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.

 

WTC-7 North Side MASSIVE Fires .... CBS News

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


I guess YOU "believe" everything, that the Government writes is true.

You trust our Government THEY dont Lie do they LOL
They all have good intentions dont they?

This poster wants us to believe our Government would never never Lie to us!

He dose not like it, when we THINK for our self.

NIST would NOT make any mistakes in thier findings lol
Or the 911 report is so perfect and explaines everything with perfect Scinence.

What I dont under stand, Is WHY are you here, In this thread then?

You have only parrot the Government version wich we already know by hart.

If you can pove, that the Government is tell the truth, PLEASE show us!
Because thier truth holds no water.

Our Government has NOT done an investigation in to 911.
We have proven that already.

The only thing our Government has done about 911 is COVER IT UP!
We have already poven that to.

So my question is, WHY?




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I have read more names objecting to NIST, et. al. than names (and especially evidence/sound theoretics) supporting the same. My question to you is, what does the number of people matter? Do you have a strong mind? Do you know what Galileo stood for?

The number of experts in a field supporting or rejecting a particular theory or notion indicates how reliable that theory is, one or two or three people can be wrong but when an an entire army of them are in agreement or don't see a need to dispute the paradigm then that means it is likely better founded than others may be. See the Theory of Evolution vs the Dogma of Creationism.

And Galileo was a scientist, not a conspiracy theorist.


Originally posted by bsbray11
None are needed to point out the obvious: NIST never supported its hypothesis, and it was supposed to be the "final" report.

You mean WTC7? It'll be out next month. As for the towers, NIST concluded it's investigation once it was determined that everything had more or less been accounted for to everybody's (except the CTer's) professional satisfaction.

And NIST also went to the trouble of addressing the conspiracy theories but evidently nobody noticed or bothered to actually digest their material.

wtc.nist.gov...



Originally posted by bsbray11
What else can you do when you don't have access to physical evidence or structural documentation to verify anything? Do you want these people to be engineers, or Joe Public watching YouTube videos?

How about not jumping to far-fetched conclusions for a start? This is basically how all these unrealistic CTs get started - a few initial gaps and people's imaginations run wild and soon it's "an inside job!!!"

Second, the physical evidence is precious and obviously something that cannot be handed over to just anybody to toy with, that's the domain of experts who are considered to be credible and qualified investigators, basically the best available.

Of course, because these academics didn't find evidence of anything sinister they're automatically inept or corrupt, you just can win, lol.




Originally posted by bsbray11
Can you tell me what specifically was false and what specifically you are referring to on that FAQ?

Where is the testing where NIST verified their truss failure hypothesis (ie that sagging trusses exert the required amount of force to the perimeter columns)?

You talking about WTC7? It's due out next month. As mentioned, the Towers'collapse have been "conclusively" explained and that investigation is over.

Anyway, here's a computer model NIST used to stress test the trusses:

mfile.akamai.com...


Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm sure there are two or three bad apples in there near the top. If you think this is unrealistic or even that it wouldn't be enough, fine. You can think what you want.

I do and I'll tell you why. Historically, every true conspiracy from the Gunpowder Plot to Watergate to Iran-Contra has failed or been uncovered because either somebody talked and/or they had to outsource and unwittingly involved outsiders, which left a trail that could be investigated by impartial parties.

And this is how you can tell the difference between a real and a non-existant CT - real conspiracies feature a tiny number of people trying to get something relatively simple done THEMSELVES.

A 9/11 cover up would require the cooperation and unfledgling silence of hundreds of people from the clean-up crews to the guys in the lab, every one of them would have to be dedicated to the cause cuz all it takes is 1 Deep Throat, 1 person with a heavy conscience to blow the lid.



Originally posted by bsbray11
but NIST still has no proof of its hypothesis at the end of the day.

NIST's findings are considered conclusive and have not been disputed by any other established scientific body, the only people not convinced are the Truthers, and nothing less than evidence for a conspiracy will satisfy them.



Originally posted by bsbray11
It was scientific consensus in Galileo's day that the Earth was the center of the universe, despite obvious contradictory observations anyone can readily make in the night sky -- ie the relative movements of the Earth, Sun and Moon taken together.

This was during the era of "bad science," Galileo's scientific methodology was superior and has stood the test of time.



Originally posted by bsbray11
These were even times when people probably spent more time looking at the night sky, being more agricultural and etc., and they were still too stupid to figure this one out. Ok? That is what sheep-think always has and always will give you, because in the end no one gives a damn about the sheep anyway. I could disprove the Church with the knowledge I have today, too, but would you believe it back then -- against the majority of "experts"?

