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.

 

9/11 Whistleblowers!!!

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
1/04/2002 was the date of that issue. Not even 4 months after 911. I am curious as to how Mr. Manning feels now about the investigation.


You mean after the gag orders and media propoganda to make everyone who questions the official story a "conspiracy nut"? I'd say it's probably different.

Just like how everyone who was there (CDI, FEMA, Leslie Robinson and other qualified engineers and architects) all said "molten steel" but now can't recall ever saying that? Even when it's in print or on film?

[edit on 6/27/2007 by Griff]




posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


You mean after the gag orders and media propoganda to make everyone who questions the official story a "conspiracy nut"? I'd say it's probably different.


So which is it Griff...you think Mr. Manning is afraid to be called a conspiracy nut, was given a gag order, or do you think he was satifsied with the investigation? I just e-mailed the editor in chief to see if there has been a follow up. I will be more than happy to post any reponse.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I will be more than happy to post any reponse.



Please do.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by Griff

So, all aviation experts need to know that static can do that? Does this refute everything the man says about 9/11? I have said some stupid things before. That does not invalidate my knowledge. Hell, G W says stupid things all the time. Does that invalidate him as POTUS?

Just an observation.


Griff...i hear what your saying. Obviously we ALL make mistakes...often over look things.etc. My point I am attempting to make here about the "expert" is that to make a statement like his, you would have hoped he explored all possible reasons for the flash. To dimiss it as an anomile without at least investigating it, in my opinion is kind of reckless.

Does it invalidate him with his knowledge? No...but it will force me to look a lot deeper into his alledged bachground.


Ok i am of belief, and correct me if i am wrong, that you fully support NIST and its report?

As your probably aware there are alot of discrepancies with the report. You said yourself "you would have hoped he explored all possible reasons" and "to dismiss it as an anomaly without at least investigating it, in my opinion is kind of reckless".

Don't you think it is kind of "reckless" not conducting a thorough research with a panel of apparently highly credentialed persons in relation to the numerous explosions heard? Why wasn't the testing of steel for explosive matter conducted, if so, where is the scientific information?

There are also alot of other instances where NIST contradicts it's own report.

Here are some NIST quotes to wrap your mind around:

NIST "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for as long as 15 minutes."
Nist Page 180.

"Within the investigation of the recovered steel, Frank Gayle's group performed a paint defermation test which showed how paint would curl or change in a certain temperature range. So they took the samples and analized them to see what kind of temperature they were exposed to by looking at the paint. Less than 2 percent of the samples which have been pulled specifically from the fire zones, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire less than 2 percent seen temperatures of 480 degrees F* which is very low relative to the temperatures to "soften or melt" steel. "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C* during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method devoloped by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." NIST page 181

BeZerK



[edit on 27-6-2007 by BeZerk]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
NIST was designed to be so massivly full of rant, that people would not want to read every page of it, and just agree with it. Much like an End User License Agreement on software, or Terms of Service Guidelines on forums.... they are so long and full of crap, you just agree with it and move on.

Thats what happend to CaptainObvious, he didn't even read the NIST reports. He just so truly believes in the Offical Story, that he will support whatever is in NIST blindly. Want some proof?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

CaptainObvious mistaked one of the most important parts of the NIST report, the amount of fuel on the jets...



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
CaptainObvious,

Firstly William Rodriguez testimony is of high importance. The crucial information which i doubt you missed was that he "heard explosions from the basement". What were these loud explosions? He still asserts that he heard loud explosions in the basement. This has not changed till this day. I am still in awe on how the fire traveled down the elevator shafts, 50+ floors, retaining enough energy to blow the lobby and the basement


Are you denying that there were several people who heard loud explosions
?

Kevin Ryan - Underwriters Laboratories, he may well have been a "water" specialist, you still cannot dismiss that he would have been in contact with crucial information regarding steel. Why would he write a letter based on lies, risking his job and livelihood? The truth is he had information, from the company he worked for, that led him to write a letter dismissing the claims of others. That is FACT.

I must add that Kevin Ryan still supports the 9/11 Truth and has along with Professor Steven Jones, debunked the NIST report to its full extent. Further Read

In reference to USAF Col. George Nelson (ret.) - 30 year veteran, his assertion of what was under the belly of the plane is relevant , many people still do not know what was attached to the belly of the plane. Many eye witness accounts have even said that it did not look like an American Airlines plane. What was the flash before the plane even hit the building? Your argument is static? Do you have any collaborating evidence of this so called "static" witnessed by people other than 9/11?

BeZerK



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Yet another disappointing thread


To think I was foolish enough to think this time would be different and the thread was really about 9/11 whistle blowers as the title suggests, and not regurgitated propaganda (funny how people think propaganda doesn't work both ways) based on shoddy at best "evidence" and people's personal opinions. Who cares what these people THINK!? What do they KNOW and can credibly verify!?



