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This topic has been archived.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

#271    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,121 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 30 January 2013 - 10:59 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 30 January 2013 - 08:06 PM, said:

I'll bet some get paid by the year. :tu:

Perhaps, there are 911 conspiracist who are paid to concoct baseless 911 conspiracies. After all, their claims have been debunked and all it took to debunk their claims was to add ingredients such as facts, evidence and good old-fashioned common sense.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#272    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,259 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:32 PM

View PostQ24, on 30 January 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

You rather miss the point.  It doesn’t even matter if this did turn out to be non-thermite ‘paint flecks’.  The fact is that the material produces a high temperature reaction resulting in molten iron.  Whether of an innocent or reprehensible nature, the presence of such material in the towers could conceivably go some way to explain initiation of the collapses and should have been fully considered by the official investigation.

No, I actually get that, and basically agree with what you're saying.

My point is that the "evidence of thermite" that people toss around is based on an "independent analysis" that did not actually test to see if the syubstance was actually thermite. Rather, they did some tests, got a "thermite-like reaction" and CT's around the world assumed this meant that it was thermite. Its been a while since I read the report so admittedly, I could be wrong, but to the best of my recollection the analysis didn't come the specific conclusion that the material actually WAS thermite, nor did they do comparison tests to see if what other materials could have similar reactions.

Then, to top it all off, they "vetted" their analysis with "peer review" from a pay-to-publish "journal" that has a known history of having a suspect and biased review process.

Even given all that, most CT's seem to be desperate enough to have their unfounded beliefs and opinions validated that they'll ignore all the shortcomings of this "independent analysis" and claim it as factual...

Yet if an "independent analysis" that supported the "official narrative" was released with the same or similar shortcomings, CT's would be all over it showing how its just more government propaganda and lies being spoon fed to the "sheeple"... the hypocrisy is thick enough to require a chainsaw to cut through...





Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#273    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:56 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 30 January 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

I could be wrong, but to the best of my recollection the analysis didn't come the specific conclusion that the material actually WAS thermite
the term used in the conclusion was "thermitic" as in thermite-ic. no it wasn't standard thermite.

Quote

nor did they do comparison tests to see if what other materials could have similar reactions.
what "other materials" could have similar reactions?
you are putting your conclusion before your horse.

Edited by Little Fish, 30 January 2013 - 11:57 PM.


#274    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 31 January 2013 - 12:21 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 30 January 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

No, I actually get that, and basically agree with what you're saying.

I should quit right here, but...


View PostCzero 101, on 30 January 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

My point is that the "evidence of thermite" that people toss around is based on an "independent analysis" that did not actually test to see if the syubstance was actually thermite. Rather, they did some tests, got a "thermite-like reaction" and CT's around the world assumed this meant that it was thermite. Its been a while since I read the report so admittedly, I could be wrong, but to the best of my recollection the analysis didn't come the specific conclusion that the material actually WAS thermite, nor did they do comparison tests to see if what other materials could have similar reactions.

The material contains the ingredients of thermite and the reaction occurs in the same way.  Was it you who some time ago suggested an experiment should be carried out underwater to test the material is thermite?  Yet the positive result is a foregone conclusion since the material carries its own oxygen supply.  It is quite correct to describe the material as thermitic – it is iron oxide with elemental aluminium, and other elements, all in a very particular order.  The only question is whether the material is manufactured thermite or a natural/accidental creation.


View PostCzero 101, on 30 January 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

Then, to top it all off, they "vetted" their analysis with "peer review" from a pay-to-publish "journal" that has a known history of having a suspect and biased review process.

We could raise such complaints of most journals to some degree – I think very little is unbiased where people are involved in a controversial topic with huge political bearings.


View PostCzero 101, on 30 January 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

Even given all that, most CT's seem to be desperate enough to have their unfounded beliefs and opinions validated that they'll ignore all the shortcomings of this "independent analysis" and claim it as factual...

Yet if an "independent analysis" that supported the "official narrative" was released with the same or similar shortcomings, CT's would be all over it showing how its just more government propaganda and lies being spoon fed to the "sheeple"... the hypocrisy is thick enough to require a chainsaw to cut through...