So because scientific methodology was flawed in the 16th century the Truthers are right?

Galileo defeated a flawed theory with real evidence that any capable person could personally observe, calculate and verify, Truthers do the exact opposite.



Originally posted by bsbray11
Point: masses of people are stupid, just like sheep. Thus the whole "sheep" analogy, which isn't anything new. Should I also point to Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, China, or even how stupid most Americans are today? Do I need to post one of those 4th-grade tests from the 1800s that most people would not pass today? Stop talking to me about consensus and start talking to me about logical sense, if you have it in you.

Logic requires one to reasonably explain how 3 populated structures were succesfully rigged for controlled demolition without a single soul noticing anything and then brought down silently and invisibly.


Originally posted by bsbray11
And by "logical sense," you can start with the lab experiments where NIST validates its truss failure hypothesis. Let me see it.

See computer model above.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Kulturcidist]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Kulturcidist
 


NIST's findings are considered conclusive and have not been disputed by any other established scientific body.

I believe I can prove you are wrong about that!

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) October 11, 2007 – According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, on September 12, 2007, the day after the sixth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC), Federal Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York signed a court order "unsealing" a 9/11 complaint filed by Dr. Judy Wood against the National Institute of Standards and Technology on April 25, 2007. “This may prove to be a crucial turning points in exposing the official cover-up of actually happened on that tragic day,” observed Fetzer.

The complaint alleges that contractors hired by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, violated the so-called False Claims Act in their work originally intended to “determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft.” Dr. Wood is suing on behalf of the United States of America because the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, which represents "the government," declined to intervene in the case, a so-called “Qui Tam” lawsuit, Fetzer said.

With the case unsealed, steps in the litigation now can be reported to the public in the same matter as any lawsuit pending in a federal court, according to Jerry V. Leaphart, Attorney at Law, who is representing Dr. Wood in these proceedings. Leaphart, who has been admitted to the bar in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, recognized that the situation was ripe for a Qui tam suit in light of Dr. Wood’s research, which contradicts the official NIST report.

According to Leaphart, Qui Tam is a legal provision under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. #3729 et seq.) that allows private persons, including those who are known as “whistleblowers,” who possess knowledge of frauds committed against the United States to bring suits on its behalf. “When the nation won’t act on its own behalf,” he added, “Qui Tam provides the means for citizens to compel the government to fulfill its own duties and obligations under the law.”



NIST was hanging out with the wrong crowd,” according to Dr. Wood. “Apparently the people hired to do the work of figuring out how the Twin Towers disappeared convinced NIST to focus on something else. NIST admitted to me in writing that it deliberately did not investigate the actual unraveling of the WTC.” In its letter of July 27, 2007, to Wood NIST acknowledged, “NIST only investigated the factors leading to the initiation of the collapses of the WTC towers, not the collapses themselves.”

Dr. Wood holds degrees in Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science. Fetzer added, “She is a former assistant professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University and is arguably the best qualified 9/11 researcher in the world. I know of no one else whose qualifications come close to matching hers.”

Dr. Wood is well known in the 9/11 truth movement for alleging fraud and requesting correction of the official report prepared by NIST. In her recent Appeal of her Request for Correction (RFC), Wood presented compelling evidence that the Twin Towers were destroyed by Directed Energy Weapons (DEW).

She has also discovered that companies heavily invested in developing and manufacturing such black technology were also hired to work on the NIST project. They appear to have ignored evidence of DEW all around them, instead using their expertise to cover up the kind of weaponry employed.

Although NIST declined to correct NCSTAR 1 as demanded by Dr. Wood, NIST did respond in part by providing a specific definition of what it meant by the word "collapse" in its original report, NCSTAR 1, namely:

“a falling in, loss of shape, or reduction to flattened form or rubble of a structure.”

This definition, however, turns out to be at odds with the basic premise of NCSTAR 1, insofar as the NIST never actually studied the events that fall within the scope of this novel definition. “That is fraud,” declared Dr. Wood. [drjudywood.com...]

“Indeed,” said Fetzer, who recently retired as a professor of philosophy after 35 years of college teaching, “that definition would even be consistent with the destruction of the building by means of a nuclear explosion, which flattened it and turned it to rubble. NIST did not explain how it happened.”

Dr. Wood’s federal Qui tam case asserts that the corporate and individual defendants committed actionable fraud under the False Claims Act. Her lawsuit seeks reimbursement of monies paid, penalties and interest.

