It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should we just focus on Building 7?

page: 22
71
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
First of all, I commend you for actually supplying a link which is something very rare. Secondly, you didn't say this personally but there are a couple of people here who speak to me on grossly unfounded ideas of what my beliefs are. All I want is information and that's why I go to both "Truther" and "debunker" sites. To get both sides. That's why we ask for links instead of insults. I actually do want to see what there is to offer from all angles and make an informed decision, which I haven't quite made yet and even if I do make it I'll consider changing it if the right information comes to light. Now, I'll address the information you provided. This is what you said earlier:

Except for the damage caused by a 757 sized aircraft,
except for the 757 fuselage parts found inside and outside the Pentagon,
except for the 757 engines found inside the Pentagon,
except for the 757 undercarriage and wheels found inside the Pentagon,
except for the 757 seats found inside the Pentagon,
except for the bodies and body parts from all passengers and crew of Flight 77 found inside the Pentagon,
except for luggage from Flight 77 found inside the Pentagon,
etc. etc.

So what evidence do you have that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon?

None at all.... which is why truthers are largely ignored.

So you did mention 757 seats. In fact, everything you mention has to do with flight 77 or a 757, so I guess I was expecting these photos to show the bodies as being directly associated with flight 77, which they are not. The only thing I ever heard in that regard was a woman saying she had physically seen photos of bodies still strapped in their seats. No one else has said such a thing, but I guess where you said right out body parts and bodies of passengers of flight 77 I was hoping for definitive proof. Instead what you gave me are the very things I already mentioned earlier: token airplane parts not positively identified directly to flight 77, and then the link to the only article people seem to have
And that I already mentioned with the quotes from the DNA guy.
I really appreciate the link. It's a very useful site obviously, and I'm not saying these don't
Provide a lot of backing for the official story. Keep in mind I also never said I didn't believe a plane hit the pentagon either.
a reply to: hellobruce
edit on 26-2-2015 by TheBolt because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   

DoD released the positive identification of Pentagon victims. All but four of those who worked in the Pentagon were identified. AFIP identified all but one of the passengers on Flight 77.


As is clear for many years already, I do not contest that Fl.77 crashed at the Pentagon.
I do strongly contest from which direction it came. I think, based on more than 23 witness accounts I collected in those years, that the Pentagon attack plane came in partly over the concrete Heli-pad.
Many of these witnesses noted that their car was standing in a traffic jam inside the 2 center lanes on Washington Boulevard, right in front of that Heli-pad. And it flew very low over their heads and car roofs.
Penny Elgas, Christine Peterson, Vin, Probst, etcetera. Just do an ATS Search with " LaBTop Elgas ", for example.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Anthem0
I'll play this game with you exactly once. And no more.


originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Anthem0

Your first point "All the material was immeadiately shipped overseas and destroyed" Does not even begin to resemble reality. First, the last of the debris was not removed from the site until Memorial Day weekend 2002. Second, it was all taken to one of four landfills where it was gone through by investigators/search teams. Third, it did not all go overseas.


Yes or no: Was the debris from the 3 collapsed WTC buildings "officially" tested for exotic accelerants/explosive residue? If no, then you're proving my point for me, and I accept your concession. The PROOF was destroyed, deliberately and illegally. This was a crime after all, and destroying or otherwise "burying" the evidence, thus preventing it from being properly analyzed, is illegal and screams of something fishy. Feel free to disagree if it pleases you.

If yes, then what were the "official" results? We both know it wasn't, but I added this option for completionist's sake.


Your second point "Government confiscate all video evidence around the area of the Pentagon" They did not. They had 12 videos from the Pentagon and the area around it. ALL the videos have been released at this point.


Shameless, flat out lie. Not only is the 12 number arbitrary and completely fallacious, but not a single video showing a plane hitting the Pentagon even exists. Show me the proof these 12 videos that have been released showing PROOF of a plane hitting the Pentagon, and I'll gladly concede. Since we both you know won't (rather, can't), I won't hold my breath...

And once again, you're tacitly conceding the point I was making... There is NO PROOF that a plane hit the Pentagon, and to assert that such an event took place is to be blindly taking the word of the government, since they've provided no proof that ever happened.


