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: 13
79
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


As you well know, Griff, a refuted "Truther", does not invalidate the fact that the AE911 group is vastly overwhelmed by the far greater population of the world's structural engineers. So why lie about that fact, bdbray11?


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]


My posts demonstrate that you cannot refute NIST. Period.




posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
As you well know, Griff, a refuted "Truther", does not invalidate the fact that the AE911 group is vastly overwhelmed by the far greater population of the world's structural engineers.


The entire population of the world's structural engineers have not read and support NIST's WTC reports. Unless you have a list of everyone who's read it and agrees with it handy with you. I'm an engineering student (electronics) myself and I know for a fact that most engineers do not spend their free time wading through reports like NIST's.

But if you want to assert that all the world's engineers have read NIST and agree with it (except for the ones that have explicitly came out disagreeing with it, of course
) then I will be waiting for some proof of that.




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.


My posts demonstrate that you cannot refute NIST. Period.


No, they continue to demonstrate distortion.

Not that I was expecting you to admit intentionally omitting and distorting my posts, as is demonstrated on the previous two pages of this thread, but you won't even accept the title of this thread: "20 questions remain unanswered."


When are you going to realize, I asked the first question on this thread, and it's your responsibility to answer it?

All you are doing is trying to weasel out of it because you know you have no answer. Therein is my proof that NIST is wrong: you can't defend their work from my conservation of energy criticism. You can only hide behind word games, repeatedly asking for proof that I already gave you and you refuse to acknowledge or address.



As long as I have to keep repeating this, people are going to keep reading it in every single reply I make to you. It's not as if the over-all pattern between our posts is going to change when repeated a billion times. I am willing to let it go that far, too, because it's only going to keep drawing attention to the OP. Which, for anyone who hasn't been keeping up, remains untouched, and we still have 20 unanswered questions just like we did 8 years ago.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
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?


Ahh turbo. Once again, you too confirm what I suspect a lot of you "truthers" have problems with: reading comprehension and not reading important information.

My my my, how short of an attention span you have, or short memory. Remember in June when I had to explain to you the basic physics of how a mushroom cloud and fireball work? Also involved little bit of meteorology.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now rather than having to retype everything again I'd rather just redirect you to what I said earlier. Once again, all your questions have been answered in the above posts from June. I'd ask for you to return and reread and COMPREHEND what you are reading. all the facts are there. Facts don't change. So stop ignoring facts and stop with the incredulity. You go nowhere fast with that attitude.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Still waiting for an explanation as to how any body part or piece of a body, or even a book can blow for miles in the Pennsylvania wind.

Or are going to go with rush now and say the explosion from the impact of the plane caused the debris to go flying for miles through the air?



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


And we haven't even finished with your one invalid "question" on WTC 7.


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


It is not "unanswered." I've repeatedly shown the invalidity of your "question."


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


And you can't support that it has any validity whatsoever.


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.


Of course the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claim. You're the one who made up the question. YOU're the one who claims it's a valid question but you can't demonstrate it. And you keep refusing to.


I will gladly give you my evidence that WTC7 was a demolition.


You already tired and failed miserably. There's no question there.


But first, you have to admit that you can't answer my question, even using NIST's report at your disposal.


I'll keep reminding you over and over that you can't get away from the fact that you have not demonstrated anything that refutes the NIST report. It is clear that you cannot support the premise or validity of your question and I have repeatedly demonstrated it. Furthermore, you have not provided a single piece of positive evidence of explosive demolition. And when you attempt to and are shown why your videos do NOT demonstrate "explosive demolition", you won't even concede that point.

So, bsbray11, your question has been disposed of. You haven't backed it up, you haven't refuted NIST's evidence, methodology, and conclusions, you just keep evading doing so.

The best thing you can do now is withdraw your so-called "question", and admit it's invalid to begin with.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
This thread is about 20 unanswered questions.


And we haven't even finished with your one invalid "question" on WTC 7.


