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.
Below: Typical tower trading floor
91st floor Gerry Wertz: "She was stepping off the elevator when the plane hit," Wertz recalls. "There was an explosion on top of the elevator as if someone had thrown a hand grenade. I jumped out, fell to the floor and looked behind me. I saw the elevator disintegrate in a ball of flames and fall down (the shaft). There was a big hole in the ceiling above the elevator. I saw the cables fold up as if they'd become detached. It took no more than two seconds." www.usatoday.com... That empty elevator probably plummeted 14 floors into a pit on the 77th floor. Wertz and Lawrence evacuated safely down the stairs, as did 18 other people from the 91st floor.
Originally posted by maxella1
So why do you think he's not buying it still?
Was Oklahoma City bombing a controlled demolition too? or was it just a bomb with intent of killing people and destroying a building?
Maybe because he is such an idiot as you call him, he forgot that it's a secret? Many idiots don't know how to keep a secret, would you agree?
As you know the Commission was not supposed to investigate the cause of WTC collapses. But if they openly state that the White House was covering something up, how are we supposed to know that WTC wasn't one of the things they are covering up?
It was investigated but Bush's friend was in charge of what goes into the final report.. Remember we discussed this already. So Bush is covering something up according to the Commission, why wouldn't he try to influence the NIST investigation through his friend?
Can you provide a link where I can see what 20 other floors you are talking about? Because all I remember finding is this
64 people on 43 levels below the impact zones reported smelling or contacting jet fuel/kerosene on these floors
33 people on 18 levels below the impact zones reported seeing fireballs coming from elevator shafts or down hallways
29 people on 19 levels below the impact zones described fires on these floors
49 people on 23 levels below the impact zones reported seeing elevators/shaft doors blown out or severely damaged.
8 people on 4 levels below the impact zones were burned in elevators and survived (does not include ST 78th floor)
50 people on 31 levels below the impact zones described significant secondary damage (walls down, doors jammed, broken pipes, stairwells disintegrating, etc. Not intended to suggest structural damage.)
But the rest of the floors hit by the fireball seem very odd to me.
I don't think I've seen him discuss it, and I don't think he has to 'buy' anything. It's not a case of selling a story, it's a case of explaining what happened when he is unsure. The way you constantly frame this as if it's deception is disturbing. It's hardly the most honest way to argue.
Hard to say. Based on what I know I would say the latter.
I don't know if intelligence is really connected with mendacity directly. If he was telling the truth then we have much bigger questions to ask, like why were they stupid enough to use a plane and explosives in the path of a plane. It all depends on what you believe though.
We aren't, but we also don't know if they're covering up little green men living in teapots floating around Mars.
You've assumed because someone is an executive or senior that they can assert influence and censorship without any dissent or whistleblowing, you have no evidence for this and so it's just speculation.
I don't have a complete source handy, the best I can find is Gravy's list:
Originally posted by maxella1
Well if the explanation that he was given in this letter would make sense to him why wouldn't he accept it? after all he was the one who experienced what he experienced. I know that when I come across something weird on the job and people try to explain what I'm looking at but it doesn't make sense then it's incorrect and I keep looking for other possible explanations. It's called investigating and I do that for a living.
If somebody dies of a heart attack but also has a gun shot wound does that mean we shouldn't look for the shooter?
The building had a jet crashed into it but as far as this firemen is concerned it doesn't explain what he experienced inside it. In other words he has seen something weird and the explanation doesn't make sense. Don't forget that he has been doing it for long enough to know when something is weird.
So why is it so hard for you to understand that maybe there were bombs and nothing controlled about it? Maybe the purpose was to destroy the buildings.
Exactly.. We should be asking these questions only I would frame it differently.. Why was there a need to distract people with the planes? Or who or which organization would have something to gain by the use of the planes. TSA and the profits from body scanners would not exist today if no planes were used for example.
True, but unless you are saying that little green men had something to do with 9/11 this is a moot point...
This speculation is justified by history of similar events taken place in government. Eventually this type of things come out. But once we have a reason to believe that there's a cover up anything is possible from this people. The only way to know would be to investigate conflicts of interest.
Isn't Gravy the author of this open letter?
Thanks for the link I will check it out.
Well lets be fair here. You started this thread saying you hadn't heard him say anything about it, for all we know he hasn't even read it.
I would dispute that being a firefighter gives you the ability to understand the mechanics of such a massive impact and event, these were firsts in history, I don't know if anyone really could intuitively predict everything that happened. I know I certainly wouldn't have imagined exploding elevator shafts when I first knew about the attacks.
If it was a conspiracy I'd expect to have seen a large truck bomb in each basement timed with the aircraft strike.
There's nothing in principle wrong with this sort of theory other than the lack of evidence for it.
We're talking miniscule profits a decade after 911 here.
