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 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

page: 22
7
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by cams
It would also appear as if the official story says that no steel was melted, but it only weakened. NIST and others seem to deny there was molten steel found at ground zero as well.


They have publicly denied it.

video.google.com...




posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Geemor



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


Thank you for your reply. Just wondering though, how does one "know" something for which there is no proof? I know of no scientific proof it couldn't have come down as a result of fire/debris damage. So while I suspect it wasn't a CD, from a purely direct physical evidence point of view, I wouldn't claim to "know" this for a fact. I think much of the indirect evidence for a gravity based collapse is frequently ignored at 911 CT sites. Could be wrong though.

"The Master said, 'Yu, shall I teach you what knowledge is? When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it - this is knowledge.' " -Confucius



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


They have publicly denied it.



Not in their FAQs.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by L driver
Not in their FAQs.


I must have missed that one. Can you post it please? Thanks.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by L driver
Not in their FAQs.


I must have missed that one. Can you post it please? Thanks.


From the NIST website:


13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers? . . . .

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
This site offers alot! As ive read every post dont think this has been offered,if so sorry. www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_conspiracy.html



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by factor352
 



There are actually a TON of links to this page. I know there are some on this threat towards that site....I sent one.

You trying to promote the site?

Anyways, there is a new thread in which you can post your 9-11 theory without having to defend it....on there you can post freely and refer to it whenever you want when discussing on threads like this.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 04:53 AM
link   
There is still nothing to explain the testimony of William Rodriguez..I am assuming that Officials think that he is just lying?

His whole life was that building....



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by L driver
From the NIST website:



Under certain circumstances it is conceivable



What are those circumstances NIST?

Valhall,

Does that sound like engineer speak or what?

It may have. It could have. It is conceivable.

Sorry Ldriver, but that answers nothing.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 

Jeff why ask a question when your going to ignore a answer man?


reply to post by Jeff Riff

I can think of a few possible scenarios.
Please note I am not saying they are true. Just saying possible.

1) He's intentionally lying for attention or money. Has he been given any?
2) Mis-interepted events that were embelished upon after the fact.
3) He is one of those dis-info types.
4) He's legit and its exactly as he said. (not my fav but yours)

Or something I didn't say at all or a combination.
Because you really got to remember also as I said before ask a psychologist.
Witness testimony is crap for any number of very good reasons.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


A few pages ago I offered a lengthy, two-post chronicle concerning Mr. Rodreguez. Check it out and let me know what you think.

At the end of the day, when Mr. Rodriguez could have made any allegation he wished (contained within the 2004 RICO case he is a part of) he makes NO mention of bombs, explosions, controlled detonations, etc.


Starts on page 20, 3/4 of the way down. The continuation is on the next page, towards the top.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Hasn't Mr. Rodriguez actually simply said he saw and heard explosions? Did he ever say he witnessed any detonation or explosives? If not, then Mr. Rodriguez, having stayed with his same witness accounting, cannot be faulted, if at a later date he concludes what he heard and felt could only have been the result of demolitions - explosive or implosive.

I do not understand why Mr. Rodriguez is unfairly being denigrated for speaking a hypothesis at a later date, if that is what he is doing. We have certainly all had our own, based on our own conclusions of potential possibilities and probabilities. His hypothesis does coincide with what he orginially said he felt and heard, does it not?

I saw Mr. Rodriguez speaking in a documentary on one of the A&E network channels. I did not find him to be lacking credibility in his same accounting from 9/11/2001. I do not recall hearing some of the words from Mr. Rodriguez now being associated with Mr. Rodriguez in this discussion.

From this website:

www.911forthetruth.com...


Half (49.3%) of New Yorkers Believe U.S. Leaders
Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9/11 Attacks
and "Consciously Failed" To Act;
66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions
by Congress or New York's Attorney General,
New Zogby International Poll Reveals
zogby.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff



It may have. It could have. It is conceivable.

Sorry Ldriver, but that answers nothing.


