9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

It became quite obvious, during the last 6+ years, the "official" reports were not all that convincing to everyone. The 9/11 Commission report was the catalyst which set off the following rapidly growing movement and others, including qualified experienced professional others:

www.911pressfortruth.com...

www.globalvision.org...

Following the attacks of September 11th, a small group of grieving families waged a tenacious battle against those who sought to bury the truth about the event—including, to their amazement, President Bush. In ‘9/11 PRESS FOR TRUTH’, six of them, including three of the famous “Jersey Girls”, tell for the first time the powerful story of how they took on the greatest powers in Washington—and won!—compelling an investigation, only to subsequently watch the 9/11 Commission fail in answering most of their questions.

Adapting Paul Thompson’s definitive Complete 9/11 Timeline (published by HarperCollins as ‘The Terror Timeline’), the filmmakers collaborate with documentary veterans Globalvision (‘WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception’, ‘Beyond JFK’) to stitch together rare overlooked news clips, buried stories, and government press conferences, revealing a pattern of official lies, deception and spin. As a result, a very different picture of 9/11 emerges, one that raises new and more pressing questions.

What actions were taken by top government officials who received dozens of specific warnings before the attack? Was Osama Bin Laden and his top al Qaeda leadership allowed to escape U.S. forces in Afghanistan? And what has been the reason for the deliberate obscuring of evidence for state sponsorship? Perhaps the most important one of all: Why, five years later, are so many of the families’ questions still unanswered?

It was only due to pressure from the 9/11 families, led by a particular twelve calling themselves the Family Steering Committee, that, fourteen months after the attacks, the first hearing finally began. These twelve remained active in monitoring the Commission’s investigation, providing a list of hundreds of specific, well-researched questions to the Commissioners. In the end, the Final Report failed to answer seventy percent of them.

reply to post by OrionStars


Do you have a copy of the questions they asked and the questions that were responded to? or a link to a site that does?

Originally posted by Pro-genetic
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Do you have a copy of the questions they asked and the questions that were responded to? or a link to a site that does?

In response to your question:

www.globalvision.org...

((((CONTINUED FROM ABOVE))))

I am sure most of you have heard about the account of Stephen Gregory. It's pretty convincing:

... for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him. I saw a flash flash . ... I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

The new version of this story
Origonal


The third facet, IMO, involves those who may profit from what they have said in the past, or may enjoy the attention.

Concerning Mr. Rodriquez, he is quoted as making claims about bombs, but leaves out those very claims in venues where he shouldn't. Allow me to explain:

Declared a hero for saving numerous lives at Ground Zero, he was the janitor on duty the morning of 9/11 who heard and felt explosions rock the basement sub-levels of the north tower just seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors. He not only claims he felt explosions coming from below the first sub-level while working in the basement, he says the walls were cracking around him and he pulled a man to safety by the name of Felipe David, who was severely burned from the basement explosions.

Source

Then the story starts to expand a little:

William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building. "We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."

Embelishing? No judgement here, you decide

Two rumbles, not explosions. Nothing about the location of either, and no suggestion of bombs. Has this been edited? Certainly the general accusation made is that the US media hasn’t reported Rodriguez accurately:

Hype begins to build and Mr. Rodriguez is starting to become a focal point for the budding "Truth Movement":

Rodriguez looked forward to his appearance at a closed-door hearing of the 9/11 Commission. "Up to that moment, I was thinking that they were going to do the right thing." He states that he started changing his mind as he saw how the commission did its work, and also when the American media edited out his testimonies about hearing bombs in the buildings, whilst the Spanish media did report it un-edited.

Source

More hype:

9/11 National Hero William Rodriguez . The last man out of the North Tower who in the North Tower saved hundreds of lives, but the 9/11 Commission and the Major Media hid his revealing testimony from YOU, the American people!

And the source:

Now, keep in mind his claims of bombs being present has not been repeated in any public forum. This time frame is when the Truth movement starts to wrestle away the meaning and context of the quote from the very person who gave it in the first place! Perhaps Mr. Rodriguexz enjoys the public light, or (IMO) is unaware of how he has become a pawn?

Here is a lengthy quote where Mr. Rodriguez could have claimed bombs were used, but........doesn't (I have encluded the link for the full quote below. I have snipped out the get-to-know-you stuff. Don't take my word for it, read it in it's entirity yourself):

RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.

