WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

[RaptorBites]

If they were still visible on radar they would have been caught

I am sure you are able to prove that....right?

[skyeagle409]

If they were still visible on radar they would have been caught

They were in fact, still tracked on radar. After all, ground controllers, who were tracking American 77, notified the C-130 crew.

[Babe Ruth]

If they were still visible on radar they would have been caught

Any radar data from 911 is highly suspect, mainly because of the use of "injects" as part of the training exercise being conducted, Vigilant Guardian.

As far as I'm concerned, the radar data is just about next to useless.

[skyeagle409]

Any radar data from 911 is highly suspect, mainly because of the use of "injects" as part of the training exercise being conducted, Vigilant Guardian.

As far as I'm concerned, the radar data is just about next to useless.

You don't seem to understand that airliners and other aircraft were flying everywhere above the East Coast, which were tracked on radar on that day. In addition, such exercises were carried out on other occasions as well, which was nothing new and nothing to do with a conspiracy.

[Babe Ruth]

The purpose of VG was twofold, IMO.

1) Establish the "training mindset" that morning in the pawns in the game--the radar controllers. That mindset is a sort of complacency, knowing that it's just a game. Several interactions between FAA and NEADS show that to be the case.

2) Allow for the use of injects into the system. IMO, that is was renders most of the radar data virtually meaningless.

Some of that data showed the "airliners" inbound to WTC to be flying at impossible airspeeds, for example.

[skyeagle409]

The purpose of VG was twofold, IMO.

1) Establish the "training mindset" that morning in the pawns in the game--the radar controllers. That mindset is a sort of complacency, knowing that it's just a game. Several interactions between FAA and NEADS show that to be the case.

2) Allow for the use of injects into the system. IMO, that is was renders most of the radar data virtually meaningless.

You can't apply that in to the whole Eastern Seaboard and it doesn't make any sense when there are thousands of aircraft, including scheduled airliners, flying in control airspace across the East Coast using ATC radar services. You also have forgotten there were other types of radars involved as well, not to mention communication tapes for each aircraft highlighting their positions, which coincided with radar data.

Some of that data showed the "airliners" inbound to WTC to be flying at impossible airspeeds, for example.

Impossible speeds?! I mentioned just yesterday at McClellan Airfield when a DC-8 broke the sound barrier and there have been other cases of large subsonic aircraft breaking the sound barrier.

Edited June 1, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

You can't apply that in to the whole Eastern Seaboard and it doesn't make any sense when there are thousands of aircraft, including scheduled airliners, flying in control airspace across the East Coast using ATC radar services. You also have forgotten there were other types of radars involved as well, not to mention communication tapes for each aircraft highlighting their positions, which coincided with radar data.

Impossible speeds?! I mentioned just yesterday at McClellan Airfield when a DC-8 broke the sound barrier and there have been other cases of large subsonic aircraft breaking the sound barrier.

When the DC-8 broke the sound barrier, I guarantee you that there was not a 350 hour rookie at the controls.

[skyeagle409]

When the DC-8 broke the sound barrier, I guarantee you that there was not a 350 hour rookie at the controls.

How difficult is it to simply push on the yoke and advanced the throttles? It's so easy that even a caveman can do it.

[turbonium]

Why would there not be otherwise? In other words, ground zero is where the steel came to rest after the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Yes, all the steel was there. I just wanted you to confirm that before moving on..

Of course they did not find evidence of explosives, and one reason is, no explosions were evident on video nor on audio and once again, not detected on seismic monitors. Not knowing the rest of the story is why conspiracies create unfounded conspiracy theories.

I wasn't talking about finding explosives here.

Start over -

All the steel is at Ground Zero, right? Okay, next point..

The investigation report listed the specific steel most critical for scientific analysis. Next point..

They sought out the most critical steel, and identified the pieces of steel....but none of it was from the most important areas (ie: impact/fire zones). So...

Why didn't they find any of the most critical steel??

All the steel was at Ground Zero. But that's not where they searched for steel.

They were looking for steel later on, after it had been moved to a site called 'Fresh Kills'.

So all the most critical steel was never sent to Fresh Kills, obviously.

No, they shipped it all off to China.

Do you know it is a crime to destroy/remove such evidence? It is.