Right. I posted the question, I am still waiting for your answer (or anyone's answer).



It is not "unanswered." I've repeatedly shown the invalidity of your "question."


No, you've only repeatedly misconstrued it, pretending it asked something else, and finally tried to claim it was my responsibility to prove NIST wrong instead of you answering the simple question.



Of course the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claim. You're the one who made up the question.


That doesn't even make sense. Just asking a question is "demonstrating" it. Now give me an answer, put up or shut up. No more irrational ranting.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
So now you claim NIST never explained the collapse mechanism of WTC 7.

jthomas, at what point do you read posts and follow threads properly?

NIST did not explain how WTC 7 fell at free fall rate for 2.25 seconds.


Originally posted by jthomas
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."

jthomas, at what point do you read posts and follow threads properly?

NIST did not explain how WTC 7 fell at free fall rate for 2.25 seconds.

Your troubles understanding speed vs acceleration and your failure to understand what it present in the NIST report are also indicative of your inability to correctly read what is posted on the screen.

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



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Still waiting for an explanation as to how any body part or piece of a body, or even a book can blow for miles in the Pennsylvania wind.

Or are going to go with rush now and say the explosion from the impact of the plane caused the debris to go flying for miles through the air?


Boy oh boy, I didnt realize that basic physics and meteorology is so hard to grasp to some people.

Well in that case, I also recommend that you go back and read the comments I posted to turbo back in June. Its actually quite simple and easy to understand. But if you cannot grasp the basics of hot air rising and light materials that can get swept up and carried by the fireball and mushroom cloud, and have the winds carry the materials miles downwind, well, I would recommend going back to school and taking meteorology and some more physics.

Here is the report from a year ago of a small plane that did a nosedive into the ground. read this part about the mail scattered from it:
www.usatoday.com...

Mail scattered as far as two miles away, Postal Service spokeswoman Lisa Bloomquist said. Workers were gathering what remained of more than 4,000 pounds of mail loaded on the plane.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


If it's so easy, then why don't you do a simple calculation showing how far even a 1-pound book can be carried in 9-12 mph wind?



Here are some numbers to get you started:


“The chart below shows how wind force increases exponentially with wind speed. For example, the 5 mph wind increase from 5 to 10 mph does not reach the force generated by the 5 mph wind increase from 10 to 15 mph, and the wind force generated by the increase from 25 to 30 mph is greater still,” according to Windsurfing Magazine.

The chart shows approximate relationship between wind speed and wind force developed on one square foot of flat area set perpendicular to wind direction. (Source: Sail Performance: Techniques to Maximize Sail Power by C.A. Marchaj)






Remember to also apply the force of gravity when you are working your free-body diagram, because gravity is going to be pulling the book back down to the Earth the whole time the 9-12 mph wind is trying to blow it.


Good luck.


[edit on 30-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Boy oh boy, I didnt realize that basic physics and meteorology is so hard to grasp to some people.

Great!

I expect to see your equations, that show how books and clothing can be carried eight miles from the alleged impact point, posted here very shortly!

Be as technical as you like, we both know that there are people reading these pages who do understand more than just basic physics ad maths.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Yes, he should have no problem proving it considering I just gave him a graph showing wind force as it relates to wind speed, even in convenient units of pounds.

Like I said, as long as he also (correctly) applies the force of gravity in his equations, everything should come out fine.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



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.



World Exclusive: WTC7 Survivor Barry Jennings Account

www.youtube.com...


Barry Jennings


www.youtube.com...

jthomas, can you prove that Barry Jennings did “not” hear explosions?

Please provide proof that all these people made a mistake? We would like to see some internet sources. Because, your opinions are not facts.


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."


As you already well know, jthomas no one has ever presented a single piece of positive evidence that Barry Jennings did “not” hear explosions. That 9/11”OS believers” have to rely on a person's impressions rather than on solid positive evidence is truly indicative of "OS believers" inability to find any such proof to support their evidences.


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."


