20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

page: 4
79
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
very good post op. i dont care what anybody says. 9/11 was an inside job. i have been doing my own research on this for about 4 years now and there are way to many coincidences for it to be anything but.
www.historycommons.org...




posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
As you well know, but insist on denying, we don't need any videos to "prove" AA77 hit the Pentagon. Unlike "Truthers", we deal with all of the evidence and that evidence told us AA77 hit the Pentagon.


The official story "told us" a AA77 hit the Pentagon...

The conclusive evidence has not been released to the public.

You might not "need" the concrete proof to believe the official story but sorry I'm just not that trusting...

I need to see the concrete proof before I take your word for it that it proves the official story true...



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
There is a piece of steel FEMA tested in their report that had holes like a swiss cheese.

"This demands further study" FEMA wrote.
Fire cannot come close to do such a thing.

NIST could not find the WTC 7 steel at all, so they could not study this further.
www.nist.gov...


Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders’ efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics



despite the fact that Appendix C of the FEMA report documents such testing of WTC 7 steel and calls for further investigation
wtc.nist.gov...


The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Sample 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to the collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires


but there is evidence of extreme temperatures and even vaporazion of steel!
www.historycommons.org...


One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.


RJ Leegroup found extreme temperatures their report:



Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles" Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC event



www.youtube.com...
7 minutes from "Blueprint of Truth" about the steel


Other stuff in my thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 24-10-2009 by conar]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

LOL! More classic 9/11 "Truther" lack of reasoning. It's remarkable that I bring up the most obvious logical FACT about the videos and a 9/11 "Truther" goes haywire, diving deep into irrational woo.

Sorry, Kryties, you'll be wanting to retract your statement as soon as you sit down and think how completely irrational and embarrassing your statement is to you.

This is the classic problem with 9/11 "Truthers" who have been led down the garden path by their fellow "Truthers" into actually believing, against ALL reason and logic, that we do not have the evidence already to KNOW that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

When will you ever come out of the fog and understand that no one in the world needs ANY video to KNOW that all of the evidence we have had since 9/11 demonstrates conclusively that AA77 hit the Pentagon? How could you NOT know that, Kryties?


More smoke and mirrors. We do NOT know for a fact that AA77 hit the Pentagon, if we did then why are people still asking questions about it? You seem to be carrying this argument as if your side has already been proven, a fact that this very thread and it's opening post disproves.

As far as I, and MANY other people are concerned, if AA77 hit the Pentagon, why is there any need to withhold video evidence? Shouldn't video proof be EXACTLY what you guys are after to prove your case? Or is it that you are not sure of what the tapes will show?

Hmmm.









[edit on 25/10/2009 by Kryties]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   





For the record and anyone whose reading this debate I was replying to ATH911 from his last post near the bottom of page 3 of this debate. And the reply was as follows:



Ok, so you wanted to attempt a debunk from a slightly different angle. No problem, let's dissect this different slant too.

You asked: " Because if it was caused by a plane disintegrating, where did the plane go down?"

Answer: Over a 8 mile long corridor. Ding! The crowd claps in applause and the camera does a close up of the overweight middle aged lady who seems so happy as her hands smack together again and again. (Light hearted humor people, so take it easy..... Easy.)


You must be of the opinion that a disintegrated 757 must still keep enough structural integrity to create this magical smoke stack effect once what is left of it finally hits the ground.

But let's take your next question.

You asked: "I'm asking where is the long smoke trail after the plane crashed?"

Answer: Witnesses claimed that they heard a large boom followed by a mushroom cloud which doesn't follow a regular plane crash to begin with. It more closely resembles a bomb going off, but you are not even focusing on this. You are asking why the plane didn't produce this smoke chimney effect, well, the plane did have 8 miles to come apart right? One engine over here, one engine over there. One seat over here and a couple of miles later, one seat over there.

Next you make a claim: "If a 757 crashed even in remote New Baltimore, the smoke trail that would arise after it crashed would be seen for miles and miles."

Oh ok, nevermind the fact that it had 8 miles to come completely apart and have nothing but shrapnel to hit the ground with. But wait a second everyone, according to ATH911 a plane simply must always create a long smoke trail to be seen for miles even if they've possibly been hit by missiles that are well known to blow flying pressurized planes to pieces.