Are you bothered by this at all? This was mass murder. The critical evidence was quickly removed, which is a criminal act. The criminals were never charged, however. What happens If a law is broken by those who make the laws, and enforce the laws?

Nothing.

Get it now?

[Babe Ruth]

He gets it, but fools himself on a regular basis.

[skyeagle409]

Yes, all the steel was there. I just wanted you to confirm that before moving on..

I wasn't talking about finding explosives here.

Does that mean that you agree that no explosives were used?

All the steel is at Ground Zero, right? Okay, next point..

The investigation report listed the specific steel most critical for scientific analysis. Next point..

They sought out the most critical steel, and identified the pieces of steel....but none of it was from the most important areas (ie: impact/fire zones). So...

Why didn't they find any of the most critical steel??

What are you referring to when you say; "most critical steel?"

[skyeagle409]

He gets it, but fools himself on a regular basis.

You should have said, 911 Truthers. After all, they have been provent to be a pint short of a six-pack when they post.

[Babe Ruth]

Inside job from start to finish Chief.

[skyeagle409]

Inside job from start to finish Chief.

Facts and evidence have proven that you are simply incorrect and wrong at best.

Edited June 3, 2013 by skyeagle409

[W Tell]

How difficult is it to simply push on the yoke and advanced the throttles? It's so easy that even a caveman can do it.

If flying is that easy... why doe's anyone need to pass a test?

Just ******* with you Sky. Just so you know.

Edited June 4, 2013 by W Tell

[skyeagle409]

If flying is that easy... why doe's anyone need to pass a test?

Just ******* with you Sky. Just so you know.

Maneuvering an airplane in flight is simple, but doing so with precision requires additional practice, but there is much more to flying an airplane than just maneuvering in flight.

That are a number of regulations to understand because the FAA can be very unforgiving in where violations are committed, especially if there are violations through prohibited and controlled airspace without permission. I should also mention that you definitely do not want to come anywhere near Air Force One, so it is imperative that a pilot check the NOTAMs.

A pilot must have a basic knowledge of aerodynamics, weather, and aircraft performance under a variety of atmospheric conditions, temperatures and altitudes and working knowledge of center-of-gravity calculations regarding their aircraft. They must understand what a datum is, and how it applies to weight and balance of their aircraft. There is much more but basically speaking, maneuvering an aircraft in the sky is very simple, but precision flying requires additional practice and of course, a pilot must understand the basics of navigation and the difference between center-of-pressure and center-of-gravity in addition to angle-of-incidence and angle-of-attack and the difference between anhedral and dihedral, and understand the functions of the flaps, ailerons, elevators, rudder and trim tabs.

In propeller-driven aircraft, a pilot must understand how engine torque and P-factor affects an aircraft during take-off and during slow flight above a stall, and a pilot must understand his instruments and proper radio communication and emergency procedures. If you want to move up to complex aircraft, then you must learn how to operate a constant-speed propeller-driven aircraft and retractable gear operations.. Anyone with a desire to fly can be taught to handle an airplane in flight in less than an hour, however, more precise maneuvers, power-on, power-off stalls, accelerated stalls, spin recovery, slow-flight maneuvering above a stall, take-offs and landings require additional practice and hitting the books during ground school, and I should mention the ability of maintaining control of an airplane in zero visibility conditions in case a pilot finds himself in such conditions unexpectedly. Takeoffs are simple but landings can be a challenge to a number of student pilots, especially in cross-winds.

Now, if you want to obtain an instrument rating, then you are talking a whole new approach to flying and what I mean by that is, flying under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) requires precise aircraft handling and a new set of regulations that must be understood and requires additional time in ground school and more test from the flight examiner.

So once again, simply maneuvering an airplane in flight doesn't require a lot of hours in ground school.

[media=]

[/media] Edited June 4, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

If flying is that easy... why doe's anyone need to pass a test?

Just ******* with you Sky. Just so you know.

Sky is the best crew chief pilot ever produced by the USAF. Best picture collection of anybody on the internet. Likes to compare apples and oranges, but some pilots are funny that way.

[skyeagle409]

Sky is the best crew chief pilot ever produced by the USAF. Best picture collection of anybody on the internet. Likes to compare apples and oranges, but some pilots are funny that way.

