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

I am not debating that question at all. It's feasible. I've already said that. But is that all that was heard? Was there nothing more? Now, I am answering the question I was posing even as I am posing it and that is: Was it a coincidence that the elevator shaft explosions happened just as the building began to fall?

Considering the elevators crashed right after the building was struck, that is no mystery. Review what was presented at post # 57 when it was noted the WTC buildings began to buckle prior to their collapse, which had nothing to do with explosives.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as you are no Socrates, I am NOT an engineer. That said, I can comment only as a layman. But I understand that all the "reports" issued were sheer speculation. There were no sensors in the buildings to measure anything.

On the contrary, there were seismic sensors in the area that detected the collapse of the WTC buildings, but did not detect any bomb explosions.

There were no video cameras to record the dynamics of what happened before, during or after the airplane strikes, and certainly that applies to WTC7 too.

What you should have said was that no video camera recorded the dynamics of a nuclear explosion in New York City on 9/11/2002.

Simply put, their speculative conclusions were that jetfuel and gravity caused what we saw. Hogwash!

Engineers and investigators have said that fire was responsible, just as fires caused the collapse of steel frame buildings in Thailand and the steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain.

What IS certain is that many or all of those parties were in fact dependent upon government contracts for their livliehood. The NIST guy was a Bush appointee as I recall, and the whole gang of them closely resemble a gang of thieves and liars.

Are you implying that United Airlines, American Airlines, the Society of Civil Engineers, American Institute of Architects, Protec, Inc., the Air Line Pilots Association, Allied Pilots Association, and a number of demolition experts and engineers are lying because they confirmed the official story?

American Airlines and United Airlines did not say their aircraft were modified by the government in order to fly under remote control, but they did confirm their aircraft were hijacked by terrorist..

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the elevators crashed right after the building was struck, that is no mystery. Review what was presented at post # 57 when it was noted the WTC buildings began to buckle prior to their collapse, which had nothing to do with explosives.

But there were numerous accounts of Explosions being heard just before the building came down. Are you disputing that fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there were numerous accounts of Explosions being heard just before the building came down. Are you disputing that fact?

I dispute what they heard was the result of bomb explosions. People who have never heard the sound of real explosions are inclined to mistaken a number of sounds as explosions. I posted on another thread where residents in Hawaii reported sounds of explosions during a wind storm, which was later attributed to the breakup of buildings.

In this video, you will hear sounds that many people would have reported as explosions.

In addition:

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in "several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn" on 9/11. He says they did not show the "spikes" that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

Blanchard also takes aim at the claim that Building 7 of the WTC was demolished, writing: "Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

My link

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

The Elevator Man's Tale

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that's the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke. And apparently from what I talked to with other mechanics, they saw the doors, the hatch doors blow off in the lobby level of 6 and 7 car.

So right after that explosion, we were ordered to leave the building.

My link

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

Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

By John Fleck

Journal Staff Writer

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

My link

Here's more on William Rodriquez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reported the conclusion of the people who discovered the phenomenon, the same people who asked for a further study, the same people who conducted that study.

I certainly don't have more expertise in the subject than they do, but you obviously think you do. As we've seen so often before, an expert opinion is only correct if it reinforces Q24's opinions.

You were quite happy to appeal to their authority when they say they want a further study, but you question that authority when they conduct that study and present their conclusions.

I don’t appeal to authority as you do – I use expert opinion to add credence to my own argument; I already argue that further study was required. In contrast, you clearly have no argument of your own to begin and are entirely dependent on expert opinion to determine your thinking, seen by your inability to counter the reasonable complaints in my post #73.

The difference between the studies, is that the first was a factual report of findings based on a physical steel sample from the WTC whilst the latter was a speculative report of the cause (I don’t need to be told, but for you, the authors do admit as much) – the experiment therein failing to replicate the effect of the WTC steel sample. How on Earth do you think the ‘non-match’ result of that experiment proves cause of the WTC steel melting/corrosion? The authors of the report certainly did not believe that it did – they admit to providing only a hypothesis, and did not even test alternative mechanisms.

How does this result of the latter experiment...

"the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h"

Prove cause of this...