“The most shocking claim,” Attorney Leaphart has observed, “may be that some of the defendants include those actually involved in development and manufacture of directed energy weapons and the development of covert psychological operations, which Wood claims were key ingredients in the events of 9/11.” Her complaint states, in part:

"[The] defendants…committed fraud in seeking to have NCSTAR 1 deceive the public into not recognizing that WTC1, 2 could not reasonably or possibly have been destroyed in the manner seen absent the use of DEW. Some of the defendants knew as much; other defendants either knew or if they did not, they should have known. To the extent they did not know, such ignorance was willful, intentional and actionable under the False Claims Act."

Leaphart’s office has already served the defendants with notice of the complaint that has been filed against them. Defendants named include Applied Research Associates (ARA), Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and Underwriters Laboratories, among others. “This should be very interesting,” said Fetzer. “I predict you’ll be hearing more about it. We are burrowing deeper and deeper into the reality of 9/11.”



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
I believe I can prove you are wrong about that!

James H. Fetzer

Dr. Judy Wood

Dude, I said "established," respected, reptutable, these people are anything but.

For example, Fetzer is a career conspiracist who bizarrely claims that the Zapruder film was essentially reshot and enhanced using state-of-the-art special effects while Dr Wood is somewhat batsh*t insane as she firmly believes that the WTC was brought down with "energy beams" blasted from orbit by some black-ops satellite or something.

Seriously



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Kulturcidist
 


And this is how you can tell the difference between a real and a non-existant CT - real conspiracies feature a tiny number of people trying to get something relatively simple done THEMSELVES.


and this is probably your most fatal flaw in your propaga...oops
I mean theory...

to actually try and convince us that there is a small number of people
who think the authorities are lying to them.....
this is your mistake...
this is the kind of thing that helps proves to us that the official story is a LIE.

Truthers = 100
debunkers= 0 you loose again ..
truth wins ...every time



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Didn't know fire from the middle to top of the building and debris could cause the lobby on the main floor (street level) to appear bombed, also killing people in the process. This statement is from Barry Jennings. Another man, Mike Hess, who was with Barry, has not come out to say this is true or false, which, in my opinion, means he is being threatened, as has Barry Jennings.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kulturcidist
The number of experts in a field supporting or rejecting a particular theory or notion indicates how reliable that theory is


This is blatant sheep-think. How do the experts themselves decide? That's what I'm personally interested in. If you don't like to think for yourself, then stop talking to me.


And Galileo was a scientist, not a conspiracy theorist.


No, he was a heretic and he was threatened with death to renounce his heretical statements. Only in retrospect is he a "scientist."

My point is still valid, that an enormous amount of dumbasses (including the "experts") believed the Earth was the center of the universe even during his time, when it is obvious that it isn't when you watch the movements of the Sun and Moon. Blind religion is what made people so stupid in those days, and now it's a combination of nationalism and our lifestyles dumbing us down through media and etc. (again I will mention 4th-grade tests in the 1800's that most Americans would not pass today).

Again, I'm interested in how the experts themselves are coming to these decisions. If that's a level you don't have the self-confidence to approach, you can stop talking to me.



Originally posted by bsbray11
None are needed to point out the obvious: NIST never supported its hypothesis, and it was supposed to be the "final" report.

You mean WTC7?


No.


As for the towers, NIST concluded it's investigation once it was determined that everything had more or less been accounted for to everybody's (except the CTer's) professional satisfaction.


Really? And can I see the survey where anyone actually concluded that? I still see organizations of professional engineers disagreeing. What would you realistically expect if that report was wrong, since it wasn't even peer-reviewed and the evidence (physical and structural documentation) is not publicly available?


And NIST also went to the trouble of addressing the conspiracy theories but evidently nobody noticed or bothered to actually digest their material.


No, they just covered no new ground. If you take the time to understand what I'm saying, you'll understand how the two FAQs don't answer my questions.


Second, the physical evidence is precious and obviously something that cannot be handed over to just anybody to toy with


I guess you missed Griff's thread:

US Government admits botched job of WTC investigation


"Thousands of tons of steel were carted away from ground zero and recycled before any expert could examine what could have been tell-tale clues. Support trusses, fireproofing fragments and even burnt out electrical switches that might have given scientists and engineers insight were lost forever - even before an investigation was underway.



"These failures mean that we are short--even to this day--on conclusions about design decisions that may have contributed to the deaths of so many firefighters and workers on the top floors.


www.house.gov...


