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 5
joc

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

3,684 posts in this topic

Is this link trustworthy?

[media=]

[/media]

Jonathan cole is a widely respected researcher, you'll notice the case he presents in the video is based on logic, evidence and experiment and proves the debunkers wrong (again) when they repeatedly state thermite "cannot melt steel", "cannot cut horizontally", and all their other unevidenced dismissals. so who presents a better case? the anonymous internet personality skyeagle's unevidenced dismissals, or Joanthan Cole who shows you it is possible and furthermore consistent with the damage reported in the fema appendix c report? not that these experiments were even necessary since the world has known for a long time the temperatures generated by thermite are far in excess of the melting point of steel. Edited by Little Fish
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Skyeagle, how about this one though? I mean, I had heard before about trucks arriving after everyone left and leaving about 5 am before anyone got there. Workers, but working on what?

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiEVzlIfSXk[/media]

That whole video is shrouded is lies and disinformation. Simply amazing. The woman spoke of trucks coming in the early morning hours but that is an optimal time to conduct heavy maintenance on large buildings. Furthermore, it took about half a year to prepare a bridge in Corpus Christi for demolition and that was at ground-level, yet we are being led to believe by the video that crews prepared the WTC buildings at high levels of those buildings for demolition in 10 to 11 days! What a joke!! It takes months to prepare buildings much smaller than the WTC buildings for demolition.

At time line; 3:50, I guess the guy was unaware that falling elevators were responsible for the sounds of explosions, which firefighters later admitted. Time line 6:40 and afterward, does not depict molten steel by any means. The sound of constant explosions at time line 8:00 and afterward, are lies because there is no evidence of explosions in any of the WTC videos. Around time line 9:00, it is stated there were flashes, but looking at the videos, there are no demolition flashes. At time line 9:11, they mention horizanal ejections, but since most of the interior of a building is air, the ejects were nothing more than air. At time line 13:50 and onward, it is very clear the guy is not telling the truth and he knows it. He sees his audience as nothing more than a bunch of suckers who can be easily duped with lies and disinformation.

Beginning at time line 21:00 it is very clear they are lying through their teeth. One woman says it didn't look like a commercial airliner, but let's take a look at the photo.

AA_flight-175-just-before-impacting-the-south-tower.jpgWtcUA175debris.jpg

The video is full of lies and disinformation and cannot be taken seriously.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan cole is a widely respected researcher, you'll notice the case he presents in the video is based on logic, evidence and experiment and proves the debunkers wrong (again) when they repeatedly state thermite "cannot melt steel", "cannot cut horizontally", and all their other unevidenced dismissals. so who presents a better case? the anonymous internet personality skyeagle's unevidenced dismissals, or Joanthan Cole who shows you it is possible and furthermore consistent with the damage reported in the fema appendix c report? not that these experiments were even necessary since the world has known for a long time the temperatures generated by thermite are far in excess of the melting point of steel.

Reality time!! Thermite cannot demolish buildings the size of the WTC Towers and is not widely used by the demolition industry for demolition implosions because it is not effective. In addition, there were no thermite cuts noted on any of the steel columns recovered from ground zero.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan cole is a widely respected researcher, you'll notice the case he presents in the video is based on logic, evidence and experiment and proves the debunkers wrong (again) when they repeatedly state thermite "cannot melt steel", "cannot cut horizontally", and all their other unevidenced dismissals. so who presents a better case? the anonymous internet personality skyeagle's unevidenced dismissals, or Joanthan Cole who shows you it is possible and furthermore consistent with the damage reported in the fema appendix c report? not that these experiments were even necessary since the world has known for a long time the temperatures generated by thermite are far in excess of the melting point of steel.

It is all very simple to understand why thermite is not used for demolition implosions by the demolition industry. It is incapable of bringing down buildings the size of the WTC towers and all it takes is to look at the construction of the WTC buildings to understand why.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reality time!!
in your opinion, can thermite cut through steel beams horizontally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Frenat, you know I don't fly, and you know that there was a Boeing at Shanksville and the Pentagon. I do understand sir. The conscious exclusion of painful desires or thoughts from awareness is a common trait amongst humans. It is more important to be happy than it is to acknowledge the truth.

And yet AGAIN you do not address the topic. Is this your way of conceding that the stories of hijackers supposedly still being alive all stopped after the FBI released the official list? Or are you just avoiding it because you know you don't have a leg to stand on?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets look at what those at GZ actually had to say about the molten metal....

