20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

page: 7
79
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



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?


I think I can answer question #9 with very creditable evidences. The evidences are the 503 eyewitness that the FBI had buried their testimonies that went on record under state secret privilege. Thank God for the New York Times they sued the city government of NYC and won their case under the FOIA to releases their testimonies for everyone to read. After reading most of oral history, I realized why the FBI was in a hurry to suppress all of this information, because it does not support the OS lie.


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

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


graphics8.nytimes.com...

There were many credible eyewitnesses of firemen, police officers, first responders and office workers, who saw flashes going around the WTC, and heard and saw explosions going around the WTC and in the basements and sub levels of the WTC. There is no disputing their testimonies they are very creditable. What these creditable eyewitnesses experienced certainly supports all notions of demolition and Jones Thermite report that this government has done by suppressing every News outlet from reporting on this new scientific discovery. There was more than airplane fuel that brought down those towers, our government, and their scientist are ignoring it, and suppressing it, which to me shows the government, is doing its best to hide the truth because they are involved. All that has to be proven now, is what military grade Nano Thermite and Thermate was used and once that is proven and I know it will be, the next step is finding out what military instillation or manufactory it came from and there are only two manufactories that it could have came from. The last part is finding the records and who order it, if such records exist. Not to mention who gave the order to blow up the WTC.

These people may never be caught but they are not going to get away with what they have done, These murdering thugs will have to answer to God and they will have to experience every death that they are responsible for. These people will have to experiences every family members anguish of the deepest lost of their love ones, they will have to experience every military service member that has died because of their actions they will have to experience every Iraqi and Afghanistan persons who’s died because of this false flag conflict. These same people will have to experience the hurt and pain from people from all over the world who watch in horror, live on television as this false flag operation was carried out on 911.

If none of you believe me about this, do some research into NDE.
www.near-death.com...

Back on topic now it will be a matter of time before all the truth comes out, if it all comes out to fast the United States will have riots in the streets demanding justice.

For those of you who have not researched 911 you should take a trip down the 911 rabbit hole, it will change your life forever.




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

NIST did not explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds with a free-fall rate.


While *technically* it's true that NIST didn't lay it all out in one spot, there IS enough information for a competent individual to figure out WHY it fell like that during that period.

And of course it's always interesting to note that those with the necessary competence - like members of CTBUH, etc - have no issues with it.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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


This is worth taking Bsbray11 off ignore for awhile so I can further demonstrate the invalidity of his "question" and claims.


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.?


Apparently you can't since I posted an actual statement from NIST about WTC 7. And why have you now changed your tune from this:


"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."



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


As I predicted and stated above, you would grant yourself immunity from dealing with evidence. And the only one who is not making any case for a new investigation is you.


Btw the reason I am on ignore is because I repeatedly asked for supporting evidence when there was none, causing great frustration.


The reason you were on ignore is for the same reason you are demonstrating quite clearly now: refusal to deal with evidence inconvenient to you and refusal to support your claims when countered with the evidence.


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.


Since you still refuse to support your claim that a period of freefall of WTC is meaningful in any way whatsoever, we'll be here to keep asking you.


[edit on 27-10-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


FALSE.


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.


NIST was quite clear. ONCE the facade started falling, it fell at a slower rate of acceleration then free fall, fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall, then the remainder of the time it didn't


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.


It doesn't surprise anyone that there was nothing under it after a period of 6+seconds of internal structural collapse. You cannot pretend it didn't happen nor how it happened.

So, if you want to claim that free fall could not happen as "...As if there is absolutely nothing under it, including air," then you will have to throwout any claims of "explosive demolition" as well. The air was still there.


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


Actually, as I already demonstrated, I had already dealt with it and you refused to acknowledge it.

And you have presented nothing to indicate your question was even valid.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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:


Not so fast.

First you need to present evidence for your claims concerning WTC 7 or admit that you have not demonstrated any validity to your "question." Since you had pressed people to deal with your "questions", and several of us have dealt with WTC 7, you have a personal obligation to deal with it.

We can see that you have not made a case for a new investigation of WTC 7's collapse.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

What these creditable eyewitnesses experienced certainly supports all notions of demolition and Jones Thermite report that this government has done by suppressing every News outlet from reporting on this new scientific discovery.


Weren´t the News outlets in on it too?



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
While *technically* it's true that NIST didn't lay it all out in one spot, there IS enough information for a competent individual to figure out WHY it fell like that during that period.


