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

verinage always collapses from the middle, there is as much mass at the top crushing the mass below. the nroth tower, the tp 10% was supposed to have crushed the bottom 90%, there is a measurable jolt in the verinage demolitions which even bazant says is required fro crush down. there was no jolt with the north tower.

Yes, because the upper 10% was not in fact an indestructible block crushing all the way through the lower 90% as the official theory tells (a nonsense according to Newton’s law of equal and opposite forces), it was actually falling through demolished structure.

Everyone should consider, of all the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris from all three buildings, not one single piece of physical evidence/steelwork recovered by the official investigation showed fire temperatures had weakened the steel. There are official reports and expert testimony which demonstrate this. There were however samples of steelwork showing, “a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting”, which the FEMA report suggested was, “possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse” and required a “detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon” that never came.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were however samples of steelwork showing, "a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting", which the FEMA report suggested was, "possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse" and required a "detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon" that never came.

On the contrary, Sisson and Biederman, two of the three original investigators, carried out further studies and concluded:

the analysis suggests that this removal occurred while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile after the building had collapsed

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1361%2F154770206X129006?LI=true

Edited by flyingswan
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that is not what it means. I give more credence to evidence from qualified sources because...uh...they're....QUALIFIED. That was the word I was looking for.

If you've read the Republic, you'd realize that Socrates is in complete agreement with that. You, apparently, have not.

EDIT: Dug up a relevant passage. From Book 1.

AKA, qualified people are the people to ask about their craft.

And what exactly is it that makes the government qualified? Especially when its story cannot withstand scrutiny?

Socrates Sr. Would be most disappointed in you. Placing great value on the statements of known liars is NOT a rational practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My own heart and soul are not going to give me anything more than an opinion. My intellect, however...

Better leave this here too.

http://www.nist.gov/...m?pub_id=909017

This too.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

Curious about WTC 7? Better read this.

http://www.nist.gov/...m?pub_id=861610

So, in conclusion, I have answers. I just gave them to you. You obviously read nothing of what I linked. You're just using "your own heart and soul", and not thinking critically.

And taking the words of the government at face value, when the evidence contradicts those statements, IS thinking critically?

OMG, you have your namesake rolling in his grave! :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Babe...I don't know what to say. This nebulous "government" that you reference...what exactly do you mean? Every single engineer involved in the report? The Canadian academic who isn't even connected to the American government?

If you want to call them known liars, by all means, point out physical impossibilities in their reports. But until then, saying something doesn't make it so.

I know you like pointing out that Socrates would have done this or that, but let's be real. First, I'm the Junior, so I have some issues with my parent. Second of all, I, right now, am doing exactly what he said. I'm not trusting your nebulous "government", but the words of many engineers.

EDIT: You said the evidence contradicts the statements. How? By all means, feel free to refute the reports. Any of them.

Edited by socrates.junior
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely – this has been demonstrated by historical events, CIA/Western/Al Qaeda double agents, CIA infiltration of Al Qaeda, FBI whistleblowers and even noted by bin Laden.

During a raid in Manila, a document revealed that the CIA was a target of al-Qaeda, and that was before the 911 attacks, and in fact, the terrorist planned to fly an airplane into the headquarters of the CIA, Now, that doesn't sound like a very close relationship. In addition, the CIA is responsible for taking out much of the senior leadership of al-Qaeda.

To recap, al-Qaeda had a plan to attack the CIA at its headquarters with an airplane and the CIA has been taking out the senior leadership of al-Qaeda and you implied that the CIA and al-Qaeda are good partners?! Time to face reality.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone should consider, of all the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris from all three buildings, not one single piece of physical evidence/steelwork recovered by the official investigation showed fire temperatures had weakened the steel.

Apparently, you are mistaken. Check it out.

Investigators concluded that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. That was evident when the WTC buildings began to bunkle minutes before their collapse. Check it out.

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/

Science Daily

Science News

“Like most building collapses, these events were the result of a combination of factors,” said Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the agency’s building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster. “While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled.”

http://www.scienceda...50411122017.htm

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

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

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

Before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. As already mentioned, flying around outside the WTC, the NYPD helicopters reported "an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed." Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking.

