived pointless post. :yes:

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