It works both ways –there generally isn’t much between OCTs and CTs when it comes to bias.  I don’t think your observation there is particularly objective, i.e. highlighting one group over the other.  If it helps, I don’t believe enough analysis has been carried out to determine source of, or culpability for, the material.  Even if it were paint, is the use of such dangerous paint acceptable?  Did it contribute to the collapses?  Why the lack of thorough investigation?

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#275    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,121 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 31 January 2013 - 01:55 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 30 January 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

the term used in the conclusion was "thermitic" as in thermite-ic. no it wasn't standard thermite.


what "other materials" could have similar reactions?
you are putting your conclusion before your horse.

Check out the videos.

!



Edited by skyeagle409, 31 January 2013 - 02:01 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#276    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,121 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 31 January 2013 - 02:21 AM

Quote

   How Building Implosions Work

The Bigger They Come, the Harder They Fall

The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.

Demolition blasters load explosives on several different levels of the building so that the building structure falls down on itself at multiple points. When everything is planned and executed correctly, the total damage of the explosives and falling building material is sufficient to collapse the structure entirely, so cleanup crews are left with only a pile of rubble.

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

http://science.howst...g-implosion.htm

I might add that thermite is not an explosive and bomb explosions did not occur during the collapse of the WTC buildings.



Edited by skyeagle409, 31 January 2013 - 02:45 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#277    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 25,922 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005

Posted 31 January 2013 - 03:29 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 30 January 2013 - 06:02 PM, said:

....and don't forget - they get paid per post.
Who gets paid per post?  People on this website?  Geez, I wish I knew that.  I'll have to go to the Administrator and tell them I need a pay rise :devil:

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#278    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,511 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 31 January 2013 - 02:22 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 30 January 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

No, I actually get that, and basically agree with what you're saying.

My point is that the "evidence of thermite" that people toss around is based on an "independent analysis" that did not actually test to see if the syubstance was actually thermite. Rather, they did some tests, got a "thermite-like reaction" and CT's around the world assumed this meant that it was thermite. Its been a while since I read the report so admittedly, I could be wrong, but to the best of my recollection the analysis didn't come the specific conclusion that the material actually WAS thermite, nor did they do comparison tests to see if what other materials could have similar reactions.

Then, to top it all off, they "vetted" their analysis with "peer review" from a pay-to-publish "journal" that has a known history of having a suspect and biased review process.

Even given all that, most CT's seem to be desperate enough to have their unfounded beliefs and opinions validated that they'll ignore all the shortcomings of this "independent analysis" and claim it as factual...

Yet if an "independent analysis" that supported the "official narrative" was released with the same or similar shortcomings, CT's would be all over it showing how its just more government propaganda and lies being spoon fed to the "sheeple"... the hypocrisy is thick enough to require a chainsaw to cut through...





Cz

What I find interesting and suspicious is that nowhere in any government report was the question of thermite or quasi-thermite even brought up.  Never mentioned.

It was private citizens who discovered and analyzed the material.

Why did the government entities NOT examine for that?  It suggests coverup, and all things considered, a coverup most certainly took place.

If the government reports and investigations were seeking the objective truth, then they would have conducted a thorough investigation, including NOT getting rid of so much forensic evidence so quickly.


#279    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:28 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 31 January 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

If the government reports and investigations were seeking the objective truth, then they would have conducted a thorough investigation, including NOT getting rid of so much forensic evidence so quickly.

That is correct.

Whilst there was analysis and collection of steelwork from a pitifully small number of volunteer engineers after the clean-up operation had already began, the end result is the fear of Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering magazine come true: -


For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and

continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many

questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire

conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until

you buy your next car.


Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to

the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in

world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA

921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence

for buildings over 10 stories tall.


...


No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed

by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that

may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to

put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.


...


As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World

Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated

hypotheticals.


http://www.911hardfa...NeedAnswers.pdf



And even whilst the volunteer engineer analysis and collection went on, there were notably cases, later described by FEMA, where steelwork marked for saving had been, “accidentally processed in salvage yard operations before they were removed from the yards for further study.”  This so happened to include, “10 full-size pieces of exterior and interior columns” which could have been vital to the study and understanding of the collapses.  What an unfortunate ‘accident’.  Though the lack of investigation was clearly no accident, but a premeditated decision.