Interesting, not a single claim of a bomb, demolitions or even a suggestion of same

Truthers, of course, claim his continued bomb references are/were edited out. If you need a little more proof, here is the actual video.

Okay, so fast forward one year. CNN does an interview with an "unidentified" person. However the interviewer slips "Rodriguez" out a few times and the "unidentified" person refers to himself as "Willie". I'll spare you the whole quote. To cut to the chase: no mention of bombs, controlled demolitions, explosions, etc.

Now, we are at October 21st, 2004 and Mr. Rodriguez is now involved in a RICO case against some 50 odd people. One of the things the suit alleges is that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions. Wouldn't Mr. Rodriguez be listed as a prime eye witness? Wouldn't he offer his daming eye witness testimony into the record? If he claimed there were bombs involved and Truthers insist his testimony has been edited, wouldn't he include this in the RICO suit? Of course he would but he does not.

Decide for yourself.

I think the evidence is pretty clear what's happened here. I hope this is constructive to the thread and that my thoughts are accepted as having some effort involved, even if you don't agree with me.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Qualified professionals 6+ years later still seeking the truth of 9/11:

physics911.net...

www.journalof911studies.com...

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

www.wanttoknow.info...

www.drjudywood.com...

www.ae911truth.org...

When I began my study on 9/11, I also had to study the credentials and qualifications, of those compiling what would become the "official" reports. Then I had to made comparison of what they determined, to the analyses and evaluations of others of their peers. It became obvious there were severe discrepancies in the determinations of both opposing sides.

I, then, had to in-depth study subjects, which did not actually interest me prior to 9/11, in order to determine who was being truthful, in their determinations, and who was not. That way I was making an educated, informed decision, concerning who was most believable and who was not.

I had to conclude, after doing all those preliminary steps, the US bureaucracy was pulling the metaphorical wool over the eyes of the general public. Between the lack of truth in the 9/11 Commission report and comparison of qualifications, credentials, and combined applied experiences, I had no reasonable choice but to conclude in favor of a new, independent official hearing, before the entire media watching public. This time that hearing needing opposing views apart from the "official" reports.

Because I know academia, I can determine who is most qualified to assess and give determination, and who is not. One of the pertinent factors I learned is that anyone in academia, with only a doctorate of philosophy and no qualified applied experience, is not the most reliable source of information. That may not always be the case. However, it is the vast majority of cases concerning academia hypotheses, with no practical applied experience to support those hypotheses.

reply to post by Valhall


Valhall,just hold your breath..this thread is just another try to confuse and divert.
if someone is really interested in the known facts, he would USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by anti72]

...double..

[edit on 31-1-2008 by anti72]

Originally posted by anti72
reply to post by Valhall

 

If someone is really interested in the known facts, he would USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION.
[edit on 31-1-2008 by anti72]

Indeedy. For those who are still figuring it out:

ATS Archivist Strikes Again!

Originally posted by OrionStars



Because I know academia, I can determine who is most qualified to assess and give determination, and who is not. One of the pertinent factors I learned is that anyone in academia, with only a doctorate of philosophy and no qualified applied experience, is not the most reliable source of information. That may not always be the case. However, it is the vast majority of cases concerning academia hypotheses, with no practical applied experience to support those hypotheses.

Hi,

I tend to have the opposite impression. What are some comparison examples of individuals/agencies that you feel support your case?


Thanks

Originally posted by L driver

Hi,

I tend to have the opposite impression. What are some comparison examples of individuals/agencies that you feel support your case?


Thanks

Experience as an insider to academia. My most educational moments in life have always been learning that experience is always the best teacher.

Now back to "9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence". I did that when I explained how I came to the conclusion I did concerning 9/11. Then I provided links to those explaining why they came to their conclusions, including professionals I deem to be quite qualified in their fields of expertise. I also briefly explained why I deemed them to be so, from my perspective and experiences in life.

Originally posted by Valhall
L driver,

The significance is that there were large explosions in the basement levels at least down to B4. . . .I can't understand why it is so difficult for some one to comprehend that complete avoidance in the official record to explain these particular problematic events bothers some people.

I can well understand why some would find that questionable. My specific question relates to Rodriguez's quotes. Given that there were 99 elevators in the North Tower, many of which were in shafts that reached to the basement levels, and given the fuel/fuel vapors that may well have created secondary explosions that traveled through these shafts, why/how could Rodriquez be so sure he even heard the plane impact his tower, rather than it being one of these other possibilities?