The point isn't moot. What I am saying is that just because we can't rule these creatures out is no reason to assume they exist. We can't rule out that Bush was directly involved in planning and executing the attacks, but that doesn't give us any reason to actually assume he did.
NIST isn't "in government" as such though. We're not talking about a political situation, we're talking about a report produced by thousands of engineers, many contracted from private companies. Managing to cover up something on that sort of scale would be a monumental feat, especially with the advent of sites like Wikileaks. How could they possibly have stopped the engineers from telling what they knew?
While speculation isn't inherently a bad thing, if you endlessly speculate you can never learn anything.
Maybe gravity is caused by little gremlins that are attracted to Galactic Lord Xenu at the core of the planet, but for the purposes of actually doing science we assume that it isn't until we have evidence for it.
He is, he has a shockingly complete knowledge of the events of those days and of the research and materials available. His site is a fantastic reference link that I frankly should use more often here.
Originally posted by exponent
There's nothing in principle wrong with this sort of theory other than the lack of evidence for it.
Originally posted by exponent
Why is this supposed to be a bad thing? Many people make mistakes when they are in stressful situations. Answering the questions of a distressed victim is generally seen as a positive thing!
The point is that he didn't even get the order of the collapse of the towers correct, he was clearly extremely stressed and without full information. Informing him of this doesn't seem like a bad thing in my view.
Actually if we expand this to cover intelligence failings and that sort of thing then I don't really oppose an investigation. I find it quite easy to believe that incompetence or dodgy dealings were covered up for political purposes. It's the controlled demolition theories that I take umbrage with.
Of course I ignore the remarks. Bush made them. The guy is an idiot, he can barely string a sentence together and was one of your worst ever presidents. You're acting as if I should take everything he says as gospel. He also says he saw the first plane impact on TV? Do you believe him there? I sure don't.
Please know that not a single commission member you've mentioned is talking about controlled demolition theories at all. They are talking about the exact same thing I am suspicious of, and would not oppose more investigation into.
These are two different issues in my mind. The controlled demolition issues have been adequately investigated and incredibly thoroughly explained. On the other hand there has been relatively little investigation into political connections, lack of action or failed intelligence operations etc. It's any support of the former that I argue against.
Originally posted by maxella1
He does talk about the debunkers in the video. And he shows no signs of accepting their explanation.
But he had the time to reflect on it and still believes that it's not what he experienced.
But that was tried before and failed remember? If the goal was to destroy the buildings then why would they use a tactic that failed to do it in the past?
Sometimes a murder weapon is never recovered, does that mean the murder never happened?
Not sure about the miniscule part but when do you think the concept of a full body scanner was envisioned?
But that doesn't matter because I'm not pushing this theory at all, it's just a thought.
We do have a reason to suspect that Bush Administration would try to manipulate NIST because they did it with the commission. Also they stonewalled the investigation for over a year. Bush was getting a lot of heat for prior knowledge at the time and if on top of that NIST would publish something that he couldn't explain that would cause him and his administration a lot of problems. You can't deny that there was a conflict of interest.
The Manhattan project comes to mind.
And I can think of a lot of ways they could've kept people from talking. I'm sure you could too.
Speculation must be followed up by investigation to be able to learn something.
But I'm not sure what kind of a relationship they have the Galactic Lord...
He does have a lot of references together with his personal agenda to attack the loose change people.
Originally posted by totallackey
Yes I do have something other than my own incredulity. First, the NIST report openly admits the jet fuel was mostly consumed in the initial fireballs.
Upon aircraft impact, a significant fraction of 10,000 gal of jet fuel ignited within the
building. The expansion of the hot combustion gases broke windows and blew some of the
remaining fuel through them in large fireballs.
The jet fuel fires consumed most of the oxygen within the fire floors, and the fires quickly
died down. The fires grew as fresh air became available and the primed solid combustibles
reached their full burning rates.
These calculations reproduce the fireball
shown in Fig. 4 quite accurately for assumed total
fuel burns varying from 10% to 25% of the esti-
mated fuel load of 2.8 · 104 kg carried by the
plane. In fact, if the time spanned was extended
to 3–4 s (which ignores the increasingly important
effects of fireball merging and buoyancy), then the
fuel consumed in the fireballs according to this
model would completely overlap the CFD based
predictions of [8]. Thus, most of the fuel was avail-
able to serve as an ignitor for the fires that helped
to destroy these buildings.
Second, if you know anything about jet fuel viscosity, you will understand how it would flow 1000 feet down. It does not flow as freely as water. And throw in the enclosed shafts and elevators being present and you begin to understand the "nothing up my sleeve," two-faced approach the NIST took in regards to this statement.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I can't tell if you keep saying "lack of evidence" due to denial or dishonesty.
