Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

This is what explosive hardware looks like. None was found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

building-implosion-19.jpg

Blasting caps are used as a catalyst to set off the explosives loaded in support columns.

Photo courtesy ImplosionWorld.com

He has never heard of wireless technology....lol

TeleblasterII-020.jpg

HiEx Technologies Ltd. is a qualified firm with years of experience in the blasting and explosives industry. We provide quality products for blasting applications in mining, construction and logging. Our TeleBlaster telemetry blast initiation system was designed for blasters by blasters ; a wireless blast initiation system used to safely initiate commercial explosives blasts. We've worked hard to introduce and develop telemetric blast initiation in B.C. since 1999, proving radio remote initiation can be safe and extremely efficient.

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, you do not have physical evidence of bombs at ground zero to present, in which case, you have no case.

I never said I had physical evidence....there is evidence, the physical part was added by you as a goalpost move because eyewitnesses are evidence.

Although they are not evidence when they prove you wrong, but evidence when they prove you right....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has never heard of wireless technology....lol

TeleblasterII-020.jpg

HiEx Technologies Ltd. is a qualified firm with years of experience in the blasting and explosives industry. We provide quality products for blasting applications in mining, construction and logging. Our TeleBlaster telemetry blast initiation system was designed for blasters by blasters ; a wireless blast initiation system used to safely initiate commercial explosives blasts. We've worked hard to introduce and develop telemetric blast initiation in B.C. since 1999, proving radio remote initiation can be safe and extremely efficient.

Even those leave behind physical evidence at the scene, so once again, where is your physical evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said I had physical evidence...

Of course you didn't because there was no physical evidence of bombs for you to present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you didn't because there was no physical evidence of bombs for you to present.

So if I have said never said there was physical evidence and you know there is none, then why ask for it?? lol

Just goes to show us how your mental gymastics works to protect your illusion that the OCT is somehow true...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even those leave behind physical evidence at the scene, so once again, where is your physical evidence?

Why kind of physical evidence?? lol

Again why would there be physical evidence when none was ever looked for or tested for?

And if they can't find things like bodies of those who perished in the WTC years after the fact, which they were specifically looking for, thenwhy are they going to find something they are not looking for?? lol :blink:

Notice the contradiction of your position?? Of course not, you are oblivious to your hypocrisy....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I have said never said there was physical evidence and you know there is none, then why ask for it??

To challenge and refute your claim that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings. Without physical evidence of bombs, you have no case.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To challenge and refute your claim that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings.
But it doesn't challenge or refute the possibility...lol
Without physical evidence of bombs, you have no case.
I do have a case because they were never looked for or tested for.

Therefore it is possible that bomb/explosive were used to bring down the WTC.

Of course, the problem is that you are too stupid to realise that this does not mean that it was definitely brought down, but what it certainly does not mean, is that it definitely wasn't brought down either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it doesn't challenge or refute the possibility...

Actually, even Columbia University refutes your claim.

...Columbia authors confirmed in a later email, their seismic data “are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact times …” (Commission, p.462) But the key mistake however, is the idea that any building is demolished by a progressive wave of explosions either working its way up or down a building.

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

I do have a case because they were never looked for or tested for.

Investigators would not have had to look for explosive evidence because they would have had difficulty avoiding explosive evidence within the rubble of the WTC buildings, whether wireless, nor not.

Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

http://www.webcitation.org/5pvOUTcar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore it is possible that bomb/explosive were used to bring down the WTC.

Not possible at all. I didn't see any bomb explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed and I didn't hear bomb explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

No sound of bomb explosions as WTC7 collapsed.

[media=]

No sound of bomb explosions as WTC2 collapsed in that video, and clearly, no bomb explosions seen in the video either. So once again, if you cannot provide physical evidence of bombs, then simply, you have no case.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I have said never said there was physical evidence and you know there is none, then why ask for it??

Because I want to prove that since there is no evidence of bomb explosions, either on video, audio nor even recorded by seismic monitors of Columbia University and those used by the Protec Co. Add to the fact that no evidence of blasting caps, detonation cords or any hardware attributed to bombs, was ever found within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

You made the claim of bombs, but can offer no evidence to backup your claim. If you going to make a claim, we expect physical evidence. You've posted comments of those who have said they heard explosions and I have provided comments of those at ground zero who have said they heard explosions, but the sound of explosions they heard were not attributed to bombs.

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

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.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice the contradiction of your position?? Of course not, you are oblivious to your hypocrisy....lol

Let's take another look.

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

4 Sudden Onset of Collapse ‘Consistent with Demolition’

This is one of the central myths of the CD theory.

NIST show clear photographic evidence of the bowing of the exterior walls and collapse of interior floors in both Towers, with timings showing an acceleration of this bowing prior to the initiation of collapse. There was no sudden onset of collapse consistent with demolition.