Your third point "they haven't released airport video" You are assuming that such video exists, in 2001, not a tremendous amount of video surveillance at the gates of the airports.


So once again, you're conceding the point I was making, which is that the government has provided NO PROOF that the terrorists were even aboard the airplanes. To assume they were ever on board is to simply take their word for it.

Are you seeing how this works?


Your fourth point "proof that Flight 93 hit the ground in Shanksville" Just how many people are you willing to accuse of lying over the mess they found? Not to mention Nevin Lambert who LIVED close enough that he witnessed Flight 93 slam into the ground.


ROFL. This is how this works, eh? Government claims to have recovered 95% (I believe) of the plane from UNDERGROUND in Shanksville. Where is the proof of this?

Also, since desperate appeals to emotion are your thing, how many people are you willing to accuse of lying over explosions in the lower levels of WTC pre-crash and pre-collapse? Not to mention the mayor of Shanksville who said there was no plane crash in Shanksville. But I guess Nevin Lambert is credible but the mayor of Shanksville isn't, nor are the hundreds of firemen and citizens who attest to hearing explosions @ the towers.

I understand you haven't specifically contended there were no explosions @ WTC, so can I assume you agree with my assessment her that if Nevin Lambert is credible, then so must be the mayor and the people @ WTC who hearad explosions? Are you capable of that level of consistency?


Your fifth point " Why were none of the planes intercepted?" We did not know it was an attack until the SECOND airliner hit the Towers. Flight 77 popped back up too late for any alert aircraft to get to it, only Flight 93, delayed as it was had a chance of being intercepted. And there were F-16s over DC waiting for it to show up.


Nice attempt at a strawman. When we knew we were under attack is irrelevant. They knew exactly when the planes went off course. Unless you're suggesting that it was responsible of "us" to wait until we KNEW we were under attack before scrambling interceptors.

But of course it's just incompetence. I understand.


There has been more evidence provided that I can enumerate in a post on ATS, people like you, are unwilling to accept anything that does not agree with the crap you have read on conspiracy sites.


ROFL @ More evidence? What evidence did you present in your post? Nevin Lambert's expert testimony? Seriously, what evidence did you even attempt to present. You deliberately missed the entire point of my post and tried a lazy blanket debunking, unknowingly conceding to every point I was making...namely that the government has provided no proof that any aspects of the OS are even true. To believe the OS is to do so entirely due to blind trust in the word of the authority, and not because that authority has provided PROOF to corroborate their theory. In fact, the authority has done much to willfully obstruct providing proof (such as destroying material evidence of the towers and withholding videos).

Do you disagree with that assessment, and if so why?

If you don't address that point (you know, the actual point I'm making about the one-sided application of proof), then I will immediately cease all feeding.


This is one of the saddest, most delusional posts I have ever seen on ATS. And that's really saying something. You have to be trolling. There is no way someone could be that willfully obtuse. It's impossible.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop




As is clear for many years already, I do not contest that Fl.77 crashed at the Pentagon.
I do strongly contest from which direction it came. I think, based on more than 23 witness accounts I collected in those years, that the Pentagon attack plane came in partly over the concrete Heli-pad.

If you agree that the majority (95%+) of the Pentagon/OS is true, why the majority of the WTC/OS be untrue?



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: TheBolt




. You on the other hand said right out that you've seen photos of bodies, plane seats, etc INSIDE the pentagon "many times". Surely theN you can quickly find one, jus one, link to them?

If you only visit conspiracy sites . . . .
Try looking for real evidence.

Body Parts
Entire body
Entire body
Half a body

But you wont believe it because it contradicts you conspiracy belief.


Thank you for once again tacitly conceding to my point that there is NO PROOF that an airplane (flight 77) hit the Pentagon. Reposting for the 97th time government-provided pictures of bodies not strapped into plane seats and claiming inexplicably that it proves a plane hit the Pentagon is not providing proof that a plane hit the Pentagon. It's doing much the opposite in fact, but of course you already knew that. You had to have known before you posted this again that at best it illustrates that some people died in somewhere at some point in some fiery fashion. But you posted it anyway, like it was going to do anything other than prove my point for me.

