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.

 

9/11 The Pentagon “Where are the FACTS!

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Former employee of Controlled Demolition, Inc. talks about the WTC collapses; after having made many posts about this subject matter in this thread; and after many people U2U me saying what I was posting was interesting enough to start a whole new thread; here it is.

I would like to start out by saying thank you to those that sent me messages; and to those that commented on the posts that I was making.

What started me asking questions? I am a Molecular Physicist working in the field of advanced hydrogen engineering; I currently consult for companies such as BMW, RR, GM, Nissan, and ROTAX. While I was working in Houston, TX at RR labs; I was looking over some pictures of the crash site at the Pentagon on my laptop (about 4 years ago) because, Jim Lawrence walked by the office I was working out of, and the pictures were suppose to be of the RB-211 which he was crucial in its core design; I said to Jim “hey looks like your hub designed stayed intact; Jim took one look at the photo and said “That is not my engine!”; well folks that was it for me. I can tell you if someone were showing me photos of engineering work that I had designed myself; I could tell right off if it were my work or not. From that day forth I have tried to find the truth as to what really hit the Pentagon.

You can talk explosives; and controlled demolitions till your blue in the face; this will never reopen the investigation into what really happened.

But; the release of all evidence collected for analysis; the complete and full scientific report completed by the NTSB; FAA, and FORENSIC teams on the ground at the Pentagon were released to a real scientific team for peer review; it is my belief this would reopen an investigation.

If in fact the events of that day at the Pentagon happened just as the Government say they did; with the object they say it did; with the people they say it did; and there is so much evidence to prove that they are right; “WHERE IS IT?”

I don’t want to hear a bunch of hearsay; it’s in the report this; it’s in the report that; what I am looking for is cut and dry scientific evidence that shows that to be the case; not someone’s synopsis of what the scientific data all meant to them but, the real data, that was obviously performed by real scientists, using real scientific methods. I’m not looking for opinions, conjectures, or the whole “YOUR JUST A CONSPIRACY THEORIST NONSENSE”; I’m a scientist; as a scientist I am a born skeptic; I am not saying anyone is in the right or anyone is in the wrong; what I am asking for is the cut and dry evidence done by real professionals; who should be the best in their fields considering the scope of such a tragedy.

Please do not link to websites done by so called experts; if you do make links in this thread make them to a real lab; a real scientist; or the actual scientific data collected by real scientists.

Thank You!

MolecularPHD




This is the photo I showed him.




posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


Gee, someone doesnt know that the FBI report hasnt been released yet?


I would have thought a scientist would know that already.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


When did the FBI become a scientific authority exactly? I would also like to know what is taking so long? You mean they need more time to get their data straight? Do you not think the public has waited long enough for this information? Or do you think we should wait another eight years? Or how about another sixty that way anyone involved would already be dead? I would have thought the FBI had learned their lesson by now.

MolecularPHD

[edit on 12-5-2010 by MolecularPhD]

[edit on 12-5-2010 by MolecularPhD]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Thanks you for your OP and this thread, I really appreciate a scientist perspective on this. I found this part very interesting.




Jim Lawrence walked by the office I was working out of, and the pictures were suppose to be of the RB-211 which he was crucial in its core design; I said to Jim “hey looks like your hub designed stayed intact; Jim took one look at the photo and said “That is not my engine!”; well folks that was it for me. I can tell you if someone were showing me photos of engineering work that I had designed myself; I could tell right off if it were my work or not. From that day forth I have tried to find the truth as to what really hit the Pentagon.


So any idea's what it is then?



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I have no idea, as I have not seen any real scientific evidence that proves anything. I believe the American People deserve to know the truth! Don't You?

MolecularPHD

[edit on 12-5-2010 by MolecularPhD]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


Yes I agree.
What does Jim Lawrence think it was?
Anybody at that level should have some idea, I would think, or at least an interesting opinion.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
[more

I wish I could say; and if there was more of the physical evidence to review maybe we could all find out. I have tried to talk to Jim about it but he would not say anything more then that it was not his hub. Dr. Ortenheim a brilliant engineer, inventor, and scientist believes as I; that it is possible the hub seen in the picture is from a large cruise style missile due to its shape and size but, without being able to actually test the object in question these statements are purely speculation. I know many other engineers and scientist that also question the official story; and if we question it then I would think that the American people should question it as well.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Great thread,
I think it’s going to be impossible to find out what really hit the Pentagon in my opinion the FBI buried all the critical evidence. As far as any scientific discoveries concerning the pentagon incident, I am not aware of any.
The FBI had very little to say about the pentagon incident and the only story about the pentagon is in the 911- commission report and we all know the commissioners lied through their teeth and admitted it publicly.