FEMA_appx-C_p1_WTC7-steel-corrosion.jpg

Answer: It does not – more detailed study and experimentation were required. Until that happens, anyone is quite justified to hypothesize that the result was due to a thermite attack on the steel, which after all, is fit to the factual observation of the first study and, unlike the follow-up experiment, could certainly create the holes and sharp edges seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't appeal to authority as you do – I use expert opinion to add credence to my own argument; I already argue that further study was required. In contrast, you clearly have no argument of your own to begin and are entirely dependent on expert opinion to determine your thinking, seen by your inability to counter the reasonable complaints in my post #73.

You conveniently forget that I've discussed your points frequently over the years. You've brought up nothing new.

The difference between the studies, is that the first was a factual report of findings based on a physical steel sample from the WTC whilst the latter was a speculative report of the cause (I don't need to be told, but for you, the authors do admit as much) – the experiment therein failing to replicate the effect of the WTC steel sample. How on Earth do you think the 'non-match' result of that experiment proves cause of the WTC steel melting/corrosion? The authors of the report certainly did not believe that it did – they admit to providing only a hypothesis, and did not even test alternative mechanisms.

They are scientists, of course they use cautious language in an acadmic paper, but their wording is as near as you will get to them saying they are convinced they've nailed the cause. Sisson was far more direct in an interview.

How does this result of the latter experiment...

"the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h"

Prove cause of this...

Easy, the sample was being eroded in the debris pile for several weeks. They identify the start of a process that will produced the observed result if left to continue.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dispute what they heard was the result of bomb explosions. People who have never heard the sound of real explosions are inclined to mistaken a number of sounds as explosions. I posted on another thread where residents in Hawaii reported sounds of explosions during a wind storm, which was later attributed to the breakup of buildings.

In this video, you will hear sounds that many people would have reported as explosions.

In addition:

Here's more on William Rodriquez.

[media=]

They say the fire from the jet fuel weakened the steel. Most of the jet fuel went up in a ball of flame on impact. They say there were several demolition teams on site. Why would there be demolition teams on site?

Of course, if the buildings were wired for the purpose of demolition, they would have also taken into the account the fact that it would be necessary to execute the demolition without the tail, tail signs of loud explosions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You conveniently forget that I've discussed your points frequently over the years. You've brought up nothing new.

They are scientists, of course they use cautious language in an acadmic paper, but their wording is as near as you will get to them saying they are convinced they've nailed the cause. Sisson was far more direct in an interview.

Easy, the sample was being eroded in the debris pile for several weeks. They identify the start of a process that will produced the observed result if left to continue.

I do not recall raising this point before. Anyhow, finally an attempt in your last paragraph to address the argument. Right, so when the experiment, “dissolved little metal in 24 h”, how much exactly is “little”? You must know this to begin to make the argument that it will produce holes in the steelwork over “several weeks”. Is it in the study? I don’t have full access to the paper, but from reading a couple of other discussions the suggestion is that the “little” amount of metal dissolved in the experiment would actually take months or years to create a hole in the steelwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not recall raising this point before. Anyhow, finally an attempt in your last paragraph to address the argument. Right, so when the experiment, "dissolved little metal in 24 h", how much exactly is "little"? You must know this to begin to make the argument that it will produce holes in the steelwork over "several weeks". Is it in the study? I don't have full access to the paper, but from reading a couple of other discussions the suggestion is that the "little" amount of metal dissolved in the experiment would actually take months or years to create a hole in the steelwork.

I haven't seen the full paper and a brief Google doesn't show anyone else who has. Do you have a link to those claims?

However, in such corrosion the rate is notoriously sensitive to the actual environment (temperature and materials present), so Sisson and Biederman showing that the process starts is the most significant factor.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Total non-sence this entire thread!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the full paper...

HAHAHAAA!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So you are championing a paper that you haven't even seen.

That's brilliant on so many levels!

Is that how you knew it was a "detailed" study?

By not seeing it?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Ok, that'll do.