This really isn't that complicated. In order to believe that an airplane hit the Pentagon, you have to be taking the government's word for it. Because they have not provided any proof, and there has been no independent verification. They are admittedly sitting on 80+ videos which if revealed would, one way or another, shed much light on what was actually happening on the Pentagon grounds before, during, and after the explosion. If there was a plane hitting, you'd see evidence of that being the case, namely a PLANE, specifically flight 77. If there was a cover-up, you'd probably see something else, followed by the planting of evidence and soforth. Seeing as how, according to the authority holding all the evidence, there's apparently no clearly visible plane on ANY of the videos, you kind of just have to take their word for it that a plane was even there. Contrary to what ye of blind faith in the word of authority may believe, their word is not PROOF.

You can take their word for it that the invisible plane flight 77 wasn't filmed by ANY cameras in the area, that's fine...but you CAN'T say they've provided proof that a plane hit the Pentagon. Because they very clearly have not.
edit on 26-2-2015 by Anthem0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
A reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I invite you or any other serious OS-truster in this thread, to deny my Signature links.
Up till now, not any of the usual OS-trustees even came near to a serious argument. They usually opt for the "Elvis left the building...." move.

WTC 7 for 100% sure was a demolition-went-wrong. The steel in the building was much too strong for the chain of too small demo attempts during the hours between WTC1N collapse and WTC 7 collapse.
As mentioned on many live-TV videos, shot after the WTC1N collapse, by known TV reporters : "there were explosions every 20 minutes".

And some of them are very visible in the seismic record of the day. One signal around 10:30 AM was even just as big a signal in amplitude as the later biggest first signal its amplitude from the WTC 7 collapse. Could have been the explosion that blew City Councilors Michael Hess and poor deceased Barry Jennings up the stairs from the 6th to the 8th floor inside WTC 7. And then the lower stairs were gone, and they were trapped until firemen rescued them around 11:30.

The Basement Explosions (authors : NK-44 + chopoz).

Flight 77 Anomalies.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Anthem0

Oh goody, he wants to play a game.

Your very first post was that everything was immediately removed and shipped overseas. I point out that was false and you shift the goalposts to "show me where it was tested for explosives". Whether or not it was tested for explosives does not prove anything in your post. To date, NO signs of explosives have been found. No blast marks, no wiring, no remains of radio receivers, no audio proof, no visual proof, no seismological proof. Random bangs and booms are expected in a large office fire. But no, absolutely NO evidence of demolition charges. And, remains of the Tower that were identified as being the initial points of collapse were preserved and are stored in a hanger at JFK.

Then you think that because there is no clear video of a plane hitting the Pentagon, that it somehow validates your idea that it was not a plane. Sorry, but, we have witnesses, radar tracks, wreckage, bodies etc...that confirm it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

Funny you mention the Mayor of Shanksville...he is kinda pissed that truthers misquote him and take him out of context...

"When Der Spiegel confronts Stull with the English translation of these passages in the book and the film script, the man is speechless: "My statements were taken completely out of context. Of course there was an airplane. It's just that there wasn't much left of it after the explosion. That's what I meant when I said 'no airplane'. I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes."

www.spiegel.de...

Then, you talk about the interceptors. On 9/11/01, we had 14 armed interceptors on alert to cover the continuous 48 states, and their jobs were to intercept threats coming from OUTSIDE our borders. So, despite what many truthers believe, those 14 jets did not just automatically scramble when a plane went off course.


Then, you came right back to your assertion that the government has provided no evidence. Which only shows that you have not once paid attention to reality.

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

1,202 exhibits provided, mostly by the US Government, concerning 9/11 and who was responsible.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




Trying to point out to them that actually WTC-7's collapse is explainable is just like trying to explain Darwinism to creationist who has built up a world few based on the existence of God.


So, had a chance to watch the video I posted earlier? Oddly none of the debunkers seem to want to comment on it.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
A reply to: LaBTop

""LT : As is clear for many years already, I do not contest that Fl.77 crashed at the Pentagon.
I do strongly contest from which direction it came. I think, based on more than 23 witness accounts I collected in those years, that the Pentagon attack plane came in partly over the concrete Heli-pad. ""

samkent : If you agree that the majority (95%+) of the Pentagon/OS is true, why the majority of the WTC/OS be untrue?


