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.

 

20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

page: 10
79
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11

Can you see what's going on at the bottom of the building? No? Didn't think so.


That's the part you missed.

Amazing.



So let's see what's going on at the bottom of the building then.

Link to a video, please? Not to a theory, but an actual video of the bottom of WTC7 as it is collapsing.

Something else that I'm going to be waiting indefinitely for, since, unless one has just recently came out, none exist in public domain.

You must have missed it, too.




Btw, I can post this testimony of what a NYPD officer witnessed at the bottom of the building as it began "collapsing":







[edit on 28-10-2009 by bsbray11]




posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
It might be a good idea for you to read the NIST report and refute it..

In fact it would be a far better idea for you and NIST to explain how the building can fall for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate.


Originally posted by jthomas
Why are you so afraid to support your claim?

jthomas, you utterly destroy logic, again.

I have not made any claims. I feel like playing the same record to you over and again when you make blatant false statements such as this. You do it in nearly every thread where I call you out on your false logic.

I have asked you to explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds with free fall rate. NIST did not do it and neither did you.

Your utter failure to understand this is quite telling.

Please continue to bump the thread - it's important that lots of people see how NIST have failed to explain and you, acting as a mouthpiece, are perpetuating a myth that NIST has done so.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

posted by jthomas
The only "strides" your so-called "Truth" Movement has made in eight years is going around in circles.


posted by bsbray11

Right, and these circles have drummed up hundreds of engineers, architects, pilots, and all number of other professionals over the course of 8 years.

Keep it coming. These discussions are why the numbers are increasingly growing against the official reports and the people trying to defend them.


Steadily growing and growing and growing


200+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
700+ Engineers and Architects
200+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
400+ Professors Question 9/11
230+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals

Source


You are doing a great job jthomas.

Keep your disinformation campaign going strong, sow your confusion, keep high-lighting the WTC7 freefall, and keep bumping this thread, and our numbers will grow.

Thanks again jthomas.








[edit on 10/28/09 by SPreston]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Call me paranoid but...9/11/1991 Bush senior made a very scary speech about ushering in a new world order. 11 years later the twin towers fell. While the twin towers fell, Bush was reading "My Pet Goat", coincidence?

Believe it or not, it was a satanic ritual to usher in the NWO. Blood had to
be sacrificed, and blood was sacrificed.


Do the research yourselves. Sorry if it was off track.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
These NIST pseudo-scientists are such liars.



But keep bumping this thread with your pathetic NIST defense jthomas.

Oh yeah, thanks again for the exposure jthomas.




posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I do enjoy this part of Craig Bartmer's account:


"It was that moment, you know, "Get away", and I looked up... and... it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. And all the things started peeling in on itself and... I mean, there was an umbrella of crap seven feet over my head that I just stared at. Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running and the [explitive]'s hitting the ground behind me and the whole time your hearing "thoom. thoom. thoom. thoom. thoom." So. I think I know an explosion when I hear it."


So he looks up, no mention of hearing anything exploding before any movement, and sees the building peeling in on itself, and he is hearing the "explosions" going off DURING the collapse.

Excuse me for a minute here but, in every CD I have ever watched, I always see and hear the explosions well BEFORE the collapse of the building, never during the collapse. I only hear the sound of it collapsing after the charges go off. Why is it that this always ignored by those pushing the "CD" nonsense?

So we use his only account and since he mentions that he PERSONALLY did not hear any creaking or sounds inside prior to collapse of WTC7, then why do you ignore the numerous other accounts of fire and rescue personnel that DO mention the creaking, the shuddering, the tilting, etc etc etc? Cherry picking much?

What is with the "truth" movement taking one or two eyewitness account that loosely support their version, and have that trump the 100s of eyewitness accounts that don't support their version? Its perverted!



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So he looks up, no mention of hearing anything exploding before any movement, and sees the building peeling in on itself, and he is hearing the "explosions" going off DURING the collapse.

Excuse me for a minute here but, in every CD I have ever watched, I always see and hear the explosions well BEFORE the collapse of the building


There were explosions in that building prior to its collapse. Look up Barry Jennings' testimony for one example of testimony to this effect. Officer Bartmer's is only one testimony.


I can also post videos of demolitions where you can clearly hear explosions as the building is collapsing. Would you be interested in seeing these? Because I'm not sure why you think this is impossible.


So we use his only account and since he mentions that he PERSONALLY did not hear any creaking or sounds inside prior to collapse of WTC7, then why do you ignore the numerous other accounts of fire and rescue personnel that DO mention the creaking, the shuddering, the tilting, etc etc etc? Cherry picking much?


