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

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by OnTheFelt

 

Also, security on 9/11 was not run by Bush's relative. Another farce. It was years previous he was involved but people still want to throw it around as fact..

So you do admit, Marvin P. Bush has strong ties (as in, HE WAS THE OWNER) to Stratesec? You mean, just like how Cheney was CEO of Halliburton in the "years prior" to his Vice Presidential term? The same Halliburton that won that no-bid contract in Iraq right? Ohhhh right, that Halliburton. You saying "it was years previous he was involved" hardly proves that he couldn't have had strong ties to them after he was "involved". EDIT: In fact, it adds more reason to be suspicious.

Also, since you seem to have conveniently ignored a previous post of mine that was kind of directed at you, i'll post it again:

Whether the World Trade Center towers fell in 10 seconds or 15 seconds or 20 seconds, is irrelevant. It's 'near' enough to free fall speed that proves fires were not what caused them to fall out of the sky.

Think about it. 110 stories....

110 stories fell to the ground in 10 seconds? 110stories/10sec = 11 stories per second!!!! Imagine that in your head! How is that even possible, "due to" a fire on AT MOST a 10-15 story section of the building? I don't buy it

110stories/15sec = 7.3333 stories per second!!! That's still quite incredulous!!

110stories/20sec = 5.5 stories persecond!!!!

The "official" story is that the building "pancaked". Even in the best case, 110 stories pancaked in 20 seconds (which is not the case, it's actually more like 10-15 seconds, but LETS JUST SAY, for the sake of argument), we're supposed to believe that EACH story 'pancaked' onto itself in 0.18181818 seconds? What happened to the lower floors that weren't damaged by fires at all? You do the math.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by whateverYOUsayman]

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by OnTheFelt

 

If a 4 story building made of steel can collapse then it shows that if the lower part of a structure was weakened as in the WTC that is would not be able to support the top part of the structure and collapse as it did.

...

Stay on target...Stay on target...

I didn't know that the "lower part ...... as in the WTC" was hit by planes too???? Really?????????????????

EDIT: By the way, I was just thinking of what a great nation the US is, where they build such great buildings designed to withstand multiple airliner crashes, but that pulverize into dust and drop at near free fall speeds to the ground due to the very fires that the airliner crashes cause.

You're statements have more holes than anyone's in this thread.



[edit on 16-7-2009 by whateverYOUsayman]

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Umm I believe there was a report that stated that weeks prior to 9/11 the buildings where being swept by security teams, which was considered unusual. I however at this time have no evidence to back this up, nor do I have the time at this current moment to look it up. Sleep time for me.

Unusual?Actually quite common. You do realize that the WTC was bombed in 93 and new security measures were put in place after that which included more private security.This is not uncommon at just about any high-rise commercial building.

reply to post by esdad71


Was the following "common" as well esdad71?

killtown.blogspot.com...

Contact Scott Forbes at [email protected]

KT: Why were you working the weekend before 9/11?

SF: Because of a "power down" notified by the Port Authority. Power was being switched off for a 36hr period in the top half of tower and as I work for a Financial Institution and Bank in the Technology Group I was working on the shutdown and eventually the startup of all our systems.

KT: Was it unusual for you to be working on the weekend?

SF: I suppose at that time I would have been working one weekend in every 6 or 8 weeks, so it was not unheard of. Working in Technology you get used to working 'out of business hours.' I guess what was odd about this weekend was that as all power was going down then all of our systems were being shutdown. This was extreme and unprecedented.

KT: During all this time, how many times did the WTC have a "power down"?

SF: None in Tower 2 that I was aware of. We had a backup Generator for our Data Center on floor 97 in the event of an unplanned power outage but it had not been used during my time in the company. You have to understand how unprecedented the power down was. To shutdown all of our financial systems, all inter-related and with connections and feeds to may outside vendors and suppliers was a major piece of work. Additionally, the power outage meant that many of the 'ordinary' building features were not operating, such as security locks on doors, cameras, lighting, etc.

All people are asking for is a real and unbiased (a word you can't seem to grasp) investigation. This whole case is riddled with anomalies, and they need to be investigated.

Could Scott Forbes have been lying? Yes.
Should his claims be investigated? Yes.
Were they investigated by the 9/11 Commission? No.
Are there numerous other anomalies regarding 9/11 that should have been investigated? Yes.
Have they been? No.

I'm still here esdad71, keep ignoring all my posts on this page....

My counter to your dingy 4 story factory is the 32 story steel building in Madrid which burned for more than 24 hours straight and did not "collapse" at free fall speeds nor pulverize into dust.

esdad71, they actually pay you to do this??? Our tax dollars hard at work ladies and gentlemen.

