20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

page: 6
79
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

How come nothing you guys claim ever adds up?

In this article from the September 14th 2001 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, State police Major Lyle Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site." and "It appears to be the whole engine," he added.

He was just previously discussing the pond, yet he did not say the whole engine was found in the pond. Anybody seen a photo of a whole engine from Shanksville?

Now 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY defenders also claim this 2nd alleged engine piece was also found at the alleged crash site buried just below the surface in the plane swallowing crater.



What Major Lyle Szupinka actually said was this:"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."


What part of several miles don't you understand? And why are you trying to take things out of context with his testimony? Are you deliberately trying to cause confusion here?

I'll admit, you even had me confused for a moment when you tried to attack my argument about how a chimney stack of smoke not seen for miles around did not debunk the plane shot down theory, with your claim that I had the flight direction all wrong when I hadn't said jack about flight direction in the argument to begin with. Now you seem to be trying to say that the eye witness reports from law enforcement who were on the scene don't add up.

Would you please state your case or your true beliefs on this matter in a coherent manner so that people know what you are trying to drive at here? As it is now you seem to be talking in circles that don't add up.

For example, could you state that you believe this and that happened and this is why. That way we have a good idea of where you're coming from.

I'm just looking for some clarification here is all.

Thank You.


[edit on 26-10-2009 by 3DPrisoner]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

posted by SPreston

How come nothing you guys claim ever adds up?

In this article from the September 14th 2001 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, State police Major Lyle Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site." and "It appears to be the whole engine," he added.

He was just previously discussing the pond, yet he did not say the whole engine was found in the pond. Anybody seen a photo of a whole engine from Shanksville?

Now 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY defenders also claim this 2nd alleged engine piece was also found at the alleged crash site buried just below the surface in the plane swallowing crater.



posted by 3DPrisoner

What Major Lyle Szupinka actually said was this:"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."


What part of several miles don't you understand? And why are you trying to take things out of context with his testimony? Are you deliberately trying to cause confusion here?


Are you having difficulty keeping up? Officially an engine piece was found in the pond a few hundred yards from the aircraft swallowing crater. Officially another engine piece was found in the aircraft swallowing crater near the surface.

Unofficially it seems, State police Major Lyle Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site." and "It appears to be the whole engine". Does several hundred yards in the pond sound the same to you as "at a considerable distance from the crash site."? Was State police Major Lyle Szupinka just confused and mistaken, or did he just not get a copy of the official script?

Even Military Industrial Complex GURU and 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY DEFENDER Popular Mechanics does not call the piece in the pond a whole engine does it?



Source

Also, does eight miles away at the New Baltimore debris field seem to be the same as several miles to you?

And why would Indian Lake residents be claiming the aircraft dropped the debris on Indian Lake before it crashed when officially Flight 93 went nowhere near Indian Lake and nowhere south of the aircraft swallowing crater?




posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Are you having difficulty keeping up? Officially an engine piece was found in the pond a few hundred yards from the aircraft swallowing crater. Officially another engine piece was found in the aircraft swallowing crater near the surface.

The problem is not keeping up with you. The problem is you seem to be scattered all over the place just like the debris field. This is why I'm asking you to say what you think actually happened which you are still refusing to do.


SPreston
Unofficially it seems, State police Major Lyle Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site." and "It appears to be the whole engine". Does several hundred yards in the pond sound the same to you as "at a considerable distance from the crash site."? Was State police Major Lyle Szupinka just confused and mistaken, or did he just not get a copy of the official script?


Ok, now we're getting somewhere with you as far as where your position lies.

Please allow me to explain something to you about police officers SPreston. They are trained observers who regularly give deposition in criminal cases. This man would be more qualified to give testimony than either you or me on the matter. Not only that, this man is well aware of the serious implications of perjuring himself in a criminal investigation. The 911 investigation is ongoing my friend, at least they say it is.

I find your suggestion that this man who has climbed up through the ranks of his profession to the rank of Major is making confused comments at a crime scene all of the sudden, sophmoric. Your attempt to attack his testimony by saying that he must have been confused when he is a local resident of that area shows us where your true motives in this argument.

I will let the reader decide if they wish to believe your claim that a trained observing law enforcement Major who is well aware of the implications of giving false testimony at a crime scene is confused on the bases of your theory which has no backing evidence to support such nonsense.

I ask the reader to sit back and consider what I've just said about this testimony as opposed to what SPreston would have the reader believe.


SPreston
Also, does eight miles away at the New Baltimore debris field seem to be the same as several miles to you?


Why yes, I would qualify 8 miles as several miles my friend. Sorry.