The question asked in my last post is clearly of utmost relevance and remains outstanding. It doesn't matter that corrosion can be achieved through numerous methods - of course it can, including thermite. It matters that a match to the severity and rate of corrosion is found to the WTC steel sample, those holes and razor edges created in a matter of "several weeks", and that a possible source can be identified in the debris pile. In this, the study failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say the fire from the jet fuel weakened the steel. Most of the jet fuel went up in a ball of flame on impact.

The jet fuel started the fire and contents within the buildings sustained the fires.

They say there were several demolition teams on site. Why would there be demolition teams on site?

There was a lot of work taking place in New York City.

Of course, if the buildings were wired for the purpose of demolition, they would have also taken into the account the fact that it would be necessary to execute the demolition without the tail, tail signs of loud explosions.

You can't just wire a building as large as the WTC towers for many months and not attract attention and wiring for explosives is just one step in the process of implosions because pre-weakening of the steel structures is another.

We know that the buildings were not wired for explosives because investigators and recovery crews found no detonation wires nor blasting caps used in the demolition process within the rubble of the WTC buildings, and we are talking thousands of feet of brightly colored wires.

As further proof that explosives were not used, there are no bomb explosions evident in the videos and once again, no bomb explosions were heard, which was evident because the seismic monitors did not detect bomb explosions, which explains why no explosions are seen in the videos.

The following video will shed light why there was no evidence of explosives. The buckling of the WTC buildings indicated that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. Now, pay very close attention to what is presented in this video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that how you knew it was a "detailed" study?

When did I say it was a detailed study? I pointed out that there was a follow-up and I quoted the abstract. The original claim was yours. You obviously haven't seen the paper either, why did you claim it wasn't?

The question asked in my last post is clearly of utmost relevance and remains outstanding. It doesn't matter that corrosion can be achieved through numerous methods - of course it can, including thermite.

In the original paper, which up to now you have accepted, it says that the steel shows evidence of temperatures "approaching 1000 deg C". What on earth makes you think that this is in any way consistent with thermite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question asked in my last post is clearly of utmost relevance and remains outstanding. It doesn't matter that corrosion can be achieved through numerous methods - of course it can, including thermite. It matters that a match to the severity and rate of corrosion is found to the WTC steel sample, those holes and razor edges created in a matter of "several weeks", and that a possible source can be identified in the debris pile. In this, the study failed.

Try looking up exothermic reaction regarding iron.

Iron Burns

"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

http://www.debunking...m/ironburns.htm

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its actually quite stunning that anyone believes that the Towers were brought down by demo. The Entire Twins were brought down by Two Aircraft slamming into them the resulting fires and structral damage brought them both down, Grow up and Do the research,and use your minds. This is what Happened.

Remember the thousands of lifes that were lost that day.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its actually quite stunning that anyone believes that the Towers were brought down by demo. The Entire Twins were brought down by Two Aircraft slamming into them the resulting fires and structral damage brought them both down, Grow up and Do the research,and use your minds. This is what Happened.

Remember the thousands of lifes that were lost that day.

They claim that explosives were used, yet they cannot provide the evidence. There is no evidence of explosions on video nor the sound of explosions on audio and detectors in the area did not detect bomb explosions. In addition, no evidence of structural pre-weakening was found on the columns and no detonation cords nor blasting caps were found in the rubble.

They say the WTC buildings fell at free fall speeds yet the videos proved beyond any doubt the buildings were not fallling at free fall speeds, which is evident by the fact that debris clouds and objects are outpacing the collapse itself and once again, data from seismic monitors show that the buildings did not fall at free fall speeds.

Question is: where did they get the idea that explosives were used when there was no evidence of explosives in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They claim that explosives were used, yet they cannot provide the evidence. There is no evidence of explosions on video nor the sound of explosions on audio and detectors in the area did not detect bomb explosions. In addition, no evidence of structural pre-weakening was found on the columns and no detonation cords nor blasting caps were found in the rubble.

They say the WTC buildings fell at free fall speeds yet the videos proved beyond any doubt the buildings were not fallling at free fall speeds, which is evident by the fact that debris clouds and objects are outpacing the collapse itself and once again, data from seismic monitors show that the buildings did not fall at free fall speeds.

Question is: where did they get the idea that explosives were used when there was no evidence of explosives in the first place?