Most of us in the Truth movement are not convince a plane crashed into the pentagon. Why I say this is because the was no physical damaged done to the pentagon bottom floors (the concrete.) There was no damaged done to the Pentagon lawn. Windows above the small impact hole and on each side were not broken. Earlier photos taken right after object impact Pentagon show no airplane debris on Pentagon lawn, then later photos do after pentagon collapse. We know airplane debris was planted because earlier photos tell us this.

We know the FBI did not investigate any of the four plane crashes.

[color=gold]

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Pilots for 911 Truth requested under the FIOA serial numbers to time change out parts that should have been found at all four-crash scene to properly identify said planes. The FBI will not comply with the FIOA, and their silence, says enough to most of us.
Some of us do not believe all these planes were United or American Airlines why I say this because there is no proof they were. Again there have been request under the FIOA for maintenance records, repair orders on all these planes. No one in the FBI, United or American Airlines are cooperating or will to come forth with this simple information that would clear up this matter. So, this opens the door for conspiracies theories and yes the government and the airline companies are responsible for creating these conspiracies theories due to their silence.

There are too many inconsistencies in the OS of the pentagon. The government expects educated people to believe a plane flying at a high rate of speed, knocking over lampposts, then swooping down to the ground only inches away not leaving a mark, and magically fly in a tiny hole and leave no wreckage or ground damaged to pentagon bottom floors. This defies physics, as we know it.

What hit the pentagon, we don’t really know, but one thing we do know is, no Boeing 757 flew into the pentagon and there is enough provable evidences that has already proven this, including a four star General who was there that day, who made a public statement that no plane stuck this building he stated there was no debris field.


[edit on 12-5-2010 by impressme]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   


This is a comparison of intermediate pressure compressor stages on the RB211 to the wreckage at the Pentagon. If you imagine that the fins were knocked off in the crash, they look pretty similar to me. Do we have any way to get a pic comparison of a cruise missiles hub to the wreckage? Anyhow, heres where I found this pic:
www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 



When did the FBI become a scientific authority exactly?


You are not familiar with the FBI's forensic capabilities? Sounds like a bunch of BS to me. Since when do we "peer review" evidence in a criminal case? We don't, we have trials.

You claim to be a scientist, yet you are basing your "skeptic" credentials on looking at some photos on your laptop and having someone walk by and say that it didn't look right to him. What about all the other evidence, the eye witnesses, the witness of the rescue personnel, the fact that the last known location of the victims was getting on American Airlines Flight 77 and then they found the DNA of the victims at the crash site, and on and on and on.

Sorry, but your claims sound more like a trolling expedition.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Those were rather my thoughts. But then you can tell he has a Phd - it's in his screen name!!!



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
MolecularPhD,

Hooper is correct.

Scientists are usually the first to understand the nature of evidence but I see quite the opposite in your posts and, in particular, resorting to a standard Truther tactic of trying to limit the evidence to be considered to what you believe is out of place.

It is standard for conspiracy "theorists" to consider what they believe are "anomalies" and believe that these so-called anomalies, whether they are real or not, outweigh any and all other evidence.

Michael Shermer said it best:


"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."

www.scientificamerican.com...


The fact is that the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon is the sum total of all the evidence from hundreds of independent sources that converges on the inescapable conclusion that a Boeing 757-200, American Airlines Flight 77, a scheduled flight, hit the Pentagon.




[edit on 12-5-2010 by jthomas]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


So one casual comment based on one photo "was it" for you? I thought that you were a scientist. You immediately started looking at engines to determine a match, right? You checked to make sure that the part you saw was not from the aux power unit. You ignored everything else, such as the black box from flight 77 found at the scene, which is certainly what a scientist would do after arriving at a predetermined conclusion. You investigated the sizes, flight characteristics, and warheads of cruise missiles and named candidate missiles for your testable theory. You investigated the characteristics of the impact explosion and provided a list of explosives with similar characteristics that would match, in size and type, the initial fireball and the extent and type of damage.
Then, you did not play your PhD card to impress the casual readers with your technical authority but carefully explained your theory, with supporting information, so all could understand.
You are a fine example of a scientist. I hope your web "research" goes well and the light of the Google shines down upon you. Surely, this thread is novel and unique and will bring about the release of information that you and others demand.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Scientists are usually the first to understand the nature of evidence but I see quite the opposite in your posts and, in particular, resorting to a standard Truther tactic of trying to limit the evidence to be considered to what you believe is out of place.

It is standard for conspiracy "theorists" to consider what they believe are "anomalies" and believe that these so-called anomalies, whether they are real or not, outweigh any and all other evidence.

Michael Shermer said it best:


"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."

www.scientificamerican.com...