And the fact that you have to rely on a fairytale and there is no true sciences to support this fantasy that you support.

We do have experts in engineers, physicists, and forensic scientists that have confirmed with real sciences that the OS is nothing more than a fantasy sold only to people who “depend” on mainstream News sources for their information.

It is the OS science that doesn’t stand up to real academic science, which proves that your OS is hopelessly ignorant and uninformed and a political "movement."



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Tezz, once again, now YOU are having trouble with reading comprehension. Apparently, you do not know what shreds of cloth or clothes mean. It means shreds, little pieces, scraps. Do you require a definition of this?

I also doubt an entire BOOK, hardbound, 500+ pages was found. But hey, once again, you and bsbray are doing a great job of micro-nagging the smallest details of something of insignificance while totally ignoring everything else.

I do believe the person who said "book" was referring to pieces or shreds of it as well. But then again, there are small books, big books, small paper backs, a few pages, etc etc etc, it all depends on what reference the person is using when they mention a "book".

But yes, instead of using some logic and critical thinking, you and bsbray demand that I give you mathematical calculations to PROVE how it is possible that shreds and small pieces of clothes or light materials can be carried up first by a massive fireball and mushroom cloud, then carried by winds after being suspended anywhere up to 400+ft. Also there is the little fact that wind speeds increase the higher you go. But I guess all these easy things to understand must be way over your heads, so I dont see how complicated mathematical equations will be of any use to either of you. There is more to physics than equations. Its also conceptual.

[edit on 10/30/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Debris Field

Here is some more insite into exactly what else was found there.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I do believe the person who said "book" was referring to pieces or shreds of it as well. But then again, there are small books, big books, small paper backs, a few pages, etc etc etc, it all depends on what reference the person is using when they mention a "book".


Anything that weighs only 1 pound, Gen. Given the very large amount of debris discovered miles wide of the impact site, I think we can safely assume there was at least 1 item amongst it all that weighed at least 1 pound.

I posted the relevant forces above so that you can work a free-body diagram.


Quotes from sources again:


The Pennsylvania state police said debris from the crash has shown up about 8 miles away in a residential area where local media quoted some residents as seeing flaming debris from the sky.

But investigators were unwilling to say whether the presence of debris in two separate places evinced an explosion.
www.eastandard.net...


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...


"John Fleegle, an Indian Lake Marina employee, said FBI agents were skeptical of his reports about debris in the lake until they traveled to the lake shore Wednesday afternoon.

By Wednesday morning, crash debris began washing ashore at the marina. Fleegle said there was something that looked like a rib bone amid pieces of seats, small chunks of melted plastic and checks.

He said FBI agents who spent the afternoon patrolling the lake in rented boats eventually carted away a large garbage bag full of debris. "

...


Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site."

"It appears to be the whole engine," he added.

Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a "briefcase."



Hmm... debris up to the size of a briefcase scattered for miles. I don't guess you were thinking that was the case, either?


Crowley related that 95 percent of the airplane had been recovered. The biggest piece of aircraft found was a fuselage skin measuring about 6 to 7 feet. The heaviest piece was from one of the engines and weighed 1,000 pounds.
www.dailyamerican.com...

...

Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles (13 km) away in a residential community where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area and burning debris falling from the sky. investor.cnet.com...


www.flight93crash.com...

[edit on 30-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GenRadek
I do believe the person who said "book" was referring to pieces or shreds of it as well. But then again, there are small books, big books, small paper backs, a few pages, etc etc etc, it all depends on what reference the person is using when they mention a "book".


Anything that weighs only 1 pound, Gen. Given the very large amount of debris discovered miles wide of the impact site, I think we can safely assume there was at least 1 item amongst it all that weighed at least 1 pound.

I posted the relevant forces above so that you can work a free-body diagram.



Oh so it did weigh 1lb?
Really did she say that exactly? Did she weigh the item in question? Did she give an exact description of the book? Was it whole? Were there parts of it? What did it look like exactly?