You're right. But I wasn't answering that question. I was answering the claim that NIST denied there was molten steel. They didn't.

My main question is: how do we know the molten material was steel? Did any of the people who reported seeing molten steel, take a sample and have it tested? Or did they just assume it was steel because the building was mostly steel? I say it was more likely some other metal, such as molten aluminum. In the absence of a confirmed proof it was steel, one may also say "It may have been. It could have been. It is conceivable."



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
There is still nothing to explain the testimony of William Rodriguez..I am assuming that Officials think that he is just lying?

His whole life was that building....


There's no need to assume he's lying, if that's what anyone thinks. The main problem for me is, there were several possibilities besides the plane impact and explosives to account for what he might have heard. That's why I don't see the smoking gun. He could have been hearing exploding fuel vapors, or other crashing elevators (there were 99 of them.) He had no way to know for sure what he was hearing. I personally doubt he even heard the plane impact., as there were others in the lower part of the building who did not hear it either. It's all a bit too speculative to conclude anything, at least for me.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Read what was asked, read what I wrote and then come back and we can talk.

Hold on, stop....take a breath. Before you launch into another five or six page of arguments and rebuttals with yourself, it might help to know what exactly you are arguing for/against.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Hasn't Mr. Rodriguez actually simply said he saw and heard explosions? Did he ever say he witnessed any detonation or explosives?



Not sure. But the controversy surrounding him may have to do with statement he made like this one: "Criminal minds within our own government were involved in this pre-planned process. ...the official story is a lie...it was a complete whitewash...9/11 is a giant illusion"

Reading between the lines, what else does Rodriguez have in mind other than explosives? To have claimed he heard an explosion before the plane impact is another confirmation of his beliefs. Yet, he had no way to know the source of the sounds he heard, and had no way to know that he even heard the plane impact. There are explanations for what he heard in addition to the possibilitiy of bombs. It's all speculation.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by L driver
 


I find it rather pointless to ever really argue about what Mr. Rodriguez has to say.
One way or another.
To expand on what I said about eye witness testimony being shoddy.
Memories made in a crisis tend to not be the best to go off of.
For any number of good reasons.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by L driver

Reading between the lines, what else does Rodriguez have in mind other than explosives? To have claimed he heard an explosion before the plane impact is another confirmation of his beliefs. Yet, he had no way to know the source of the sounds he heard, and had no way to know that he even heard the plane impact. There are explanations for what he heard in addition to the possibilitiy of bombs. It's all speculation.


I am not going to speculate on what Mr. Rodriguez said and meant beyond his own testimony. There is a correct time to read between the lines and an incorrect time. Many times it is not easy to tell when is the correct time, and when it is not.

Since Mr. Rodriguez did provide testimony for a RICO case, exactly what he said and meant will be detailed in the plea brief filed with the court. Then speculation does not have to be done. It will be quite clear when presented to a court - deposition or otherwise.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by L driver
 


.......and you're exactly right.

It's the truth movement who insists his descriptions of explosions are proof of an explosion as the result of a controlled demolition .

Nobody, well not me, is saying he is a liar. What I am asserting is his meaning when relating what he saw/felt/heard has been interpreted by Truthers to mean something he did NOT intend. When questioned about the lack of any bomb references in his public statements, truthers claim his statements are being edited out of the public record!.

In other words, truthers claim he does say incriminating things about actual explosives but those comments are edited out of anything that could be seen by the public. The same government who (according to truthers) killed three thousand of it’s own citizens seemingly decided to ”allow” this loose end to continue to live. Seems to me it would be a whole lot easier to eliminate the source rather than employ teams of people to monitor his public doings.

The reason for my post about misquoting/quote abuse and out of context usage of quotes attributed to Mr. Rodriguez is because this is another bit of misinformation that the Truth movement has incorporated into the popular cannon that “proves” explosives were used.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I have no idea why people spend so much time presuming on how others of us arrived at our evaluations of 9/11/2001. Did it ever dawn on those presuming, that their presumption could be very wrong and highly misleading to others?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join