When you say "competent," does that include the understanding that accelerating at gravity means none of the energy of the falling body is being absorbed or used in any way? Meaning no more columns supporting the building at all, or even being in the way as it fell? Exactly equivalent to the structure just being wiped out in a single instant and then literally being allowed to free-fall through nothing.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Good thread OP S&F for you!
I find it very telling that most of the debunkers have done is ignore the questions and attempt to derail the thread.I look at those 20 questions and those official explanations really don't add up.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
This is worth taking Bsbray11 off ignore for awhile so I can further demonstrate the invalidity of his "question" and claims.


I'm not so sure about that, jthomas.

After all, I did ask for legitimate sources to support the answers, not personal conjecture.



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.?


Apparently you can't since I posted an actual statement from NIST about WTC 7.


But not explaining the question I asked, namely how it was allowed to accelerate at free-fall. Not an excuse about how you've now cushioned it between two other slightly different acceleration figures, therefore somehow it doesn't matter now. Remember NIST did not originally even admit the building was accelerating at free-fall at all.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
It doesn't surprise anyone that there was nothing under it after a period of 6+seconds of internal structural collapse.


It doesn't surprise anyone? No, no, you're right. That's why we're here arguing about it...


Can you explain in more detail how, after 6 seconds, there was no longer anything under the building and it just fell through a vacuum?

I believe you -- I just realize that the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition. You know, literally pushing everything out of the way with some type of explosion. For which I can provide witness testimonies (from a police officer no less), seismic data, etc.

I'd like to hear your take on how this is possible, but more importantly, I'd like sources/evidence/laws of physics referenced also, as per the OP, so I know you're not just making this stuff up. Because as great of a fellow as you are, jthomas, I just don't take your opinion as gospel, especially when it's a scientific debate.




Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
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:


Not so fast.

First you need to present evidence for your claims concerning WTC 7


That's fine with me. Read above and let's continue the discussion about this. But remember you are picking question #6 out arbitrarily. Why are you having so much difficulty with the others, that no one has even tried to answer them so far? Could it be because -- they really have no legitimate answers?


[edit on 27-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
This is worth taking Bsbray11 off ignore for awhile so I can further demonstrate the invalidity of his "question" and claims.


I'm not so sure about that, jthomas.


I am.


After all, I did ask for legitimate sources to support the answers, not personal conjecture.


And NIST is a legitimate source by every rational standard. You can't avoid that, even though you pretend otherwise.


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.?


Apparently you can't since I posted an actual statement from NIST about WTC 7.



But not explaining the question I asked, namely how it was allowed to accelerate at free-fall.


No one "allowed" it.


Not an excuse about how you've now cushioned it between two other slightly different acceleration figures, therefore somehow it doesn't matter now.


Then skip the other figures and just measure the entire collpase sequence from beginning to end: 13+ seconds.

Or, take the entire time for the the three segments and it was 40% longer than would be if it was free fall.


Remember NIST did not originally even admit the building was accelerating at free-fall at all.


There was nothing to "admit." They showed their methodology for calculating the collapse time for the facade. They didn't even have to say more than what the total facade collapse time was - 40% more than free fall.

The explanation of the internal collapse is there for you to refute. Get busy.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
And NIST is a legitimate source by every rational standard.


Except not for the question I asked. I did not ask, "For how long did WTC7 fall at free-fall?"

I asked how was it able to accelerate at the rate of gravity. This presumes an understanding that accelerating at gravity means no PE/KE is being converted into energy for any other work.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
It doesn't surprise anyone that there was nothing under it after a period of 6+seconds of internal structural collapse.


It doesn't surprise anyone? No, no, you're right. That's why we're here arguing about it...


I'm not arguing. I'm showing why you have not demonstrated any validity to your claims and "question" about WTC 7.


Can you explain in more detail how, after 6 seconds, there was no longer anything under the building and it just fell through a vacuum?


Read the NIST report. And it didn't fall through a "vacuum." You already admitted there was air inside and claimed it should have provided air resistance thereby invalidating your "explosive demolition" claim right off the bat.


I believe you -- I just realize that the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition. You know, literally pushing everything out of the way with some type of explosion./quote]

But if you claim that only "controlled demolition" could do that, then you are forced to deal with the implications of that claim.


For which I can provide witness testimonies (from a police officer no less), seismic data, etc.


No, quite the contrary. There is no evidence for controlled demolition.

[quoteI'd like to hear your take on how this is possible, but more importantly, I'd like sources/evidence/laws of physics referenced also, as per the OP, so I know you're not just making this stuff up. Because as great of a fellow as you are, jthomas, I just don't take your opinion as gospel, especially when it's a scientific debate.


Sorry, that dodge doesn't ever work. You are the one making the claim that "I just realize that the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition."