Ah I get it! YOU don't know! Guess what else? Neither do I! Only she does. Its too bad she didn't clarify on the condition of the book. But since we don't know the condition of the book, or did it actually come from the plane, neither you or I can go and start making assumptions about it. In fact, without more details from her, your whole argument is just pointless, and another example of you and others micro-analyzing insignificant details in comparison to the big obvious event that occurred; ie a plane took a nosedive into the ground and smashed itself into tiny pieces.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Read above. According to the sources given above there was briefcase-sized debris found miles from the crash site.


Come on, Gen. Are you going to make your whole flimsy case rest solely on the assumption that none of the debris scattered for miles weighed even a single pound?


Ok, then. How about the rib bone. Adjust for the surface area that could be exposed to wind, assume a weight, and find how far you can get the wind to carry even a rib bone from the crash site before it hits the ground first.


You said this was basic physics!!!! Put up or shut up.



[edit on 30-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
This thread is about 20 unanswered questions.


And we haven't even finished with your one invalid "question" on WTC 7.


Right. I posted the question, I am still waiting for your answer (or anyone's answer).


Answered. Denying so doesn't help your case at all.



It is not "unanswered." I've repeatedly shown the invalidity of your "question."


No, you've only repeatedly misconstrued it, pretending it asked something else, and finally tried to claim it was my responsibility to prove NIST wrong instead of you answering the simple question.


Dear me, your denial is as thick as quicksand you're trying to escape. The entire premise of your "question" and claims is based entirely on an ae911truth.org video and you know full well that the video is made up entirely of claims and assertions with NO basis for accepting them. Do you actually expect any rational person to automatically accept the validity of those unsupported claims?


Of course the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claim. You're the one who made up the question.


That doesn't even make sense. Just asking a question is "demonstrating" it. Now give me an answer, put up or shut up. No more irrational ranting.


I can't actually believe you would ever say such a thing. If I ask you, "WHEN did you stop beating your wife, bsbray11?", you will then accept that as a valid question???

Astonishing.

Rational people like me are going to always insist that you establish the validity of your questions and claims. You have consistently REFUSED to do so, post after post, day after day, month after month.

Sorry, bsbray11, the facts are on the table. You don't get a free pass from the rules of evidence and argumentation.

YOU made the claims, YOU back them up. Until you do, there is absolutely no reason to accept your claims. You can use your very own ae911truth.org video to establish the validity of its claims against NIST. Why you won't and can't continues to illustrate why no one accepts your 9/11 "Truth" Movement's claims and assertions - and why you will NEVER get another investigation of anything.

So, we'll either await you to finally support your claims or watch you continue to evade your responsibility.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
The entire premise of your "question" and claims is based entirely on an ae911truth.org video


Um, no. I have had this question about WTC7 since before AE911 even existed.


Again, the question, how did WTC7 accelerate at free-fall when according to NIST most of the structural connections were still intact when it started falling into its footprint?


All that ranting and all you have to do is answer a simple question, jthomas. It isn't so simple after all, is it?


And once again (I should just put this in my signature) I made the thread, I asked the question, it's your job to answer it. No, you have not answered it. You are STILL trying to put the burden on me when I'm the one asking the question. How much more transparent can you be, jthomas? How much clearer can you make it that you don't have a leg to stand on when you say you have evidence but then can't produce it for the life of you?

[edit on 30-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
All that ranting and all you have to do is answer a simple question, jthomas. It isn't so simple after all, is it?

Actually, it is a very simple question.

However, the answer is proving extremely difficult for jthomas to invent.

I suspect that his documented confusion with basic physics (speed vs acceleration) is not helping him to try and explain what NIST was unable to do.

NIST, jthomas and a few others (who appear to have given up trying in this thread) have not been able to explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate.

jthomas, please continue to give maximum exposure to this thread by continually bumping it to the top of the forum. Your efforts in this regard have been commendable.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by tezzajw]



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join