The Pentagon attack. Only small but VERY significant discrepancies can be found after all these years, that can't be argued away anymore by sowing doubt by OS-trustees or US agencies and institutions.

See my latest question to aeronautical experts. And some other remarks I made there about 23 witnesses of a more northerly approach by Fl 77, over the concrete Heli-pad..

The two WTC towers, it's the same story. They didn't complicate things. They just blew up in both towers, the floors just above the upper impact damaged floors, and then assisted the following collapse initiation with a row of TB's, to keep the demolition pace going down.
TB's have no traces left to be found, it's all gas or gaseous chemicals residues. But they pulverize nearly everything in a circle of about 10 meters around them, and increasingly lesser pulverizations wider around that. But it's an immense force, with > 20,000 m/s brisance shattering forces (RDX, a high explosive gives 9,600 m/s). See my next post and video in there.


WTC 7 is a totally other story. That one seriously was botched up by the planners, see my Signature links.


Fl.93, they stole the last 3 minutes from the FDR, and inserted wind noise in the CVR cockpit recording.
Evidence of that given by the witnesses in Lambertsville. (Viola Saylor and sister, Mr Peterson, the 6 NYTimes Sept 12 interviewed witnesses) .
When you calculate FDR heights back from that 93-FDR its "official" impact time of 10:03, the heights for 93 above Viola's and Peterson's houses is 1450 meters, while THEY saw it fly at tree top level (30 meters), and you and I believe Viola, when you listen to her interview.
So, ................?
Thus I had trouble for many years to fit Viola into that FDR, until I found those 3 minutes of wind noise in the CVR. (Why would that very strong, small but thick cockpit window brake.? )
Then I understood what they have done. They altered that CVR by inserting that wind noise over the real conversations in there, and now, when you count back from an impact time of 10:06, as by the way recorded by FAA, RADES radars and the seismic evidence, SUDDENLY ALL heights in the last minutes of that 93-FDR really do FIT LIKE A GLOVE.!
They tampered with that 93-FDR and CVR its last three minutes, and now the burden is on you, try to find a viable reason for that, or your trust is shattered.
The usual National Security bull manure is strictly non-acceptable.

My viable reason : They removed the sounds of passengers in the cockpit, trying to contact air traffic controllers, and to get that plane back on the ground, in working order. That would have shattered the whole 9/11 false flag operation.
Which other reason could the hidden 9/11 planners have to remove those 3 minutes.?
What conversation of hijackers are we not obliged to hear from those last 3 minutes.? That's illogical, they would have left them in that CVR. But it was so important a reason, that they also tampered with the FDR, a much more complicated and dangerous task.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
A reply to: cardinalfan0596

Rebuttals for cardinalfan0596 :

"" no seismological proof ""

Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 34, November 2012, by Dr. André Rousseau.
Dr. Rousseau is a former researcher in Geophysics and Geology at the National Center for
Scientific Research (CNRS) of France and a specialist in acoustic waves.
He is also a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth. Read his thesis :
Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?

Dr. Rousseau : On the contrary, all the documented evidence points to explosions as the source of the recorded seismic signals.

Conclusion : demolition.


"" And, remains of the Tower that were identified as being the initial points of collapse were preserved and are stored in a hanger at JFK. ""

Nope, only TWO core columns of WTC2S, and only ONE core column of WTC1N were preserved, and NOT from the initial points of collapse, but of the lowest points of plane impacts. From WTC 7 : NONE.!
The real important core columns from just above the highest wing impact marks, where clearly the collapse initiations for both towers happened, are not preserved. The floor climbing/rising fires had only burnt there at most 30 minutes. Fire protection all intact at those floors, retention time 2 hours. Conclusion : demolition.

Read for a few months all the darkblue links provided by Major Tom from his website page here, he made this impressive comprehensive 9/11 collection :

Author's Conclusions, by Major Tom.
and for WTC 7, this critique of the final WTC 7 NIST report.

These are three threads by me, which cover WTC 7 extensively, including the usual trusters :
Title : WTC 7 was IMPLODED : irrefutable seismic evidence from LDEO and NIST itself.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Title : The Sequel of the above thread, to include my original seismic forum posts from the now defunct Study of 911 website :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Title : WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Conclusion : demolition, not any of them were natural collapses.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Anthem0
Your very first post was that everything was immediately removed and shipped overseas. I point out that was false and you shift the goalposts to "show me where it was tested for explosives".