[media=]

[/media]!
  • Firefighters say they saw molten steel, the guy in the background is nodding his head in agreement and there are other firefighters who are not in the shot, one is heard saying "yeah" off camera and not a single person disgrees with his assertions. They obviously have all witnessed it.
  • Another guy says molten beams/steel was being dug up.
  • 2 people talking about the fusion of molten steel and concrete on the piece that is known as the meteorite
  • Guys looking at the horseshoe I beam says it takes thousands of degrees to bend this piece without any cracks.
  • Another person says he saw big pieces of iron being pulled out of the rubble which will litterally being on fire.
  • Move big pieces of steel to reveal these fires, these fires of hell.
  • A person speaking says it's been like this since day one and 6 weeks when they look insides its a bright red/orange inside.
  • Another talks about the diggers opening up the pockets and that at point, he think they were about 2800 degrees.
  • A persons talks about these 2 seperate steel beams metled together to form a cross.

Conclusion, it was molten aluminium. :blink:

At the very end of this video, one man says he was going to ask the investigator for his email address so he could send him thermal images from the satellite. The investigator evidently refused to give him his email address. Wow, what an investigator. When you have people like that, and people who act like they're trying to hide something, no wonder there are so many CTers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't trust that video because It is full of disinformation and misinformation and is as worthless as an $8.00 bill. There have been claims that this photo was proof that thermite brought down the WTC buildings.

cut3.jpg

Apparently, 911 conspiracist were unaware that clean-up crews cut the steel column.

cut.jpg

Just another case where 911 conspiracist had turned something as mundane as a clean-up operation into an unfounded conspiracy.

OK, I'm willing to accept that the bottom photos were cuts done by clean-up crews. That seems fairly evident and acceptable. I think, however, that that is a separate issue from the video under discussion...

Also, if you watch the whole video, he mentions using thermate (a mixture of thermite, barium nitrate and sulfur), not thermite.

eta: because nano-thermite was not available. Also, what does it mean that the mythbuster's website said the 9/11 theories will not be allowed to be debated or discussed? Do they mean mythbusters are not allowing it, or the government is not allowing mythbusters to discuss or debate it?

Edited by Gummug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in your opinion, can thermite cut through steel beams horizontally?

Depends what kind of a beam. Let's take a look.

Note that 175 pounds of thermite did not damage the steel column and did not leave behind molten steel. I don't think 911 conspiracist understand that thermite was not capable of bringing down the WTC buildings, another hint why thermite is not widely used by the demolition industry for demolition implosions.

The WTC buildings remained standing despite the fact they were struck by B-767s, but the demise of the WTC buildings began when they began to buckle due to fires. The stage for the collapse was set when the buildings began to buckle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'm willing to accept that the bottom photos were cuts done by clean-up crews. That seems fairly evident and acceptable. I think, however, that that is a separate issue from the video under discussion...

Also, if you watch the whole video, he mentions using thermate (a mixture of thermite, barium nitrate and sulfur), not thermite.

Thermate is also incapable of bringing down the WTC buildings. RDX, which is used by the demolition industry, is also incapable of bringing down the WTC buildings and why the use of RDX for demolition implosion requires structural pre-weakening and the use of explosives such as dynamite, otherwise, the building will remain standing because structural loads will be redistributed as was the case when the two B-767s struck WTC1 and WTC2.

Conspiracist got the wrong idea that placing thermite on the steel columns will bring down the WTC buildings, but that is definitely not the case and would not have happened especially when both buildings suffered serious impact damage as was the case with WTC7 and yet they remained standing.

The process to prepare of building for demolition implosion is a long process that involves many people and a range of specialties, which requires many months to complete. Conspiracist need to get out that Hollywood mentality because much of what is produced in Hollywood is fictional. A case in point, the movie; "Interceptor" did not depict the KC-10, C-5 in accurate details nor events in the air force as accurate and yet people thought that is how things were.

The same can be said when conspiracy websites present highly flawed conspiracy videos on the Internet. I've reviewed many of those videos and was amazed how easily people were duped by flawed and inaccurate information, disinformation and just plain outright lies presented by those videos, especially those relating to aircraft, ACARS, transponders and radar technology, which explains why many conspiracist were duped by that hoaxed video of WTC7.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyeagle I know you have referenced the Windsor fire in Spain. Here's a short video (don't worry, it's less than a minute long) of that fire:

That doesn't look anything like the fire in WTC7. To be honest, I can't even SEE the fire in WTC7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even controlled demolitions don't always work, but all the fires worked perfectly:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the very end of this video, one man says he was going to ask the investigator for his email address so he could send him thermal images from the satellite. The investigator evidently refused to give him his email address. Wow, what an investigator. When you have people like that, and people who act like they're trying to hide something, no wonder there are so many CTers...

Perhaps, he was looking for these images.

hotspots-compare.jpg

wtc-r09.091601.usgs-thermal.jpg

wtc-r14.092301.usgs-thermal.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even controlled demolitions don't always work, but all the fires worked perfectly:

[media=]

[/media]

You have to understand the process of demolition implosions. If the job of pre-weakening and placement of explosives is not properly done, the result can be an unsuccessful demolition operation.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyeagle I know you have referenced the Windsor fire in Spain. Here's a short video (don't worry, it's less than a minute long) of that fire:

That doesn't look anything like the fire in WTC7. To be honest, I can't even SEE the fire in WTC7.

That was the Windsor building on fire. The upper steel structure completely collapsed due to the fire, leaving only the concrete core standing. You might want to review this on WTC7.

Captain Chris Boyle

Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse...e/gz/boyle.html

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To try and be fair and balanced, here's two conflicting versions. You decide:

and the other side of the coin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to understand the process of demolition implosions. If the job of pre-weakening and placement of explosives is not properly done, the result can be an unsuccessful demolition operation.

OK Skyeagle this is what I don't understand (and a point Stundie was making too I believe). Why is it that a demolition must be controlled and done with the utmost care or it will fail, and yet random fire damage succeeds perfectly? OK let's say I accept that this time the random damage got lucky and did what a controlled demolition sometimes fails to do due to a lack of careful preparation. Coincidences do happen. But when too many coincidences pile up, I think people start to look at the situation rather squinty-eyed.

eta: Another odd thing, and this is just a footnote, I clicked on four of the debunking videos in youtube (didn't want to click on them all) and all of them had comments disabled, I'm assuming all of the debunking videos (at least from that source) have comments disabled. I'm a bit uncomfortable with that...did he do it because he didn't want anyone talking back, like a dictator not tolerating dissent, or was he afraid some comments might get some people thinking and/or wanting to do their own research? It's just a question, I doubt if you have an answer since you didn't create those videos that I'm aware of, but I can't help but feel that this sort of thing helps fuel the fires of CT.

Edited by Gummug
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Skyeagle this is what I don't understand (and a point Stundie was making too I believe). Why is it that a demolition must be controlled and done with the utmost care or it will fail, and yet random fire damage succeeds perfectly?

It is all in the way they affect the structure. Let's first take explosives. Many people have the wrong idea that placing explosives within a building will automatically bring it down but that is not true at all and we can go back to the year, 1993, and use the WTC1 bombing as an example.

WTC_1993_ATF_Commons.jpg

You will notice that not one steel column was destroyed by that huge bomb even though the columns are sitting within the bomb crater. Explosives have to be firmly and properly attached to a structure otherwise you are going to have scenes like this where these buildings absorbed multiple bomb and cruise missile strikes yet remained standing.

bombedbuilding.jpg

390px-Iraqi_dome.jpg

Aftermathpic1.jpg

If the demolition process is not done correctly then you will have something like these demolition operations gone wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=egmFkcW-AoU&NR=1

The point is, blast waves from an explosion will simply flow around steel columns whereas fire will affect and weaken unprotected steel columns directly at temperatures far below the melting point of steel to the point where load redistribution is no longer effective. You can damage a section of steel structure and the load will be redistributed, but in the case of a fire, the whole unprotected structure can be affected to the point of failure..

To sum it up, blast waves will flow around steel columns like the wind flow around the wing of an airplane whereas fire weakens unprotected steel columns directly at temperatures far below the melting point of steel.

OK let's say I accept that this time the random damage got lucky and did what a controlled demolition sometimes fails to do due to a lack of careful preparation. Coincidences do happen. But when too many coincidences pile up, I think people start to look at the situation rather squinty-eyed.

Let's look at it this way;

Explosives

Senario 1: RDX is firmly and properly placed on a steel column and cuts the steel column in two sections, but it still takes an explosive such as dynamite to blow apart the column in order to complete the process, otherwise, the structural load will be taken up by other undamaged columns and if not blown apart, the damaged column can still take up the slack as the upper section of the column is jammed against the lower section, which is why an explosive is needed to blow apart the columns n order to facilitate a collapse..

Senario 2: An explosive device is placed away from a steel column and detonated. The result will be what occurred beneath WTC1 in 1993, which did not destroy a single steel column despite the fact the columns are sitting within the bomb crater..

Fire

Senario 1: Fire rages inside a building with fire-protection surrounding its steel columns. The steel columns will remain standing because they are protected from temperatures capable of weakening the steel.

Senario 2: Fire rages within a building with unprotected steel columns. That will result in steel column failures due to exposure of temperatures capable of weakening steel.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet AGAIN you do not address the topic. Is this your way of conceding that the stories of hijackers supposedly still being alive all stopped after the FBI released the official list? Or are you just avoiding it because you know you don't have a leg to stand on?