Bartmer addresses those claims himself in the videos. He said the south face had damage, and in places there was damage consistent with the firefighters' testimony (as we already know), but it did not apply to the entire building, and he said he saw nothing to indicate the entire building should just start dropping to the ground symmetrically and all at once. That is his testimony, as someone who was there and looked at the exact same things the firefighters you mention did. And btw not even all firefighters were in agreement with the testimony you are talking about.

They were only looking at local damage because we even have pictures of the south face, and it only suffered local damage in places where debris struck it, which even NIST claimed would have played an insignificant role in collapse. This is consistent with the firefighters' testimony. That this should result in a global, symmetrical collapse, is an unsupported opinion.


What is with the "truth" movement taking one or two eyewitness account that loosely support their version, and have that trump the 100s of eyewitness accounts that don't support their version?


Can you post the 100's of testimonies that contradict explosions being heard in the buildings? Because I can post far more than "one or two" witnesses that heard all number of explosive events, not just related to WTC7, but all three buildings, at all times, from during the impacts, to before the collapses, to during the collapses. Every time someone posts these you just make up excuses as to what you "THINK" they were, which proves nothing. There are YouTube videos that are nothing but compilations of these testimonies that were all gathered by major media reporting that day. And those are only the people that talked to camera men. Someone is ignoring tons of testimony, yes, but not me.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by rush969
 


So what does that have to do with an 8-mile debris spread or any of the witnesses that reported hearing missiles, etc.?


apparently some people are having trouble understanding or researching exactly what type of debris was discovered 8 miles away DOWNWIND of the crash site:
Light materials! ie: insulation, papers, shreds of aluminum, human remains, magazines, shreds of cloth and cloths, nylons, anything that can be sucked up into a rising mushroom cloud and carried by the winds to their final resting point. The debris came fro the crash site, and it was carried by the wind. This has been addressed numerous times and for some reason, people still ignore it and spread the faulty information instead. Why is that?



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
apparently some people are having trouble understanding or researching exactly what type of debris was discovered 8 miles away DOWNWIND of the crash site:
Light materials! ie: insulation, papers, shreds of aluminum, human remains


Carried off miles away by the wind. Including bodies. Yeah, it all makes total sense now.

I'll remember to think nothing of it the next time I see a corpse blowing in the wind.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

There were explosions in that building prior to its collapse. Look up Barry Jennings' testimony for one example of testimony to this effect. Officer Bartmer's is only one testimony.


I can also post videos of demolitions where you can clearly hear explosions as the building is collapsing. Would you be interested in seeing these? Because I'm not sure why you think this is impossible.


I don't doubt there were explosions in the WTC Towers as they burned. I mean come on, they just had a 767 fly right into them and they have about 10 floors burning out of control. Hearing explosions in such an inferno is no shocker. However, to automatically go and jump the gun and claim, "OH! It was bombs planted in there that made the booms!" without even considering the numerous NON-explosive device sources of things that sound like explosions, is kind of crazy.

The only videos I have seen where there are detonations going off during collapse are the large brick-building warehouses and such with heavy masonry walls that need to be destroyed. However, watching the demolition of the tower in I believe Houston shows the detonations first, then collapse. Not the other way around. In fact, I can't seem to find a single video taken from inside, outside or around the WTCs that have any detonations going off prior to collapse. Why is that?



Bartmer addresses those claims himself in the videos. He said the south face had damage, and in places there was damage consistent with the firefighters' testimony (as we already know), but it did not apply to the entire building, and he said he saw nothing to indicate the entire building should just start dropping to the ground symmetrically and all at once. That is his testimony, as someone who was there and looked at the exact same things the firefighters you mention did. And btw not even all firefighters were in agreement with the testimony you are talking about.

They were only looking at local damage because we even have pictures of the south face, and it only suffered local damage in places where debris struck it, which even NIST claimed would have played an insignificant role in collapse. This is consistent with the firefighters' testimony. That this should result in a global, symmetrical collapse, is an unsupported opinion.


so a police officer knows more about building stability and the signs of building's compromised structural integrity, than say, the fire commander on scene and those trained in fire safety and what signs to look out for in a burning building's integrity, who were inside and around the WTC long enough to see and hear for themselves and use their education and experience to know they building was going to come down? Sure, let's go with that.
I'm sure there are a few firefighting personnel on ATS that might question you on that.

As to the collapse, why does it collapse in sections, without so much a bang being heard anywhere around the WTC site? Not a single person ever mentions hearing the unmistakable sounds of detonations of demo charges before the collapse. You need to have the sound first, then movement, not movement first, then sound. That goes against physics.