So the material evidence from the collapsed towers wasn't removed/destroyed before it could be tested and that doing so was an egregious crime? You made an absurd diversion by harping on the word "immediately", thus suggesting that since it took months to 100% clear the wreckage that something I had been debunked. Of course in doing so, you are tacitly conceding to the POINTS I was making:

- The material evidence from the WTC collapses was in fact removed/destroyed BEFORE it could be tested for exotic accelerants/explosive residue.

- This was an egregious breach of protocol during a criminal investigation.

Do you disagree with any of this? If not, why are you persisting?


Whether or not it was tested for explosives does not prove anything in your post. To date, NO signs of explosives have been found.


So you go from conceding that none of the material was tested for exotic accelerants/explosive residue to claiming that no signs of explosives were found? And you do this in consecutive sentences no less. ROFL. You aren't even trying to be serious.

Person 1: "We found none of Todd's DNA at the crime scene."
Person 2: "Did you test any of the DNA sample's recovered from the crime scene."
Person 1: "No, we did not."

Yeah, you actually did that. In real life. Just now. Unbelievable.


No blast marks, no wiring, no remains of radio receivers, no audio proof, no visual proof, no seismological proof. Random bangs and booms are expected in a large office fire. But no, absolutely NO evidence of demolition charges.


So after conceding that the testing didn't happen, you spend the several sentences repeating how nothing was found during the testing which didn't happen, then conclude by saying no evidence was found...of something they didn't look for.

Yes troll, I agree that it's kind of hard to find evidence for something that you resolutely refuse to look for.


And, remains of the Tower that were identified as being the initial points of collapse were preserved and are stored in a hanger at JFK.


Is this you silently admitting that even the tiny scrapling of material evidence which WASN'T illegally destroyed was also not tested for exotic accelerants/explosive residue? Do you even realize you're proving my point for me.


Then you think that because there is no clear video of a plane hitting the Pentagon, that it somehow validates your idea that it was not a plane.


To be fair, I never said that it wasn't a plane. I said they've provided no PROOF that it was a plane.


Sorry, but, we have witnesses, radar tracks, wreckage, bodies etc...that confirm it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.


You also have witnesses which speak of other non-flight 77 planes in the area at the time of impact.

Ironically, what you DO have is the government admitting to having over 80 videos of the area from that morning. And their steadfast refusal to release any of it.


Funny you mention the Mayor of Shanksville...he is kinda pissed that truthers misquote him and take him out of context...

"When Der Spiegel confronts Stull with the English translation of these passages in the book and the film script, the man is speechless: "My statements were taken completely out of context. Of course there was an airplane. It's just that there wasn't much left of it after the explosion. That's what I meant when I said 'no airplane'. I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes."

www.spiegel.de...


Way to ignore the witnesses of explosions @ WTC.


Then, you talk about the interceptors. On 9/11/01, we had 14 armed interceptors on alert to cover the continuous 48 states, and their jobs were to intercept threats coming from OUTSIDE our borders. So, despite what many truthers believe, those 14 jets did not just automatically scramble when a plane went off course.


You also had an orgy of wargames going on that morning, some of which involved inserting false blips in the exact area of the country where the hijackings allegedly took place. Among other things. I understand the incompetence argument quite well. It's completely normal for planes to go off course, turn off their transponders, and STILL not be intercepted for over an hour while over american soil. I'm sure you have plenty of examples you can show me of this happening in america prior to 9/11. Nothing fishy about that at all, perfectly expected.


Then, you came right back to your assertion that the government has provided no evidence. Which only shows that you have not once paid attention to reality.

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

1,202 exhibits provided, mostly by the US Government, concerning 9/11 and who was responsible.


Have you even looked at that page you linked? That's a serious question. Most of the 1200 exhibits contain no evidence at all (pictures of the "terroritsts" in custody is evidence now?), and the rest of it has to be taken on faith in word of the government. You are taking their word for it, they aren't showing proof, they're making declarative statements and relying on their word as authority and trolls like you to back them.