There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."

http://www.represent...xplosives2.html

9/11 cops saw collapse coming

New York Daily News - June 19th, 2004

The World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground, scientists probing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster said yesterday.

In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m.

But emergency responders inside the tower never got the order to evacuate due to faulty communications equipment and garbled lines of command, investigators with the National Institute of Standards and Technology said in its second interim report on the collapse's causes.

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings," lead investigator Shyam Sunder said at a presentation in midtown.

http://www.skyscrape...e_20040619.html

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

Fire and gravity, not explosives nor thermite,had brought down the WTC buildings.

There are official reports and expert testimony which demonstrate this. There were however samples of steelwork showing, “a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting”, which the FEMA report suggested was, “possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse” and required a “detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon” that never came.

False! This is what the article really said.

Sisson and Biederman, two of the three original investigators, carried out further studies and concluded:

The analysis suggests that this removal occurred while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile after the building had collapsed

In regards to high temperatures after the collapse, I have mentioned several times the temperatures were the result of extothermic reactions and nothing to do with thermite because hot steel will continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions while exposed to air causing iron to increase its temperature.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking.

There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."

Okay, now you please tell me and everyone else...how exactly it is that plaster and windows were damaged in the lobby of a building when the initial damage was 70+ stories up!? Could it be that the numerous reports of explosions at the base of the building had anything to do with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And taking the words of the government at face value, when the evidence contradicts those statements, IS thinking critically?

May I add that many of the investigators were not government employees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During a raid in Manila, a document revealed that the CIA was a target of al-Qaeda, and that was before the 911 attacks, and in fact, the terrorist planned to fly an airplane into the headquarters of the CIA, Now, that doesn't sound like a very close relationship. In addition, the CIA is responsible for taking out much of the senior leadership of al-Qaeda.

To recap, al-Qaeda had a plan to attack the CIA at its headquarters with an airplane and the CIA has been taking out the senior leadership of al-Qaeda and you implied that the CIA and al-Qaeda are good partners?! Time to face reality.

the cia had infiltrated the "conference" regarding the planning of bojinka. they had the place under surveillance. they knew about it in real time, read nafeez ahmed's book, war on truth.

P2OG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, now you please tell me and everyone else...how exactly it is that plaster and windows were damaged in the lobby of a building when the initial damage was 70+ stories up!? Could it be that the numerous reports of explosions at the base of the building had anything to do with that?

The firefighters first said they heard explosions at the base of the building, but they later determined the sounds they heard were crashing elevators.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the cia had infiltrated the "conference" regarding the planning of bojinka. they had the place under surveillance. they knew about it in real time, read nafeez ahmed's book, war on truth.

P2OG

You might want to check out the Bojinka Plot because the CIA was also targeted by those terrorist.

The Bojinka Plot

200px-Ramzi_Yousef.gif

Ramzi Yousef

Phase III, CIA plane crash plot

Abdul Hakim Murad confessed detailed Phase III in his interrogation by the Manila police after his capture.

Phase three would have involved Murad either renting, buying, or hijacking a small airplane, preferably a Cessna. The airplane would be filled with explosives. He would then crash it into the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in the Langley area in Fairfax County, Virginia. Murad had been trained as a pilot in North Carolina, and was slated to be a suicide pilot.

There were alternate plans to hijack a 12th commercial airliner and use that instead of the small aircraft, probably due to the Manila cell's growing frustration with explosives. Testing explosives in a house or apartment is dangerous, and it can easily give away a terrorist plot. Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably made the alternate plan.

A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters."

Another plot that was considered would have involved the hijacking of more airplanes. The World Trade Center (New York City, New York), The Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia), the United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.), the White House (Washington, D.C.), the Sears Tower (Chicago, Illinois), and the U.S Bank Tower (Los Angeles, California), would have been the likely targets. Abdul Hakim Murad said that this part of the plot was dropped since the Manila cell could not recruit enough people to implement other hijackings in his confession with Filipino investigators, prior to the foiling of Operation Bojinka. This plot eventually would be the base plot for the September 11, 2001 attacks which involved hijacking commercial airliners as opposed to small aircraft loaded with explosives and crashing them into their intended targets. However, only the World Trade Center (which was destroyed) and The Pentagon (which suffered partial damage) were hit.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Bojinka_plot

Ramzi Yousef, was the person who bombed WTC1 in 1993 and whose uncle was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 911 attacks who later admitted his role in the 911 attacks.