On the contrary the CD theory is unable to explain the bowing and other structural deformations prior to collapse. Eyewitness accounts from firemen also confirm a huge bulge in the south elevation of WTC 7 prior to collapse, the phenomenon more than any other that persuaded fire chiefs to withdraw their forces from danger.

http://www.jnani.org...m#_Toc144446008

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

That is another answer as to why you are unable to provide physical evidence of bombs at ground zero.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Military grade thermite was used to bring down the buildings. For years NIST said they had no idea why building 7 came down. Only after years of facing hard questions did they come up with the BS fire theory. Of which there isnt even close to another example in the history of steel frame structures. Just watching how the building fell, you have to remove any and all simple common sence to believe fire brought it down. Thats why they removed the wreakage at record pace, with no on site investigation. So basicaly after admitting they had no idea why the building fell, they cleaned up the mess quick as possible, so no real investigation could take place.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take another look.

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

4 Sudden Onset of Collapse ‘Consistent with Demolition’

This is one of the central myths of the CD theory.

NIST show clear photographic evidence of the bowing of the exterior walls and collapse of interior floors in both Towers, with timings showing an acceleration of this bowing prior to the initiation of collapse. There was no sudden onset of collapse consistent with demolition.

On the contrary the CD theory is unable to explain the bowing and other structural deformations prior to collapse. Eyewitness accounts from firemen also confirm a huge bulge in the south elevation of WTC 7 prior to collapse, the phenomenon more than any other that persuaded fire chiefs to withdraw their forces from danger.

http://www.jnani.org...m#_Toc144446008

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

That is another answer as to why you are unable to provide physical evidence of bombs at ground zero.

And yet NIST openly admitted they had no idea why the building came down. If it was so obvious from the start, why say they didnt know why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Military grade thermite was used to bring down the buildings.

Military-grade thermite was not capable of bringing down WTC buildings. RDX, which is much more effective than thermite, is used in demolition implosions, not thermite. You use thermite to disable large weapon systems.

For years NIST said they had no idea why building 7 came down. Only after years of facing hard questions did they come up with the BS fire theory. Of which there isnt even close to another example in the history of steel frame structures.

On the contrary, when that huge bulge appeared on WTC7, that was a clear indication that fire was having an effect on its structure.

Just watching how the building fell, you have to remove any and all simple common sence to believe fire brought it down.

With a massive 20 story hole on the south side of WTC7 and raging fires within the building, it was clear as to why WTC7 collapsed.

Thats why they removed the wreakage at record pace, with no on site investigation.

They already knew why WTC7 collapsed. Check it out.

WTC7_Damage_NnBanner.gif

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet NIST openly admitted they had no idea why the building came down. If it was so obvious from the start, why say they didnt know why?

Take another look.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

http://www.nist.gov/...c_qa_082108.cfm

When steel is heated, it expands and if that expansion is impeded, steel will buckle, and that is what happened just before the WTC buildings collapsed and a clear indication that fire was having an effect upon the steel structures of the WTC buildings.

Thermal expansion is nothing knew and if you read the technical manuals of large aircraft, you will find that certain large fuselage panels are not to be removed if the temperature is above a certain level. Even the SR-71 expands several inches during its high speed flight but it was build to expand under such conditions.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NIST report is a perfect illustration of false science and government propaganda. It makes so many incorrect assumptions, and fails to answer so many elementary questions, that its political nature and agenda cannot be denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NIST report is a perfect illustration of false science and government propaganda. It makes so many incorrect assumptions, and fails to answer so many elementary questions, that its political nature and agenda cannot be denied.

The official story still stands. It is no secret that fire, not explosives, took out the WTC buildings. That was evident when witnesses saw the buckling of the WTC buildings, a clear indication that fire was slowly weakening their steel structures.

NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says (Update2)

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- 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.

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

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

Let's not forget these groups.

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.

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

img_bannerlogo.jpg

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 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/

Civil and Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

http://911-engineers...-blanchard.html

'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

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

What Seismic Data Revealed about the Collapse of the WTC Buildings

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the SouthTower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

http://www.southernc...org/41/9-11.htm

BYU Discredits Prof Jones For 911 WTC Paper!

BYU Brass Discredit Physics Professor For Saying WTC Brought Down by Controlled Demolition

http://rense.com/general69/discred.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been terribly busy lately and I realise the discussion has moved on over the past few weeks but I feel a response is worthwhile to another of skyeagle’s misconceptions in response to my post #1341 concerning the possibility of a Flight 77 aircraft switch: -

The conversion formulas provided for the FDR of American 77 pertained only to the airframe of American 77 and no other aircraft.

...

BTW, what companies supplied conversion formulas of the FDR that pertained ONLY to the airframe of American77?

The above claim, that a conversion formula exists exclusive to the FDR of Flight 77, is incorrect. So long as the family (make and model) of the recorder is known to the NTSB, that is sufficient information to decode the data. It is not vital that a serial number identifying the specific FDR is known.

This is why the NTSB report on the alleged Flight 77 FDR notes the make and model but not the specific identifying serial number (which was unavailable, otherwise it would have been noted in the report).

In conclusion, lacking the serial number, there is no proof the FDR belonged to Flight 77, only to a matching family of recorders (of which there may be hundreds).

