Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

An Open Letter to FDNY Firefighter John Schroeder from a debunker

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


The 77th floor could be explained by an elevator crashing into a pit there..



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.



But the rest of the floors hit by the fireball seem very odd to me.




posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
So why do you think he's not buying it still?

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.


Was Oklahoma City bombing a controlled demolition too? or was it just a bomb with intent of killing people and destroying a building?

Hard to say. Based on what I know I would say the latter.


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?

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.


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?

We aren't, but we also don't know if they're covering up little green men living in teapots floating around Mars.


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?

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.


Can you provide a link where I can see what 20 other floors you are talking about? Because all I remember finding is this

I don't have a complete source handy, the best I can find is Gravy's list:

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.)

sites.google.com...:summaryofwitnessaccounts

The next pages on that site list the various accounts. I'll try and find more specifics for you if needed.


But the rest of the floors hit by the fireball seem very odd to me.

There are actually several potential points where fuel could impact and disperse. It's a complex phenomena and indeed there could be several bursts of flame as local areas exhaust the available vapour. Take it from me that it's also horrendous to try and simulate situations like this. Getting any sort of reasonable error bounds is not going to happen.
edit on 23/9/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





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.


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.




Hard to say. Based on what I know I would say the latter.


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.




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.


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.



We aren't, but we also don't know if they're covering up little green men living in teapots floating around Mars.


True, but unless you are saying that little green men had something to do with 9/11 this is a moot point...




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.


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.




I don't have a complete source handy, the best I can find is Gravy's list:


Isn't Gravy the author of this open letter?

Thanks for the link I will check it out.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

There's nothing in principle wrong with this sort of theory other than the lack of evidence for it. If someone wanted to destroy the towers in a nefarious conspiracy then better to engineer it into the narrative. 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. There are endless permutations, but no coherent scenarios that match what was seen on the day with a conspiracy theory other than LIHOP etc.


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.

We're talking miniscule profits a decade after 911 here. If any financial motive exists it would be the typical MIC one of invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Again I don't see anything wrong with investigating this, I just haven't seen any convincing evidence yet.


True, but unless you are saying that little green men had something to do with 9/11 this is a moot point...

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.


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.

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. This is part of the reason I think the truth movement hasn't moved on in any substantial sense in 5 years.


Isn't Gravy the author of this open letter?

Thanks for the link I will check it out.

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.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





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.


He does talk about the debunkers in the video. And he shows no signs of accepting their explanation.




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.


But he had the time to reflect on it and still believes that it's not what he experienced.




If it was a conspiracy I'd expect to have seen a large truck bomb in each basement timed with the aircraft strike.


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?



There's nothing in principle wrong with this sort of theory other than the lack of evidence for it.


Sometimes a murder weapon is never recovered, does that mean the murder never happened?



We're talking miniscule profits a decade after 911 here.


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.




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.


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.

I'm not saying he was planning and executing the attack personally but somebody in his administration was in my opinion. Maybe that's why they kept him out of DC until the operation was finished.




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?


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.




While speculation isn't inherently a bad thing, if you endlessly speculate you can never learn anything.


Speculation must be followed up by investigation to be able to learn something.




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.


Gremlins have only three rules

1-No water,
2-no food after midnight,
3-no bright light.

But I'm not sure what kind of a relationship they have the Galactic Lord...




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.


He does have a lot of references together with his personal agenda to attack the loose change people.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


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. 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.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
all you need do it look really, to see what happened




posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
There's nothing in principle wrong with this sort of theory other than the lack of evidence for it.

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.


This is also direct evidence of explosives being detonated:




Those pre-collapse and during-collapse explosions can be heard 2-miles away for all three buildings. Again, there's no need for interpretation as the booms from the explosions can be heard loud and clear in the video. You're not going to hear fire extinguishers and soda cans exploding inside an enclosed building 2-miles away.

Furthermore, I already provided witness testimony for the above explosions, and plenty more witness testimony exists.

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.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

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!


Fair enough. You make a valid point, but the criticism of this man goes beyond simply answering questions- at least in my opinion.


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.


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.


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.


