WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

[skyeagle409]

They weren't explosions that everybody was hearing, it was Godzilla farting! Right Sky!?

Must have been because there definitely wasn't an explosive involved.

'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

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

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

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

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.

http://www.popularme...ld-trade-center

Edited August 1, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

I'm surprised you have not advanced the theory that everybody reporting explosions was merely hallucinating, as they had all done LSD that morning.

[skyeagle409]

I'm surprised you have not advanced the theory that everybody reporting explosions was merely hallucinating, as they had all done LSD that morning.

Well, you know, I just posted the following accounts, but I guess you missed it, so here they are again.

Explosions

"When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go.The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down."

He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.

http://www.debunking.../explosions.htm

Well he could be mistaken?? No of course not! Just like those who said they were explosives, they are wrong, he is correct, right? lol

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

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

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

Well he is being skeptical, he saying it sounded like bombs, but he is not claiming there were bombs, he doesn't know what the explosions were, but that doesn't mean they were not bombs, it's just saying that it could be something else he heard, but clearly doesn't know what they were.

Again, a complete failure to understand that this chap doesn't really support your case.

Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.

So does this person now discount everyone elses account and reports of explosions?? lol

If so, why do you hold this person to a much higher authority in what you believe??

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

Dominick Derubbio

t was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

So this guys is guessing that the explosions were floors pancaking.

WOW Such strong evidence, a person guessing something is no doubt in your world, definitive proof.

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

FDNY Batallion Chief Brian Dixon

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.

So something blew out a floor, but again he said it looked like an explosion, but it wasn't an explosion and then doesn't explain what blew out the windows/floor.

Of course, this man could not be mistaken could he?? lol In an internet debunking warrior, his word trumps that of any other eyewitnesses regardless of the time they heard the explosions or whether they were in a different locations.

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

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://www.911myths....uote_abuse.html

As noted above, it was determined that the sounds they heard were not attributed to explosives, which explains why the real experts did not hear demolition explosions either.

Quote

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

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

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

https://sites.google...wtc7resembledac

Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

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

Another demolition expert who worked at Ground Zero also finds no trouble debunking the claim of explosives."Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event," says Brent Blanchard, senior writer for www.implosionworld.com.

"You just can't clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can't see how it happened that way."

Edited August 1, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

I'm afraid it does and your ignorance and denial doesn't change a thing...lol

On the contrary, Q24 was proven wrong with facts and evidence.

[Stundie]

How amusing that you would say such a thing when the video you posted depicted similar silvery aluminum droplets.

FFS! What silvery aluminium droplets?? hahahahahaha!!

There are no silvery droplets on the video. You have gone doodah!! lol

Now, you are trying to back out of a difficult situation because you were the person who presented that video.

Backing out of a difficult situation??

[Stundie]

Let's take a look.

Yes lets shall we....

Yes, that looks like molten steel to me.

NEXT.......lol

No photo-paint job there!

Only in Skyeagles world can he mistake my reference to paint as in MSPAINT that you get with Windows to real paint!! hahahahahaah!!

But, I did see aluminum droplets falling from the same location where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 is resting.

So let me get this straight....

The witnesses at GZ who had the expertise to recognise molten steel beams and columns were actually mistaken.....because...You can see some imaginary silvery droplets falling at free fall speed on a low resolution youtube video and are capable of identifying it as aluminium. hahahahahahahahahahaha!!

Seriously, that is your argument?? hahahahahaha!!!

For a start these silvery droplets do not exist on any of the photos or videos. Shall we call them ghost droplets seeing as they don't exist! hahahhaha

Wrong again. Even experts dismissed that flow as molten steel.

None of them were there.

I take first hand accounts rather than second thanks!

BTW, that is an aluminum color chart.

So what? lol

I might add that 1200 C. is nowhere near the melting point of steel.

And I never said it was either.

More server garbage!!

[Stundie]

On the contrary, Q24 was proven wrong with facts and evidence.

It only happened inside your head.

Seek help!

[skyeagle409]

Yes lets shall we....

Yes, that looks like molten steel to me.

More like the molten aluminum you see here.

Molten Aluminum

Molten Aluminum

Molten Aluminum

Molten Aluminum

And, to further add:

And, you mentioned that the recorded temperature was 1200 C., which is below the melting point of steel, but far above the melting point of aluminum.

Edited August 2, 2013 by skyeagle409

[+joc]

No, it is not fine and dandy. I would expect that if you had any self respect, you would apologise for incorrectly attributing false arguments against me. But I do not expect it seeing as this post clearly shows us the desperate lengths you will go to ignore what is right in front of your face.