Well it is your right to maintain your position regardless of how illogical I find it. But it is my right to respectfully disagree in lieu of common deductive logic. Sorry, but I find your position untenable in the extreme.



[edit on 25-10-2009 by 3DPrisoner]

[edit on 10/25/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
On question number 6 let me say something.
The collapse of building 7 takes place in two phases.
You can´t consider the time of the collapse only the final part that we all have seen on short videos.
There´s a video that clearly shows the collapse of a part of the building first, referred to as the Penthouse.
And some time passes and then the collapse of the whole (rest of) thing takes place.
But the thing is, the building was falling appart or collapsing from within for some seconds before the final demise.
So, it is incorrect to time the collapse only for the part that shows the whole building falling and not from the time the Penthouse falls.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

posted by 3DPrisoner

You asked: "I'm asking where is the long smoke trail after the plane crashed?"

Answer: Witnesses claimed that they heard a large boom followed by a mushroom cloud which doesn't follow a regular plane crash to begin with. It more closely resembles a bomb going off, but you are not even focusing on this. You are asking why the plane didn't produce this smoke chimney effect, well, the plane did have 8 miles to come apart right? One engine over here, one engine over there. One seat over here and a couple of miles later, one seat over there.

Next you make a claim: "If a 757 crashed even in remote New Baltimore, the smoke trail that would arise after it crashed would be seen for miles and miles."

Oh ok, nevermind the fact that it had 8 miles to come completely apart and have nothing but shrapnel to hit the ground with. But wait a second everyone, according to ATH911 a plane simply must always create a long smoke trail to be seen for miles even if they've possibly been hit by missiles that are well known to blow flying pressurized planes to pieces.



Where is your logic? The official story is that the Flight 93 aircraft crashed into the soft strip mine in Shanksville from the north northwest. You apparently have the aircraft flying in the opposite direction.

Flight 93 flight path

It allegedly flew from the north northwest to officially crash at the strip mine, but do you have it wounded by missile attack and continuing on to New Baltimore? Where is the crash site down near New Baltimore? Are you claiming the government lied and the aircraft did not crash into the strip mine? Or are you just confused over its official flight path?

9-11 Whitewash Commission official Flight 93 flight path

Flight 93; another piece of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY just chock full of holes.




posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
On question number 6 let me say something.
The collapse of building 7 takes place in two phases.
You can´t consider the time of the collapse only the final part that we all have seen on short videos.
There´s a video that clearly shows the collapse of a part of the building first, referred to as the Penthouse.
And some time passes and then the collapse of the whole (rest of) thing takes place.
But the thing is, the building was falling appart or collapsing from within for some seconds before the final demise.
So, it is incorrect to time the collapse only for the part that shows the whole building falling and not from the time the Penthouse falls.


That doesn't debunk anything. Just that the thermite had caused the Penthouse to fall first just as there were streams of molten steel coming out of the Trade Tower buildings near their tops just before they fell too.

If anything your argument can be reversed to show additional proof of thermite cutting the H beams supports underneath the Penthouse first (i.e. the top of the building) just as the Trade Towers were showing evidence of. The Trade Tower roofs collapsed first remember? You are only inadvertently showing more evidence that the top part of building 7 was showing a similar trait but ultimately collapsed more in the traditional style of controlled demolition in the end. So the internal collapsing theory you are trying to put forth here is hardly a debunk if not a downright false assumption.

I think your of the opinion that everything must fall at one magical second in order to prove or disprove controlled demolition. Reality doesn't work that way unfortunately so please don't go getting too smug on us just yet.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   




So let me explain to the reader that I was replying to SPreston in this rebuttal from only a couple of posts above this one. And the reply was as follows:



I don't have it flying from any direction friend. So please don't make false assumptions as to my reasoning here. I'm only pointing out that an attempt to say that there should be a smoke plume seen for miles is in no way a debunk.

And why yes I am claiming that the government lied. Eye witnesses described an event that resembled a bomb crater not a plane crash. Oh no, shock and awe to you hey?!!!!