Sheikh_july2009.jpg

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to check out the Bojinka Plot because the CIA was also targeted by those terrorist.

you might want to read the book i mentioned before cut and pasting wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the cia had infiltrated the "conference" regarding the planning of bojinka. they had the place under surveillance. they knew about it in real time, read nafeez ahmed's book, war on truth.

P2OG

Nothing there that changed the reality of what I have posted. :no:

Read what he has said about Pearl Harbor and the US military complex. Perhaps, he is not aware that the US military is facing a severe budget cutback, but cutbacks in goods and services have been occurring within the military for years after the 911 attacks, which simply means that book his not worth the paper it is printed on.

In regards to his comments on Pearl Harbor, Japan declared war on the United States and committed an act of war when it attacked our bases in Hawaii and in the Philippines. Our forces in the Philippines had warnings of an impending Japanese attack, but that didn't stop the Japanese from bombing our forces there and remember, German submariners rejoiced that United States declared war on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor. I might also add that the Japanese attacked the British as well.

Now, what did he say in Chapter 3? Was he even aware that the Air Force set up CAP over Washington D.C., not over Shanksville? Was he aware that pilots of those F-16s out of Andrews AFB were not trained to shoot down airliners nor knowledgeable on NORAD's air defense protocol? Was he even aware that when F-16s took off from Langley AFB, the pilots were not aware of what was going on and why they flew the course that they did? There was nothing but confusion in the air which had nothing to do with a government conspiracy?

Ask Nafeez Ahmed why a Russian pilot had difficulty shooting down Korean 007, and I might add that my aircraft and crew was tasked to fly support and recovery equipment for the recovery of Korean 007 from Cubi Point, Philippines to Japan. We were crew-resting at Clark airbase, Philippines when we got our orders and my aircraft was a C-5A Galaxy.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched the ejected debris part. The problem I can immediately note is that he is matching the arc from his projectile example to an arc of debris that had clearly been initiated earlier. In addition, the debris doesn't appear to be moving in the same direction as the example he gives.

Another issue is why? Why would "they" explode anything when the tower has already started collapsing. The energy available at the beginning of the collapse has been calculated to be enough to finish the collapse.

EDIT: I'm also confused as to why he's talking about explosions projecting debris outward, when his evidence for WTC 7 demolition involves the debris falling neatly within the building's footprint. I may be completely off-base, but I thought that you direct demolition explosions inward, to destroy supports. That may or may not be very entirely based on Fight Club.

Edited by socrates.junior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched the ejected debris part. The problem I can immediately note is that he is matching the arc from his projectile example to an arc of debris that had clearly been initiated earlier. In addition, the debris doesn't appear to be moving in the same direction as the example he gives.

Another issue is why? Why would "they" explode anything when the tower has already started collapsing. The energy available at the beginning of the collapse has been calculated to be enough to finish the collapse.

EDIT: I'm also confused as to why he's talking about explosions projecting debris outward, when his evidence for WTC 7 demolition involves the debris falling neatly within the building's footprint. I may be completely off-base, but I thought that you direct demolition explosions inward, to destroy supports. That may or may not be very entirely based on Fight Club.

Thanks for watching! I don't think matching up the Computerized version of Trajectory with the actual building collapse was meant to show anything other than what the Computer version was already showing...it just made it simpler to visualize.

If you notice...the 'ejected debris' doesn't happen until a good way down in the collapse. This would be because it was necessary to use more explosives at that point because of the 'reinforced buffer zone' that was built in just for that reason...to avoid any kind of collapse in an Earthquake. That is why you have 'ejected debris' at that point. That's what I surmised anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Babe...I don't know what to say. This nebulous "government" that you reference...what exactly do you mean? Every single engineer involved in the report? The Canadian academic who isn't even connected to the American government?

If you want to call them known liars, by all means, point out physical impossibilities in their reports. But until then, saying something doesn't make it so.

