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

"We really never even got that close to the building. The explosion blew and it knocked everybody over"

Compressed air has been noted for knocking down people, which had nothing to do with a bomb explosion. You haven't been paying attention to what I have posted.

]"Tower two has had major explosion and what appears to be a complete collapse" ..[/b]

There was no bomb explosion in WTC2 and no evidence of a bomb was found in the rubble of WTC2. No evidence, no case.

]. "...those involved in the secondary explosion at tower 1, 'kay, I've got five patients..."[/b]

No evidence of a bomb was found in the rubble of WTC1 either. No evidence, no case.

... "We have got numerous people covered in dust from the secondary explosion..." ... "We've got another explosion at the tower..."

No evidence of bombs of any kind was ever found in the rubble of the WTC buildings. No evidence, no case.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, I have posted accounts where people mistaken explosion-like sounds that were attributed to something else. Without physical evidence, you have no case.

And I have posted many more accounts were people were not mistaken and suffered injuries from these explosions and that they were attributed to explosives. Without physical evidence of what these explosions where, you have no case and therefore cannot rule out the possibility of explosives. Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No evidence was found in the rubble of the WTC buildings that bombs were used.

There was lot of things not found in the rubble including things which they were suppose to be looking for...

Like missing bodies!!

So if they can't something which they were suppose to be looking for, how are they going to find things which they admit they never looked for?? :blink:

No evidence, and you have no case.

The possibility still remains I'm afraid. No amount of ignorance will make it disappear I'm afraid. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Compressed air has been noted for knocking down people, which had nothing to do with a bomb explosion. You haven't been paying attention to what I have posted.
Sorry but the people at GZ do not refer to it as compressed air....lol

I suppose this is the same compressed air which travels randomly up and down the building before and as the building collapses?? lol

There was no bomb explosion in WTC2 and no evidence of a bomb was found in the rubble of WTC2. No evidence, no case.
No matter how many times you say no evidence, no case, doesn't make it true when there is plenty of evidence of explosions at GZ and therefore the possibility. lol

No evidence of a bomb was found in the rubble of WTC1 either. No evidence, no case.

Because it was never looked for...lol
No evidence of bombs of any kind was ever found in the rubble of the WTC buildings. No evidence, no case.

Because it was never looked for Dorothy...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I have posted many more accounts were people were not mistaken and suffered injuries from these explosions and that they were attributed to explosives.

They were not injured by bombs because no evidence of bombs were recovered and I have also posted accounts from experts who have said there were no bombs at ground zero.

Without physical evidence of what these explosions where, you have no case and therefore cannot rule out the possibility of explosives.

On the contrary, we have evidence that no bombs were used. We have video, photo and audio evidence, but you have presented no evidence at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but the people at GZ do not refer to it as compressed air...

Apparently, you haven't been paying attention nor reading the reports of compressed air and look what you have posted. You are not paying attention at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, you haven't been paying attention nor reading the reports of compressed air and look what you have posted. You are not paying attention at all.

Apparently you think you know better than those at GZ again. :rolleyes:

Firefighter Schroeder made it all the way up to the 23rd floor before barely hearing on the failing radios that another plane was coming in. That plane would hit the South Tower though for some reason “We were tossed like a rag doll by another explosion in our building. People were making there way down the stairwells burnt like you couldn’t believe. We were all shocked because it seemed as if there was fire everywhere, on so many floors. It just didn’t make sense”.

So according to Skyeagle logic, compressed air burns people and set fires of everywhere does it :blink:....lol

So the explosions are now elevators falling, manhole explosions and now compressed air, but definitely not explosives?? lol

Such great pantomime debunking....ol

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but the people at GZ do not refer to it as compressed air..

You might want to read this report.

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Backup%20of%20Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to read this report.

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

http://www.civil.nor...ot Cause It.pdf

I've read it but it's flawed, just like your logic....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently you think you know better than those at GZ again.

If you want to bring people who were at ground zero into the debate, lets add the demolition experts, structural, civil engineers and investigators who were at ground zero have stated they found no evidence of explosives.

I've read it but it's flawed, just like your logic....lol

You didn't read it at all because I just posted it!! :lol: So once again, I caught you trying to mislead the readers. Now, go back and read it.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to bring people who were at ground zero into the debate, lets add the demolition experts, structural, civil engineers and investigators who were at ground zero have stated they found no evidence of explosives.

Sorry I didn't realise that bringing evidence from people who were at GZ into the debate to prove that it was not compressed air was against the rules...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't realise that bringing evidence from people who were at GZ into the debate to prove that it was not compressed air was against the rules...lol

Apparently, you are not up-to-speed as to what has been reported, or are you just trying to mislead the readers again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't realise that bringing evidence from people who were at GZ into the debate to prove that it was not compressed air was against the rules...lol

Let's take a look.

Puffs Of Dust

Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, you are not up-to-speed as to what has been reported, or are you just trying to mislead the readers again?

Sorry was compressed air reported by the eyewitnesses at GZ?

And does compress air burn people and set fire to everywhere?? lol

The only person try to mislead readers is you, by avoiding question like the ones above. All it does is highlight that you haven't got a god damn clue and exposes the lies your sprout from behind your keyboard while claiming to know better than those at GZ.

The problem is that you are fooling absolutely no one but yourself. lol

Keep up the pantomime....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry was compressed air reported by the eyewitnesses at GZ?

Let's take another look, because I have posted this before, which once again, proves that you are trying to mislead the readers.

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

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

I’m looking from the lobby up to a mezzanine area or the second floor where they lined up all the people to go up to the rooftop, and I’m looking up expecting something, building parts to be coming down, because I wasn’t quite sure what that noise was.

But I found out later, when the plane came through the building, it cut the hoist ropes, the governor ropes, of (the) 6 and 7 cars, which was the observation cars.

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.

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

Now, what was that you were saying?? You just got caught again conducting another deception attempt.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take a look.

Puffs Of Dust

Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

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

This is same popular mechanics who says that structures can't be demolished by thermite, even though they had reported structures being demolished by thermite many years before...lol

Is this the same popular mechanics that is owned by yellow journalism outfit Hearst?? lol

is this same popular popular mechanics that got owned by AZ Radio host Charles Goyette back in 2006? lol

Sorry but until they explain how and why this compressed air/ puffs of smoke travel up and down the building as it collapses and some of them before it collapses, then you might as well post a picture of a turd as evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is same popular mechanics who says that structures can't be demolished by thermite,...

Which thermite cannot do. Ever wondered why thermite is not widely used by the demolition industry for the implosion of buildings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which thermite cannot do.

Oh but it can, it's been shown to bring down 600ft steel structures and Jon Cole showed you it cutting a steel beam.
Ever wondered why thermite is not widely used by the demolition industry for the implosion of buildings?

Cause explosives are better.

Ever wondered why fires are not widely used the by the demolition industry for the implosion of buildings even though by your own logic, they appear to be very good at bringing down buildings, especially toy factories and overpasses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh but it can,...

Thermite can't, which is why demolition companies do not use thermite for demolition implosions of buildings. Even RDX, which is much more effective than thermite, requires help in demolishing a building by structural pre-weakening the buildings and the use of dynamite, or other explosives and remember, thermite is not an explosive.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thermite can't, which is why demolition companies do not use thermite for demolition implosions.

They don't use it because explosives are more effective. Doesn't mean they couldn't use it as it was used back in 1935 to bring down 2 600ft structures.

Ever wondered why they don't use fires though? Lets look at benefits for fires over explosives....

  • Saves time as there is no need to empty building contents and leaving them makes the fires more effective.
  • Save time on pre-weakening as with fires, there is no need to pre-weaken as it will do the job itself.
  • No need to spend time rigging the building with explosive
  • No need for wiring the building with explosives
  • No need for planning or setting detonation timings.
  • Cost effective as it save demolition crews all that time.
  • A storey building can be demolished in around 7 hours, all in a days work.
  • Leaves the debris in a nice neat pile, just like it was done with explosives.
  • Can be started with a match.

Makes you wonder why the demolition industry spends all the weeks and months when a fire will suffice....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't use it because explosives are more effective. Doesn't mean they couldn't use it as it was used back in 1935 to bring down 2 600ft structures.

That was not an office building. Another deception attempt on your part, and counting.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was not an office building. Another deception attempt at deception on your part, and counting.

I never said it was an office building, I said it was a steel structure, a tower infact.

And the WTC are also steel structures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said it was an office building, I said it was a steel structure, a tower infact.

And the WTC are also steel structures.

Another attempt at deception. There is no comparison between the two structures and you knew it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but until they explain how and why this compressed air/ puffs of smoke travel up and down the building as it collapses and some of them before it collapses, then you might as well post a picture of a turd as evidence.

"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.debunking911.com/overp.htm

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another attempt at deception. There is no comparison between the two structures and you knew it.

Of course there is a comparison....They are both constructed of steel and they are both high rise structures.

Admittedly, they are not as closer a comparison to a toy factory or an overpass which is not deceptive in the slightest. :rolleyes: lol

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.