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.

 

What if a new investigation reveals the same as the first?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999



9/11 commission budget was originally given only 3 million dollars, which, after much begging and pleading, was increased to 15 million. The investigation into Clinton's disappearing cigar trick with Lewinsky was 30 Million. So, whether or not the president "had sex with that woman" is a higher priority than investigating the worst attack on American soil ever?


Now, how many millions were spent by the FBI, CIA, DOD, NSA running down evidence? Yes, the Commission itself had 15 million. However, the majority of the grunt work was done by other agencies.


You mean, how many millions were spent by the CIA, FBI, DOD, and NSA blackballing the investigation, covering up and blacking out large amounts of evidence and refusing to release it? Millions I suspect, but covering up does not count as grunt work or an investigation.




posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


If you can prove that the equation in my first post is wrong, then I will accept your theory of being no where near free fall speed to be correct.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by esdad71
 


Truthers will never be happy with anything less. Their minds are already made up, and there is no arguing logic, fact, or anything else with them. I wish they would just shut down the 911 forum on this site, as anyone who opposes anything that they say is wolf pack attacked until they give up. There is no point in trying to argue with them anymore, it has become a religion.

They are much worse then the masons on ATS used to be about these tactics, and the admin seems to coddle them on here, which is find surprising considering that SO used to be very anti-truth movement. He even spoke out about a relative of his who was present at the pentagon when the attack happened. Oh, and when they are losing an argument, they change the rules on how the debate is to go. For example, they were using pics from the pentagon, and when I used the same pics to knock out one of their theories, suddenly I had to have a chain of custody for those pictures.


Either way, there is no proving anything to some of these folks, they will not accept any verdict but the one they have already made up in their minds.


Please Stand by…
A truther will be along any second now to attack my post…



How is 9/11 Truth a religion? You official conspiracy defenders are the religion. You are the ones not interested in facts and common sense. This is about FACTS and scientific evidence, which you guys just deny, deny, deny. You are the ones acting religious, not us.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
It depends on how much control the government has over a new investigation, and who is running it. If it's a government agency, then you can forget it.

Remember the House Select Committee on Assassinations back in the late 70's when they reinvestigated the JFK case? They got further than the Warren Commission and concluded that Kennedy was "probably" killed as a result of a conspiracy but could go no further. Power only lets you investigate it to a certain point.

What we need is a second American Revolution, and a new Continental Army of millions, led by General Alex Jones. lol



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The whole thing was a scam started by a few people to make money


For following the money, I find this completely ignorant considering how many trillions our military corporations have made since 9/11. And I bet you thought all that debt was just disappearing into a hole.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by OnTheFelt
 


reply to post by OnTheFelt
 


The problem I have is that I used to work on those aircraft, and I just don’t see all the inconsistencies that most truthers see in what happened that day. I have heard all the theories, from the utterly silly to the fairly conservative, and yet nothing I have seen makes me think that aircraft did not do the damage we saw that day.

That is not an invitation to go back over those points with me either. Believe me I have seen all the truth movements facts, and theories. Many of them are based on incorrect speculation, inaccurate facts, questionable witness testimony, and assumptions, even though they may seem logical to the layman. They are just as bad as, or maybe even worse then, the official story.


You used to work on aircraft? And that qualifies you to say that the official account of 9/11 is the truth? LOL

Dude, let me ask you this. How does your qualifications stack up against these guys?

www.opednews.com...


U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11

September 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy Top Gun pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad, started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. It just didnt make any sense to me, he said. And now 6 years after 9/11 he says, When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.

Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navys Top Gun air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie, Top Gun reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a Top Gun adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings.

Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757s and 767s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.

Commander Kolstad adds, I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!


He points to the physical evidence at the Pentagon impact site and asks in exasperation, Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?


Are you more qualified than Commander Ralph Kolstad to comment on the maneuver of a 757? Do you have similar qualifications that he does? Have you logged 23,000 hours of flight time? Have you flown fighter jets and 757's for 40 years?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Defcon5,

One more. How do YOUR qualifications stack up against this guy's?

Pay attention to his words in bold below.

patriotsquestion911.com...


Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.



Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." americanbuddhist.net...

Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." www.arcticbeacon.com...

Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."
911underground.com...

Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.



[edit on 15-7-2009 by WWu777]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
A new investigation would not really change a thing here since it would be comprised of government agencies who will make sure that it sticks to the official story much like the House Select Committee on Assassination did they were forced to admit that there "probably" was a conspiracy in the JFK but only after the acoustics evidence proved it.The best chance is with the independent researchers.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I mean, thinking the government is after you and lying to you is also something that is associated with schizophrenia

You will be hard-pressed to find very many 9/11 truthers that think the government is after them. There may be a few, but not many. Me personally, I'm not doing anything illegal by discussion 9/11, so I'm not worried in the least. The government lies to all of us about a great many things. To think that it doesn't equals ignorance. You're here in this forum to deny ignorance! Care to start now?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by esdad71
I mean, thinking the government is after you and lying to you is also something that is associated with schizophrenia

You will be hard-pressed to find very many 9/11 truthers that think the government is after them. There may be a few, but not many. Me personally, I'm not doing anything illegal by discussion 9/11, so I'm not worried in the least. The government lies to all of us about a great many things. To think that it doesn't equals ignorance. You're here in this forum to deny ignorance! Care to start now?


Again, I never said that I believe everything the government has to say. The problem is that if you question the truth movement you are labeled as someone who believes all of the OS. Not true. I am denying ignorance by researching on my own and gaining knowledge.

Hard pressed to find someone who thinks to government is out to get them? Semantics. OK, so they think the government is lying and not telling them the truth and that the government killed 3000 people and hid the people on the planes in secret Ohio complexes and used space lasers and brought down the WTC with explosives and that a missile hit the pentagon..blah blah blah...please, that is classic paranoia.

Using the words "they did it" or 'they know the truth" or "they are behind all the evil". This is what you see people who do not believe the OS stating. You can walk down many streets blocks from ground zero and find these people. Delusional is another description that can be used.

However, there are those of an open mind who believe most of the OS but not all and have some definitive questions like How could we have let this happen? That is a question that has been answered but honestly I would have liked to see all of those who were responsible for the intel failures to lose jobs and pensions. Based on their ignorance of the threat, 3000 people died that day.

I do not in any way feel the US responded quick enough and the only, the ONLY reason they were able to get 93 is that is was delayed at the gate and the tarmac. Now, if the US was behind this, and they can coordinate with 1000's of people, do you think maybe they could make sure the plane took off on time to reach it's target which by most accounts was the White House.

This thread however has shown that even if there was another investigation, it would not be enough. To discredit something after it happens can be backed up with fact but to discredit something before it happens is lunacy.

Deny ignorance? Yes, but I am not here to convince anyone otherwise but to make sure they ALL look at both sides of the story to deny ignorance as you said....



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


These men were not trained to land the planes, to take off, to make the flight safe. They were trained, extensively, to aim and hit a target. The approach to the Pentagon was so tough, in actuality, he almost missed.

The men listed are professionals but this means nothing when it comes to evidence. I have seen videos and read testimony of other pilots who say if could have been done. So, who is telling the truth? It is for us to research and decide with a logical approach and no prejudice.

When I read any of the articles presented, I always eep an open mind. I just have not seen any Evidence, meaning not a you tube video or a 7 year old quote taken out of context. I want true physical evidence and not dust.

I believe an investigation would be nothing but a waste of money and find no new evidence. In this digital age I would think something would have appeared by now.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



The fact of the matter is that we ('debunkers' in general) have presented the facts, we have shown people where they are misinformed, and these same people have gone on to almost instantaneously repeat the same claims.


Really, what facts have you shown me? Please show where you have shown me where I have been misinformed? Thank you.


I think the last thing you could accuse me of is not presenting facts.


You are joking right?


How ridiculous, I have been called a traitor, a coward, a shill, a plant, an idiot and many other things in my time here. Tell me, what have I called you?


You poor thing, like we haven’t been called all those things plus worst, from the likes of you.



I love how truthers will repeat "near free-fall speed", an obvious climb-down from the early "free fall speed" claims, and not notice that the 'near' part completely invalidates the whole point of the claim! The original claim was that the buildings gave no resistance, so what you are in effect saying is that yes, the buildings did give resistance, but that it wasn't 'enough'. Tell me BoneZ, how slow should the buildings have fallen?


I just love how you debunkers continue to parrot the same old story that firer brought all the three WTC down. Sciences have already proved your ridiculous conspiracy theories wrong but you debunkers continue to ignore the scientific evidences. The debunkers continue to make fools out of their selves because they all refuse to study and look at the facts the only thing left for them is to ridicule the facts and the messenger who presents them.


Except the complete lack of evidence for this. "up, down and around the towers" eh? Ok, lets assume this is true for a minute, the only materials we have which would match this description are typical high explosive linear shaped charges. These charges produce in excess of 120db at a distance of several hundred metres. Can you point them out on any of the videos taken of the collapse?



Explosions Heard in the Twin Towers BEFORE They Collapsed


Forget all of the videos and photos of the collapse of the World Trade Centers for a minute. Let's talk about an aspect of 9/11 that we've all glossed over: sound.

Remember that sound travels slower than light, and so witnesses who described hearing explosive sounds before seeing the collapse of the building cannot have been fooled about the sequence.

The following earwitness testimony indicates controlled demolition of the Twin Towers:

British newspaper stated "some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled."

Unknown witness interviewed on television stating "it sounded like gunfire . . . . bang bang bang bang bang . . . and then three big explosions"

Highly-reputable astrophysicist wrote in an email that, immediately before the collapse of each of the twin towers, he heard explosions and low-frequency rumbles (he also uses the phrase "demolition-style implosion")

Fire chief from a nearby town heard a "high-pitched noise and a popping noise", right before or at the very start of the collapse of the South Tower (aren't high-pitched and popping noises created by certain types of high-explosives?)

Paramedic captain stated "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 red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building" (pdf file; Google's web version is here).

Firefighter “heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator . . . [then] another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I’m thinking, ‘Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here . . . .”

Police officer stated "you would hear a loud boom go off at the top of tower one. As the building continued to burn and emergency equipment kept on responding stirring up the dust and debris in the streets. After approximately 15 minutes suddenly there was another loud boom at the upper floors, then there was a series of smaller explosions which appeared to go completely around the building at the upper floors. And another loud earth-shattering blast with a large fire ball which blew out more debris and at that point everyone began to run north on West Broad Street." (page 5, which is page 2 of a hand-written memorandum)

Police officer stated "you would hear a loud boom go off at the top of tower one. As the building continued to burn and emergency equipment kept on responding stirring up the dust and debris in the streets. After approximately 15 minutes suddenly there was another loud boom at the upper floors, then there was a series of smaller explosions which appeared to go completely around the building at the upper floors. And another loud earth-shattering blast with a large fire ball which blew out more debris and at that point everyone began to run north on West Broad Street." (page 5, which is page 2 of a hand-written memorandum)


georgewashington.blogspot.com...

This is only some of the eyewitness accounts that you debunkers choose to ignore and dismiss their accounts as lies. These people are very creditable unlike your proven lying government reports that you blindly continually to support.


I could go on and on, but all this is is pointless self reinforcement. BoneZ has already pointed out that he shares the same attitude as other truthers, an investigation which doesn't agree with them is not a valid investigation.


You are right the OS is pointless because we have already proven it false and unscientific.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Originally posted by _BoneZ_They shouldn't have fallen at all considering no other steel-structured highrise has ever fallen before or after 9/11 from fires.

Ok, but have there been any high rise towers that were slammed into at more then 500mph by a 300,000lb 767?


As for building 7 it sure looks like it sustained massive damage from the towers collapse. I am honestly surprised it stayed up as long as it did.




but hey thats just my opinion.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


exponent will show you things like the fact that there is a government-sanctioned hypothesis and then go on to talk like it's a fact that that theory has been proven, when there is obviously a difference.

I get sick of hearing that we don't post factual information, when I was just citing the freaking FEMA report to show evidence of exactly the same kind of thing that a nano-composite can be calibrated to accomplish. Trust me, if it can happen naturally so easily, the DoD can accomplish it with technology as well. And as a matter of fact it hasn't even been established that such "corrosion" CAN happen naturally in the first place (ie NO FACTS). So what in the hell is up with the hypocrisy? And the arrogance? I've said it before, that is ALL they have going for them: arrogance.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by drock905
Ok, but have there been any high rise towers that were slammed into at more then 500mph by a 300,000lb 767?

The towers were designed to withstand those impacts, so your point is moot.



Originally posted by drock905
As for building 7 it sure looks like it sustained massive damage from the towers collapse.

Most of the damage to WTC was cosmetic:




Try again?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by drock905


Originally posted by _BoneZ_They shouldn't have fallen at all considering no other steel-structured highrise has ever fallen before or after 9/11 from fires.

Ok, but have there been any high rise towers that were slammed into at more then 500mph by a 300,000lb 767?


As for building 7 it sure looks like it sustained massive damage from the towers collapse. I am honestly surprised it stayed up as long as it did.




but hey thats just my opinion.






Are you an engineer or architect? I challenge you to find me another building in the world that has collapsed due to fire, you can even start by looking up other buildings that have been struck by aircraft. I look forward to seeing what you found.

Built after 1900.

[edit on 7/15/2009 by TheAntiHero420]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
I will debate any of you anythime and absolutley own you. We will debate the OS rather than any particular CT and see how well the story holds up.

I accept your challenge, pick a topic and inform a moderator.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Free-fall speed for the towers is 9.2 seconds. The FEMA report says the towers fell in 10 seconds. How is .8 seconds not "near" free-fall? The more realistic numbers is that the towers fell in about 15 seconds. For buildings as tall and massive as the towers, how is 15 seconds still not "near" free-fall? You're not being very honest or truthful by saying the collapse wasn't "near" free-fall.

Bonez, this section contradicts itself! You say that 0.8s is 'near' free fall, which I would concede it is, but then go on to say that the actual difference was around 5.8 seconds, or 163% free fall time. This is surely not near free fall. In fact the actual acceleration of the towers has been measured by people at PhysOrg and the results were approximately 2/3g for WTC2 and 3/4g for WTC1.

That means that out of the 481GJ (Gregory Urich's numbers) available, up to 140GJ was absorbed by the building providing structural resistance. That is as much as 33 tons of TNT. A huge amount of energy which we know through measurement to have been used in resisting collapse.

To suggest that the buildings gave no resistance is simply ignorant. The facts and figures are available, the videos have been analysed and thanks to this we can make simple calculations to work out whether the buildings did provide no resistance. It turns out that this is wrong, they did.


They shouldn't have fallen at all considering no other steel-structured highrise has ever fallen before or after 9/11 from fires.

Actually NIST's theory requires fires and structural damage, but even so, this is a unique event, what is so unexpected about a unique conclusion? It cannot be your hypothesis that new events cannot happen, so what point are you trying to make here?


Sure can. They're pointed out in a video called "9/11 Eyewitness" which is on Google Video and I also posted a link in one of my posts that I linked to above in my previous post. "9/11 Eyewitness" is recorded 2 miles away from Manhattan and all you can hear are the pre-collapse detonations and the collapse detonations.

Is this a joke? 911 eyewitness records dull rumbling sounds which surprisingly sound exactly like wind noise and nothing like high explosives. How is it that these sounds would be captured on a camera 2 miles away, but not on any of the many cameras at the scene? This one for example: video.google.co.uk...


Looks like I could say the same thing for you. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept 9/11 for what you think it was because buildings don't fall like this from fire:

So that is your ultimate evidence huh? You're just confirming what I have already said in this thread. You could not possibly accept an alternate conclusion, and so no matter what investigation was done, unless it agrees with you it could not be considered correct.


Originally posted by TheAntiHero420

Your equation is not incorrect, your parameters are. As BoneZ pointed out, the actual collapse times for both towers was closer to 15 seconds, significantly more than 'free fall time'.


Originally posted by WWu77
How is 9/11 Truth a religion? You official conspiracy defenders are the religion. You are the ones not interested in facts and common sense. This is about FACTS and scientific evidence, which you guys just deny, deny, deny. You are the ones acting religious, not us.

Really? Can you point out where I deny evidence specifically? In fact as you say I am not interested in facts, have you read the NIST report, and if so what do you think of their theory of collapse initiation?


Originally posted by impressme
Really, what facts have you shown me? Please show where you have shown me where I have been misinformed? Thank you.

I am not sure if I have directly debated with you, I believe I backed out in another thread because you were making what I considered to be an incomprehensible argument. However, I never mentioned you specifically, and I have certainly spent my time and a significant number of posts on trying to explain why people are wrong using whatever facts I feel are most relevant. I have produced graphs, tables, simple analogies, thought experiments etc. So I cannot consider your criticism valid.


You poor thing, like we haven’t been called all those things plus worst, from the likes of you.

But not from me, and so you acknowledge that in fact both sides are guilty of insulting behaviour towards the other. Perhaps you could ask the mods for a list of warned posters and compare the number of warnings of 'debunkers' compared to 'truthers'.


I just love how you debunkers continue to parrot the same old story that firer brought all the three WTC down. Sciences have already proved your ridiculous conspiracy theories wrong but you debunkers continue to ignore the scientific evidences

And now I back out in this thread. You are clearly not interested in the evidence showing you to be wrong, rather in arrogant proselytism as if you have mountains of evidence on your side. This is an impression you have gathered from researching only one side of the story. No wonder you think you sit in such a strong position, when you are blind to the other side!


This is only some of the eyewitness accounts that you debunkers choose to ignore and dismiss their accounts as lies. These people are very creditable unlike your proven lying government reports that you blindly continually to support.