That is from the House of Representatives website, btw. Not a conspiracy website.

It also says the FEMA report was hindered by "in-fighting," apparently without going into detail.


that's the domain of experts


Really? See above. No one really got to see it. There's an engineer that toured the landfill site for FEMA who said the same thing to the House, and his name was Astaneh-Asl. Look up his testimony and consider it for a second.


who are considered to be credible and qualified investigators, basically the best available.


Can you show me any evidence at all that the engineers behind the FEMA or NIST reports were "the best available," and who determined this, or are you just making stuff up?




Originally posted by bsbray11
Can you tell me what specifically was false and what specifically you are referring to on that FAQ?

Where is the testing where NIST verified their truss failure hypothesis (ie that sagging trusses exert the required amount of force to the perimeter columns)?

You talking about WTC7?


No.


Anyway, here's a computer model NIST used to stress test the trusses


There was no peer review of that modeling, nor were there calculations or structural documentation provided to verify that it was accurate and reproducible.

More to the point, you don't get to see what kinds of "pulling" forces that truss is exerting or if it would realistically be able to deflect a perimeter column that severely despite both the end-to-end bolts and the spandrel plates. Have you seen construction photos that actually show the truss seats or how they were connected to the columns, or how puny they were compared to the columns?



Historically, every true conspiracy from the Gunpowder Plot to Watergate to Iran-Contra has failed or been uncovered


This has to be one of the most ignorant things I've heard today. If a conspiracy was not uncovered, how the hell would you even know that it existed to be uncovered in the first place? Think about it. I don't want to hear an armchair debunker explain covert op logistics to me when I'm sure he knows nothing about them.


NIST's findings are considered conclusive and have not been disputed by any other established scientific body, the only people not convinced are the Truthers


The problem is that "truthers" are people, too, including engineers, and the reason we aren't satisfied, is because we still aren't getting the right answers.



So because scientific methodology was flawed in the 16th century the Truthers are right?


No. Because so many people have been so stupid historically, you can't argue numbers to convince me anything with an issue of this nature. You have to show me the same things these modern "experts" are supposedly seeing to make them so sure. If you aren't comfortable with this, fine.


Galileo defeated a flawed theory with real evidence


Sure, but how many people that lived during his life time knew this?

It was recently (in the 1970's) finally proven that the USS Maine exploded from the inside, not from an external penetration going inside. This conclusion contradicted 2 or 3 separate federal investigations from around the time of the Spanish-American War. Try to think about that for half a second. All I'm saying is stop following the herd simply for the sake of following the herd. If you're going to follow it, at least follow it for logical reasons you've discovered for yourself.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kulturcidist
Anyway, here's a computer model NIST used to stress test the trusses:

mfile.akamai.com...


That's funny how this model completely contradicts the trusses "pulling" the exterior columns in eh?


cuz all it takes is 1 Deep Throat, 1 person with a heavy conscience to blow the lid.


Why did it take Deep Throat over 30 years and on his death bed to come clean? Even though he was a highly important person in the FBI? What was he still afraid of after taking down Nixon?



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Kulturcidist
 


(Dude, I said "established," respected, reptutable, these people are anything but.)

Proof I Did prove, only YOU say these thing about Judy woods, no one else has where YOUR PROOF?



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 

Please go back and read my post. I offered some strong reasons why we shouldn't accept what the government told us.

reply to post by Kulturcidist
 

Your faith in the still to be released NIST report is almost touching.

NIST: “no steel was recovered from WTC 7”

Presumably you would extend the same credulity to a forensic pathologist who worked from photographs and selective testimony but had no interest in examining bodies.
Or an air-plane crash investigator who didn't inspect a single part of a plane.

Remember, FEMA were not only responsible for the first investigation - but also for destroying the material evidence.


Originally posted by Kulturcidist
audible explosions and their accompanying flashes firing off in a rapid sequence are the hallmarks of every controlled demolition that has ever taken place.

This has been true for as long as explosives have been going "BOOOOM!" while creating visible bursts of detonation, basically since the day gunpowder was invented.

So when one witnesses a building collapse without said hallmarks one is less inclined to entertain the notion that it was indeed felled by a CD.


If one was “inclined to entertain the notion that it was indeed felled by a CD” one would logically expect some considerable effort to be expended making it not sound or look too much like CD. Perpetrators of murderous black operations generally take pains not to be discovered.