Let's just say I use many years of experience as a pilot, C-5 DCC, airframe technician/inspector, facts, and evidence to backup what I present.

[ali smack]

I can't watch the video. it's been removed

[turbonium]

Does that mean that you agree that no explosives were used?

No, it doesn't.

What are you referring to when you say; "most critical steel?"

The impact/fire zones.

No steel was procured/analysed from those areas. None was found, because it was illegally removed and shipped to Asia from Ground Zero..

[skyeagle409]

The impact/fire zones.

No steel was procured/analysed from those areas. None was found, because it was illegally removed and shipped to Asia from Ground Zero..

It would not have made any difference, and I have to repost the following reasons why:

1. No bomb explosions in the WTC videos

2. No bomb explosions heard before, nor during the collapse of the WTC buildings

3. No bomb explosions detected by seismic monitors in the area.

4. No evidence of explosives found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

In order for explosives to be effective against tall steel structured buildings, explosives must be firmly attached to the steel structures otherwise they will not be effective in collapsing a building. Here are some examples what happens when explosives are not firmly attached to the structure of a building.

100-foot bomb crater beneath WTC1 in 1993

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

Edited June 8, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

No, it doesn't.

Then, go here and understand why explosives were not responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings because NO evidence of bombs was found in the WTC rubble. In other words, no detonation cords nor blasting caps found by WTC clean-up crews.

Detonation Cords

Blasting Caps

Now, let's take a look at what it takes to demolish a steel frame building.

How to Demolish a Steel Frame Building

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.

To ignite both RDX and dynamite, you must apply a severe shock. In building demolition, blasters accomplish this with a blasting cap, a small amount of explosive material (called the primer charge) connected to some sort of fuse. The traditional fuse design is a long cord with explosive material inside. When you ignite one end of the cord, the explosive material inside it burns at a steady pace, and the flame travels down the cord to the detonator on the other end. When it reaches this point, it sets off the primary charge.

http://science.howst...-implosion1.htm

Now, let's do a recap.

<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

* No bomb explosions seen on video

* No bomb explosions heard on audio

* No bomb explosions detected on seismic monitors

* No evidence of explosives recovered from the WTC rubble

<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

To sum it up; NO evidence of explosives of any kind was ever recovered at ground zero.

Edited June 8, 2013 by skyeagle409

[turbonium]

It would not have made any difference, and I have to repost the following reasons why:

1. No bomb explosions in the WTC videos

2. No bomb explosions heard before, nor during the collapse of the WTC buildings

3. No bomb explosions detected by seismic monitors in the area.

Point 1: Wrong. The videos show 'squibs' coming out of the windows, which are classic signs of explosives. This is NOT caused by downward pressure of the collapsing structure. We know this because the 'squibs' are blasting out from floors WELL BELOW the collapse line. Any downward pressure would not funnel several floors down inside the building before blowing outward. It would blast out from the next floor below the collapse line. And that's not what we see in the videos.

Point 2: Wrong. There are several first-hand witnesses ON RECORD who mention hearing explosions/bomb blasts prior to the collapse. You can claim they are not hearing explosives, it doesn't change the fact that they reported hearing explosions/bomb blasts. They were on the scene, they all said the explosions sounded like bomb blasts. They were independent witnesses who corroborated this while at different locations near the towers. Their honest, unbiased testimonies far outweigh your highly biased personal opinion..

Point 3: Wrong. The seismic data shows the greatest spikes occurred prior to the collapsing structures hitting the ground. That is, the largest spike was NOT when the buildings' mass hit the ground, which would be the case if your 'no-explosives-used' claim was correct

4. No evidence of explosives found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

I had to separate this point, because it's related to the issue at hand. Which is the illegal removal of steel from Ground Zero.

Your point is ridiculous, because much of the debris was already removed beforehand. That's like removing evidence of bullets from a crime scene before an investigation begins. You'd be able to say 'There was absolutely no evidence of bullets being fired'!! You'd be right, but you'd know the evidence was already removed. It's an utterly worthless claim.

In order for explosives to be effective against tall steel structured buildings, explosives must be firmly attached to the steel structures otherwise they will not be effective in collapsing a building. Here are some examples what happens when explosives are not firmly attached to the structure of a building.