Everything that comes out of you is pure bull, lies, misinformation.

Originally posted by esdad71
Remember, the commission investigation you are asking for is not to find out why the towers fell but who did it.

And you think they did a good job with that? The "official" investigation claims that the proof of who did it is based on passports they found in the plane crash sites that somehow survived the explosion and fires that supposedly brought down multiple buildings. This on a day when the passengers, luggage, pieces of the plane, and i quote, "VAPORIZED". Not to mention that the commission investigate DID IN FACT STATE "WHY" the towers fell. It goes something like this 'due to the jet fuel and ensuing fires'.



I just thought of another oddity for you to tackle esdad71. Why can't the Pentagon release clear images of a plane actually hitting the Pentagon? Instead they released 4 images that show absolutely nothing to actually prove that it was in fact a 737 that hit the Pentagon. I wouldn't think it's that hard to do considering there's reportedly 70+ cameras facing the exact spot that the plane hit. Since it seems you have close ties to the Pentagon, could you ask your superiors for us and get back to us? Thanks



[edit on 16-7-2009 by whateverYOUsayman]

reply to post by esdad71

A punk? Nice. I am sure if we were sitting at a bar you would not dare say that but behind a keyboard you are a man. .Kind of like the guy that 'tells' you he is going to kick your butt... you people are a riot....

I'll gladly say it to your face....If the shoe fits wear it kid. But hey, you tell me, because the way I was raised, when someone sprays his "dodo" around they should be called on it.

You see, you never even looked at those steel structured buildings, you just posted it as fact...you posted it as a perfect comparison without even taking the time to look at it. When in fact those steel structures bare no meaningful comparison to WTC 7. If that's not punkish, I don't know what is.

Look, you're either doing this for Sh$#ts and giggles or you're trying to protect some kind of agenda.

I am not comparing buildings but I am comparing steel structures weakend by fire that led to a collapse. The WTC 1 and 2 were tube within tube design. Find 3 other buildings built like that. The WTC 7 was a building that was built upon another structure and the foundation was smaller than the width of the building so they used a truss design to support the upper floors.

If a 4 story building made of steel can collapse then it shows that if the lower part of a structure was weakened as in the WTC that is would not be able to support the top part of the structure and collapse as it did.

See here you go again....you base an argument completely founded on an NIST report that is bogus, contrived, and poorly explained.

I have no desire to argue points from a proven to be false hypothesis. All you do is play ring around the rosies, this has been beaten to death, so I will not waste my time with a rebuttal.

Also, security on 9/11 was not run by Bush's relative. Another farce. It was years previous he was involved but people still want to throw it around as fact..

Ok, are you trying to be obtuse intentionally, or are you so twisted in your own confusion that you just made a complete contridiciton to your own statement.

So which is it.....he was involved, but it's a farce, but yet you admit what people throw around as fact.

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served.

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."

Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider. The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards.

Now this is where you really start to fall off the deep end:

However, your attempts to derail the thread are back so I ask the "King of all Punks"....what would you do if there was another investigation that returned the same results?

Stay on target...Stay on target...

You were the one who brought up WTC 7, in fact, I actually ran to research them in hopes that you had come up with some meaningful information.

However, not to my surprise, it ended up being the same ole same ole.

reply to post by whateverYOUsayman


To power down a building? It is not something that does not happen and that is why large corporations will have there own backup power for server rooms,etc. since data must continue to process. If you take a look and research the transit Authority started upgrading power in 98 to accommodate changes and new construction in the WTC for things such cafeterias and multi-level trading floors in the upper floors. It was also for upgrades to hi-speed internet access pre-2001 and adding dedicated T1 type connections.

www.nytimes.com...

I welcome another investigation however it should not be taxpayer funded.

....what would you do if there was another investigation that returned the same results?

Stay on target...Stay on target...

It's just a stupid question to begin with. We already do not agree with the first investigation. What makes you think we'll change our minds if they threw the same results at us again? As far as staying on target. Everything that we discussed pertains to this investigation and the numerous anomalies and quirks that need to be investigated, therefore, we're right on target. You asked the question, we answered it.

OK, so let there be a new investigation. I am not afraid of a new investigation, I am concerned with a lot of money spent and resources wasted to come to the same conclusion in this day and age since the government is now a trillion dollars in debt.

For someone who's "concerned with a lot of money spent and resources wasted", you sure do waste a lot of your time (or your company's time) on us 'conspiracy nuts'. Who do you work for again?

reply to post by esdad71


Gee, what a perfect time to plant explosives.

