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: 11
79
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
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.


From the first page, second paragraph:


Let me stress that personal speculation regarding any of these questions is not going to settle any of them definitely, so they will continue to be unanswered until addressed by proper investigation.




Originally posted by rush969

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


Then, may I ask. What is YOUR personal conjecture?


My own personal conjecture is just as irrelevant as yours. What I want to see is a well-funded independent investigation into the questions on the first page, that were never addressed by any federal investigation.



I´ve already shown that the shoot down order was given after 93 had crashed.


You've shown that that's what the Kean Commission report said.




posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
My own personal conjecture is just as irrelevant as yours. What I want to see is a well-funded independent investigation into the questions on the first page, that were never addressed by any federal investigation.


Sorry to say that you are not going to get that "independant investigation into those questions" here...

What we have here is lots of research and conjecture.
So, I´d like to ask you again.
What is your personal conjecture on Flt. 93?
Care to share that? Even if it doesn´t matter?



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


Not particularly. I'm not even that interested in my own conjecture. There are 20 unanswered questions in the OP of this thread and so far we have 11 pages of thread and not a single one of them has been resolved. It has been nothing so far but personal conjecture (well, also trying to distort the questions and trying to shift attention away from them, as you are doing now).



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969

Originally posted by bsbray11
My own personal conjecture is just as irrelevant as yours. What I want to see is a well-funded independent investigation into the questions on the first page, that were never addressed by any federal investigation.


Sorry to say that you are not going to get that "independant investigation into those questions" here...



And more to the point, a "well-funded independent investigation", as defined by the TM, couldn't come from any gov anyways.

Sounds like the TM should start hitiing up their celebrity heroes - Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donut, etc, for their funding.

I doubt that they have the guts to put their money where their mouth is.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
You are making claims HERE. You are required to support your claims HERE or retract them if you refuse to support them.


I will retract any and all statements I have made if it will get you back on topic, which is 20 questions that remain unanswered by official reports.


You don't need a reason to retract your claims other than to admit you cannot support them - or will not support them.


Not my responsibility to answer them, their responsibility (the ones who did the investigation).


It's your responsibility to support YOUR claims you make here. Or retract them. Period.


And if you want to defend them, it becomes your burden, too.


I'm pointing out quite clearly what you do not want to admit: in the absence of refuting NIST and providing a stitch of evidence for your claims that the only way WTC 7 could have collapsed is by "explosive demolition," we have no reason to reject the evidence, methodology, or conclusions of NIST.

Since I have once again demonstrated that you will do no more than evade your responsibility to support your own claims, then why should anyone be convinced for the need of another investigation?

In other words, where does that leave you and your 9/11 "Truth" Movement?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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


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.


Didn't you forget something?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


We're waiting for you to refute NIST - and explain how the observed collapse mechanism is consistent with any type of "explosive demolition" known to man.

We're waiting....



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
How can NIST be refuted on this?

They agree with the fact presented. (PRESENTED FACT: There was a period of free fall acceleration.)

At their press conference Dr. Sunder agreed with the first claim. (FIRST CLAIM: This period means there was no resistance to collapse which means there were no supporting members)

They never dealt with the second claim in the context of the PRESENTED FACT and the FIRST CLAIM. (SECOND CLAIM: the only way this could happend is with controlled demolition)

And they never dealt with the third claim in the context of the PRESENTED FACT, the FIRST CLAIM, and the SECOND CLAIM. (THIRD CLAIM: people at the event heard explosions)

Yes, Yes... I know they dealt with the explosives issue... but it was never in the context of the PRESENTED FACT and the CLAIMS presented here. They never even asked the question in light of the PRESENTED FACT. Does their explosive analysis expand upon, explain, or nullify the PRESENTED FACT? I don't see how it does.

I don't see any other claims in this thread about the collapse as a whole. There are many other facts which would need to be brought into the discussion to discuss that, but it seems the question is about the PRESENTED FACT, not the collapse as a whole. So what other facts are there that could explain the PRESENTED FACT?

I haven't seen yet any other facts brought to the table which could shed light on the PRESENTED FACT, could explain the PRESENTED FACT, or nullify the PRESENTED FACT.

All I've seen so far is:

All competent individuals realize this is nothing unusual. This is, right or wrong, an observation, not an explanation.

It's explained in the NIST report. But no one has put forth where in the report it may be.

It's explained in the NIST model video. But the video ends before this period of free fall begins.

Are there any other facts from the collapse that would explain, expand upon, or nullify the PRESENTED FACT?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Nice set of questions Bray! Star and flag. Answering any of these points opens the door to reality.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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?


Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


Winds that day were 9 to 12 mph from the northwest reverified by that bastion of 911 perp defense Popular Mechanics; hardly hurricane or tornado strength winds.

Popular Mechanics



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Is that the same wind that cannot blow a plume of smoke, yet carry debris over an 8 mile debris field?

Funny, I thought smoke was less dense and 'lighter' than aircraft material?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


And to go along with your desire for a New Investigation....

...we have

www.911blogger.com...

On the Record: Former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley Calls for a New 9/11 Investigation



She admits the 9/11 Commission “did not go far enough,” because of enormous constraints of time and resources. She calls for a new investigation and is fully committed to finding the truth—for the sake of the victims and their families, the first responders, and the cause of justice.



The obvious is painfully obvious. WE need a new investigation.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
About the questions about the pentagon tapes...

How could there only be FOUR frames?!? There's more than one camera at the the paring lot at Wal-Mart. Its common sense, if the pentagon has only one extremely low quality camera per side how can it be considered "the most secure building in the world"

Also, there is no reason at all to not release the tapes. Like the advocates of the PATRIOT act would say "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" If there's a real plane crashing... show it.

What if there was only 4 frames of video of the WTC attacks? Would releasing high quality video from different angles prove that planes crashed into the buildings? Um, yeah.

If a tree falls in the woods and theres only video of a blurry un-focused object, does it prove anything?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
The burden of proof is, always has been, and remains on your shoulders.


No, this is a lie that you repeatedly post as if it's going to magically make it true. You can say something that is wrong 100000 times and it will still be wrong every single time.

The "burden of proof" was on those who carried out the investigations. I never got so much as a letter in the mail about anything even remotely similar to such a responsibility.


Let's not forget this important fact...

The burden of proof for OS believers is to explain the scientific anomalies and contradictions...



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Didn't you forget something?


Nope. But nice try.



Btw that link is wrong since members of those same organizations are in groups like AE911. Griff that used to post here was a member of the ASCE, and a structural engineer.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
We're waiting for you to refute NIST


I already did, above. And apparently you had no response to that. Nor do you have any response to my repeated question of how their claims tie into the law of conservation of energy.

As Jezus reminded you once again above, Congress did not charge me with investigative powers. They gave that to NIST. It was their burden to prove, they failed. If you want to back NIST, then it's your burden too, and you're failing.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.


Feel free to provide said video and how it is inconsistent with NISTS's collapse sequence. In the meantime, what objection do you have to this? Be specific:


3.6 COLLAPSE TIME NIST was interested in estimating how closely the time for WTC 7 took to fall compared with the descent time if the building were falling freely under the force of gravity (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 12). Assuming that the descent speed was approximately constant, the two quantities needed for the determinations were (1) a length that some feature of the building descended and (2) the time it took to fall that distance. The chosen feature was the top of the parapet wall on the roofline of the north face. The length was the difference between the position of the roofline prior to the collapse and the last position the roofline could be observed before it was obstructed by a building in the foreground. Deriving the Probable Collapse Sequence NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation 41 The elevation of the top of the parapet wall was +925 ft 4 in. The lowest point on the north face of WTC 7 visible on the Camera 3 video (Section 5.7.1) prior to any downward movement was the top of the windows on Floor 29, which had an approximate elevation of +683 ft 6 in. Thus, the distance that the roofline moved downward before it disappeared from view
was 242 ft. The relative time at which the roofline began to descend was 20.60 s, and the relative time when the roofline dropped from view behind the buildings was 25.97 s. The time the roofline took to fall 18 stories was 5.4 s, with an uncertainty of no more than 0.1 s. The theoretical time
for free fall (i.e., neglecting air friction), was computed from, t=sqr(2h/g) , where t is the descent time (s), h is the distance fallen (ft), and g is the gravitational acceleration constant, 32.2 ft/s2 (9.81 m/s2). Upon substitution of h 242 ft. in the above equation, the estimated free fall time for the top of the north face to fall 18 stories was approximately 3.9 s. The uncertainty in
this value was also less than 0.1 s. Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles.wtc.nist.gov... NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf



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


I already said you will be stuck walking around in a circle while you wait for something to appear out of the ether changing the rules of evidence and argumentation. I just can't imagine why you would want to wait for the rules to be changed when the rest of us accept them.


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


I watched all three videos and I find it odd that you posted them at all given the subject matter of you supposed to be providing evidence for your claim that only"explosive demolition" can explain the collapse of WTC 7. Maybe you can explain to ALL of us why his claims are any different than yours and why he has nothing to offer. Can you?

There is not a stitch of positive evidence for explosive demolition in anything the hurting guy says. Once again, you produce no evidence and resort to hand-waving again.

It's weird that you even bothered to post those videos..





[edit on 29-10-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


First of all, thanks for completely ignoring my request to see the bottom of the building as it was collapsing, and demonstrating once again that you can't back up most of the things you post.

Second of all, I keep telling you my specific problem in every single post. Conservation of energy. PE/KE doing no work as the building collapses. I'll give you the opportunity to go back and actually read my posts for a change before you continue to post garbage that has already been addressed countless times in this thread alone.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
What still confuses you about what I already quoted you, tezzajw?:

Again, jthomas lives in denial, as he fails to admit that he can't explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate.


You are really confused. You know I don't have to explain anything. We're waiting for you to refute NIST which, as we all see, you can't .

Do catch up, tezz. Try, at least.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

You are doing a great job jthomas.


Thanks, but it's hard to get 9/11 "Truthers" to think rationally, as you can see.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join