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Yet another disappointing thread


To think I was foolish enough to think this time would be different and the thread was really about 9/11 whistle blowers as the title suggests, and not regurgitated propaganda (funny how people think propaganda doesn't work both ways) based on shoddy at best "evidence" and people's personal opinions. Who cares what these people THINK!? What do they KNOW and can credibly verify!?


Yet another disappoint comment.

Rather than reading the links i have provided, then commenting back in a mature and debatable fashion, its easier to dismiss it as being "credible".

BeZerK



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
May I ask, who would you consider a reliable source of information???

That's a fair question. Chavez, we can discount, but as far as everyone else, how can you dismiss it all as propaganda?

You dismiss it as propaganda, because you WANT it to be propaganda.

I would really like to know, though, who you would beleive any information that would change your mind from?

Sometimes its the oddest people, the little people, that know the most. There's also many credible sources here.

What's with the "dissapointment"?



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   
BeZerk

That is a great vid link you posted, people need to watch that. If you watch it and still think that JUST the planes could bring down the towers then I am afriad you are in a "patriotic coma". This is not propaganda people, it is science. An interesting comment was if it was so hot then why where people by the windows like that lady, they would have been scorched by the tempertures that they say existed, that was suppose to be weakening the steel. And the quality of the steel and size is just to strong for that to happen even 15 floors under the impact zone.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
BeZerk

That is a great vid link you posted, people need to watch that. If you watch it and still think that JUST the planes could bring down the towers then I am afriad you are in a "patriotic coma". This is not propaganda people, it is science. An interesting comment was if it was so hot then why where people by the windows like that lady, they would have been scorched by the tempertures that they say existed, that was suppose to be weakening the steel. And the quality of the steel and size is just to strong for that to happen even 15 floors under the impact zone.


Thanks for that.

A friend of mine will be posting a new thread shortly, from what i have seen it is amazing. Definitely a smoking gun.

I will let all you people know shortly.

BeZerK



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Good compilation
... EXCEPT, you MUST remove your first item: "Mr. McNiven". That guy was thoroughly debunked here last month.

About the de facto thread topic, parroting, hey everyone lets bash somebody for compiliing all the details on one focus subject?! How dare someone spend their time gathering up all of the bits of data so that we don't have to?!
Unless it was cut and pasted directly from one single webpage somewhere it's not worth derailing a thread as if somebody is making money off of YOUR hardwork.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I too was hoping that I would see something that would perk the interest and maybe be a cloud on the horizon of the upcoming 08 elections. For each of the whistle blowers, there are 100's and 1000's of people who were witnesses and can help to discern or explain the truth behind many of the individuals you listed.

First, if you want to get to the bottom of 9/11, start with the commission report. Do not cloud your mind with the collapse, but the events that led up to the attacks. In 1982 the international jihad started with the death of Anwar Sadat. This includes the marine barracks, the USS Cole, the WTC bombing and numerous other plots including Bojinka.

Second, everyone is looking for their five minutes, and I feel that many of hte individuals listed are looking for tenure or a job on the speech circuit, maybe release a book or make a friend.

Third, many of these people are misquoted, or only part of the information is put forward. Such as this...




And here is the outright LIE...

“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen

Note where these liars put the "...."

Now for the REAL quote...

I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but 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.

graphics8.nytimes.com...
/9110505.PDF





Nothing in the official reports can be twisted or misconstrued becasue it is all fact, just simple facts. No theory, no opinion, just fact. NIST is continuing to investigate both collapses and WTC 7. This is 6 years after the fact. If there was a cover up, why drag it out. They didn't with Flight 93.

Now, how about this guy who works with Steve Jones




"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering


or this guy




"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.


or this guy, Jones boss



Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU



and also, the last guy on the first page, I mean, did anyone even read it???
These are not whistleblowers, they are conspiracy nuts.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by esdad71]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
esdad71,

Your honestly taking the 9/11 Commission Report & the NIST report as gospel and the truth


In case you were wondering those have been debunked over and over


BeZerK




[edit on 27-6-2007 by BeZerk]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk
Yet another disappoint comment.

Rather than reading the links i have provided, then commenting back in a mature and debatable fashion, its easier to dismiss it as being "credible".

BeZerK

wtf?
The reason why I said that was BECAUSE I read the links. They provided absolutely nothing new and certainly no "whistle blowers" as your title suggest.


dg

May I ask, who would you consider a reliable source of information???

Any info that can be backed by facts. Doesn't matter the source. If it come from a magical fish for all I care, as long as it can be backed by indisputable facts not people's personal opinions.


That's a fair question. Chavez, we can discount, but as far as everyone else, how can you dismiss it all as propaganda?

Who dismissed it all as propaganda?
A lot of it is just opinions and speculation. You would not win a court case with what has been provided. I don't know about you but I want cold hard facts, otherwise, this is all pointless and will lead no where.


You dismiss it as propaganda, because you WANT it to be propaganda.