SPreston
And why would Indian Lake residents be claiming the aircraft dropped the debris on Indian Lake before it crashed when officially Flight 93 went nowhere near Indian Lake and nowhere south of the aircraft swallowing crater?


Could it be because the official version is a lie? Think about it. Now have a nice day SPreston.


[edit on 26-10-2009 by 3DPrisoner]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I see you guys are arguing about something irrelevant to any of the 20 questions I posted originally. Which still no one has even tried to answer.


Is anyone ready to show me where the official investigations or any other supposedly credible source has addressed any of those questions? Anything besides pure conjecture? No? I expected as much...



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Oh, not a problem at all bsbray11. Where as I would have thought that these guys were debating question #2 on your list plain as day, your wish is my command. You have fun with these guys now.

See ya!



[edit on 26-10-2009 by 3DPrisoner]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

posted by 3DPrisoner

Could it be because the official version is a lie? Think about it. Now have a nice day SPreston.



Hmmmm. Just as I thought all along. Unless I have been bamboozled by an expert, we are on the same side apparently.

And we do seem to be on topic.


OP
20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

2) Why was the Flight 93 crash site spread out over 8 miles?


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.


www.flight93crash.com...





posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Yeah, there is really not much to argue about when the source is the Pennsylvania state police that Flight 93 was spread out over 8 miles.

Bodies were also recovered miles away from the crater.


So, I have seen swampfox argue about how far an engine was away from the crater, but that seems like a pretty erroneous and irrelevant argument considering the other evidence we are looking at in this thread. I'm not sure what he thinks he is going to prove with the engine when it's still apparent from multiple sources that Flight 93 was indeed spread out for miles.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3DPrisoner
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Oh, not a problem at all bsbray11. Where as I would have thought that these guys were debating question #2 on your list plain as day, your wish is my command. You have fun with these guys now.

See ya!



[edit on 26-10-2009 by 3DPrisoner]


I saw Bsbray's post before logging in (he's on IGNORE, you know.)

You might remind him that he stated:


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


So, no matter what anyone writes, Bsbray has the "excuse" of deeming it "personal speculation."

So he can avoid dealing with the evidence, again.

I easily showed above that there is no validity to his WTC 7 question (his facts, as always, are wrong), and I have easily shown logically why and how the Pentagon videos "question" has no validity either in other threads.

But no matter, eh? Bsbray has already decreed any response is just "personal speculation", so he can ignore any and every debunking of his fallacious "questions."



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
We already know that the internal collapse within WTC 7 started 6+ seconds before the facade began to collapse. We also know that there was a 2.25 second free fall period in the middle of the facade collapse, preceded and followed by slower than free fall speeds.

jthomas is trying to twist, dodge, deflect and avoid the fact that for a period of 2.25 seconds, WTC 7 fell with free fall acceleration.

He also needs to brush up on his basic physics, as there was a free fall acceleration between 1.75 s and 4.0 s - not a free fall speed.

Here's part of the NIST final report on WTC 7:


The timing of global collapse of WTC 7, as indicated by downward motion of the north exterior face, was investigated using a video of the collapse taken from the vantage point of West Street near Harrison Street. An initial analysis compared the observed time it took for the roofline to fall approximately 18 stories to the free fall time under the force of gravity.

A more detailed examination of the same video led to a better understanding of the vertical motion of the building in the first several seconds of descent. NIST tracked the downward displacement of a point near the centre of the roofline, fitting the data using a smooth function. (The time at which the motion of the roofline was first perceived was taken as zero.) The fitted displacement function was then differentiated to estimate the downward velocity as a function of time, shown as a solid curve in Figure 3-15.

The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s^2 (9.81 m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g.

For discussion purposes, three stages were defined, as denoted in Figure 3-15:

• In Stage 1, the decent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).

• In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. The free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance travelled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

• In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the north face corner fell an additional 39.6 m (130 ft).


1.75 s after the building began to fall, it experienced free fall acceleration for a further 2.25 seconds.

How does a building fall for 2.25 seconds without any resistance being applied by the structure?

NIST does not answer this question!!!
jthomas does not answer this question!!!


Originally posted by jthomas
There is nothing suspicious here, as Truthers want us to believe there is.

There is definitely something suspicious here and jthomas is trying to deflect your attention away from it.

His lack of basic physics, his attempted distortion of the building's collapse time (taken to be zero, when the roofline was first observed to move) and his inability to answer why the building fell at g for 2.25 seconds, all indicate the manner in which an official government story believer will attempt to obfuscate the truth.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
OK. Let´s review question 6 once again.

“6.- What allowed WTC 7 to accelerate vertically at the rate of free-fall in a vacuum?”