I know you like pointing out that Socrates would have done this or that, but let's be real. First, I'm the Junior, so I have some issues with my parent. Second of all, I, right now, am doing exactly what he said. I'm not trusting your nebulous "government", but the words of many engineers.

EDIT: You said the evidence contradicts the statements. How? By all means, feel free to refute the reports. Any of them.

Oh that's rich! :yes: You don't trust the government, but you do trust its paid lackies!

You give Socrates a very bad name. :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh that's rich! :yes: You don't trust the government, but you do trust its paid lackies!

So are these people in on the conspiracy also?

You give Socrates a very bad name. :cry:

Incorrect.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are these people in on the conspiracy also?

Incorrect.

So are these people in on the conspiracy also?

Incorrect.

Probably not, but we cannot know for certain. Clearly they are in on the coverup by generating false material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not, but we cannot know for certain. Clearly they are in on the coverup by generating false material.

So they are possibly in on the conspiracy. Okay. The material they are generating is false? I would tend to say that if someone is producing false material to coverup a conspiracy, they'd have to be in on it, correct?

Edited by socrates.junior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they are possibly in on the conspiracy. Okay. The material they are generating is false? I would tend to say that if someone is producing false material to coverup a conspiracy, they'd have to be in on it, correct?

I would say that your critical thinking skills are giving Socrates dyspepsia in his grave.

It is easily possible that one could voluntarily participate in the coverup of an event WITHOUT having participated in the planning or execution of that event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that your critical thinking skills are giving Socrates dyspepsia in his grave.

Not quite.

It is easily possible that one could voluntarily participate in the coverup of an event WITHOUT having participated in the planning or execution of that event.

How? If they're producing material they know to be false, they're participating in the conspiracy. Nobody said they were involved in the planning...but they're part of the execution. Is the coverup not part of the execution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, Sisson and Biederman, two of the three original investigators, carried out further studies and concluded:

the analysis suggests that this removal occurred while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile after the building had collapsed

http://link.springer...X129006?LI=true

The keywords quoted in my previous post were "detailed study", which at a minimum when drawing conclusions, one would think, should include demonstrating a match to the effects seen in the WTC steelwork through experiment – of course this was never achieved.

Even when the authors placed the steel in direct contact with sulphur and heated it in excess of 1,000oC, they discovered that, "the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h". Therefore it is not a proven (or even 'good') match to the WTC steelwork which was thinned to a razor's edge, full of holes like Swiss cheese and in cases with sections vaporized completely.

The original authors clearly failed to meet their own requirement for a "detailed study" by 1) not demonstrating a match to the phenomenon at the WTC and 2) lack of consideration to plausible alternative mechanisms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite.

How? If they're producing material they know to be false, they're participating in the conspiracy. Nobody said they were involved in the planning...but they're part of the execution. Is the coverup not part of the execution?

Not quite.

How? If they're producing material they know to be false, they're participating in the conspiracy. Nobody said they were involved in the planning...but they're part of the execution. Is the coverup not part of the execution?

No Socrates, it's not. Did you do any time in the military?

I did, and took 4 years of Military Science in ROTC.

Military operations are planned in great detail, ideally. Then, at some point after that, they are executed.

The coverup was certainly planned at the highest levels, but that was planning separate from the planning for the tactics to be used to accomplish the mission.

Strategy is one thing, tactics are another.

Wally Miller at Shanksville is a perfect example. He did not plan or execute the events of the day. Encouraged to be "a team player" he participated to some extent in the coverup. That does not make him a conspirator, except possibly AFTER the overt acts of the main event had already taken place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious about something. When you talk about participation in the coverup, what does that mean? Based on previous posts, you seem to mean making false statements knowingly.

Why would someone do that? They wouldn't do it just to be a "team player", so what would motivate it?

Bear in mind, we're not talking about Wally Miller at Shanksville. We're talking about a large number of engineers here. Why would they all be attaching their name to false statements? (Bear in mind, you've done ZERO to prove that their statements are false.)

EDIT: Taking 4 years of military science isn't necessary to know what "planning" and "execution" mean. The coverup is a necessary part in the overall execution of the conspiracy. Otherwise it isn't a conspiracy. Quit playing word games.

Edited by socrates.junior

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.