That means you have to not only deal with all off the implications of claiming "controlled demolition", but you also have to refute the entire body of evidence and conclusions of the NIST report, and explain why the entire industries of structural engineers, architects, forensic scientists, university professors in the relevant subjects, and physicists are not collectively up in arms.

So you can start with many of the implications of controlled demolition. What type? How could they be silent? etc. etc.

When you make claims as you do, you are required to support them with actual evidence. I've been waiting for 8 years for Truthers to support their claims, including you.

The burden of proof is, always has been, and remains on your shoulders.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Read the NIST report. And it didn't fall through a "vacuum." You already admitted there was air inside and claimed it should have provided air resistance thereby invalidating your "explosive demolition" claim right off the bat.


The acceleration of gravity is 9.8m/s^2 or 32.2ft./s^2. Drag has not been factored into either of those numbers.


And here is NIST showing the free-fall (accelerating at the rate of gravity) according to their own measurements:





The burden of proof is, always has been, and remains on your shoulders.


No, this is a lie that you repeatedly post as if it's going to magically make it true. You can say something that is wrong 100000 times and it will still be wrong every single time.

The "burden of proof" was on those who carried out the investigations. I never got so much as a letter in the mail about anything even remotely similar to such a responsibility.

I am still waiting for you to show me where NIST explains what allowed an entire building to fall as if nothing was under it, when there should have been a foundation under it, and columns ascending all up throughout it.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
While *technically* it's true that NIST didn't lay it all out in one spot, there IS enough information for a competent individual to figure out WHY it fell like that during that period.

Then both of us have missed it, Joey.

I can't find it and you can't find it. You have not explained it to me.

Still waiting for Joey to show me how it happened...



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
The explanation of the internal collapse is there for you to refute. Get busy.

jthomas hits back in a big way with more of his false logic. Obviously, he must have consulted some physics text books over night, as he has corrected his misunderstanding between free fall speed and free fall acceleration.

Now all he needs to do is to explain how the building can fall with the acceleration of gravity for 2.25 seconds.

All he has done is dodge, deflect, avoid and appeal to his own authority. Too bad that methodology doesn't cut it in the real world of investigative physics and engineering.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Yes, again, I did not ask for how long, but "how."


Here is a video explaining the acceleration of gravity:




Explanation of gravity starts at 35 seconds in.

I'll refer to this video in future posts. But any column, any structural contact whatsoever, once the building is in motion, represents a force that is not gravity. When something accelerates at the rate of gravity, it necessarily means all contacts to structural supports have been removed. The video explains an equivalent of this with a tree and an apple, the limb of a tree representing a single, flimsy "structural support" that is actually meant to eventually give way, much unlike a building.


I will be referring to this video again in future posts.


Btw, a free-body diagram would show this same concept very clearly.




A falling building should theoretically have a great number of structural supports that are constantly being failed and broken. On the other hand, WTC7 fell for an extended period of time as if all the connections had already been broken (ie not failed by the now-falling mass), and it was simply allowed to drop, literally a free-fall.

This is what happens in controlled demolitions when demolition equipment (be it explosives, whatever) is used to remove support BEFORE the building actually starts falling, and that fall is then a free-fall since none of the falling energy is converted to other energy to break connections, columns, etc. Those connections/columns must be destroyed before the free-fall can happen.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
The burden of proof is, always has been, and remains on your shoulders.

Which is quite incorrect.

The burden of proof to explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate is upon NIST.

NIST has not done this. NIST mention that it happened, without any other explanation for how it happened.

It's obvious from jthomas' erroenous 'burden of proof' claim and his lack of underpinning knowledge about basic physics (speed vs acceleration) that he's excused himself from taking part in an intellectual discussion. No doubt, we still welcome his contributions, for at the very least, they do bump the thread and keep it prominent at the top of the forum.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I´d like to take question 3 now.
3)Why did witnesses report hearing military jets in the area of the flight 93 crash?
Could a valid answer to this question be:
Because there were military jets in the area...


[edit on 27-10-2009 by rush969]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
I´d like to take question 3 now.


Fine, but for question 6, the last one you tried to answer, I still have yet to see anything from NIST explaining what allowed all the connections to columns and other structural supported to be completely severed before the building had even collapsed so far. In other words what made the period of total free-fall possible; what totally compromised the falling building, before the building even fell there, allowing it to fall through nothing.


3)Why did witnesses report hearing military jets in the area of the flight 93 crash?
Could a valid answer to this question be:
Because there were military jets in the area...


Well then we are in agreement about that, but it's still been officially denied that there were any jets near Flight 93 when it went down. It's official statements that I would like to see reflect upon this.





new topics
top topics
 
79
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join