The whole reason i brought this up was because:

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You can keep claiming it all you want, but fires have never brought down steel-structured highrises to this day. Nor have fires ever been able to accomplish what well-placed explosives have in all the years past:

Never in human history has anyone ever been able to successfully plant hidden controlled demolitions in an *occupied* building without any of the occupants noticing what was going on, either. Thus, your own standard of logic dismisses any possibility of explosives as well.

You are conveniently overlooking that small detail, I notice.

So, esdad71, stick to the things i replied to you with, not the one's you conveniently select. Its in bold, so please don't ignore it this time:



110 stories fell to the ground in 10 seconds? 110stories/10sec = 11 stories per second!!!!
110stories/15sec = 7.3333 stories per second!!!
110stories/20sec = 5.5 stories persecond!!!! Even if it was a little over 10 seconds far from free fall speed, it still fell too fast to be anything other than controlled demolitions!

The "official" story is that the building "pancaked". Even in the best case, 110 stories pancaked in 20 seconds (which is not the case, it's actually more like 10-15 seconds, but LETS JUST SAY, for the sake of argument), we're supposed to believe that EACH story 'pancaked' onto itself in 0.18181818 seconds? What happened to the lower floors that weren't damaged by fires at all? How does your 4 story concrete factory explain that???

Originally posted by OnTheFelt
reply to post by esdad71

 

A punk? Nice. I am sure if we were sitting at a bar you would not dare say that but behind a keyboard you are a man. .Kind of like the guy that 'tells' you he is going to kick your butt... you people are a riot....

I'll gladly say it to your face....If the shoe fits wear it kid. But hey, you tell me, because the way I was raised, when someone sprays his "dodo" around they should be called on it.

You see, you never even looked at those steel structured buildings, you just posted it as fact...you posted it as a perfect comparison without even taking the time to look at it. When in fact those steel structures bare no meaningful comparison to WTC 7. If that's not punkish, I don't know what is.

Look, you're either doing this for Sh$#ts and giggles or you're trying to protect some kind of agenda.

I am not comparing buildings but I am comparing steel structures weakend by fire that led to a collapse. The WTC 1 and 2 were tube within tube design. Find 3 other buildings built like that. The WTC 7 was a building that was built upon another structure and the foundation was smaller than the width of the building so they used a truss design to support the upper floors.

If a 4 story building made of steel can collapse then it shows that if the lower part of a structure was weakened as in the WTC that is would not be able to support the top part of the structure and collapse as it did.

See here you go again....you base an argument completely founded on an NIST report that is bogus, contrived, and poorly explained.

I have no desire to argue points from a proven to be false hypothesis. All you do is play ring around the rosies, this has been beaten to death, so I will not waste my time with a rebuttal.

Also, security on 9/11 was not run by Bush's relative. Another farce. It was years previous he was involved but people still want to throw it around as fact..

Ok, are you trying to be obtuse intentionally, or are you so twisted in your own confusion that you just made a complete contridiciton to your own statement.

So which is it.....he was involved, but it's a farce, but yet you admit what people throw around as fact.

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served.

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."

Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider. The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards.

Now this is where you really start to fall off the deep end:

However, your attempts to derail the thread are back so I ask the "King of all Punks"....what would you do if there was another investigation that returned the same results?

Stay on target...Stay on target...

You were the one who brought up WTC 7, in fact, I actually ran to research them in hopes that you had come up with some meaningful information.

However, not to my surprise, it ended up being the same ole same ole.

reply to post by OnTheFelt


Kid? . I am probably old enough to be your father. Again, making threats over the internet is comical. Like I said, you would not dare call anyone a punk on the street. You wouldn't. It is common sense not how big your balls are.

I am not contradicting anything I am trying to post fact that you choose not to research. Bush's relative was NOT in charge of security on 9/11. This is a fact i do not have to prove.

I am trying to show you that a steel structure, no matter what size, can collapse due to fire which you stated had never occured. Do you understand that? I based nothing on the NIST report. The NIST report was used to make sure that this does not happen again. That is what NIST does, not lay blame. Get your organizations correct.

Bush was no longer on the board so he had nothing to do with the security in 2001. Get your fact straight. Look it up. Like I said, a farce. He was NOT in charge of the company in charge of security that day. Do your own research and do not rely on one internet site for information. Stratesec also provides airport security in the NE.

I am bringing up WTC 7 because once again, as with all threads, they are derailed.

You also do not want to attempt to answer or rebutt what I post by stating it has been done before. I think you jsut do not have an answer and that is an easy cop out.

