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

Posted (edited)

Buildings falling make a lot of noise too and the fact that people reported explosions as the towers collapsed disprove your notion.

They did not hear bomb explosions by any means. In Vietnam, we could hear bomb explosions from B-52 strikes from more 20 miles away.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh you didn't know.

Of course I would know! I have heard and felt real bomb explosions during wartime to know that no bomb explosions were heard nor seen in any of the WTC videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did not hear bomb explosions by any means. In Vietnam, we could hear bomb explosions from B-52 strikes from more 20 miles away.

While agree that people who've seen real bombs go off (and heard!) are a good source of info, I also agree that Firemen (and women) are good at knowing what falling buildings sound like. Also, Police officers would be familiar with the sound of explosions too.

Almost ALL the official personnel on the day heard extra explosions. Out of interest, what is the size of B-52 munitions compared to say Transformers in a building exploding or small demolition charges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Avenue of least resistance... Like say a building falling in ANY direction other than right through itself? ;)

No explosives are required to make a building fall in the same manner as the WTC buildings. Check it out.

verinage-20120406-071438.jpg

DSC09089_hf_jpg.jpg_(1024%C3%97768)-20120108-093228.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

While agree that people who've seen real bombs go off (and heard!) are a good source of info, I also agree that Firemen (and women) are good at knowing what falling buildings sound like.

The firefighters have also noted that the explosive-like sound they heard were not attributed to bombs and I have posted multiple references to their comments in that respect.

Also, Police officers would be familiar with the sound of explosions too.

The police officers did not confirm that bombs were used in the destruction of the WTC buildings.

Almost ALL the official personnel on the day heard extra explosions.

Hearing what sounded like explosions, does not mean that the sounds were from bombs. Remember, firefighters later attributed such sounds as failing rivets and falling elevators.

This what real explosives sound like.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No explosives are required to make a building fall in the same manner as the WTC buildings.

Never said they were. In actual fact, I don't subscribe to the controlled demolition theory. I agree somewhat with your assessment of Compressed air and "path of least resistance" (as it's taught over here) however, I'm intrigued as to whether you consider a building not falling in one of the many directions it could have done with nothing in the way, rather than forcing itself through hundreds of tonnes of steel and concrete being the 'path of least resistance.'? Indeed, in many ways, the way the tower fell, does appear to be the path of most resistance. 360 degrees of direction available for the building to topple easily through the air, and it crunches and smashes it's way through, well, a building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never said they were. In actual fact, I don't subscribe to the controlled demolition theory.

I am glad. In regards to the collapse of the WTC buildings, take out the certain structures within a building and gravity will take over. Check this out.

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

An Analysis of the Collapse of the WTC Towers 1,2, and 7 from an Explosives and a Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint

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

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

We’ve now read many reports from professionals on the scene about the condition of WTC 7. All of these firsthand reports are in agreement that the building was in imminent danger of collapse due to the damage and fires it sustained.

We’ve also seen that WTC 7’s collapse did not look or sound like an explosive demolition, and we’ve seen still photos and videos that show an immense amount of smoke pouring from the building’s south and east side.

https://sites.google...wtc7resembledac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hearing what sounded like explosions, does not mean that the sounds were from bombs. Remember, firefighters later attributed such sounds as failing rivets and falling elevators.

(emphasis mine.)

There's a very old experiment. Take a group of people and have them watch a video of a car crash. Then split the group in 2.

Ask group A - What speed was the car travelling when it crashed?

Ask group B - What speed was the car travelling when it smashed into the obstacle?

Group B give answers considerably higher than group A. Purely because of the language used. My point? People, by and large, say what they feel they are expected to say.

Say 20 assorted Firefighters and Police heard a couple of extra 'booms' on the day (just for example) when asked later if they heard explosions, after the media have said over AND OVER again "There were no other explosions." I'm not one bit surprised that they changed their story. Human nature.

This what real explosives sound like.