You're talking about conventional explosives, first of all. You aren't in a position to know about undisclosed cutting-edge weaponry / explosives, which could have been used, either alone or in combination with other methods.

But you're really not getting the important point here, which was the illegal removal of evidence.

For you to shrug it off by saying "It would not have made any difference" reveals that you are not after the truth, and that you are not bothered by your own government committing a crime (ie: orchestrating the illegal removal of WTC evidence).

Thanks for showing where your allegiances really are.

[skyeagle409]

Point 1: Wrong. The videos show 'squibs' coming out of the windows, which are classic signs of explosives. This is NOT caused by downward pressure of the collapsing structure. We know this because the 'squibs' are blasting out from floors WELL BELOW the collapse line. Any downward pressure would not funnel several floors down inside the building before blowing outward. It would blast out from the next floor below the collapse line. And that's not what we see in the videos.

The squibs are the result of compressed air, which is within the laws of physics when you take the building's construction into consideration. Any planted explosives would have been dislodged from the structures when struck by the B-767s. In fact, the collisions were so violent that they knocked off the fire protection and once again, no evidence of explosives seen on video, which should have told you that the squibs were not the result of explosives. Check it out. Explosions make a lot of noise and create blast waves that can be felt.

WTC Squibs

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

There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns. So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core. The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up. Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could. According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core...

Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”

Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”

Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel.

It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.

”

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

Point 2: Wrong. There are several first-hand witnesses ON RECORD who mention hearing explosions/bomb blasts prior to the collapse. You can claim they are not hearing explosives, it doesn't change the fact that they reported hearing explosions/bomb blasts. They were on the scene, they all said the explosions sounded like bomb blasts. They were independent witnesses who corroborated this while at different locations near the towers. Their honest, unbiased testimonies far outweigh your highly biased personal opinion..

Just because someone says they heard what sounded like explosions doesn't mean explosives were responsible. Check it out and notice the sounds they heard were not attributed to explosives.

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 thewhat 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.

As you can see, the sounds they heard were later attributed to things that had nothing to do with explosives.

Point 3: Wrong. The seismic data shows the greatest spikes occurred prior to the collapsing structures hitting the ground. That is, the largest spike was NOT when the buildings' mass hit the ground, which would be the case if your 'no-explosives-used' claim was correct

Let's take a look, because the monitors were in use by demolition experts who have stated for the record there was no evidence of explosives at ground zero..

As you can plainly see in the seismic readings above, there are no indications of bomb explosions.

I had to separate this point, because it's related to the issue at hand. Which is the illegal removal of steel from Ground Zero.

That doesn't make any difference because no evidence of explosives were found nor recovered by clean-up crews at ground zero anyway. The fact that no bomb explosions were detected by seismic monitors should have told you that none of the WTC steel structures were affected by explosives otherwise the signals would have shown up on the seismic monitors. In other words, no explosives were attached to the steel structures that would have been recorded on the seismic monitors and if explosives are not firmly attached to the steel structures, then the blast waves will simply flow around the steel structures like wind around the wing of an airplane, which is why WTC1 remained standing despite the detonation of a huge bomb directly below the building. in 1993

Your point is ridiculous, because much of the debris was already removed beforehand.

False! No one saw any explosive evidence within the rubble of the WTC buildings and demolition experts were also present at ground zero and since there were no bomb explosions recorded by the seismic monitors, shows that no explosives of any kind were attached directly to the steel columns..

Edited June 9, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

For you to shrug it off by saying "It would not have made any difference" reveals that you are not after the truth, and that you are not bothered by your own government committing a crime (ie: orchestrating the illegal removal of WTC evidence).

Thanks for showing where your allegiances really are.

Facts are facts which cannot be denied. No evidence of explosives simply says it all and remember, the initial collapse began in the general area of the collisions and when the aircraft struck, there were no secondary explosions indicating planted explosives.

Now, let's take a look at the construction of the WTC towers.

As you can see in the next photo, the WTC tower is NOT falling at free fall speed despite what 911 conspiracy websites have falsely claimed. You will notice that debris and dust plumes have outpaced the collapse of the WTC tower, which is a very clear indication that the WTC tower is by no means falling at free fall speed.