That isn't proof. The ACTUAL proof -- you know like the material evidence from the WTC, the Pentagon grounds videos, the 95% of the airplane extracted from underneath the ground in Shanksville -- was either destroyed outright (and illegally) or is a tightly guarded secret. If the OS was true, they could have proven it at any point with the ACTUAL proof. They decided instead to obstruct any investigation by overt destruction of evidence and covert secrecy on the Pentagon video tapes and Shanksville plane recovery. And continue to do so.

Just call it like it is all I'm saying. Don't get in a tizzy demanding proof from "truthers" while not demanding proof from the government's absurd OS. Especially since, according to the gov, they actually have the means to prove their argument...they're just choosing not to for their own good reasons I'm sure.... Yeah, you may have been born yesterday, but I wasn't.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Anthem0

Further response isn't worth it. You refuse to do any honest research. Not to mention you still cling to falsehoods that have been disproven time and again. (like the 80 videos that you think exist of the Pentagon)

Take the 1200 pieces of evidence you refuse to look at. There are phone records, interviews, photos, all things that are called evidence. And in criminal trials, evidence is gathered by the "State" (i.e. the Government), and you refuse to accept evidence from the Government.

So in other words, there can never be an investigation of 9/11 that you will accept the results of.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

originally posted by: samkent
A reply to: LaBTop

""LT : As is clear for many years already, I do not contest that Fl.77 crashed at the Pentagon.
I do strongly contest from which direction it came. I think, based on more than 23 witness accounts I collected in those years, that the Pentagon attack plane came in partly over the concrete Heli-pad. ""

samkent : If you agree that the majority (95%+) of the Pentagon/OS is true, why the majority of the WTC/OS be untrue?


The Pentagon attack. Only small but VERY significant discrepancies can be found after all these years, that can't be argued away anymore by sowing doubt by OS-trustees or US agencies and institutions.

See my latest question to aeronautical experts. And some other remarks I made there about 23 witnesses of a more northerly approach by Fl 77, over the concrete Heli-pad..

The two WTC towers, it's the same story. They didn't complicate things. They just blew up in both towers, the floors just above the upper impact damaged floors, and then assisted the following collapse initiation with a row of TB's, to keep the demolition pace going down.
TB's have no traces left to be found, it's all gas or gaseous chemicals residues. But they pulverize nearly everything in a circle of about 10 meters around them, and increasingly lesser pulverizations wider around that. But it's an immense force, with > 20,000 m/s brisance shattering forces (RDX, a high explosive gives 9,600 m/s). See my next post and video in there.


WTC 7 is a totally other story. That one seriously was botched up by the planners, see my Signature links.


Fl.93, they stole the last 3 minutes from the FDR, and inserted wind noise in the CVR cockpit recording.
Evidence of that given by the witnesses in Lambertsville. (Viola Saylor and sister, Mr Peterson, the 6 NYTimes Sept 12 interviewed witnesses) .
When you calculate FDR heights back from that 93-FDR its "official" impact time of 10:03, the heights for 93 above Viola's and Peterson's houses is 1450 meters, while THEY saw it fly at tree top level (30 meters), and you and I believe Viola, when you listen to her interview.
So, ................?
Thus I had trouble for many years to fit Viola into that FDR, until I found those 3 minutes of wind noise in the CVR. (Why would that very strong, small but thick cockpit window brake.? )
Then I understood what they have done. They altered that CVR by inserting that wind noise over the real conversations in there, and now, when you count back from an impact time of 10:06, as by the way recorded by FAA, RADES radars and the seismic evidence, SUDDENLY ALL heights in the last minutes of that 93-FDR really do FIT LIKE A GLOVE.!
They tampered with that 93-FDR and CVR its last three minutes, and now the burden is on you, try to find a viable reason for that, or your trust is shattered.
The usual National Security bull manure is strictly non-acceptable.

My viable reason : They removed the sounds of passengers in the cockpit, trying to contact air traffic controllers, and to get that plane back on the ground, in working order. That would have shattered the whole 9/11 false flag operation.
Which other reason could the hidden 9/11 planners have to remove those 3 minutes.?
What conversation of hijackers are we not obliged to hear from those last 3 minutes.? That's illogical, they would have left them in that CVR. But it was so important a reason, that they also tampered with the FDR, a much more complicated and dangerous task.