Really, can you show me a debunker claiming eyewitnesses lied? Honestly this makes no sense, you freely admit that you dismiss all evidence for one side out of hand, without even considering it. Your position is obviously one of extreme bias and I have no desire to try and change that.


exponent will show you things like the fact that there is a government-sanctioned hypothesis and then go on to talk like it's a fact that that theory has been proven, when there is obviously a difference.

Look bsbray I would really appreciate it if we could make peace over this. I do not think that the 'official story' is unassailable, or perfect, or 100% accurate. It is almost certainly not, but the fact of the matter is that it provides the only complete theory of what happened to WTC1,2 and 7. Even at the very least it lays out a comprehensive theory of which significant portions could be tested by truthers.

I know you do not believe it, and you find problems with analysis. These problems in your case I feel don't really stem from a lack of understanding, more an unwillingness to admit that in fact there is a possibility things were done correctly. I am sure that if you were to set out plans for your own investigation, you would find they line up well with NIST, and any tests you conduct produce identical results.


I get sick of hearing that we don't post factual information, when I was just citing the freaking FEMA report to show evidence of exactly the same kind of thing that a nano-composite can be calibrated to accomplish. Trust me, if it can happen naturally so easily, the DoD can accomplish it with technology as well

You are undoubtedly one of the 'better' truthers for debate on this site, you do not represent the norm. Regardless, I feel you have some weird ideas about the corrosion that occured. After all, only two pieces were identified with this type of corrosion, why would the DoD go to all that trouble to only affect two sections through an incredibly inefficient mechanism?

I have run out of characters, but if I pad it slightly I can get 8000!!!



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I give you props, the arguement above is well stated and well written. I was wondering if I could get the link that shows the exact time of collapse (with supportable evidence)?

also you should watch this; not about the wtc, but flight 77.

[edit on 7/15/2009 by TheAntiHero420]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


This picture shows the tower falling into WTC 7. Cosmetic Damage?



These are the types of things that would become apparent when there was a new investigation. If we can find the information with a google search why should we spend 50 million on a new investigation?

How about this one that shows 'true' free fall speeds since it is outpacing the rest of the collapse?



These are the pictures that would surface during an investigation and show that there is nothing more to this then structural damage leading to an inevitable collapse.

How about those pictures that 'show' evidence of thermite being used? Sorry, that was after the fact....



or here is some REAL video evidence of how bad the damage and fires were...

>

Sorry to go off on a rant here but I welcome another investigation if it would put this to rest but that is the point of this post. I think it is a waste of resources and should not be funded by our tax dollar.

If there are so many people out there who do not believe the OS, ask them all to send 1 dollar. If even 1/10 of the population agrees to send money, then you have 60 million dollars. More than enough. But instead, it is used for trips and seminars and who knows what else with money raised with DVD sales and books. But nothing gets done folks...nothing.



[edit on 15-7-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Is this a joke? 911 eyewitness records dull rumbling sounds which surprisingly sound exactly like wind noise and nothing like high explosives.

They sound nothing like wind noise. With a good sound system that includes a subwoofer, you can tell the explosions are far away. Further, if you had watched the entire video where Mr. Siegel gets interviewed, you can hear wind noise on the mic and it sounds nothing like the explosions coming from Manhattan.

Oh, and then there's the other evidence you ignored from that video. Like your magical wind noise that magically happened during all three collapses and for the duration of all three collapses. I don't know any intelligent wind that can do that. Then there's the pre-collapse detonations that are perfectly corroborated by the first responders which you also ignored.

Sorry, but when the first responder can name how many pre-collapse detonations there are in a tower and then "9/11 Eyewitness" has the same number of pre-collapse detonations, the first responder and "9/11 Eyewitness" tend to corroborate each other regardless of your denial.



Originally posted by exponent
How is it that these sounds would be captured on a camera 2 miles away, but not on any of the many cameras at the scene?

You could've answered your question yourself had you taken the time to put some thought into all of the facts.

What's one of the main differences between cameras being at the WTC in downtown Manhattan and "9/11 Eyewitness" being recorded across the river in Hoboken? Noise levels. Downtown Manhattan is flooded with noise from traffic, countless thousands of people on the streets, constant emergency sirens, large buildings obstructing views and noises, basically all the constant loud noises of being downtown in a large city. Hoboken was far away from city traffic, sirens, obstructive buildings, etc. Recording in Hoboken with an unadulterated view of the WTC and without the deafening sounds of the city produced the evidence we have today.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join