Many firefighters who were inside and outside the WTC7 prior to collapse saw first hand the damage and resultant compromised integrity. Recall this firefighter:


And why did the FDNY put a surveyor transit on the WTC7? If as you suggest the WTC7 was structurally sound, why did they do that?




Can you post the 100's of testimonies that contradict explosions being heard in the buildings? Because I can post far more than "one or two" witnesses that heard all number of explosive events, not just related to WTC7, but all three buildings, at all times, from during the impacts, to before the collapses, to during the collapses. Every time someone posts these you just make up excuses as to what you "THINK" they were, which proves nothing. There are YouTube videos that are nothing but compilations of these testimonies that were all gathered by major media reporting that day. And those are only the people that talked to camera men. Someone is ignoring tons of testimony, yes, but not me.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by bsbray11]


as I said before, I do not deny there were explosions heard because I'll bet there were a lot of things inside the WTC that didnt react well to impact, fire, heat, etc. not to mention an entire 767 burning inside. But again, you and many others of the "truth" movement like to automatically take any mention of someone saying "explosion" and have that mean BOMBS were inside. That is really illogical. But that is all the "truth" movement can hang its claims on, by twisting initial eyewitness accounts of hearing an explosion to meaning there secret special magical bombs inside. I have listened to news reports from my city about large fires in houses, condos, warehouses, highrises, etc, and quite a few times I hear accounts or reports of explosions being heard during the fire, or just before. Now I seriously doubt that there were bombs planted in every single one of those instances. Sometimes you have to use some serious critical thinking and common sense before jumping into fantasy-land.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GenRadek
apparently some people are having trouble understanding or researching exactly what type of debris was discovered 8 miles away DOWNWIND of the crash site:
Light materials! ie: insulation, papers, shreds of aluminum, human remains


Carried off miles away by the wind. Including bodies. Yeah, it all makes total sense now.

I'll remember to think nothing of it the next time I see a corpse blowing in the wind.


And I think you have just confirmed my suspicions. I think many in the "truth" movement have a little trouble with reading comprehension. Thank you for confirming this.

Notice i said human remains. Not whole entire bodies.

Well I can see that troubles with reading comprehension is a probable reason why we get such nonsense from the "truth" movement.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Sorry, I didn´t realize that question number 2 was:

2) Why was the Flight 93 crash site spread out over 8 miles?
So it wasn´t 21.

The answer is, because of the big explosion and the winds.
It has been explained also.




posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
And why did the FDNY put a surveyor transit on the WTC7? If as you suggest the WTC7 was structurally sound, why did they do that?

Where are the results of this transit and why are they not mentioned in the NIST report on WTC 7?



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I don't doubt there were explosions in the WTC Towers as they burned.


Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then you will turn around and ask for proof that there were explosions again.



It was bombs planted in there that made the booms!" without even considering the numerous NON-explosive device sources of things that sound like explosions, is kind of crazy.


And so it must be equally crazy then to never consider that they might have been bombs, isn't it?

If there were ONE explosion that people heard, then it would be simpler just to say a high-power electrical transformer exploded or something of that nature. But when you have so many testimonies to so many of them, at so many different times and places throughout the complex, especially rapid, linear sequences of them, "boom boom boom boom boom," like gunshots, as more than one witness described it, you might want to be a little more open-minded, Gen.


In fact, I can't seem to find a single video taken from inside, outside or around the WTCs that have any detonations going off prior to collapse. Why is that?



A Port Authority cop testifying to "continuous explosions" within the buildings before collapse:




I had a video on Studyof911.com of an explosion that was picked up way down the street from the towers while both of them were still standing, but that website is down and I can't find the same video on YouTube (there are TONS of different videos of explosions and testimonies of explosions on YouTube for anyone who wants to do the search). I'll keep looking for it, though. In the mean time police officer testimony will have to suffice.


so a police officer knows more about building stability and the signs of building's compromised structural integrity, than say, the fire commander on scene


If you want to take that route with it, then consider NIST's report. Those guys are supposedly more educated about this than even the firefighters, and they are claiming that this type of collapse was a "new phenomenon" never seen before, totally unprecedented. Yet the firefighters were able to predict it? It goes both ways.


As to the collapse, why does it collapse in sections, without so much a bang being heard anywhere around the WTC site? Not a single person ever mentions hearing the unmistakable sounds of detonations of demo charges before the collapse.


Again, Barry Jennings. And that's also ignoring Craig Bartmer's testimony that I posted above. And also assuming that there are not others, when I have seen other various testimony over the years to the effect of what you are describing.