Oh my God. This is insane.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop




I invite you or any other serious OS-truster in this thread, to deny my Signature links.


Let me start by saying I am not a "OS truster", if anything I am a truther, I seek out the truth of what happened on 9/11, there are several area's were i doubt the OS but it would be fair to say that for the most part I agree with the mainstream view of what happened that day. Let me also say that you are one of a few proponents of the 9/11 conspiracy whose views i can actually respect, you do your research and you provide links.

But allow me to address the points you have raised.



WTC 7 for 100% sure was a demolition-went-wrong


No it was not, you cannot say with "100%" certainty that WTC-7 was a demolition gone wrong, just like i cannot say with 100% certainty that it was caused by office fires and design flaws, in fact that is very little we can say we know with 100% certainty. Now what you can do is say that the evidence would lead us to lean towards saying this version of events having been the most lickly cause of the collapse and that is the foundation of the "Truther vs OSer" debate. Now I personally have seen enough evidence from both sides that I can confidently say that i believe WTC=7 fell dew the the reasons outlined in the NIST report.

You may disagree with that because you give some evidence more weight than i do and are willing to believe that thermometric weapons were used were as I am not because i do not trust the evidence for that for example. It just so happens that in my version of events of what happened that day I have a huge backing, the conspiracies are still very much in the minority.



As mentioned on many live-TV videos, shot after the WTC1N collapse, by known TV reporters : "there were explosions every 20 minutes".


I am sure you know all about the fallacy of basing a assumption based purely on what eye whiteness have to say. What might be a huge steel girder collapsing to the ground to a layperson would sound like a "bang".... "bang.... explosion". Just because a person who is under extreme stress says "i heard a explosion" does not mean they heard a actual explosion. As far as the collapse of WTC-7 goes there where explosive experts on the sense at the time who have said



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 that building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went


The experts did not hear any explosives going off.



And some of them are very visible in the seismic record of the day


Let me be 100% honest about something.

I know nothing about seismology, not a thing!

I have read the paper that was written on the subject in regards to 9/11 (i cannot recall the authors name) published in the journal of 9/11 studies (not quite Nature) and I was unimpressed like all papers written in that "journal" it was highly basis form the start. I have also read subsequent articles from individuals who say that what was written was all rubbish with no sound scientific backing

Popular Mechanics
9/11 Myths
9/11 Review

And I found this video on the subject.



Now like i have said above, I do very little about the subject of Seismology you might want to continue arguing that there is evidence to be found in the Seismic recordings for 9/11 of explosives being used, I won't argue with you on it. Just know that I disagree with your views on this.



Could have been the explosion that blew City Councilors Michael Hess and poor deceased Barry Jennings up the stairs from the 6th to the 8th floor inside WTC 7.


The stuff with Hess and Jennings is something that I go into in my thread on 9/11, I will not just regurgitate copy paste into this thread if you are interested in what my research on that lead me to believe then you can read the thread for yourself. All I will say is that Mr. Jennings interview he gave to lose change makes no sense and is contradicted by what he said to the BBC, I would also add that the "explosion" was actually more likely the collapse of the second tower.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596

a reply to: Anthem0

Further response isn't worth it. You refuse to do any honest research. Not to mention you still cling to falsehoods that have been disproven time and again. (like the 80 videos that you think exist of the Pentagon)


Is this the best you have? An accusation of me doing dishonest research followed by a further pretending that you don't know about government admitting they have 80+ videos of the Pentagon grounds from the morning of the attack. How you can make contradictory statements consecutively is a truly a talent.

I hope you're at least sincere about not responding further. I'm all out of food to feed you, Grendel...


Take the 1200 pieces of evidence you refuse to look at. There are phone records, interviews, photos, all things that are called evidence. And in criminal trials, evidence is gathered by the "State" (i.e. the Government), and you refuse to accept evidence from the Government.


You mean the government that outright destroyed the material evidence from the primary attack site (WTC) and refuses to show the overwhelming majority of the visual evidence which would verify their story from the other two sites (Pentagon and Shanksville)?

Sure, make this about me not accepting the "ironclad" government story and not about the government deliberately obstructing the tangible evidence. Anything avoid admitting your lack of proof that the OS is remotely based on truth.


So in other words, there can never be an investigation of 9/11 that you will accept the results of.