However, like the “WTC-7 North Side MASSIVE Fires“ which anyone reading this thread can see were not massive, the other “debunker” chestnut that there were no “audible explosions” or “accompanying flashes” can also be soundly refuted.
They were only inaudible and invisible to government apologists like the 9/11 Commission who weren't prepared to mention the word “explosion” or “bomb”. NIST had access to the FDNY Oral Histories but chose to suppress and entirely overlook the copious evidence they contained supportive of a CD hypothesis.

(T)here was just an explosion (in the south tower). It seemed like on television (when) they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions. Richard Banaciski, Firefighter

I saw a flash flash flash (at) the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building? Stephen Gregory, Assistant Fire Commissioner

It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was---do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? That's exactly what--because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down. Daniel Rivera, Paramedic

I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom. Captain Dennis Tardio, FDNY


[edit on 28-6-2008 by EvilAxis]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
the building shook again, this time even more violently... There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run. Teresa Veliz, Software employee, North tower

I was at the base of the second tower . . . that was hit. . . . There was an explosion. . . . The base of the building shook. . . . (T)hen there was a series of explosions. Steve Evans, BBC

I . . . looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor. . . . One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces. John Bussey, Wall Street Journalist

I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. (I thought to myself,) 'My God, they're going to bring the building down.' And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES . . . . I saw the explosions. Wall Street Journalist quoted, Alicia Shepard, Cathy Trost, and Newseum

It just descended like a timed explosion like when they are deliberately bringing a building down. . . . It was coming down so perfectly that in one part of my brain I was thinking, 'They got everyone out, and they're bringing the building down because they have to. Beth Fertig, WNYC Radio

It was as if they had detonated--as if they were planning to take down a building, boom boom boom boom boom . . . . Fireman, Naudet Brothers Film

It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick,

First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was a bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device. . . . I just heard like an explosion and then a cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down. Timothy Julian, Firefighter

I felt the ground shake, I turned around and ran for my life. I made it as far as the Financial Center when the collapse happened. Lonnie Penn, Medical Technician

I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down. Kevin Darnowski, Paramedic

it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight. Thomas Turilli, Firefighter

...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. Craig Carlsen

As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . . (W)e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. Edward Cachia, Firefighter

I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . Lieutenant Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. Stephen Gregory, Assistant Commissioner


[edit on 28-6-2008 by EvilAxis]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash.... Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. Captain Karin Deshore

I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. Captain Jay Swithers

I was . . . hearing a noise and looking up. . . . (T)he lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because . . . everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Battalion Chief Brian Dixon

It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion. Battalion Chief Dominick DeRubbio

(T)here was an explosion in the south tower. . . . I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93. Kenneth Rogers, Firefighter

many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they're afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups' forbid discussion of this fact. Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac

I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room...They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out.
Firefighter Louie Cacchioli after attempting to give testimony to the 9/11 Commission

Defenders of the government line will cry “cherry picking!” “taken out of context!” “they only said it looked like controlled demolition – doesn't mean they thought it was” (although many said precisely that). They'll hang on the firemen's qualifications of their initial perceptions, ignoring the fact that they were briefed in what was at that time the “official theory” about pancaking floors before recording their memories. Against the sheer weight and consistency of all this explosive testimony what else can they do but bluster and spin?

Professor Graeme MacQueen's analysis of the FDNY Oral Histories:


Tower with audible “pops”.



[edit on 28-6-2008 by EvilAxis]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


found a site that explains the "squibs"
I don't know what to think about the controlled demolition aspect..
lots of evidence for it, it would seem.. but those "squibs" are not necessarily explosions..

debunking911.com...

debunking911.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Truthers are here because we are patriotic and because we do love our country.

I for one have spent countless hours reading about the "new pearl harbor"--

I was once a fervent official story believer and Bush lover --

If you want the truth read statements of the heros of the actual event- hundred + police officers/fireman who witnessed explosions from the basement up.

What would you say to these men and women???

I know---

I saw the collapses on CNN- FOX- so I know better then you mr. first hand was there fireman!

--- I would love to see one of you tell these guys they are unpatriotic or uninformed!!!

You should all read some of the many statements of the citizen first responders.
These accounts Should be the base of the official story of collapse!

Once you start reading these statements I suspect you might at least question who
is full of crap and who is not---

I also bet its not going to be the thirty year veteran of the NYFD!


Just because these voices are not on T.V does not mean they are not real!

Research- find some eye witness accounts read them, remember who these people are!

These firemen and policemen are either liar's, untrained or right on...





[edit on 28-6-2008 by mental modulator]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kulturcidist

Originally posted by cashlink
I believe I can prove you are wrong about that!