I want what to be propaganda



What's with the "dissapointment"?

Because there are no whistle blowers as advertised.....
And just the same stuff that's been discussed to death over the last 6 years.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by BeZerk
Yet another disappoint comment.

Rather than reading the links i have provided, then commenting back in a mature and debatable fashion, its easier to dismiss it as being "credible".

BeZerK

wtf?
The reason why I said that was BECAUSE I read the links. They provided absolutely nothing new and certainly no "whistle blowers" as your title suggest.


dg

May I ask, who would you consider a reliable source of information???

Any info that can be backed by facts. Doesn't matter the source. If it come from a magical fish for all I care, as long as it can be backed by indisputable facts not people's personal opinions.


That's a fair question. Chavez, we can discount, but as far as everyone else, how can you dismiss it all as propaganda?

Who dismissed it all as propaganda?
A lot of it is just opinions and speculation. You would not win a court case with what has been provided. I don't know about you but I want cold hard facts, otherwise, this is all pointless and will lead no where.


You dismiss it as propaganda, because you WANT it to be propaganda.

I want what to be propaganda



What's with the "dissapointment"?

Because there are no whistle blowers as advertised.....
And just the same stuff that's been discussed to death over the last 6 years.


ThatsJustWeird,

So former CIA, FBI, DoD and so on are not credible witness's?

Sibel Edmonds who is a former FBI wiretap translator who spoke publicly about US prior knowledge. Sibel D. Edmonds and 24 other former federal employees signed and are prepared to tell all to a grand jury. There is also over 200 former federal employees, also willing to tell all to a grand jury.

FBI Special Agent Robert Wright who got on national TV and practically cried as he talked about how his bosses wouldn’t let him do his job in protecting the American people and preventing the WTC attacks.

These people are not credible


I really don't think you perused over the thread well enough reading through every bit of information.

BeZerK



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
You make no sense. Nice try, btw.

You have a huge list of very credible people, people who knew something was going to happen, people in GOVERNMENT, people on the streets, people everywhere who were tipped off or saw something strange- who are you to judge that ALL these people are lying and they are anti-Bush so therefore they're coming out of the woodwork to betray this government? Because that's what you're saying.

Since the government lies so much, the burden of proof is on THEM to show the people they had no involvement here. They are the ones on trial by the American people.
I am looking for proof that the USA government, Bush/Cheney, did not have anything to do with 9/11.

Who do i talk to about that?



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
You make no sense. Nice try, btw.

You have a huge list of very credible people, people who knew something was going to happen, people in GOVERNMENT, people on the streets, people everywhere who were tipped off or saw something strange- who are you to judge that ALL these people are lying and they are anti-Bush so therefore they're coming out of the woodwork to betray this government? Because that's what you're saying.

Since the government lies so much, the burden of proof is on THEM to show the people they had no involvement here. They are the ones on trial by the American people.
I am looking for proof that the USA government, Bush/Cheney, did not have anything to do with 9/11.
Who do i talk to about that?


It really amazes me of some people who believe the official explanation even though the amounts of lies the Government has spewed out.

Lets re-cap:




The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him. G.W.Bush 9/13/01



I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01



I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority.
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02



I am truly not that concerned about him.
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02


BeZerK


[edit on 27-6-2007 by BeZerk]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   
You are creating a profile for me based on the basic information I provided. I take nothing as gospel as you have presented. I am expressing an alternate view to yours. You are stating that you have a list of whistleblowers when many of them are just conspiracy hacks. This discredits any viable attempt to invoke critical thinking into your theory.

NIST is not a government controlled entity although freepress and prisonplanet would like you to think so. Neither is the 9/11 commission, who were so upset with the result stated on record that there should be more to the investigation. Not to find the thermite, but to find where the bottelneck was that witheld the vital information that was found in hindsight which is always 20/20.

There is no difference between the CT' and the official story, it is just a matter of perception. .




[edit on 27-6-2007 by esdad71]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
You are creating a profile for me based on the basic information I provided. I take nothing as gospel as you have presented. I am expressing an alternate view to yours. You are stating that you have a list of whistleblowers when many of them are just conspiracy hacks. This discredits any viable attempt to invoke critical thinking into your theory.

NIST is not a government controlled entity although freepress and prisonplanet would like you to think so. Neither is the 9/11 commission, who were so upset with the result stated on record that there should be more to the investigation. Not to find the thermite, but to find where the bottelneck was that witheld the vital information that was found in hindsight which is always 20/20.

There is no difference between the CT' and the official story, it is just a matter of perception. .
[edit on 27-6-2007 by esdad71]


NIST and the 9/11 Commission are a Government Organisation there is no doubt of that at all. Please prove to me they are not.

You only need to look at both the above's domain address to figure out that they are a government organisation.

Example: www.nist.gov - www.9-11commission.gov

GOV = Government

Not that hard.

BeZerK



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join