This right here is direct evidence of explosives being detonated:
It doesn't matter what anyone makes up to explain these away, you will only ever find those isolated ejections in controlled demolitions, period. There's no interpretation needed here. Especially when I also include an image from a controlled demolition.
The explosions can be seen in the isolated ejections, and can be heard in "9/11 Eyewitness". Audio, video, and witness testimony is plenty evidence. So, please, let's stop with the "lack of evidence" line. There's more than enough evidence, minus the physical evidence, to prove explosives brought three buildings down on 9/11.
Originally posted by MrWendal
Fair enough. You make a valid point, but the criticism of this man goes beyond simply answering questions- at least in my opinion.
I am not aware of his mistake in the collapse sequence. Can you point to what spot in his testimony this information is? I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying I have not seen it and would like to.
Wouldn't covering intelligence failings be a part of ANY investigation? If you also agree Intelligence failings were not part of the initial investigation, don't you believe that is somewhat suspect all by itself?
Well I find it rather dangerous to ignore the words of the sitting President (at that time). Regardless of the fact that he is an idiot, he is still the President and by default he has access to more information than you or I do. Is that a fair statement to make in your opinion?
At the very least if he did indeed witness what he has so adamantly swore he has witnessed, that's a huge sign pointing to foreknowledge. Keep in mind, Bush was given many opportunities to withdraw that statement and he has refused to do so and has insisted that he saw the first plane crash into the WTC.
Please note that I have not mentioned controlled demolition either. I have simply stated that the investigation was a joke and it incomplete.
...
In my mind it is all one and the same. A complete investigation would have covered ALL these areas and this has not been done. Even you admit the investigation was lacking in certain areas, that means the investigation was incomplete. If you admit the investigation was incomplete, is that not a basis for calling for a more thorough investigation into the events of 9/11? Taking into account the words of the President himself stating that explosives were planted on higher floors to prevent escape, that has to leave one scratching his head wondering what exactly is going on here. Wouldn't you agree?
Fact is, no matter what you believe happened or what I believe happened, we both seem to agree that the investigation that took place was lacking and if that investigation is lacking in any way at all, that is a basis for a new and complete investigation.
I have never understood why that is so taboo except for the fact that specific theories have always been attached to the "truth" movement. We also see it often in these threads. As soon as one person mentions the "truth" movement or a new investigation, accusations get tossed around about no plane theories or space beams. I say no theories, just investigate. Is that really too much to ask?
reply to post by exponent
Elsewhere in the actual fire simulations they estimate around 40% of fuel from impact remaining to ignite materials. That's a huge quantity and as you can see you are not correct about most of the fuel being consumed in fireballs.
Originally posted by totallackey
!00 - 40 equals 60. 60 is most. Then the rest burnt very quickly in the fires. The report states this.
Originally posted by exponent
If it was a conspiracy I'd expect to have seen a large truck bomb in each basement timed with the aircraft strike. It would be no more work and would allow them to hide detonations near the basement too.
Because using an explainable tactic is much better than trying to hide a controlled demolition in the middle of an existing impact and fire. The previous plot failed as it was not sufficient enough to sever core columns. If this was a conspiracy you'd expect them to be able to set up these charges ahead of time, guaranteeing success and a good cover story. As it is there was neither. Towers collapsed at the impact points, not at the base.
It means you're going to have to work extremely hard to get a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. In this case we barely have more than speculation from you as to the physical process.
Of course I can deny it, because you've just decided it's the truth. According to conspiracy theorists, they did publish stuff that NIST can't explain. It all depends on your perspective. The way they manipulated the commission was by refusing to allow them access, refusing to answer questions etc. If they couldn't even influence the commission to exonerate them then I don't have much confidence in accusing them of censoring the NIST report.
I can't think of any way to keep 1000 engineers quiet in the age of Wikileaks. I don't believe it's possible short of shooting them in the head, and we know that didn't happen.
Precisely, that's where I feel that conspiracy theorists often fall down.
You don't want to know, suffice to say there's a reason this exists: en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I don't need to tell you that there are plenty of witnesses that were in the lobby that got blown off their feet due to the concussion of the blast:
Almost every person that was in or near the lobby got blown off their feet from the concussion of the blast. The blast(s) caused massive destruction on most of the basement levels and caused people to evacuate the subway due to the heavy smoke down there.
Originally posted by maxella1
What doesn't add up to you actually is coming from people who were there.... And it comes as no surprise that you would call them conspiracy theorists.
They describe what they experienced = "conspiracy theories"
You repeat what the government reports say = "facts"
You make me
Originally posted by exponent
You don't base it on anything more than similar look and similar sound
Originally posted by exponent
but them immediately dismiss hundreds of hours of modelling and experimentation when it disagrees with you.
Originally posted by exponent
Your assertions that wind noise = explosives