James H. Fetzer

Dr. Judy Wood

Dude, I said "established," respected, reptutable, these people are anything but.

For example, Fetzer is a career conspiracist who bizarrely claims that the Zapruder film was essentially reshot and enhanced using state-of-the-art special effects while Dr Wood is somewhat batsh*t insane as she firmly believes that the WTC was brought down with "energy beams" blasted from orbit by some black-ops satellite or something.

Seriously




What do you say to these people -- conspiracy theorists? Nut bags ?
Un American???

Were you there?- these folks just so happened to be!

watch it ! www.youtube.com...

[edit on 28-6-2008 by mental modulator]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   

and this is probably your most fatal flaw in your propaga...oops
I mean theory...

It's not a theory, its a historical fact.

Look at all the proven conspiracies throughout history and observe the correlation between higher numbers of plotters/plot complexity and eventual failure/discovery.

The simpler the plot and the fewer people involved = higher chances of success and cover up.


to actually try and convince us that there is a small number of people
who think the authorities are lying to them.....
this is your mistake...
this is the kind of thing that helps proves to us that the official story is a LIE.

Um, what? I was talking about a small number of plotters, not CT believers.


Truthers = 100
debunkers= 0 you loose again ..
truth wins ...every time

Dammit, and we've worked so hard to keep the cover up together! Bah!


This is blatant sheep-think.

I'd prefer to call it being reasonable.


How do the experts themselves decide? That's what I'm personally interested in.

Well, either they do all the actual research and investigating themselves or they attempt to replicate other people's findings themselves based on the technicalities specified in peer-reviewed journals, that's how proper science is done.



My point is still valid, that an enormous amount of dumbasses (including the "experts") believed the Earth was the center of the universe even during his time, when it is obvious that it isn't when you watch the movements of the Sun and Moon. Blind religion is what made people so stupid in those days, and now it's a combination of nationalism and our lifestyles dumbing us down through media and etc. (again I will mention 4th-grade tests in the 1800's that most Americans would not pass today).

what does this have to do with hard data?

Science has come a long way since then, we now have an established methodology of how things are done, peer-review helps filter out confirmation bias and identify methodological errors, falsifiability keeps things grounded in reality while the theory is constantly refined and reformulated until all the major bugs have been weeded out and there is a general concensus.

The problem with 9/11 Truth science is that just like Creationism, it fails at the first steps, it's so full of holes that it sinks before it has a chance of being taken seriously by reputable academics, and this will not change until solid evidence is produced, "solid" meaning it stands up to proper scientific scrutiny.


Again, I'm interested in how the experts themselves are coming to these decisions. If that's a level you don't have the self-confidence to approach, you can stop talking to me.

See above.


Really? And can I see the survey where anyone actually concluded that? I still see organizations of professional engineers disagreeing. What would you realistically expect if that report was wrong, since it wasn't even peer-reviewed and the evidence (physical and structural documentation) is not publicly available?

NIST concluded.

And professional engineers are free to disagree, but they will not get any airtime until they can actually contribute something other than wild conjecture. Science is about hard facts, not opinions.


No, they just covered no new ground. If you take the time to understand what I'm saying, you'll understand how the two FAQs don't answer my questions.

That's because you want confirmation of a conspiracy and anything less isn't good enough.


US Government admits botched job of WTC investigation

Yeah, lousy coordination, it happens after such epic disasters, look at Katrina.

In any case enough material remained behind to enable a thorough investigation, it's not like a cover-up team would know exactly which beams, trusses, and relevant debris constituted incriminating "smoking gun" evidence and which ones were "safe" to be examined by investigators.


It also says the FEMA report was hindered by "in-fighting," apparently without going into detail

It was probably old guys with big egos butting heads over trivial BS, if it were something more sinister we'd have heard about it by now.


Really? See above. No one really got to see it. There's an engineer that toured the landfill site for FEMA who said the same thing to the House, and his name was Astaneh-Asl. Look up his testimony and consider it for a second.

So 1 alleged irregularity and this trumps all the findings of NIST, ASCE, PM, and Perdue? There could be any number of explanations for this, ASCE too initially had a hard time getting access to evidence due to red tape and protocol, hell, the CIA and FBI kept tripping each other up and thus missed vital clues about the impending attacks, what you need to look at is the preponderance of the evidence and the amount of peer support it enjoys.


Can you show me any evidence at all that the engineers behind the FEMA or NIST reports were "the best available," and who determined this, or are you just making stuff up?


wtc.nist.gov... Impressive resumes, no?