Now, please answer the OP question. If there was another investigation and it gave the same result, showing that terrorists hijacked planes and slammed them into these buildings causing a global collapse and loss of life, would you accept it?

You never did answer the simplest of questions, just internet threatened me.. I am shaking behind my keyboard...please stop...

reply to post by whateverYOUsayman


I am related to Dick Cheney and get my blood money checks every Friday so I can have time to harass burger flippers and high school kids in this forum who think they are engineers and architects and secret military operatives ? Is that the answer you wanted? Are we trying the old berate him till he is so upset he leaves routine? not a chance...sad fact is that there are quite a few people on the other side of the fence I do not agree with but respect because of civil conversation and sometimes I learn something new.

You prove my point however that no matter what is given, as evidence or otherwise, you would never accept a new investigation unless it matched your mindset and theories. We could basically spend 100 million on an international investigation and if it did not prove explosives you would still doubt it. You fit the cry baby mentality that will complain until it gets what it wants and fits how you feel.

This thread was simply about me welcoming a new investigation and if the same results were presented, how would people react. If you do not care, go visit another thread or start a new one with your questions

So, esdad71, stick to the things i replied to you with, not the one's you conveniently select. Its in bold, so please don't ignore it this time:



110 stories fell to the ground in 10 seconds? 110stories/10sec = 11 stories per second!!!!
110stories/15sec = 7.3333 stories per second!!!
110stories/20sec = 5.5 stories persecond!!!! Even if it was a little over 10 seconds far from free fall speed, it still fell too fast to be anything other than controlled demolitions!

The "official" story is that the building "pancaked". Even in the best case, 110 stories pancaked in 20 seconds (which is not the case, it's actually more like 10-15 seconds, but LETS JUST SAY, for the sake of argument), we're supposed to believe that EACH story 'pancaked' onto itself in 0.18181818 seconds? What happened to the lower floors that weren't damaged by fires at all? How does your 4 story concrete factory explain that???

.
I will be happy to stop by


[edit on 16-7-2009 by esdad71]

reply to post by whateverYOUsayman


Most of us on here have already put esdad71, goodoldave on ignore they are playing a game they just want to disrupt this thread and see how mad they can get you or even hoping you will lose it and get yourself BAND by attacking them. IGNORE THEM!
Stop responding to them they want you to waste your time bickering back and forth over nothing. If you say black they will say white and so on.

I believe "consistency" is most important when identifying results...

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by whateverYOUsayman

 

Most of us on here have already put esdad71, goodoldave on ignore they are playing a game they just want to disrupt this thread and see how mad they can get you or even hoping you will lose it and get yourself BAND by attacking them. IGNORE THEM!
Stop responding to them they want you to waste your time bickering back and forth over nothing. If you say black they will say white and so on.

I started the thread. I guess you are really paying attention or maybe that is just a convincing post by you that shows you are not reading and just trolling to post against anyone who has pissed you off in the past or proved you wrong in some fashion. Take off the blinders. Why would you ignore the OP if you did not care about it in the first place? This is the funniest thing I have ever read on here.

As a side note, Did you attempt to answer the OP question?

[edit on 16-7-2009 by esdad71]

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by whateverYOUsayman

 

Most of us on here have already put esdad71, goodoldave on ignore they are playing a game they just want to disrupt this thread and see how mad they can get you or even hoping you will lose it and get yourself BAND by attacking them. IGNORE THEM!
Stop responding to them they want you to waste your time bickering back and forth over nothing. If you say black they will say white and so on.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, they are just trying to get a rise out of us. But i think the bigger picture is that they want to misinform people who still believe the 'official story'.

no amount of money would make flight 77 appear, no amount of money would make the whole wtc7 scenario make sense (as it stands), no amount of money would conceal the fact that information has been covered up.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by whateverYOUsayman

 

who think they are engineers and architects and secret military operatives ?

You're right, i'm not an engineer, nor an architect. Are you?

You're welcome to discuss your wild theories with for example, Steven E. Jones. A physicist from Brigham Young University who wrote a thesis on why he thought nano-thermite was used to cut the steel in the buildings. And later on, discovered evidence in rubble that they were actually used. ...... Let me guess, he and all the other engineers, scientists, and architects are all nutjob burger flippers too, right???

This is an example of how twisted esdad71's logic is:
I believe the earth is round.
How do i know this? Scientists and satellite images.
Am I a scientist or a satellite? No.
Based on esdad71's twisted logic: Since I am neither a scientist nor a satelite, my claim that the earth is round is false/unfounded/lunacy.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by whateverYOUsayman]