Here are two videos recording explosions in the vicinity of WTC7 after WTC1 had fallen:









You need to have the sound first, then movement, not movement first, then sound. That goes against physics.


You have plenty of explosions before their collapses. See the police testimony above.


And why did the FDNY put a surveyor transit on the WTC7? If as you suggest the WTC7 was structurally sound, why did they do that?


Obviously they were trying to determine how stable it was. If they already knew it was so unstable, why would they bother to do that?

[edit on 28-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
But again, you and many others of the "truth" movement like to automatically take any mention of someone saying "explosion" and have that mean BOMBS were inside. That is really illogical.


Here's a neat video:

www.youtube.com...

Here's the quote so you really don't have to view it:
"I spoke with some police officials just moments ago and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the world trade center aside from the ones that may have been caused by the impact of the plane with the building may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it... so their fear is that there may have been a explosive devise either in the building or in the adjacent area"

Those crazy kooky police officials. They're just insane. And illogical.

How'd they determine there was not a van? I betcha the van was right next to the black boxes......



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
And I think you have just confirmed my suspicions. I think many in the "truth" movement have a little trouble with reading comprehension. Thank you for confirming this.

Notice i said human remains. Not whole entire bodies.


What difference does it make? Whether it's a tooth, an eyeball, an arm, a leg, and entire body... (sorry to be so grotesque..) do you rationally think you are going to see any of those things blowing around in the wind?? Are you talking about a hurricane?



Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.
post-gazette.com...


Do books also blow around for miles in the wind?



The impact of the crash left a crater estimated by authorities to be about 10 feet deep and 20 feet wide. It appeared the plane first hit on the downward slope of a hillside and then slid at least 200 yards, scorching a dense area of trees and corn fields. Officials would allow reporters no closer than 300 yards to the scene. From that vantage point, that crater appeared to be barren. Little debris could be seen and there were no signs of victims.

"We haven't seen anything bigger than a phone book, certainly nothing that would resemble a part of a plane," said Capt. Frank Monaco of the Pennsylvania State Police.

But one Lambertsville resident, Barry Hoover, who lives a half-mile from the site said he saw debris scattered at least a mile wide.


911review.org...



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
2) Why was the Flight 93 crash site spread out over 8 miles?
So it wasn´t 21.

The answer is, because of the big explosion and the winds.
It has been explained also.


This is what falls under "personal conjecture," unless you have links to specific evidence supporting/verifying this assertion.

I live in Virginia, very close to Pennsylvania, and the same type of climate. I know what the wind is like here. You don't see anything bigger than leaves blowing in it, and even leaves don't fall far from the tree. When you have books, clothing, body parts, forget about it. Those things are NOT going to blow for miles in the wind here. This isn't tornado alley.

There is also no logic to be had in claiming the explosion of the plane crashing sent this stuff flying for miles. Unless, again, you have some proof of this, and not just personal conjecture.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Let´s take question number 4 now.

4) For what reason are the Pentagon surveillance tapes showing the impact of Flight 77 still being withheld?

I guess I would have to answer first with another question:
What makes you think there are other tapes showing the impact of Flight 77? And also... Pentagon tapes?
I know there are other tapes, but I also know the FBI has declared those tapes useless. Pretty much like the ones from the Citgo station and the Doubletree hotel you know?

That info. is here: www.flight77.info...
There you can see all the information about the "other" tapes.


[edit on 28-10-2009 by rush969]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
This is what falls under "personal conjecture," unless you have links to specific evidence supporting/verifying this assertion.

There is also no logic to be had in claiming the explosion of the plane crashing sent this stuff flying for miles. Unless, again, you have some proof of this, and not just personal conjecture.


Then, may I ask. What is YOUR personal conjecture?
I´ve already shown that the shoot down order was given after 93 had crashed.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Hey, bsbray11,

Good job, man. I got tired of trying a long time ago, due to having other things to deal with, to be a worthwhile addition to the truth movement. You're one of the last names I recognize from when I signed up that is still posting about 9/11 truth...

I even (probably got on some kind of list) asked my representative locally about the outcome of the 9/11 commission investigation, and how the outcome of the investigation led to policies that he backed, and if he would be willing to stand behind a new investigation, blah, blah, blah...

I don't know what will happen if the truth is ever figured out and becomes public. But I am sure that a lot of the former administration peeps (Carlisle Group; Halliburton, etc.) profited from the outcome of what happened in the days after 9/11.

It's extremely sad, what has happened to this country.

Don't get tired of it like I did. Keep going. And good luck to you.

Kind of lame things to say, but you're keeping the "disinfo agents" on their toes.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join