Better than Fetzer and Wood at least.


There was no peer review of that modeling, nor were there calculations or structural documentation provided to verify that it was accurate and reproducible.

More to the point, you don't get to see what kinds of "pulling" forces that truss is exerting or if it would realistically be able to deflect a perimeter column that severely despite both the end-to-end bolts and the spandrel plates. Have you seen construction photos that actually show the truss seats or how they were connected to the columns, or how puny they were compared to the columns?

The video is available for anybody to review.

Again, even if it isn't 100% it's pretty damn close and certainly more plausible than the CD theory, which isn't even taken seriously anymore.


If a conspiracy was not uncovered, how the hell would you even know that it existed to be uncovered in the first place?

Because I'd always assume there was one, just like you do.

Real conspiracies invariably leak or leave traces, that's how they get busted open.


The problem is that "truthers" are people, too, including engineers, and the reason we aren't satisfied, is because we still aren't getting the right answers.

Well that's more a question of CT mindset than science per se, Flat Earther's aren't satisfied with the evidence for a spherical Earth, for example, they see NASA deception and cover-ups all over the place.

The general academic community is satisfied with the conclusions NIST reached and has moved on, a tiny minority refuses to let go. So be it, there are Creationist biologists as well, diversity keeps things interesting, I guess.


All I'm saying is stop following the herd simply for the sake of following the herd.

And how are you any different? I simply follow the herd that actually has a leg to stand on.


That's funny how this model completely contradicts the trusses "pulling" the exterior columns in eh?

NIST clearly interpreted that data differently.

But you're free to challenge that as long as your methodology is scientifically sound.


Why did it take Deep Throat over 30 years and on his death bed to come clean? Even though he was a highly important person in the FBI? What was he still afraid of after taking down Nixon?

Yeah, to come clean and reveal his real identity, not leak tangible clues and evidence anonymously.

He obviously didn't want to jeopardize his career or reputation so he kept silent, that's fine, what's important here is that he leaked incriminating info that needed to be leaked when it needed to be leaked, how the info was obtained is irrelevant, as long as it actually went somewhere. And went somewhere it did, all the way to the top.

We're not asking 9/11 Deep Throaters (LOL) to reveal their identities, just post what u know online or mail it in anonymously, if what you have is the real deal, it'll set off the biggest media sh*tstorm in history and heads WILL roll, guarenteed.

But ya really gotta have the real deal.


Proof I Did prove, only YOU say these thing about Judy woods, no one else has where YOUR PROOF?

Follow the link, mate.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Kulturcidist
 


What about eye witness first hand testimony from the first responders in regards to secondary explosions? Are these men liars or just bad at their professions?

If a fireman in the basement that day told you the basement exploded what would you say to that man?

More importantly what would these first hand responders gain from their "fraudulent" observations ???

If just one of these men is credable/honest what would that imply?

Just one pre placed bomb changes the whole argument and you would be illogical to not to concede this!


The whole damn NYFD knows that something stinks about the collapses - go there and ask or call! You will be shocked!

Why anyone would believe the accounts of men 10 steps removed from the event but not the first responders is beyond me!



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kulturcidist
Well, either they do all the actual research and investigating themselves or they attempt to replicate other people's findings themselves based on the technicalities specified in peer-reviewed journals, that's how proper science is done.


Neither apply to the NIST report, so we must be in agreement. NIST's report on the WTC was neither peer-reviewed, nor did they offer their data to be replicated by other engineers.

Griff is a professional civil engineer that's been looking for the structural documentation to try to validate NIST's findings for a while now. Ask him about it if you think you want to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing with me, because I know the armchair debunker modus operandi well enough by now.


The problem with 9/11 Truth science is that just like Creationism, it fails at the first steps, it's so full of holes


Ok, I am not the "truth movement." I never volunteered, I never signed anything or made any agreements, and you do not know my exact position on these issues.

If there is a transcendental mental disorder with "debunkers," it's that they can't tell one person's issues with the federal reports from another's, and they like to lump everyone together when it's convenient for their current rant. Save it. There is no way in hell anyone is ever going to get through to you about anything if you think you already know what they're going to say, but are wrong.



And professional engineers are free to disagree


There is nothing to disagree with, when they never supported their hypotheses to begin with. They were simply unsupported from the start. This is what you need to realize, that these reports were total trash regardless of what happened on 9/11. They were not peer-reviewed, and they did not show their work, on top of other issues that I won't even go into. Just those two problems are enough for you to focus on for now.