As to your official sources solving this mystery for you well I say: "Good on you friend."



[edit on 25-10-2009 by 3DPrisoner]

[edit on 10/25/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by conar

NIST could not find the WTC 7 steel at all, so they could not study this further.
www.nist.gov...


Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders’ efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics


[edit on 24-10-2009 by conar]


I LOVE that quote from NIST's Facts Sheet official website!

The steel from WTC 1 and 2 "were painted red and contained distinguishing markings"

So WTC 7 was NOT red and DID NOT contain distinguishing markings!
But we cannot clearly identify the steel!



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ummm. all these questions have been answered. May times over. Ad nauseum. Years ago.

Ummm, instead of telling us that these questions have all been answered (total BS -- none have), why don't YOU answer them?



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
On question number 6 let me say something.
The collapse of building 7 takes place in two phases.


That's just the trick NIST used to add time where the exterior of the building was not moving.

When the exterior starts moving, it accelerates at 9.8m/s^2 or 32.2 ft/s^2 to within a very small margin, as shown by NIST themselves. There is no hiding this fact. Well, besides sandwiching it between two irrelevant "phases" and pretending it's ok now.

Accelerating at the rate of gravity (at ANY point in time) means no PE/KE used to collapse the building, ie 0 energy going to collapse the building, meaning it (a) isn't collapsing, or (b) some other source of energy is doing the "collapsing."

[edit on 25-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by 3DPrisoner
 



posted by 3DPrisoner

You are asking why the plane didn't produce this smoke chimney effect, well, the plane did have 8 miles to come apart right? One engine over here, one engine over there. One seat over here and a couple of miles later, one seat over there.



How did the aircraft have eight miles to come apart if it crashed in the strip mine in Shanksville?

Official 9-11 Whitewash Commission Flight 93 graphic

Please notice that the alleged 'found' engine in the pond would presumably be in the direction of flight, and yet the alleged debris fields are not in the direction of flight.



[edit on 10/25/09 by SPreston]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

posted by rush969
On question number 6 let me say something.
The collapse of building 7 takes place in two phases.


posted by bsbray11

That's just the trick NIST used to add time where the exterior of the building was not moving.

When the exterior starts moving, it accelerates at 9.8m/s^2 or 32.2 ft/s^2 to within a very small margin, as shown by NIST themselves. There is no hiding this fact. Well, besides sandwiching it between two irrelevant "phases" and pretending it's ok now.

Accelerating at the rate of gravity (at ANY point in time) means no PE/KE used to collapse the building, ie 0 energy going to collapse the building, meaning it (a) isn't collapsing, or (b) some other source of energy is doing the "collapsing."



Tricks. The coverup crews love their tricks.



The penthouse is not a major component of the building. The roofline of the top floor is the easiest major component of the building to track, and shares the entire structural integrity of the remainder of the WTC7 floors. NIST used the roofline in their analysis reversal admitting freefall.





NIST has reversed its earlier denial of freefall and acknowledged a period of freefall comparable to this analysis in their final report on WTC7 released in November 2008. They did their own measurement with a point near the center of the roof line and came up with an acceleration of 9.81 for approximately 2.25 sec. Their report did not, however, face the consequences of this acknowledgment: that ALL RESISTANCE was instantaneously removed across the width of the building, supporting pre-planted explosives as the cause of the collapse.

Note that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.

--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.

--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.

--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.


Source


NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

The building was at freefall and NIST admitted that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.




posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
keep asking and keep trying to find out before the ones with the answers are gone.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Alright so let`s try to pick sides. Either inside job, or terrorist attack. You can not be almost pregnant. In order for it not to be inside job, all of the explosions should have clear evident pattern of doing as much damage as possible with as little means as possible. ( imagine if you were going to kill thousands of civilians in WTC, I doubt if you cared of the surrounding buildings to stay intact.) Strangely enough none of the seven objects involved show a clear evidence of terrorism or the most damaging explosions). WTC7 has a distinct implosion curvature, even if it was detonated by terrorists, why would they care for the building to implode neatly on itself? Of course, I can not remember such accurate fires, that would symmetrically destroy core beams in a way so that the steel! building implodes on itself.Also WTC both towers do the same thing. And the reports of firemen of molten steel, Infrared signatures from satellites, etc. Uhmm, it starts getting fishy. Again, The Pentagon-, no video, no substantiable hole, completely different flight paths as what official report and what eywitnesses claim.Shanksville- no bodies, no plane parts, no substantiable hole in ground. So we have 5 events, with not a single one that would strongly prove the official government claims. Yet what we have,( coincidentally) is the biggest US military funding in her history, with the biggest contracts to Raytheon, Lockheed- Martin etc, under implemented laws of Bush and now Obama administration. For me it is hard to fathom that military complex coincidentally receives the biggest procurement in history while it has resulted coincidentally from a small group of terrorists with doubtable funds and skills, who simply ` hated that Americans are free!`



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by jthomas

LOL! More classic 9/11 "Truther" lack of reasoning. It's remarkable that I bring up the most obvious logical FACT about the videos and a 9/11 "Truther" goes haywire, diving deep into irrational woo.

Sorry, Kryties, you'll be wanting to retract your statement as soon as you sit down and think how completely irrational and embarrassing your statement is to you.

This is the classic problem with 9/11 "Truthers" who have been led down the garden path by their fellow "Truthers" into actually believing, against ALL reason and logic, that we do not have the evidence already to KNOW that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

When will you ever come out of the fog and understand that no one in the world needs ANY video to KNOW that all of the evidence we have had since 9/11 demonstrates conclusively that AA77 hit the Pentagon? How could you NOT know that, Kryties?


More smoke and mirrors. We do NOT know for a fact that AA77 hit the Pentagon, if we did then why are people still asking questions about it?


Of course we know AA77 hit the Pentagon. That you refuse to acknowledge or deal with the evidence that demonstrates it conclusively is entirely your problem.


You seem to be carrying this argument as if your side has already been proven, a fact that this very thread and it's opening post disproves.


The only side I'm on is that of reason, logic, knowledge, and evidence. Why you insist on fighting that is amazing. Until and unless you begin to admit that evidence exists and begin to refute it, no is going to listen to you as they haven't for the last 8 years.


As far as I, and MANY other people are concerned, if AA77 hit the Pentagon, why is there any need to withhold video evidence? Shouldn't video proof be EXACTLY what you guys are after to prove your case? Or is it that you are not sure of what the tapes will show?


It is quite obvious to us why NO ONE needs a video to "prove" AA77 hit the Pentagon. Again, as long as you deny the existence of ALL of that massive evidence, you'll continue to just blow smoke.

Now, for your first exercise, please read the following carefully:

www.flight77.info...

Then I want you to answer the question I first asked over three years ago but which no Truther has ever been able to address. I want YOU Truthers to demonstrate that you have done your homework.

Please provide the statements from the over 1,000 people who saw, handled, and removed the wreckage from inside the Pentagon in the hours, days, and weeks after 9/11.

In addition, please provide the statements of those people who sorted through the wreckage openly on the Pentagon lawn under an open tent in the weeks after 9/11.

What did these people report seeing, handling, removing and sorting? Please explain why these people never stated that there was no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon?

These people were part of the 8,000 people at the Pentagon in the hours, days, weeks, and months after 9/11:


Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions

Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


If you are unable or unwilling to present those statements please so state and don't make excuses like every other Truther has. The burden of proof remains on your shoulders - as it always has - to refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Until and unless you all do, you will convince NO ONE of any reason to open a new investigation.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Wasn't it Einstein who said definition of insanity is doing same thing over and over expecting a deifferent result.

Looks like perfect definition of truthism......



Wasn't it Nutter who said the definition of a fool, troll, disinfo agent is the one who continuously argues with someone who they think is the fool?



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

reply to post by bsbray11
 





6) What allowed WTC7 to accelerate vertically at the rate of free-fall in a vacuum?


Please substantiate the free fall in a vaccum claim.



I guess Dr. Sunder saying so doesn't count? Or do you NOT believe the NIST anymore?



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


Those are architectural drawings and not structural. There's a huge difference between the two.





new topics
top topics
 
79
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join