[edit on 12-5-2010 by jthomas]


The logic in this post completely debunks the deubunkers concerning 911 and WTC 7. How could ANY scientist viewing the collapse of WTC 7 through scientific observation not first and foremost conclude that this was a controlled demolition? The idea of controlled demolition was completely thrown out because there were no sounds of explosion that took place. This was completely scientifically irresponsible to say the least.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
I said to Jim “hey looks like your hub designed stayed intact; Jim took one look at the photo and said “That is not my engine!”; well folks that was it for me. I can tell you if someone were showing me photos of engineering work that I had designed myself; I could tell right off if it were my work or not. From that day forth I have tried to find the truth as to what really hit the Pentagon.

Thank You!

MolecularPHD


MolecularPHD, i would just like to ask one question. When Jim said "that is not my engine," did he eloborate on why? If so, what was his reasoning to make this statement?

Thanks in Advance



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by curious_soul

The logic in this post completely debunks the deubunkers concerning 911 and WTC 7. How could ANY scientist viewing the collapse of WTC 7 through scientific observation not first and foremost conclude that this was a controlled demolition? The idea of controlled demolition was completely thrown out because there were no sounds of explosion that took place. This was completely scientifically irresponsible to say the least.


You just made a claim entirely opposite to the logic of in my post. What is the source for your claim? Who told you that and why do you believe it?



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Great thread!

I disagree with those who say that a picture can't lead one to ask questions. I believe that the picture that was shown was of good enough quality. I mean after all it is NIST (FBI) who is hiding tons of pictures and evidence, so If we have to look at pictures and the like to make some conclusions then so be it. We shouldn't be taken to task for such.

What it sounds like to me is that the skeptics are just simply not able to address the *Actual Point* here.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

What it sounds like to me is that the skeptics are just simply not able to address the *Actual Point* here.


And the actual point is .............?



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 



While I was working in Houston, TX at RR labs; I was looking over some pictures of the crash site at the Pentagon on my laptop (about 4 years ago) because, Jim Lawrence walked by the office I was working out of, and the pictures were suppose to be of the RB-211 which he was crucial in its core design; I said to Jim “hey looks like your hub designed stayed intact; Jim took one look at the photo and said “That is not my engine!”; well folks that was it for me.


Wait a minute....THAT is the one photo you showed a guy who works for Rolls Royce?

Is that the ONLY one you showed him?


Please do not link to websites done by so called experts; if you do make links in this thread make them to a real lab; a real scientist; or the actual scientific data collected by real scientists.


Did you not notice the label on that image? "911review.org"

A better load of garbage I haven't seen lately...I am sorry I took the time to wade into it, but holding my nose, it had to be done.


But, in the OP, you ask (plead):


I don’t want to hear a bunch of hearsay;



SO.....just who in the heck IS this "Jim Lawrence"?

You see, although in your OP you claim to wish only the best sources be presented in your thread, you start out in such a way that smacks of pure hearsay, from the outset!

It's a shame, also, to see the same regular cast of characters show up nodding their heads; and one in particular who continually rallies around the site "pilots for truth". THAT group has been widely debunked, yet the continued citations to them go unchallenged. (I have tried, but usually it has to be done in a thread where it is ON TOPIC).

>shakes head



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by curious_soul

The logic in this post completely debunks the deubunkers concerning 911 and WTC 7. How could ANY scientist viewing the collapse of WTC 7 through scientific observation not first and foremost conclude that this was a controlled demolition? The idea of controlled demolition was completely thrown out because there were no sounds of explosion that took place. This was completely scientifically irresponsible to say the least.


You just made a claim entirely opposite to the logic of in my post. What is the source for your claim? Who told you that and why do you believe it?


No, i didn't. You need to re-read what you originally posted and what you posted from another source. WTC 7 fell EXACTLY like a controlled demolition. So, as a scientist i would have to assume first and foremost it was a Controlled Demolition and COMPLETELY explain this possibilty away FIRST. That was not done to the best of my knowledge. From watching the actual conference on this myself, the only consideration of a controlled demolition that was taken into account was the absence of loud noise. Instead they bent over backwards to call this a "Phenomenon" when asked the simple question, due to their own results "Does this mean all steel structures would be at risk for failure due to fire."

Their results on WTC 7 are largely based on a computer model that was tweaked to get the results that they got, in which nobody with the exact same modeling software can reproduce with the information contained in the report. Their is a very good video you should watch where a Physics teacher explains this, who i would consider way more knowlegable than you or i. I'm assuming you've seen this since you continually like to take shots at these people also.

Save the response Jt. This is getting off topic and i only responded because of your continual use of the word truther and consipiracy theorist, like this makes your arguements stick and the contradiction "I" seen in your original post. If you want to consider the falling of WTC 7 an "anomalie" so be it, you win.




top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join