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: 14
79
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Sorry, double post.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by tezzajw]




posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
What's especially funny is that all this weaseling, trying to shift the burden of proof, trying to distort the questions, distorting what I say in my posts, is all over one of the 20 questions.

So far in this whole 11 page thread, only two of the questions have even been mentioned specifically by "debunkers."


The biggest reason I believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition is because it accelerated at the rate of gravity when most of its structural connections, according to NIST, had not been failed yet, or should have been failing during the exact same time frame when the building was free-falling.

No one has yet to explain the unanswered question, how could a building accelerate at gravity if it was still doing work, as far as shattering and smashing structural columns and connections?


Since all we've had so far is rhetoric and trying to move the burden of proof from a federal investigation answering that question, to a civilian answering it (the same ones that are asking it, no less!
), I expect we will continue to see more of the same on this thread...



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Well, I think we can say that question number 2 has been answered, mainly thanks to Jthomas.
Here´s a couple of fragments from the description of debris.

""Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash.""

""It was white," said Theresa Weyant, borough secretary for the nearby resort community of Indian Lake, "so you looked up at it and you saw shiny stuff floating in the sky ... sparkly, shiny stuff, like confetti.""

""According to the NTSB, not only is that possible ... it is probable that this stuff is debris from crash," he said. He and Szupinka said additional debris may be submerged in the lake, as well as in a drainage pond near the crash crater, and may have to be retrieved later by divers.""
Edited for spelling.


[edit on 30-10-2009 by rush969]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


I posted a graph on the last page for anyone who wants to prove (using physics) that debris such as books or human bones could be blown for several miles in the wind.





If you want to believe the wind can carry books and bones and "briefcase-sized" debris for miles away from a crash site, more power to you. I don't care. It's still personal conjecture and so does not qualify as an answer that has evidence to back it up. I asked for evidence in the OP.


Now, on the other hand, if you DO want to prove it, like I said, there is the graph above. The acceleration of gravity is well-known. Take 12 mph winds, take gravity, and see how far you can get a book, a bone, a briefcase, anything like that to blow in the wind.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
19) Why was the White House initially unwilling to authorize a commission to investigate 9/11?

The answer to this question is rather simple for anyone who has done investigative work as a profession. The longer you wait to do an investigation from the date of occurrence, the more difficult it becomes to do a proper investigation. This is because of the two main elements involved in any proper investigation:

1) Witnesses. As more time is allowed to pass, credible witnesses:

a) forget about what they actually saw or heard on the day of occurrence and are more prone to providing inaccurate testimony

b) die, disappear and are generally more difficult to track down

c) may be coerced into remaining silent or not providing accurate testimony

2) Material Evidence. As more time is allowed to pass, material evidence:

a) is made to disappear (example: structural steel being melted down and being shipped off to distant countries)

b) may not retain the same physical properties it had immediately after the occurrence (example: after over one year, steel rusts and changes composition)

The fact that over one year passed prior to an investigation even being initiated, comprimised the entire investigation significantly. And if anyone thinks this statement is personal conjecture, they have never done investigative work for a living.

Now here is one question that I have. Why did the USA, prior to conducting a proper investigation and criminal trial, assume 911 was the work of some cave dwellers in Afghanistan? Are these the type of media fueled half-assed assumptions that the American justice system is based on?



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

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?


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.

quote]


Many of the circumstances from Shanksville crash aren't without precedent.

Try Fl 1771:

1-High speed crash into the ground
2-searchers saying that nothing there looks like a plane
3-a note from the perp, written on an airsick bag, was found
4-debris found 8 miles away




posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


If none of the Flight 93 debris spread for miles was bigger or weightier than a piece of paper, or if any of the debris spread for miles from that flight was bigger than that, then you have a fair comparison.

Aside from that, there was also a 1000-some pound engine lodged hundreds of feet away from the impact site into dense woods that would have had to come off of Flight 93 in the air and not after it impacted the ground.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Briefcase sized debris? Did they say WHAT exactly it was? Was it a piece of insulation the size of a briefcase? Cloth? Paper? what exactly? Oh she didn't say? Sorry, don't start your relentless micro-analyzing without knowing exactly WHAT it is first. It just makes you look that much more desperate to try and find ANYTHING wrong that you can hopefully exploit with micro-analyzing the most insignificant detail.

As for the rib bone, who knows exactly? It could have been thrown up a distance from the impact and landed in the lake. But was it ID'd as from a passenger definitely?

Heh, again, physics is not all mathematical calculations. It also requires an understanding of concepts and some critical thinking. Again, what mathematical calculations do you need to understand something basic like a violent columns of hot air rising hundreds of feet carrying light materials and launching some smaller harder pieces out, and then having the wind carry said debris a distance downwind? Sorry, thats just using observations and some common sense. But if common sense and critical thinking go over your head, then I don't think you would do so well with the actual mathematical calculations, which would be much harder to do.