Originally posted by OrionStars


Experience as an insider to academia. My most educational moments in life have always been learning that experience is always the best teacher.

Now back to "9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence". I did that when I explained how I came to the conclusion I did concerning 9/11. Then I provided links to those explaining why they came to their conclusions, including professionals I deem to be quite qualified in their fields of expertise. I also briefly explained why I deemed them to be so, from my perspective and experiences in life.

Well, here's one of my comparisons that leads me in the opposite direction. I note that none of the skeptical scientists writing about 9/11 choose science or engineering journals to publish their science. By contrast, several science papers - notably the ones authored by Bazant and/or Greening - supporting the basic gravity collapse models - have appeared in science/engineering journals. To quote Ryan Mackey's paper on David Ray Griffin:

What emerges, then, is a clear picture of a small and self-reinforcing group of researchers, totally disconnected from the larger scientific establishment. None of them shows any interest in incorporating the peer-reviewed research of others, nor have any produced any of their own peer-reviewed work on the subject. On this basis, it is no longer so puzzling that Dr. Griffin has drawn, and adheres to, such a different conclusion than NIST, Popular Mechanics, the 9/11 Commission, and the work of structural engineers in many countries

[edit on 31-1-2008 by L driver]

Originally posted by L driver

You are certainly entitled to your opinions as is anyone else. At this point, I agree to disagree on your opinions.

Originally posted by L driver
To quote Ryan Mackey's paper on David Ray Griffin:

What emerges, then, is a clear picture of a small and self-reinforcing group of researchers, totally disconnected from the larger scientific establishment. None of them shows any interest in incorporating the peer-reviewed research of others, nor have any produced any of their own peer-reviewed work on the subject. On this basis, it is no longer so puzzling that Dr. Griffin has drawn, and adheres to, such a different conclusion than NIST, Popular Mechanics, the 9/11 Commission, and the work of structural engineers in many countries

That quote you quoted, it smell like ad hominem. My own perception is that it tends to take place when arguments that were stated cannot be refuted, therefore questioning one's credibility could dig the ground beneath opponent.

reply to post by Jeff Riff


Just watch Loose Change...

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by L driver

You are certainly entitled to your opinions as is anyone else. At this point, I agree to disagree on your opinions.

Fair enough. It's just an opinion, and could well be wrong. That's why I was interested in some specific examples from you. I'm new here, so I'll try to find some of your other posts for these.

Cheers,

Chris

Mod Edit BB code

[edit on 31/1/2008 by Sauron]

Originally posted by Geemor

Originally posted by L driver

That quote you quoted, it smell like ad hominem. My own perception is that it tends to take place when arguments that were stated cannot be refuted, therefore questioning one's credibility could dig the ground beneath opponent.

I might tend to suspect that as well, if it weren't for the fact that the quote is only a tiny part of a much larger paper by Mackey responding to every one of Griffin's claims about the twin towers' collapses. The fact that 911 skeptics choose to forgo the normal route of peer review when presenting their science is far more suspect, at least to me. Why, if what they say is "basic physics," have they not submitted their papers to a science journal? I think it's a valid question, and need not be seen as ad hominem. On the other hand, it doesn't prove anything either. But the fact is, only those supporting the gravity collapse have submitted papers to science journals. What is stopping Gordon Ross and Steven Jones from doing same?



Mod Edit BB code

[edit on 31/1/2008 by Sauron]

reply to post by L driver


I agree, I guess they do bypass this peer testing. But you know what, peers have reason: they prevent posting crap, and sometimes someones might think that truth actually is crap, if you get my meaning

It is good tho that these people make noise. There are far too many questions and too few answers. Maybe people are too afraid to start seriously asking, maybe they are afraid losing their jobs after they have established a decent amount of bank loans, maybe even the plain thought that civilized western governmental body could be so corrupted, that it was capable of orchestrating such act, is too fearsome to even start to comprehend.

Welll what the heck, I know that 9-11 was allowed to happen and at least building 7 was controlled demolition. I just can't prove it, but I don't have to

Here is some evidence. Watch the video then research Darpa and GIG. Then ask the workmen for AT&T that are probably all over your neighborhood like mine- they will tell you. Then you can me a tinfoil hat- but I suggest you try it on for size, first.

video.google.com...

Here I will do some of the work for you:

www.wired.com...

[edit on 31-1-2008 by dk3000]