Again. What size. Fireworks are explosives. Hell, you need to be 16 now over here to buy Christmas Crackers! If, to play devils advocate, you were paid by the government to secretly blow up a building that you knew would be weakened by fire anyway, you'd use the smallest amount of explosive necessary wouldn't you?

The quote you posted is interesting, but I see no reason to think it's more accurate or valid than other reports saying the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

(emphasis mine.)

There's a very old experiment. Take a group of people and have them watch a video of a car crash. Then split the group in 2.

Ask group A - What speed was the car travelling when it crashed?

Ask group B - What speed was the car travelling when it smashed into the obstacle?

Group B give answers considerably higher than group A. Purely because of the language used. My point? People, by and large, say what they feel they are expected to say.

Say 20 assorted Firefighters and Police heard a couple of extra 'booms' on the day (just for example) when asked later if they heard explosions, after the media have said over AND OVER again "There were no other explosions." I'm not one bit surprised that they changed their story. Human nature.

I have brought that up before in regards to aircraft accidents. What do investigators do in such cases? They use technical data and other evidence to determine who was correct. In the case of the 911 attacks, there were no explosions seen on video nor heard on audio. No explosions were recorded on seismic recorders and demolition experts in the general area have said they saw no explosions. In addition, no evidence of explosives of any kind was recovered at ground zero. In other words, there is not a shred of evidence that explosives were used.

Again. What size. Fireworks are explosives.

Fire works could not have brought down the WTC buildings.

If, to play devils advocate, you were paid by the government to secretly blow up a building that you knew would be weakened by fire anyway, you'd use the smallest amount of explosive necessary wouldn't you?

First of all, any planted explosive would have been detonated when the aircraft struck the buildings. In the videos, there are no secondaries. Some people get the wrong idea that explosives alone can collapse steel-frame buildings, but let's take a look.

WTC_1993_ATF_Commons.jpg

Note that the steel columns are sitting in the middle of the bomb crater yet WTC1 survived the huge bomb attack. Now, let's take a look at steel structures that survived explosions.

orig.jpg

bombedbuilding.jpg

Aftermathpic1.jpg

Iraq_041.jpg

a-300x206.jpg

Now, this is what it takes to collapse a building.

How Building Implosions Work

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction

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

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

building-implosion-19.jpg

Blasting caps are used as a catalyst to set off the explosives loaded in support columns.

No detonation cords nor blasting caps were found at ground zero and no structural pre-weakening was found on the steel columns of the WTC buildings. In other words, there is no evidence of any kind that supports the demolition theory.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obvious answer to that is because the steel was shipped out of the country too fast to test. The government didn't give any samples to investigators.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obvious answer to that is because the steel was shipped out of the country too fast to test. The government didn't give any samples to investigators.

That's like shipping off the smoking gun left at a crime scene!!

It only happens that way in the official 9/11 fairy tale, as we all know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of the 911 attacks, there were no explosions seen on video nor heard on audio. No explosions were recorded on seismic recorders and demolition experts in the general area have said they saw no explosions. In addition, no evidence of explosives of any kind was recovered at ground zero. In other words, there is not a shred of evidence that explosives were used.

According to who exactly, 'cause I've seen and read reports/interview/witness testimony that suggests some people believe Seismic recordings recorded MASSIVE disturbances, before the planes even hit. Lot's of claims are made there WERE explosions. There are claims explosive traces were found. I'm not questioning you personally, but like most elements to the 9/11 story, both sides are fairly well represented by evidence...

Fire works could not have brought down the WTC buildings.

I sincerely hope not, and I also sincerely hope you know that's not my point. You showed a video of a large explosion, a large noisy explosion. My point was that explosions come in a variety of shapes and sizes, things alter blast radius' things block sound. It's simply not a case of "this is what explosions sound like".

First of all, any planted explosive would have been detonated when the aircraft struck the buildings.

Why? I'm no expert in the field, but even I know there are explosives robust enough to not explode on impact...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It only happens that way in the official 9/11 fairy tale, as we all know.

Considering that the overwhelming evidence supports the official story proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, the official story is not the fairy tale you thought it was. The proven fairy tales are those concocted by 911 Truthers. Should I list them each in detail beginning with Cleveland Airport and United 93 where 911 Truthers confused Delta 1989, which was a B-767 and sitting on the ground as United 93, which was a B-757 and still airborne?

Let's not forget how the 911 Truthers misidentified scientist, who had just disembarked from a KC-135, as passengers of United 93, which of course, was still airborne. There is much more as well.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The obvious answer to that is because the steel was shipped out of the country too fast to test. The government didn't give any samples to investigators.

Another misconception of 911 Truthers. Steel columns were examined at ground zero and again, at the Fresh Kills landfill and other salvage sites, so is it any wonder why I have warned people to beware of those 911 conspiracy websites?

WTC Steel

http://911research.w.../WTC_apndxD.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uls-qPlnYj4

.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to who exactly,...

Me, and demolition experts and companies in the general location when the WTC buildings collapsed. Remember, Protec, Co. had seismic monitors in the area as well.

...'cause I've seen and read reports/interview/witness testimony that suggests some people believe Seismic recordings recorded MASSIVE disturbances,..

The disturbance recorded by the seismic monitors were the recordings during the collapse of the WTC buildings and were not recordings of explosions.

...before the planes even hit.

There were no bomb explosions before the aircraft had struck. Let's take a look at this video just Before American 11 struck WTC1.

You didn't hear any bomb explosions in that video before American 11 struck WTC1. Just goes to show how 911 conspiracy sites have taken the 'unknowing' for a ride to the cleaners.

Lot's of claims are made there WERE explosions.

Just because someone hears a sound like an explosion doesn't mean that it was. Here is another example where 911 conspiracist took the "unknowing" for a ride to the cleaners. Check it out.

http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

There are claims explosive traces were found. I'm not questioning you personally, but like most elements to the 9/11 story, both sides are fairly well represented by evidence...

It was determined that Steven Jones was lying when he claimed that thermite was found. Even his colleagues at BYU have disagreed with his assessment.

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky we could play that a Million times and the C.T`s will still say it was a bomb,missle,UFO,Swampgas special weapon of mass destruction ! It will never change ! What Happened is what we know Happened ! Four Aircraft and people were lost that day to a Terriost attack ! :tu:

GOD whares the Logic in here ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me, and demolition experts and companies in the general location when the WTC buildings collapsed. Remember, Protec, Co. had seismic monitors in the area as well.

As did the team at Columbia University, whose findings are completely at odds with protec. I'm guessing neither you or myself have several decades experience in interpreting seismic charts and can decide which piece of conflicting proof is right. (Correct me, of course if you happen to be a 50 year old seismologist.)

The disturbance recorded by the seismic monitors were the recordings during the collapse of the WTC buildings and were not recordings of explosions.

I never said they were explosions, you frequently counter arguments I haven't actually made. Those recordings, if the university team are correct, are even more fascinating. If those disturbances are what they claim, and they are, as you claim, accurate recordings of the collapse, then we have information moving slightly faster than light. CERN will be shaking in their pointy boots.

It was determined that Steven Jones was lying when he claimed that thermite was found. Even his colleagues at BYU have disagreed with his assessment.

Never mentioned Thermite. CERTAINLY Never mentioned Steve Jones. The guy makes the vegetarian society look like competent and balanced researchers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As did the team at Columbia University, whose findings are completely at odds with protec. I'm guessing neither you or myself have several decades experience in interpreting seismic charts and can decide which piece of conflicting proof is right. (Correct me, of course if you happen to be a 50 year old seismologist.)

I never said they were explosions, you frequently counter arguments I haven't actually made. Those recordings, if the university team are correct, are even more fascinating. If those disturbances are what they claim, and they are, as you claim, accurate recordings of the collapse, then we have information moving slightly faster than light. CERN will be shaking in their pointy boots.

I have posted the data which proved my point already. There was no question in that data that no explosions was detected by seismic monitors.