As for the engine, its a good chance it rolled from the impact zone, or bounced, or was dislodged from the aircraft on impact. I do not recall hearing any eyewitness accounts of the plane crashing with one engine at all, did you? So no, the engine did not fall off prior to the impact.


[edit on 10/31/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


Nonetheless, you are, in fact, using David Chandler's video as the basis and support of your "question" and have made all your claims based on that. Anyone watching that video understands that Chandler is making claims and assertions without supporting those claims or demonstrating they have any validity. So there is no reason for either YOU or anyone else to accept those claims as valid until and unless they can be demonstrated.


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?


Feel free to support that claim. Show us where NIST stated or showed that during the 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration that "the structural connections were still intact". That is YOUR claim, not mine.


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


When you get around to finally showing us that your question has any validity at all by supporting your claims demonstrating that the falling structure could not fall at free fall for a period of 2.25 seconds without some external force, which you claim has to be "explosive demolition," then there might be something to discuss.


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?


Again, no one has any reason to accept the question as valid. Your question is entirely predicated on the assumption that there is something amiss with WTC showing a period of 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration. You have given us absolutely NO reason to think there is anything amiss with WTC 7 falling that way nor any reason NOT to accept the NIST report, its evidence, methodology, computer simulations, and conclusions. Neither does David Chandler in his video that you use as the basis for your claims.

Should we accept David Chandler's claims on that video on faith? I don't. Since you are using his video, I can only assume that you accept his claims, am I correct? If not, which ones do you NOT accept?

So, no matter how you slice it, there is only one way I could possibly address your question, "6) What allowed WTC7 to accelerate vertically at the rate of free-fall in a vacuum?"

Why should we not accept a period of free fall acceleration as part of the collapse mechanism as demonstrated by NIST? What invalidates any possibility of free fall acceleration?



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The biggest reason I believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition is because it accelerated at the rate of gravity when most of its structural connections, according to NIST, had not been failed yet, or should have been failing during the exact same time frame when the building was free-falling.


Here we go again. Bsbray11 is making a representation of what he claims NIST said or believes without a stitch of valid evidence to support it. We keep going around in circles as bsbray11 makes claim after claim without demonstrating any validity to it or actual references.


No one has yet to explain the unanswered question, how could a building accelerate at gravity if it was still doing work, as far as shattering and smashing structural columns and connections?


So, as I keep saying, basbray11 makes that claim based on the first claim which he has not demonstrated to be even valid. It is nothing more than standard fallacious question-begging. Sorry, we have no reason to accept your assertions, bsbray11.


Since all we've had so far is rhetoric and trying to move the burden of proof from a federal investigation answering that question, to a civilian answering it (the same ones that are asking it, no less!
), I expect we will continue to see more of the same on this thread...


I expect we will see more of bsbray11's evasions and self-exemption from having to support his own claims. I think more and more people are beginning to see the fallacious techniques, the evasions, the unsupported claims that have always characterized denial movements. It is no different with the so-called 9/11 "Truth" Movement, currently the largest denial movement.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
6) What allowed WTC7 to accelerate vertically at the rate of free-fall in a vacuum?

That seems like a perfectly valid question to me. In those simple 14 words I don't see anything suggesting anything amiss. It's basically just asking how it happened.

It seems like a valid question, too. It posits a claim that there seems to be consensus on, from the posters on this thread all the way up to NIST. It displays a particular problem in the understanding of that claim. It points towards a resolution of which is unknown to many on this board. And if the solution were to be revealed it would definitely create knowledge for those same many. Seems like a valid question to me.

It seems to me that bsbray thinks the only solution to the presented problem is "controlled demolition." He may be wrong on that, but probably the best way to determine this is to reveal the proper solution to the presented problem, if in fact he's wrong.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Gen, you are asking a bunch of questions I can't answer, and no federal investigation can answer, either, except that all the witness testimonies and evidence suggest that yes, this was indeed Flight 93 scattered over miles and it wasn't just paper. Briefcase-sized debris can be whatever you like so long as it's briefcase-sized.

Sounds like you are on the same boat as I am after all: we don't have the full story when the full story contains relevant information that could instantly debunk the official story. Even the incomplete information we have from witness testimony already appears to debunk the official story, what with massive engines landing hundreds of feet away from the crash site in dense woods and all number of other debris associated with the crash scattered for miles.



If you ever want to prove your case that it would have been possible for wind to blow all those things such distances, the data will always be here waiting for you to plug into a free-body diagram.


Until then, the question in the OP remains.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Still waiting for you to answer question #6, or any of the questions, jthomas.