I think that it has been explained here very clearly that:
a.-) Not all of the collapse of WTC 7 takes place at free-fall speed.
b.-) Only a portion of about 2.25 sec. Of the collapse is at free-fall acceleration.
(And there´s nothing wrong with this.)

So, I would say that question number 6 has been answered. Whether this will or will not be satisfactory to people, well.....we know the answer to that.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
I think that it has been explained here very clearly that:
a.-) Not all of the collapse of WTC 7 takes place at free-fall speed.
b.-) Only a portion of about 2.25 sec. Of the collapse is at free-fall acceleration.
(And there´s nothing wrong with this.)

Please show me where it has been 'very clearly' explained how WTC 7 can fall without resistance for 2.25 seconds?

NIST didn't try to explain.
jthomas didn't try to explain.
You haven't tried to explain it either.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
So, no matter what anyone writes, Bsbray has the "excuse" of deeming it "personal speculation."


Do you seriously think we can't tell the difference between personal conjecture, and something that's in an actual investigative report, police report, etc.?

The only people making excuses are the ones who can't answer the 20 questions.


Btw the reason I am on ignore is because I repeatedly asked for supporting evidence when there was none, causing great frustration. When we make the distinction between conjecture (ie someone's personal opinion with no supporting evidence) and actual evidence (photos, videos, testimonies, pieces of steel, laws of physics, etc.), then maybe the source of this frustration will be better understood.

[edit on 26-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
“6.- What allowed WTC 7 to accelerate vertically at the rate of free-fall in a vacuum?”

I think that it has been explained here very clearly that:
a.-) Not all of the collapse of WTC 7 takes place at free-fall speed.


So what? Do you understand the implications of the building accelerating at the rate of gravity at ANY time? You do know what "free fall" means in physics, right? None of the building's energy while falling was being used.

I should also remind that NIST was factoring in time in which the building was not visibly moving. Which is irrelevant to acceleration measurements of the exterior/roof line of the building.


b.-) Only a portion of about 2.25 sec. Of the collapse is at free-fall acceleration.
(And there´s nothing wrong with this.)


Why not? You are talking about an entire building, not a single piece of ejected debris falling through the air.

Accelerating at gravity means no PE/KE is being used to actually collapse the building at that point in time. As if there is absolutely nothing under it, including air.



At least after 6 pages of bickering you guys have finally got the guts to approach one of the questions. Congrats.


[edit on 26-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Since someone has finally got the courage to pick at question #6, let me remind you guys of some of the other 19 in the OP that remain unaddressed after 6 pages of posts:


2) Why was the Flight 93 crash site spread out over 8 miles?

7) What was the Israeli intelligence connection to 9/11 that remains classified?

8) How was an explosive fireball supposed to have traveled down about 1000 feet of drywall elevator shafts to cause major explosions in the basement and lobby, and where is evidence to support this rumor?

9) Why did basement levels fill with smoke, and why did underground PATH subway cars also fill with smoke, and why were so many witnesses confused into thinking explosions were coming from under the towers?

11) Why did police say that a van with a mural of a plane "diving into New York City and exploding" painted on it exploded over their radio transmissions?

15) On what 'state secrets' grounds was Sibel Edmonds' FBI whistleblower case barred from court by John Ashcroft?


I'd be just as interested to get into a discussion on any of these questions, or any of the others in the OP.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
At least after 6 pages of bickering you guys have finally got the guts to approach one of the questions. Congrats.

Too bad they can't do it while making any sense with their efforts though...

A minor point about the NIST report:
Why does NIST use three figure accuracy for 1.75 seconds and then use two figure accuracy for 4.0 seconds?

Some consistency in a professional document that's based around mathematics should have been present. First Year University Physics students would lose marks on a prac report that did not adopt a consistent number of significant figures.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Please show me where it has been 'very clearly' explained how WTC 7 can fall without resistance for 2.25 seconds?

NIST didn't try to explain.


www.nist.gov...

"This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories."

9 stories equals the free fall distance.

NIST explained it. *Snip*

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 10/26/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
"This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories."
9 stories equals the free fall distance.

Why don't the many other columns offer resistance to the fall for 2.25 seconds, Joey?

You really don't understand what you're trying to explain. That much is obvious.

NIST did not explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds with a free-fall rate. Neither could jthomas. Neither could rush969. Neither did you.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
www.nist.gov...

"This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories."


"Insufficiently supported" should read "not supported by anything at all." Accelerating at gravity means NO core columns supporting ANY of the floors anymore, or any of the exterior or core structures either. This is physics 101 Joey. Conversation of energy. All of the energy of the falling building was conserved during that whole period of time.





new topics
top topics
 
79
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join