In any case enough material remained behind to enable a thorough investigation, it's not like a cover-up team would know exactly which beams, trusses, and relevant debris constituted incriminating "smoking gun" evidence and which ones were "safe" to be examined by investigators.


Uh, they hauled pretty much all of it away, as fast as they could. They even abandoned searching for survivors to start shipping it away as quick as they could, and I bet you didn't know that firefighters actually rioted when Giuliani made that decision, and you could probably still find the news articles on it online.



It also says the FEMA report was hindered by "in-fighting," apparently without going into detail

It was probably old guys with big egos


That's all it takes to produce a trash report.


if it were something more sinister we'd have heard about it by now.


You have faith that I don't have. You must think you're pretty important, huh?


So 1 alleged irregularity and this trumps all the findings of NIST, ASCE, PM, and Perdue?


The findings of PM? Wtf? That one must be a mistake or a joke.

In case you missed it the last 50 times I posted it, NIST never verified or explained their critical work. The ASCE's report is supposed to be under review right now for corruption because of the said engineer who went to the Associated Press (Astaneh-Asl), and I'm not even sure what in the hell Perdue concluded that would be so important to me.



There could be any number of explanations for this, ASCE too initially had a hard time getting access to evidence


Everyone did. The feds even admitted that the destruction of evidence hindered every investigation that followed.

When do the red flags start popping up?


The video is available for anybody to review.


Now you're starting to be ridiculous. That video shows nothing other than a truss moving and changing colors. Sorry to say, but any sort of engineering analysis is going to require more information going in, than that.


Again, even if it isn't 100% it's pretty damn close and certainly more plausible than the CD theory


"CD theory" does not exist. People have suspicions, but I don't see any reports issued on our behalf or etc., and certainly no consensus at all. That's where an unbiased criminal investigation would be handy.




If a conspiracy was not uncovered, how the hell would you even know that it existed to be uncovered in the first place?

Because I'd always assume there was one, just like you do.


There's not even any logic in this response. And here I was hoping you would realize the stupidity of saying that there's never been a conspiracy that you haven't heard about.



The problem is that "truthers" are people, too, including engineers, and the reason we aren't satisfied, is because we still aren't getting the right answers.

Well that's more a question of CT mindset than science per se


So it's not scientific to say that "truthers" are people too, including engineers?

If you were biased, do you think you might be able to realize it?


The general academic community is satisfied


No, this is only your opinion. Please stop assuming everyone agrees with you, unless you have some surveys or polls you would like to post. I would suggest looking up Zogby polls for a start, because there actually are some out there, but they don't show what you'd like them to.



All I'm saying is stop following the herd simply for the sake of following the herd.

And how are you any different?


Yes, but apparently you wouldn't be able to tell anyway, because you aren't used to having to be responsible enough to think for yourself about these kinds of things, and stop referencing your opinion of 'everybody else' for justification every two or three sentences. Hello?


NIST clearly interpreted that data differently.


NIST completely ignored directly observed data with their final hypothesis. This included setting up an actual truss/perimeter column replica in their lab, and putting fire under it for 2 hours. Absolutely nothing freaking happened to it, in terms of deflection or anything else that they suggested would have happened in the towers. They left this in their report but completely ignored its implications. Just so you know, it's in the report for you to read. I'm not going to argue with you about it.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


You didnt read my post, and I guess you wont read anyone eles either.
I see you are in this thread to bash everything everone has to say thats not the Government version.

You have FAILED to prove anything in this thread but to RANT and RAVE the Government is right and every one is wrong!

Why are you in this thread? You dont Believe in the 911 Conspiracies.
Most of us in here do not believe the Government version.
Thats why WE are in here to discuse this.

We all know the Government version of 911 (WE THE PEOPLE) are sick of it been shove down our throats.
It nothing but LIES.

Please do some real research.

You may find out everything is not what it all appears to be.
We live in a world of Lies, all we are trying to do is weed through the Lies to get to the truth.

If you wish to belittle us for asking Question and looking for Truth, then I have to ask why are you even in this thread?

WHAT IS YOUR POINT!



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Kulturcidist
 


You should do some real research on 911, You might find out that we have all been lied to.

We all know the Government version of 911. We know that they Lied to us.

We know our own Government "lied" us in to War.

You come in this thread, to belittle us for asking Question. We have a right to our own believes.

I am sorry you dont like it.

But you Cant make us Believe in a Lie!
We are not buying it.... the Government version of 911.




top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join