ROFL. There was hardly an investigation of 9/11 to begin with! After all, how much of an investigation can be done when you deliberately and illegally destroy the primary set of material evidence before it can be examined in any way and then keep the rest of the tangible evidence in secret indefinitely for no reason whatsoever? Or is this the part where you pretend you didn't know that several (if not most) of the 9/11 commissioners have gone on record expressing their discontent with the way the commission was handled?

In conclusion, do you have anything to back your position of proof of the OS that doesn't amount to "the government said"? Anything?

If not, Grendel, let's hope you keep to your word of not responding any further.
edit on 26-2-2015 by Anthem0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Anthem0

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596

a reply to: Anthem0

Further response isn't worth it. You refuse to do any honest research. Not to mention you still cling to falsehoods that have been disproven time and again. (like the 80 videos that you think exist of the Pentagon)


Is this the best you have? An accusation of me doing dishonest research followed by a further pretending that you don't know about government admitting they have 80+ videos of the Pentagon grounds from the morning of the attack. How you can make contradictory statements consecutively is a truly a talent.

I hope you're at least sincere about not responding further. I'm all out of food to feed you, Grendel...


Take the 1200 pieces of evidence you refuse to look at. There are phone records, interviews, photos, all things that are called evidence. And in criminal trials, evidence is gathered by the "State" (i.e. the Government), and you refuse to accept evidence from the Government./quote]

You mean the government that outright destroyed the material evidence from the primary attack site (WTC) and refuses to show the overwhelming majority of the visual evidence which would verify their story from the other two sites (Pentagon and Shanksville)?

Sure, make this about me not accepting the "ironclad" government story and not about the government deliberately obstructing the tangible evidence. Anything avoid admitting your lack of proof that the OS is remotely based on truth.


So in other words, there can never be an investigation of 9/11 that you will accept the results of.


ROFL. There was hardly an investigation of 9/11 to begin with! After all, how much of an investigation can be done when you deliberately and illegally destroy the primary set of material evidence before it can be examined in any way and then keep the rest of the tangible evidence in secret indefinitely for no reason whatsoever? Or is this the part where you pretend you didn't know that several (if not most) of the 9/11 commissioners have gone on record expressing their discontent with the way the commission was handled?

In conclusion, do you have anything to back your position of proof of the OS that doesn't amount to "the government said"? Anything?

If not, Grendel, let's hope you keep to your word of not responding any further.


He's absolutely right about you. Every single thing you have posted has been debunked about a million times. If you believe there was a false flag, you do so in direct contradiction to every verified piece of evidence in existence. We have all watched you do it for days now. It's delusional and contrary to the site's mantra.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Anthem0




There was hardly an investigation of 9/11 to begin with!


Really.........

You could only make a ignorant statement like that if you knew nothing of PENTBOM, and for your information that was largest criminal inquiry in the history of the FBI that involved close to 6000 people. It's just silly comments like "hardly an investigation" that really highlight your ignorance on these matters.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Anthem0

Here is the link to the FOIA request concerning ALL the videos that the FBI collected from that day, including the 29 videos from the Arlington, Virginia area.

"http://web.archive.org/web/20080208102217/www.flight77.info..."
you may have to cut and paste the entire thing

As I said....you are unwilling to do honest research.


edit on 26-2-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Anthem0




There was hardly an investigation of 9/11 to begin with!


Really.........

You could only make a ignorant statement like that if you knew nothing of PENTBOM, and for your information that was largest criminal inquiry in the history of the FBI that involved close to 6000 people. It's just silly comments like "hardly an investigation" that really highlight your ignorance on these matters.


So to be clear, the largest criminal inquiry in the history of the FBI didn't even bother to examine the material evidence of the WTC (we're talking about 3 entire skyscrapers worth of material here) for exotic accelerants or explosive residue, despite this being an egregious breach of criminal investigation protocol? This is very basic criminal investigative procedure. Buuuut, I'm guessing you don't see anything wrong with this? Nothing to see here, move along, amiright?

And I'm ignorant for pointing out that this hardly qualifies as an INVESTIGATION?



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Anthem0
you don't know about government admitting they have 80+ videos of the Pentagon grounds from the morning of the attack.


Do you have a valid source for that silly claim?



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join