The topic is very broad indeed sir, but may be reduced to one simple statement: Either one believes the official story, or one does not.

You choose the former, I choose the latter. No problem at all.

While the attacks at WTC and the Pentagon did indeed happen, the story is a hoax, in virtually every detail. We were all deceived that morning, and traumatized. Some have been able to get past that, while others have not. Such is life, eh?

Neither you nor anybody else can prove any element of the official story, except that 2 airplanes hit the towers and they subsequently came down. Indeed, close examination of the evidence available reveals the official story to be a hoax.

Keep on keepin' on, is all I can say to you, and enjoy life. :gun:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic is very broad indeed sir, but may be reduced to one simple statement: Either one believes the official story, or one does not.

You choose the former, I choose the latter. No problem at all.

While the attacks at WTC and the Pentagon did indeed happen, the story is a hoax, in virtually every detail. We were all deceived that morning, and traumatized. Some have been able to get past that, while others have not. Such is life, eh?

Neither you nor anybody else can prove any element of the official story, except that 2 airplanes hit the towers and they subsequently came down. Indeed, close examination of the evidence available reveals the official story to be a hoax.

Keep on keepin' on, is all I can say to you, and enjoy life. :gun:

I should have known better than to think you might actually discuss a topic.

By the way, the fact that all stories of hijackers being alive stopped after the official FBI list was released can be proven. Very telling that you can't actually argue the topic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it would be interesting to compare the Beijing Hotel and WTC7 fires:

To keep it fair and balanced, here's an OCT video (at least this one did allow comments):

[media=]

One thing that gets me are all the coincidences...they just seem to keep piling up. For example, the towers had just switched from public ownership to private ownership, and the new owner (forget his name I do) had them insured specifically against terrorism. Considering they had previously been a target perhaps that is not too surprising. As I recall, he paid something like 15 million for the towers and got 7 billion from the insurance. Quite a return on his investment, eh? I sure wish I could get a return like that at the bank. Please correct me if I am wrong on any of these facts.

Like I think I said before, I can see some coincidences, but it seems like they just keep piling up. Like how Rumsfeld switched the fighter response protocol before the attack, and then switched it right back, after the attack, as Q24 (I believe it was he) pointed out.

Edited by Gummug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have known better than to think you might actually discuss a topic.

By the way, the fact that all stories of hijackers being alive stopped after the official FBI list was released can be proven. Very telling that you can't actually argue the topic.

If you think it can be proven that there were hijackers on those airplanes, then please, by all means, have at it. If you think you can prove any element of the OCT, then please, by all means, have at it. I would be most interested in such proof.

But remember, for many of us, government statements and out of context photographs DO NOT constitute proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think it can be proven that there were hijackers on those airplanes, then please, by all means, have at it.

that is NOT what I said. Please learn to read correctly.

AGAIN because you seem to want to look like a troll, the statement was "all stories of hijackers being alive stopped after the official FBI list was released can be proven" and it is YOU that has the burden of proof to show otherwise. But we all know you won't.

Edited by frenat
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Churchill said of Soviet foreign policy ("a puzzle inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma"), 9/11 will remain in history as our generation's most unfathomable debacle, something of "a tortuous puzzle inside a confounding riddle wrapped in a lead-sealed enigma that may or may not have been orchestrated by a multi-tier international conspiracy that may or may not ever be revealed if there is any revelation to be had." JFK's assassination is to 9/11 as Rubik's Cube is to the ineffable nature of time travel.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't

The topic is very broad indeed sir, but may be reduced to one simple statement: Either one believes the official story, or one does not.

While the attacks at WTC and the Pentagon did indeed happen, the story is a hoax, in virtually every detail.

What has been proven false is your claim that American 77 passed north of the gas station, which can be proven as false by the path of destruction leading up to, and inside, the Pentagon. You brought up that P700 anti-ship missile and that has been proven as false as evident by the fact that the wreckage recovered at the Pentagon is that from a B-757, and add to the fact that not one single piece has been attributed to a P700 anti-ship missile.

You implied that explosives could have brought down the light poles and that has been proven false as evident by impact damage on those light poles. You claim that no Boeing crashed at the Pentagon despite B-757 wreckage recovered outside and inside the Pentagon.

In other words, you have struck out and it is evident that you spew false tales on a regular basis.

Indeed, close examination of the evidence available reveals the official story to be a hoax.

You've just threw another false tale over the plate, which was slammed out of Reality stadium by the #1 hitter, Facts T. Evidence. What does the "T" stand for? Truth.

Everyone knows the kind of game you play, which explains why you continue to lose on a regular basis.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.