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.

#280    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,121 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 31 January 2013 - 07:21 PM

View PostQ24, on 31 January 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

That is correct.

Whilst there was analysis and collection of steelwork from a pitifully small number of volunteer engineers after the clean-up operation had already began, the end result is the fear of Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering magazine come true: -


For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and

continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many

questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire

conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until

you buy your next car.


Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to

the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in

world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA

921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence

for buildings over 10 stories tall.


...


No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed

by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that

may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to

put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.


...


As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World

Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated

hypotheticals.

http://www.911hardfa...NeedAnswers.pdf



And even whilst the volunteer engineer analysis and collection went on, there were notably cases, later described by FEMA, where steelwork marked for saving had been, “accidentally processed in salvage yard operations before they were removed from the yards for further study.”  This so happened to include, “10 full-size pieces of exterior and interior columns” which could have been vital to the study and understanding of the collapses.  What an unfortunate ‘accident’.  Though the lack of investigation was clearly no accident, but a premeditated decision.

Consider that:

1. No thermite evidence found in the rubble of the WTC buildings

2. There was no evidence of thermite cuts on the structural columns of the WTC buildings, either in the rubble nor at the Fresh Kills landfill. I am very sure that steel shipped off to China did not exhibit evidence of thermite cutes.

3. Thermite alone could not have demolished the WTC buildings

4. Thermite is not widely used by the demolition industry

5. Thermite is not as effective as RDX, which is used by the demolition industry

In other words, thermite was not responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. As for the steel from the WTC buildings, you might want to read the sign of an attachment of a photo I took in Rio Vista where I examined a piece of steel from one of the WTC buildings. It says among other things:

*   350,000 tons of WTC steel has been requested

*   USS New York used 7 tons in its construction

*   Coatesville, PA received 500 tons of steel


If you are going to concoct a conspiracy theory, at least open the book and read the rest of the story before you post.

Attached Files

  • Attached File  004.jpg   82.23K   6 downloads

Edited by skyeagle409, 31 January 2013 - 08:18 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#281    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,511 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:38 PM

You're right about that Q.  And Bill Manning was courageous to editorialize about it when he did.

The coverup is worse than the crime, and more obvious too.


#282    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,121 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:59 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 31 January 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

You're right about that Q.  And Bill Manning was courageous to editorialize about it when he did.

The coverup is worse than the crime, and more obvious too.

Actually, you made that up because there is no evidence of a 911 government conspiracy.

Edited by skyeagle409, 31 January 2013 - 09:11 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#283    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,121 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:10 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 31 January 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

What I find interesting and suspicious is that nowhere in any government report was the question of thermite or quasi-thermite even brought up.  Never mentioned.

That is because there was no thermite in the first place.

Quote

It was private citizens who discovered and analyzed the material.

Wrong! Richard Gage was caught lying in an interview about thermite and Steven Jones has since been discredited by demolition experts, architects, civil engineers and even by the folks at BYU, which explains why there was no evidence of thermite found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#284    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,259 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:55 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 31 January 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

What I find interesting and suspicious is that nowhere in any government report was the question of thermite or quasi-thermite even brought up.  Never mentioned.

Since we know that in your opinion, the Government always lies, and the Official Investigation is a coverup, so any mention of Thermite would be discounted by you... unless of course it agreed with your predetermined conclusions and bias, that is...

So this complaint of yours is just another in a long continuing line of red herrings, and since you have proven yourself to be a liar, and since, according to you, "Once a liar, always a liar" this, as with pretty much everything you post, can be summarily disregarded.






Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#285    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,511 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 01 February 2013 - 02:07 PM

It's not a red herring Cz, and we both know it.  If it were, you would not be obliged to address it.

And you are unable to provide a plausible or persuasive answer to the criticism.  WHY was the evidence whisked away to smelters around the world?  Why not to domestic smelters?  Why did the official explanation and investigation NOT analyze the dust?  Why did it take concerned citizens to realize the dust might have provided important clues as to what happened?

The simple answer is that the actual perpetrators had their story before anything happened, and they had to make that story stick.