I and others have asked you to tell us in no uncertain terms, exactly what is in front of our faces...and you admittedly have no clue. So what are you even arguing about?

I wonder why you are not quizzing raptorbites about the wind interference on the mic, because by not challenging that or even responding to it, it would seem that you think that these explosions are more than likely wind interference on the mic....hahahaha....over actual explosions?

Possibly explosives?

Why would I take your whims and challenge someone on YOUR misunderstandings?

Until we have a source for the explosions, then I can't rule out the possibility.

The kind that explode....lol

That's like Pelosi saying, We need to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it!

I have no idea about what kind of explosives were used seeing as there is no way of knowing. I can guess, but that is all it would be.

So your question would be like me asking you that if you believe it was wind interference on the mic, you would have some sort of idea about what kind of wind interference, you know wind speed, direction etc etc.

To bring the towers down at a guess.

You're not what I would call a ...deep...thinker...but ...deep...down in your heart of hearts...you probably know that your arguments are nonsensical at best.

[Stundie]

Sorry but you failed. None of them seem really seem to match Sky...lol

One or two come close, but the examples are poor! lol

What happened to the silvery droplets you imagine exist that proves it's aluminium?? lol

Edited August 2, 2013 by Stundie

[Stundie]

I and others have asked you to tell us in no uncertain terms, exactly what is in front of our faces...and you admittedly have no clue. So what are you even arguing about?

What is in front of your face, wind interference??

Why would I take your whims and challenge someone on YOUR misunderstandings?

Maybe you could point out what I am misunderstanding about wind interference with the mic then? lol

That's like Pelosi saying, We need to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it!

Is it?? How so??

You're not what I would call a ...deep...thinker...but ...deep...down in your heart of hearts...you probably know that your arguments are nonsensical at best.

Well I'll try not to lose too much sleep over whether you think I am not a deep thinker and deep down in my heart of heart, I know that in my heart of heart, my argument that the sound is not wind interference with the mic make perfect sense at best.

[+joc]

What is in front of your face, wind interference??

Maybe you could point out what I am misunderstanding about wind interference with the mic then? lol

Is it?? How so??

Well I'll try not to lose too much sleep over whether you think I am not a deep thinker and deep down in my heart of heart, I know that in my heart of heart, my argument that the sound is not wind interference with the mic make perfect sense at best.

Would you please just drop the wind interference crap? It's getting old...the point was that many other things can cause 'explosive' type sounds. Get over it.

[Stundie]

Would you please just drop the wind interference crap?

Well you are the one who thinks I misunderstood it, now you thinks it's crap!

Maybe you should have told Raptorbites that it was a load of crap too?

It's getting old...the point was that many other things can cause 'explosive' type sounds.

Don't you think I know that??

The explosions on the videos could possibly be many other things because many things can cause explosives type sounds.....including actual explosions.

Get over it.

I'm not the one getting my knickers in a twist over the possibility that the sounds were possibly explosions rather than wind interference on the mic......lol

[Zaphod222]

What the fekk does any this has to do with the simple fact, that 9-11 was not anything new or surprising by any means at all.

It was simply are a very successful jihadist attack, but only one of thousands of jihadist attacks that have been going on for a long time, are going on now, and will be going on for a long time.

Only a complete idiot would be unaware of that. But I guess that is the pre-condition for being a good 9-11 troother.

The troothers are an embarressment to this board.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Zaphod222

[Babe Ruth]

Z

It was a well planned and executed military operation, a false flag operation similar to Operation Northwoods.

Training exercise Vigilant Guardian started the events first thing that morning, and everything went pretty well flawlessly, except at Shanksville where Wally Miller let the cat out of the bag before the feds made it on site.

[Zaphod222]

Z

It was a well planned and executed military operation, a false flag operation similar to Operation Northwoods.

Training exercise Vigilant Guardian started the events first thing that morning, and everything went pretty well flawlessly, except at Shanksville where Wally Miller let the cat out of the bag before the feds made it on site.

Yeah, right. "military operation" to add...... another islamist attack in the middle of a whole torrent of them.

So how many of the thousands of other jihadist attacks (from the successful to the planned to the totally amateurish) were also "military operations, run by ..... anybody but the jihadists themselves.

Again, the 9-11 troothers are an insult to human intelligence and an embarrassement for this site.

[Babe Ruth]

Z

You should get closer to how Dubya put it at the UN back in November 2001: LET US NEVER TOLERATE OUTRAGEOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIES CONCERNING THE ATTACKS OF 9/11; MALICIOUS LIES THAT ATTEMPT TO SHIFT THE BLAME AWAY FROM THE TERRORISTS, THEMSELVES, AWAY FROM THE GUILTY.