Seismic Spikes

Claim: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

911-seismograph-1.jpg

911-seismograph-2.jpg

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear—misleadingly—as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves—blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower—start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

: 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

Sky we could play that a Million times and the C.T`s will still say it was a bomb,missle,UFO,Swampgas special weapon of mass destruction ! It will never change ! What Happened is what we know Happened ! Four Aircraft and people were lost that day to a Terriost attack ! :tu:

GOD whares the Logic in here ?

They just don't bother to do their homework, or do it properly when they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted the data which proved my point already. There was no question in that data that no explosions was detected by seismic monitors.

Yes there is. I know very well the Popular Mechanics debunking of the seismic data. But I'm also familiar with Andre Roussou's (That surname might be spelt wrong) 2012 research with utter backing for the original data and that the popular mechanics team are wrong.

This is my point. every theory has backers, every idiotic theory has some high profile/well educated adherents. We could tit-for-tat like this all day:

This happened, this pilot said this : "blah blah blah"

But he was wrong, this pilot contradicts him directly : "blah blah blah"

But this magazine proved the original research was right : -link-

But this expert former FAA agent contradicts them all : "Blah, Blah, Blah"

Both sides of the argument have a tendency to only look at the stuff that backs them up... It's a normal thing to do, but I still think there are genuine questions that have not been satisfactorily answered, or forum's like this, simply wouldn't exist.

I'm not saying either side are right... I know what I, think, and why. I understand that people think I'm wrong, but there's a LOT of conflicting info that's come about over the past dozen years...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent points Spinebreaker! I wonder if you are familiar with the research conducted by Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong regarding the seismic events at WTC? Their research showed that just as Rodriguez claimed in his testimony, there was a large seismic event BEFORE the first airplane hit the towers, suggesting that some sort of massive explosive device was detonated before the airplane strike.

Also, have you heard of the work of Dennis Cimino regarding Flight Data Recorder analysis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is. I know very well the Popular Mechanics debunking of the seismic data. But I'm also familiar with Andre Roussou's (That surname might be spelt wrong) 2012 research with utter backing for the original data and that the popular mechanics team are wrong.

Not wrong at all, but right on the money. At no time did the seismic monitors detect bomb explosions. As proof, please point out in the charts, where explosions were recorded! In other words, point out the explosion indicators for all to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Excellent points Spinebreaker! I wonder if you are familiar with the research conducted by Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong regarding the seismic events at WTC?

Perhaps, you would like to try. Please point out the indicators of explosions in the charts. If you are unable to do so, then I rest my case that no explosions were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Also, have you heard of the work of Dennis Cimino regarding Flight Data Recorder analysis?

Dennis Cimino, has been discredited because it seems that he was unaware that the transcribed data was converted to engineering units using conversion formulas provided by American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Company that pertained ONLY to the airframe of American 77 and NO other B-757.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Excellent points Spinebreaker! I wonder if you are familiar with the research conducted by Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong regarding the seismic events at WTC?

Also, have you heard of the work of Dennis Cimino regarding Flight Data Recorder analysis?

I'll have a look into those names this evening and get back to you. And thanks. :)

Not wrong at all, but right on the money. At no time did the seismic monitors detect bomb explosions. As proof, please point out in the charts, where explosions were recorded! In other words, point out the explosion indicators for all to see.

Again, I'm not a qualified, expert seismologist. Andre Roussou very much is. His research (the latest research - Late 2012) suggests that the Popular mechanics team were wrong (not for the first time...) If you want a recommendation on which Ale is hoppiest, and a JD and coke - I'm your guy. If you wanna know how to spell verisimilitude - again, I'm your guy. You want to know how many people have lifted Thor's hammer in the comics - again, give a call. Beyond that, I rely on experts for seismological analysis, and I find Roussou much more credible than popular mechanics.

Edited by Spinebreaker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have a look into those names this evening and get back to you. And thanks. :)

Okay, because the charts show the collapse of the WTC buildings, but no evidence of explosions.

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.