Supporting information can be found at the following link: -

NTSB Describes Importance Of Unpublished 9/11 FDR Part Numbers And Serial Numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been terribly busy lately and I realise the discussion has moved on over the past few weeks but I feel a response is worthwhile to another of skyeagle’s misconceptions in response to my post #1341 concerning the possibility of a Flight 77 aircraft switch: -

A switch would have been impossible.

The above claim, that a conversion formula exists exclusive to the FDR of Flight 77, is incorrect.

That is correct. Now, what companies supplied the required formulas that pertained ONLY to the airframe of American 77?

So long as the family (make and model) of the recorder is known to the NTSB, that is sufficient information to decode the data. It is not vital that a serial number identifying the specific FDR is known.

If the tag was the only way to identify an aircraft, what would have happened if the tag was scraped or burned off during an accident? Whiat ompanies would have known which FDR was assigned to a particular aircraft?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the "troothers" has yet explained why in the world the US government (or another mysterious organization) would go through the incredible effort, after thousands of jihadist terrorist attacks, to organize yet another jihadist terrorist attack, completely independent of the jihadis, and then blame the jihadis for it -- who of course happily accept the honor. Wtf??

That concept seems to be the peak of absurdity. If any of the local troothers can give a coherent answer, instead being obsessed with this or that tiny detail (along the lines of "Look! The moon looks like cheese! It must be a cheese!"), I would be curious to hear it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the "troothers" has yet explained why in the world the US government (or another mysterious organization) would go through the incredible effort, after thousands of jihadist terrorist attacks, to organize yet another jihadist terrorist attack, completely independent of the jihadis, and then blame the jihadis for it -- who of course happily accept the honor. Wtf??

911 Truthers are not in the habit of doing their homework properly. For an example, the claim that the airliners were modified and switched. I would like to ask them are they really serious into thinking that the airlines would ground their aircraft for many months just so they can be illegally modified to fly as drones? Another thing, the B-757 and the B-767 are not fly-by-wire aircraft, so how can they be modified and not attract the attention of the aircrew during their systems checks? In fact, how can you modify an airliner and not attract the attention of the mechanics and inspectors? But most of all, how are you going to switch an airliner anyway and not account for the passengers and crew of the original airliner? 911 Truthers do not think of little things like that.

It would take me less than 30 minutes to reveal a switched aircraft because each aircraft is unique. In other words, no two aircraft are alike, even of the same model. One B-757 of a particular airline will have its own particular fingerprint, or should I say, its own unique DNA signature that will reveal its true identity.

Another question; how can they expect to switch an airliner in controlled airspace without setting off the alarm bells in the air traffic control room? A switch cannot be made at the airport either because if a bogus United 175 was to land or takeoff from the same airport where the true United 175 is located, that will have the FAA, FBI, police, and United officials scrambling after that bogus United 175. After all, who is going to pay for its landing, ramp or gate fees? Surely, no one is going to expect United Airlines to pay its fees when it is presented with the bill, which will draw serious attention from the airline if that were to happen. But most of all, how would anyone fly a bogus United 175 into Boston airport anyway? The alarm bells will be set off as soon as a flight plan is filed.

I can think of many problems that can easily reveal a switched aircraft, but I am very sure that there are those in government who would know what they are and would not risk imprisonment or the death penalty over such a simple matter that can land them behind bars. Personally, I think that 911 Truthers watch too many Hollywood movies and think that what they see in the movie applies to the real world of aviation. They cannot be further from the truth.

I have watched aviation movies and detected a number of flaws, but I have to remind myself that it is just a movie.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

911 Truthers are not in the habit of doing their homework properly. For an example, the claim that the airliners were modified and switched. I would like to ask them are they really serious into thinking that the airliners would ground their aircraft for many months just so they can be illegally modified to fly as drones?

Of course you can pick apart the details of the 9/11 troother arguments to expose how nonsensical they are.

But I don´t want to waste time with that. I would like a troother to answer the simple question: WHY?

Why would someone go through the trouble to arrange a grand conspiracy to simply add yet another jihadist terrorist attack to the long line of jihadist terrorist attacks that preceded this one? What is the friggin point? It is like carrying coals to Newcastle.

I would be curious if a troother has an answer.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you can pick apart the details of the 9/11 troother arguments to expose how nonsensical they are.

But I don´t want to waste time with that. I would like a troother to answer the simple question: WHY?

Why would someone go through the trouble to arrange a grand conspiracy to simply add yet another jihadist terrorist attack to the long line of jihadist terrorist attacks that preceded this one? What is the friggin point? It is like carrying coals to Newcastle.

I would be curious if a troother has an answer.

I have noticed that many 911 Truthers are anti-government.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supporting information can be found at the following link: -

NTSB Describes Importance Of Unpublished 9/11 FDR Part Numbers And Serial Numbers

Question! If an aircraft is involved in a crash that wipes out FDR serial numbers and part numbers out of existence, who retains FDR records of a particular FDR, which is assigned to a particular airframe? In other words, if the serial numbers and part numbers are unreadable due to the nature of the crash, how is a determination made to identify a particular FDR assigned to a particular airframe?

What two companies supplied the conversion formulas for the FDR that pertained ONLY to the airframe of American 77 and no other aircraft?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.