Let me say two things.

One, I got the idea that explosives were used because I just couldn't believe the coincidence of 3 buildings coming down like that in one day. I watched and watched and watched the buildings and I thought it looked like a demolition. Then I started watching other videos, including the one I posted. I will admit, I have about zero knowledge of how demolitions are set up. I am a bit more informed now than I was.

Second, I view all opinions with an open mind. Until something makes sense to me...it doesn't. The entire scenario made sense...not completely...but after living through Vietnam and a lot of other things...I don't trust my government farther than I can throw the Statue of Liberty.

And finally, I will admit...SkyEagle has pretty much convinced me that there were no explosions that brought the buildings down. It is perfectly conceivable that they buckled from the damage at the top...and we can see from the videos of Viernage Implosions...it doesnt' take many stories collapsing to bring down the entire structure. And, that these massive towers were so tall...once that happened, it could not have been stopped...so...good job SkyEagle. What you have presented makes more sense than what I presented. I still have questions...but I don't think the buildings were brought down by anything other than the planes.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question is: where did they get the idea that explosives were used when there was no evidence of explosives in the first place?

From their background beliefs. Some people are predisposed to believe that the U.S. government is inherently evil (I just think it's corrupt and incompetent like many democracies /shrug) and preys upon its citizenry for some unknown sinister purpose. And no I'm not talking paranoid schizophrenia, just normal folk who get carried away by these heady ideas of secret plots. Everyone loves a good mystery, hence UM.

And yes, I'm aware of the Northwoods plan. Look, think tanks, military planners, government planning staff, all are paid to imagine all kinds of possible scenarios, either to defend against or exploit.

I've seen secret documents (now declassified) that advocated using nuclear weapons to exploit the Canadian tar sands. The context was finding peaceful uses for nukes now that the world was scaling down the arms race at the time.

The idea was floated (by some idiot) but never acted upon. Same with Northwoods. Sometimes you get whacky ideas, but cooler (sane?) heads prevail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YEah ! another educated soul welcome to the show "joc" Skyeagle has no reason to tell it any other way but the way it happened !

Two Jets brought these master pieces down ! Sad but True ! But in the End we will over come the Terror !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second, I view all opinions with an open mind. Until something makes sense to me...it doesn't. The entire scenario made sense...not completely...but after living through Vietnam and a lot of other things...I don't trust my government farther than I can throw the Statue of Liberty.

I'm with ya there bro. I didn't live through Vietnam but I hear what your saying. Most people do but they don't admit it without laughing about it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire scenario made sense...not completely...but after living through Vietnam and a lot of other things...I don't trust my government farther than I can throw the Statue of Liberty.

Believe me, I have had my time with the government as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with ya there bro. I didn't live through Vietnam but I hear what your saying. Most people do but they don't admit it without laughing about it.

I should clarify the Vietnam statement...I was not part of the Vietnam War...it was over in '73 and I graduated High School in '75. I didn't realize that it sounded like I was saying I was a Vietnam War Veteran...I'm not...but I lived through those times.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe me, I have had my time with the government as well.

I'm sure you have. I was thinking about what you said about the 'sound' of explosives. I remember a place I used to work and from time to time some joker would fill a plastic back with acetylene gas and light a fuse. Damn that was loud. You are right. There is no way there were any explosions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YEah ! another educated soul welcome to the show "joc" Skyeagle has no reason to tell it any other way but the way it happened !

Two Jets brought these master pieces down ! Sad but True ! But in the End we will over come the Terror !

You are more of an optimist than I am on overcoming Terror. We don't seem to have much resolve to do anything as a Nation anymore except twiddle our Tweet Thumbs like chickens in a thunderstorm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joc

Good posts. I'm curious if you have seen the video and heard the comments of firemen who reported "secondary explosions" and were very emphatic about it?

Sorry I can't provide a link to it, but it's two firemen sitting on a bench, covered with dust, one screwing with his radio, bloodied, talking to the camera person, and describing with much emphasis "secondary explosions."

Also, have you an opinion about the source, cause, reasons for, the molten steel present in the bowels of the buildings for many weeks?

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.