Even with his slightly dyslexic style he was a bit more eloquent about it than you are.

[skyeagle409]

The explosions on the videos could possibly be many other things because many things can cause explosives type sounds.....including actual explosions.

Explosions, which are the result of explosives, leave behind lots of evidence, and that was not the case at ground zero. There were no shrapnel, detonation cords, and nor hardware associated with explosive demolition and demolition experts at ground zero have stated for the record they heard no demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed nor found explosive hardware with in the rubble, which can be confirmed on video.

There were no secondary explosions observed as the aircraft struck the WTC towers, which would have rendered planted explosives ineffective anyway. There was no way to prepare the WTC buildings for demolition, which would have taken many months of preparation, and would have attracted a lot of attention as well.

It took many months to prepare a bridge in Corpus Christi, TX for demolition in which case there was no way the WTC towers could have been prepared for demolition in a few days as some conspiracy theorist have suggested..

[skyeagle409]

LET US NEVER TOLERATE OUTRAGEOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIES CONCERNING THE ATTACKS OF 9/11; MALICIOUS LIES THAT ATTEMPT TO SHIFT THE BLAME AWAY FROM THE TERRORISTS, THEMSELVES, AWAY FROM THE GUILTY.

But, Osama bin Laden has already claimed responsibility for the 911 attacks.

Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html

And, al-Qaeda has become angry at people like you for trying to pin the 911 attacks upon the Bush administration.

[skyeagle409]

It was a well planned and executed military operation, a false flag operation similar to Operation Northwoods.

I remember that false flag operation very well. That was when Washington contracted with the Nazis in 1944 to shoot down a B-747 over Berlin in 1987 in order to cause the aircraft to crash into the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge and use that incident as an excuse to raise toll fares, however, the B-747 ran out of gas before reaching the Bay Bridge and crashed into an overpass leading to the Bay Bridge.

However, the landing gears and engines continued due to momentum and managed to damage portions of the Bay Bridge, which is why a replacement bridge is being built.

Thanks for reminding me of that false flag operation involving the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge.

Training exercise Vigilant Guardian started the events first thing that morning,...

That was our annual Pentagon training exercise where the Boy Scouts taught us how to tie knots.

...and everything went pretty well flawlessly, except at Shanksville where Wally Miller let the cat out of the bag before the feds made it on site.

Yes indeed, Wally Miller spilled the beans.

Edited August 2, 2013 by skyeagle409

[+joc]

Good job SkyEagle!

[turbonium]

There wasn't evidence of explosives to begin with. None in the videos, none on audio, none on seismic monitors in the general area and none found in the rubble because there was none to begin with.

That's a joke, right?

First - you have to look at ALL the evidence.

That evidence will (hopefully) reveal what happened.

Finally, a conclusion is made.

You have it backwards - you make a conclusion first, then start the investigation. You don't have all the evidence, but you don't care. There is enough evidence left to uphold your pre-determined conclusion.

You don't care about the criminals who stole evidence of a crime scene.

You don't want the truth, which is sickening.

[turbonium]

Repeat post

Edited August 3, 2013 by turbonium

[Babe Ruth]

No, it's not a joke. It is simply the mind in denial, in action. Wilful ignorance, as the lawyers put it.

[skyeagle409]

That's a joke, right?

Nope!

First - you have to look at ALL the evidence.

Which I have, and another reason why I have stated for the record that no explosives were involved in the 911 attacks.

That evidence will (hopefully) reveal what happened.

Apparently, Osama bin Laden has already claimed responsibility for the 911 attacks, and remember, bin Laden declared war on the United States. In addition, terrorist plans to use airliners to kill thousands of people and crash airliners into buildings was revealed by the Philippine government in 1995. One of those terrorist who was revealed by the Philippine government was the same person who detonated a huge bomb beneath WTC1 in 1993, and nephew of another terrorist who later admitted to his role in the 911 attacks.

You have it backwards - you make a conclusion first, then start the investigation.

You don't have all the evidence, but you don't care. There is enough evidence left to uphold your pre-determined conclusion.

The United States and nations of the world are full of investigative reporters looking for a good story to advanced their careers and yet, they found no evidence implicating the United States either and there was no way the United States could have been involved and not get caught in a terrorist operation of that magnitude.

You don't care about the criminals who stole evidence of a crime scene.

Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and Mohammed Atef have been found guilty for the 911 attacks by clear-cut evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks