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: 12
79
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by jthomas
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.



The topic of this thread is 20 unanswered questions. I have provided the question, now can you provide the answer?

So far the answer demonstrated has been "no," instead you have been trying to get me to answer my own question when I already know it does not have an answer in any of the official reports. It was NIST that did the investigation on this building, so if you are unable to answer my question from their work, then you must admit too that there is still no answer to it.

Again the question is, how was it able to accelerate at the rate of gravity (meaning no work being done) when work was still obviously to be done on failing the various structural connections and supports of the building.




posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

posted by SPreston

You are doing a great job jthomas.


posted by jthomas

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



Ahhh, but jthomas you are doing a great job of getting the newbies thinking 'rationally'. Keep bumping this thread and by all means keep attention focused on NIST finally admitting to the freefall timespan of building WTC7.



Keep up the good work jthomas and thanks again.





With your help, we will finally initiate a real investigation into 9-11 and procure true justice for the innocent victims of your buddies the 9-11 perps.




posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


As we previously saw, the videos you provided of Officer Bartmer provided no positive evidence of "controlled demolition." So why would you claim he did when you know he didn't?

I know you're having a tough time pretending you've provided evidence of "controlled demolition" but why insult everyone's intelligence, bsbray11, with your contiuned inability to give us any evidence??

Now, I looked up Barry Jennings and, of course, he is on every 9/11 "Truther" site known to humanity.

Is there in fact reliable and credible evidence from him. Of course, you know how skeptical I have become of your claims, bsbray11, since you never ever will support them with evidence, but I will indulge you for sake of the "truth" that still eludes you.

Let's see, what does the late Barry Jennings actually have to say? Well, there's this interview:
www.youtube.com...

And that from the other person Jennings was with, Michael Hess:
news.bbc.co.uk...

We find this has nothing to do with the subject matter since it was before the collapse of WTC 7, in fact, when the collapse of WTC 1 took place which, as we know, caused the damage and set the fires going in WTC 7. We are provided with no evidence of "explosive demolition." And that was seven or so hours before the collapse took place anyway.

I then came across the "explosive World Exclusive", an interview done of Barry Jennings by Jason Bermas courtesy of Infowars.com. In this account, Barry Jennings describes hearing "explosions" over a period of time they were trapped in WTC 7. But, as always, there is no evidence these sounds were caused by "explosive demolition." As we already know, people can and did hear many sounds like explosions that weren't explosives.

We are still left with the puzzle of why it is so difficult for bsbray11 to actually provide us with any positive evidence of "explosive demolition" to support his claims that it actually took place.

And I do find it striking that Barry Jennings heard "explosions" and the person with him did not. It certainly begs the question of why anyone would rig "explosives" to "explode" over seven hours before the darn thing collapsed.

So, we are right back at square one with not a darn piece of positive evidence that any "explosive demolition" ever took place and bsbray11's absolute refusal to refute the NIST report.

In other words, SOP for the 9/11 "Truth" Movement, the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight.

It's really quite amazing that "Truthers" actually think they can keep up with their charade.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.


So, explain why you categorically REFUSE to support your claims about WTC 7, the claims that you keep evading? You have yet to provide any positive evidence of "explosive demolition" or refute NIST. When do you intend to stop your charade, bsbray11?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


I new you didn't bother to read it.


[edit on 10/30/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


I've reminded you quite enough for you to understand that you have to support your own claims as much as the thought terrifies you.

And I've demonstrated - using your own claims of evidence - that you cannot make any case for your claims.

I finds it remarkable that you can't even begin to refute NIST or provide us any reason whatsoever to question or doubt the evidence, methodology, or conclusions of NIST.

What do you actually think you're accomplishing, bsbray11, by your persistent refusal to make any case for your claims? Really, tell us, what you hope to achieve?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.


So you don't have a video after all? Are you saying if you don't have a video, then nothing can be determined? Does this mean what you are implying that you are a computer Ludite and reject all computer simulations matching reality?


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.


I keep reminding you to support your claims and a) refute the evidence, methodology, and conclusions of NIST and b) provide your evidence for "controlled demolition." All you have done is repeat the same claim with supporting it and you refuse to provide a single piece of positive evidence of "explosive demolition."

Now you tell us you don't even accept computer simulations by expert structural engineers, that you reject out of hand all the structural engineers and forensic scientists who worked on the investigations, and you want us to believe Barry Jennings and a police officer are experts at structural engineering and "explosive demolition."

Eventually you are either going to have to support your claims or retract them. This isn't a banana republic where you can intellectually run roughshod all over us at your whim.

YOU have to support YOUR claims, bsbray11, or retract them. There is just NO WAY you can get around your responsibility.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
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.


The topic of this thread is 20 unanswered questions. I have provided the question, now can you provide the answer?


I did. And you are evading it again. What more evidence do your fellow "Truthers" need than to observe you specifically providing videos as evidence for YOUR claims only to have me factually demonstrate to you and them that they do NO such thing.

And then you come back here and insult all of us by pretending that you didn't provide any of those videos as evidence?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

You are doing a great job jthomas.


posted by jthomas

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


Ahhh, but jthomas you are doing a great job of getting the newbies thinking 'rationally'.


Thanks. I'm sure they're beginning to see how utterly irrational 9/11 "Truthers" really are.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



Now, I looked up Barry Jennings and, of course, he is on every 9/11 "Truther" site known to humanity.

Is there in fact reliable and credible evidence from him.


I find jthomas questions so amusing for someone who defends the OS as if it is a Holy Grail.

Jthomas doesn’t want you all to know that Barry Jennings is not only on some Truth, web sites but, he is on many web sites.

What I find so amusing is Barry Jennings tragic experience has been recorded and put on the internet and has been view by millions of people all over the world. The one thing that makes Jennings story so creditable, is he was in the WTC 7 when it was blowing up!
Barry Jennings, story does not stand up with the OS. Barry Jennings story matches many of the 503 eyewitness accounts that witnessed explosions going on in the basements and sub level of the WTC including flashes going around the WTC as the explosion were going off, that the FBI buried. The FBI has been caught lying and hiding evidences from the American people from the beginning of 911.

That is what makes Barry Jennings so credible and the funny thing is, he worked for the government, LOL.

I think the question jthomas should been asking is:
Is there in fact reliable and credible evidence from FBI? (Always, consider the source.) The FBI “has not” been forthcoming on much information about anything on 911.


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


These people did.


The New York Times

The Sept. 11 Records
A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has published all of them.

The oral histories of dispatch transmissions are transcribed verbatim. They have have not been edited to omit coarse language.


graphics8.nytimes.com...

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.


Try reading all of the 503 accounts who saw, heard and experienced of explosions at the WTC.


I know you're having a tough time pretending you've provided evidence of "controlled demolition" but why insult everyone's intelligence, bsbray11, with your contiuned inability to give us any evidence??


bsbray11, has provided you with very credible evidences you chose to ignore it. So what do you want?


why insult everyone's intelligence


Looks like your doing a good job of that yourself.


Now, I looked up Barry Jennings and, of course, he is on every 9/11 "Truther" site known to humanity.


Because, most people find Barry Jennings testimony very creditable, unlike the FBI lying statements and cover-ups.


And I do find it striking that Barry Jennings heard "explosions" and the person with him did not.


That is not true. Do you have proof? In the years I have researched 911 I have never come across any statement that supports this claim.

Michael Hess, was one of Rudy Giuliani’s highest ranking appointed officials, New York city’s corporation counsel.


The 9/11 Interview with Michael Hess: Evidence that NIST Lied about When He and Barry Jennings Were Rescued


www.911truth.org...


So, we are right back at square one with not a darn piece of positive evidence that any "explosive demolition" ever took place


That is untrue, you a keep ignoring all the evidences.


It's really quite amazing that "Truthers" actually think they can keep up with their charade.


The OS supporters are the one’s keeping up with their charade, and that is a fact.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by afterschoolfun
 


So true. So true. Its something I said and repeated. That the Pentagon had camera's only made for a front entrance robbert and are no better then Wal Mart camera's or the local bank machine speaks volumes.

Of course they have the video of the event in question. I doubt it will ever see the light of day.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
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.

Your illogical confusion deludes you into thinking that the NIST report has explained how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds with free fall rate.

I wish that NIST had tried to explain it, then there would be something to refute!

Your inability to understand the difference between free fall speed and free fall acceleration certainly appears to be hindering your ability to understand the NIST report and how it fails to substantiate the observed data.

Please, continue to bump this thread - often. It is important that these questions remain on top of the forum. Others might learn not to make the same mistakes that you do, such as confusing speed with acceleration and failing to understand what is not present in a report.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

What I find so amusing is Barry Jennings tragic experience has been recorded and put on the internet and has been view by millions of people all over the world. The one thing that makes Jennings story so creditable, is he was in the WTC 7 when it was blowing up!


It wasn't "blowing up." He claims he heard sounds he attributed to "explosions" but we know that there is not a stitch of evidence for "explosives." Lots of people made the same mistake.

As you already well know, impressme, no one has ever presented a single piece of positive evidence for "explosive demolition.' That 9/11 "Truthers" have to rely on a person's impressions rather than on solid positive evidence is truly indicative of "Truthers" inability to find any such evidence for "explosive demolition."

And the fact that you have to rely on two people who have no ability to assess, evaluate, or have any knowledge rather than structural engineers, physicists, and forensic scientists is what makes 9/11 "Truth" such a hopelessly ignorant and uninformed political "movement."



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
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.

Your illogical confusion deludes you into thinking that the NIST report has explained how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds with free fall rate.


But you can't refute it. Why not?


I wish that NIST had tried to explain it, then there would be something to refute!


You already claimed - for some as yet announced reason - that there is something wrong with the explanation. I have given you the report and calculations but you still can't do anything but more hand-waving.

Either refute the NIST evidence, methodology, and conclusions, or admit you can't.

But then "Truthers" never admit they are wrong, do they?



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
But you can't refute it. Why not?

NIST have not explained how it happened, jthomas. NIST have not explained their own findings.

Try again.


Originally posted by jthomas
You already claimed - for some as yet announced reason - that there is something wrong with the explanation. I have given you the report and calculations but you still can't do anything but more hand-waving.

An entirely false statement by you, jthomas.

There is no explanation from NIST for how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate. How can I claim that something is wrong (with an explanation) when it was never presented?

You need to rethink your logic, as you've seriously misjudged your claims and you've made more false statements about me.


Originally posted by jthomas
Either refute the NIST evidence, methodology, and conclusions, or admit you can't.

Considering your troubles understanding speed vs acceleration and your failure to understand what it present in the NIST report, it is you who has the trouble admitting NIST's shortcomings.

Please, continue to give maximum exposure to this thread by continually bumping it to the top of the forum.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Here's my personal attempt at a refutation of NIST on this point:

NIST says there was a period of free fall acceleration... agree with that. Nothing to refute.

Then by way of explanation of what is usually found in a collapse of this kind concerning gravity and free fall lets go through what Dr. Sunder claimed.

""Well...um...the...first of all gravity...um...gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure...um...at...um...applies....to every body...every...uh...on...all bodies on...ah...on...um... this particular...on this planet not just...um...uh...in ground zero...um...the...uh..."
Yep agree with that! Nothing to refute!

"the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds."
Yep agree with that, too! Especially about the part where an object in free fall has no structural components below it. Nothing to refute here!

"What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen."
Yep agree that if we take the simplistic approach and just measure the difference between point A and point Z and forget about all the points in between this is what will be found. NIST however then changed their mind and found that examining points B through Y was necessary that's why they went back to the drawing board. Nothing to refute here, nor does it need to be as they themselves found this method inadequate!

"And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."
Yep agree that in a usual collapse there is structural resistance, there's a sequence of failures and that everything is not instantaneous! Nothing to refute here.

So there's my refutation of NIST on this point....not a very good refutation as I agree with most of what they have said.

But wait a second, after examining points B through Y, Mr. NIST is now telling us that in fact for 2.25 seconds there was no structural resistance, that there was no sequence of structural failures and that everything WAS instantaneous???? How so Mr. NIST? That's an unusual fact we've got here, Mr. NIST.

Some people say this unusuality can be explained through controlled demolition, but Mr. NIST is rather mute on this point. Please Mr. NIST come out and play. Please explain to us how for 2.25 seconds the building WAS NOT collapsing, but was ONLY FALLING.

Edited to add: Some here will say that my attempt was not a real refutation. They may be correct as I forgot to refute all Dr. Sunder's "um"s and "uh"s... I find them highly distracting and I think that they were highly unnecessary in this case.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by NIcon]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
But you can't refute it. Why not?

NIST have not explained how it happened, jthomas. NIST have not explained their own findings.


So now you claim NIST never explained the collapse mechanism of WTC 7.

An entire report on the evidence, methodology, and conclusions on why and how WTC 7 collapsed and now you claim there is no explanation for "their own findings."

It has really gotten that bad for the 9/11 "Truth" Movement.

Amazing.

And you wonder why the real world doesn't take you seriously.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Now I'm confused. Which of the original 20 questions was about the collapse mechanism of WTC7?

I had thought that question 6 was the one being discussed. Did the thread maybe generally drift to question 13 and I didn't notice? "The collapse mechanism" may be the answer to number 13, so I'm not sure what question we're on now.

Edited to make the meaning clearer.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by NIcon]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
So, explain why you categorically REFUSE to support your claims about WTC 7, the claims that you keep evading?


Let's break this down for the 100000000000000000000th time.


This thread is about 20 unanswered questions.

There is an unanswered question about WTC7 in the OP. It's the one to which you refer.

That unanswered question is my "claim" about WTC7 on this thread.

You are the one constantly evading it by trying irrationally to shift the burden of "answering" the question back onto me, when I am the one asking for an answer from a federal report.


I will gladly give you my evidence that WTC7 was a demolition. But first, you have to admit that you can't answer my question, even using NIST's report at your disposal.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
Nope. But nice try.


I new you didn't bother to read it.



Of course not, just like you didn't bother to quote the next part of my post that proved that I read it.

Now you are going from being irrationally, to intentionally posting misleading things (basically lying) in your posts.




And the part that you omitted that makes you a liar, was the very next thing I posted, which explained that your link was wrong because members of the ASCE are also members of groups like AE911. Griff that posted here was a member of both, and a structural engineer, for example. Thank you for intentionally trying to deceive people with your posts by omitting and distorting mine. I'm pretty sure such blatant mis-characterization of my posts is against board rules and I'm hoping it will be moderated.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join