All your constant distortions and trying to shift the burden of answering the question are just keeping the OP near the top of the forum.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Haven't said this yet, but good thread bsbray!

Now for a second line, here's some examples of invalid questions:

Why is the blue sky blue?

Why is a green car not blue?

Why do chocolate chip cookies have chocolate chips in them?

Those to me are invalid questions. Question #6 doesn't seem to match them to me.

Edited 2 to 6 ... I forgot which of the twenty questions we were dealing with

[edit on 31-10-2009 by NIcon]



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

It seems to me that bsbray thinks the only solution to the presented problem is "controlled demolition." He may be wrong on that, but probably the best way to determine this is to reveal the proper solution to the presented problem, if in fact he's wrong.


There is nothing to suggest there is any "problem." Certainly, neither bsbray11 nor David Chandler have given us any reason to think there is any "problem." They make a number of claims but bring nothing to the table supporting them.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

There most certainly is a problem presented. Through the structure of the sentence a condition is brought up to which the solution is not provided in the sentence.

I think you may be confusing the question with the solution. The solution may be problematic or it may show no "problem" at all. We can't determine that until a solution presents itself. Bsbray offered his solution and you have a problem with his solution. But through all these pages I have not seen another solution to the question presented.

Let's give a simple example: What is the sum of two plus two? There is no solution offered in the structure of the sentence. So the "problem" is we don't know the sum. In school they used to have me write this as 2 + 2 and then would tell me to solve this mathematical "problem." If I said five there were difficulties I would face and the teacher would say "there's a problem with your answer." Then I'd try again and say seven and she'd say "nope." We would then go about this for hours and hours and she would finally give me the proper solution and the method she used to determine this proper solution.

So the way I see it "What's the sum of two plus two?" and "What allowed WTC7 to accelerate vertically at the rate of free-fall in a vacuum?" both are problems to be solved.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
There is nothing to suggest there is any "problem."


Then what specifically is wrong with the question,

"What allowed WTC7 to accelerate at the rate of gravity (free-fall)?"

And why can't you answer it?


Are you denying the fact that there must be specific physical conditions met before an object can accelerate at the rate of gravity? Specifically, are you denying that an object can only free-fall when nothing is in its way?



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
There is nothing to suggest there is any "problem."


Then what specifically is wrong with the question,

"What allowed WTC7 to accelerate at the rate of gravity (free-fall)?"

And why can't you answer it?


Are you denying the fact that there must be specific physical conditions met before an object can accelerate at the rate of gravity? Specifically, are you denying that an object can only free-fall when nothing is in its way?



The question is not for me but... The only answer I can personally come up with is that all the supporting structures had to "at the same time" be removed.

jthomas, you actually think there is another reason for such?



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
So the way I see it "What's the sum of two plus two?" and "What allowed WTC7 to accelerate vertically at the rate of free-fall in a vacuum?" both are problems to be solved.


Not quite. That is not a valid comparison. bsbray11 claims this is one of the "9/11 questions that remain unanswered." The collapse mechanism and times have been addressed by NIST, including the 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration. bsbray11 and Chandler cannot claim it "remains unanswered" any more than they claim that the only mechanism that can account for it is "explosive demolition." The entire basis for bsbray11's question is that NIST did not and cannot explain the 2.25 seconds when in fact they already have. We have absolutely no reason to accept bsbray11's characterizations, as I just demonstrated above, without evidence to back up his claims. He has not done so. We have absolutely no reason to doubt a period of free fall took place during the 5.4 seconds in question given the collapse mechanism presented and justified.

It is now up to bsbray11 to demonstrate why we should believe his claims over NIST's explanation and conclusions. If he does not accept NIST's explanation, we are not obligated answer an already-addressed question again. It's his claim that the question remains unanswered and he can claim it up the ying yang. It has been addressed by NIST and he can try to refute it.

A valid comparison of your 2+2 example would be this:

Bsbray11: The question, "What is 2 + 2", remains unanswered.

Me: It's been shown to be 4

B: No it's not. It's an unanswered question. There is no proof it's 4. What is 2 + 2?

We'll await for bsbray11 to refute NIST. The burden of proof remains on his shoulders.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
There is nothing to suggest there is any "problem."


Then what specifically is wrong with the question,

"What allowed WTC7 to accelerate at the rate of gravity (free-fall)?"

And why can't you answer it?


Are you denying the fact that there must be specific physical conditions met before an object can accelerate at the rate of gravity? Specifically, are you denying that an object can only free-fall when nothing is in its way?



The question is not for me but... The only answer I can personally come up with is that all the supporting structures had to "at the same time" be removed.

jthomas, you actually think there is another reason for such?



Refer to the NIST report. What does NIST say?



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join