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? Your statement also goes right to the heart of my point about the "Truth" movement. Controlled Demolition is a theory, and I believe offering ANY theory at all is wrong to do. Again- all "Truthers" need to do is prove that the initial investigation is incomplete, not offer a theory as to what happened. Let the evidence tells us what happened.


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.

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?

And yes, I am aware of his first plane statement and that makes very little sense to me as well. Do I believe him? I don't know. If that statement is indeed true, there is something VERY wrong with that. So shouldn't any investigation address that as well? 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 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.


Please note that I have not mentioned controlled demolition either. I have simply stated that the investigation was a joke and it incomplete.


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.


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. This is all the "truth" movement has been about. A complete investigation and let the evidence lead us to to the truth. 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?



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
He does talk about the debunkers in the video. And he shows no signs of accepting their explanation.

It's hardly something I can add any extra detail to I'm afraid. I don't know the man, never had a chance to talk to him. I think I could probably explain some of his confusion but it's hard to know.


But he had the time to reflect on it and still believes that it's not what he experienced.

Right but unless there's a direct dialog it's hardly likely that we can resolve some of these questions between us.


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?

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.


Sometimes a murder weapon is never recovered, does that mean the murder never happened?

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.


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.

mm wave scanning has been known about for some time, but I don't think I heard any particular mention of it in airport security until 2004? Hard to remember specifics.


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.

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.


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.

If you actually read about the Manhatten project then it doesn't support your ideas I'm afraid. There were spies in it almost from the start, and a much larger number of participants figured out what they were working on. 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.


Speculation must be followed up by investigation to be able to learn something.

Precisely, that's where I feel that conspiracy theorists often fall down.


But I'm not sure what kind of a relationship they have the Galactic Lord...

You don't want to know, suffice to say there's a reason this exists: en.wikipedia.org...


He does have a lot of references together with his personal agenda to attack the loose change people.

Justified or not, the fact is that he presents factual evidence that isn't spin. I have my own issues with Dylan Avery so I'm not exactly going to sympathise with him here. I told him explicitly where he'd presented a false claim with WTC7, he admitted it, claimed it was a time issue, and then reused the footage in his next film with not the slightest hint of errata.

Anyhow, grudges aside there are lots of quotes in that list (including radio transcripts which are pretty frank) detailing the amount of fire in WTC1. As I said, WTC2 was significantly less and the only major difference was the aircraft position. It's pretty hard to believe that there were bombs planted on so many levels, and the talk of jet fuel is ubiquitous.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   

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.


Here's what they actually say in various extracts:

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 quotes from NCSTAR 1-5)

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.

This quote from the NIST BFRL - "A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics"

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.


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.

I understand that fuel is more viscous than water. Except that there's still eyewitness accounts of jet fuel on many many floors. You're presenting nothing here other than your personal disbelief. You tried to ridicule me initially until you learned that I was right. You had me specify the full construction of the floors despite the fact that you had no point to back up. If you have a problem with the NIST report, show cause for someone to believe you, rather than "it's too viscous to drop down a 30 foot wide shaft" which nobody will believe.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   

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's neither BoneZ. Your assertions that wind noise = explosives and pressure ejections = explosives are just that, conjecture. You don't base it on anything more than similar look and similar sound, but them immediately dismiss hundreds of hours of modelling and experimentation when it disagrees with you.


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.

Could it be that you've picked out the two most visually similar elements? Do you think that is an honest comparison? Why don't you produce a stabilised video of both ejections so we can see whether one accelerates and then peaks during collapse, how long they take to develop etc. It's because pretty much none of these features match, only superficial similarity.


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.

If this is the case, why is it you can't name a single engineering organisation that supports this theory? The only group is one that has spent years signing up professionals after having them watch an incredibly biased presentation. Their growth rate has reduced to practically 0 but their fundraising has not.

This is hardly what I would expect for a genuine engineering movement.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   

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.

Does it? I didn't bother to re-read the whole letter again as I read it when it was first published, but perhaps I missed something that's more worrying?


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.

Sure, he was in WTC1 and describes feeling an explosion and then getting out and seeing the collapse of WTC1. He was unaware the explosion he experienced in WTC1 was the collapse of WTC2 as he likely couldn't see it through all the dust and smoke there that day.


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?

It was supposed to be part of the official investigation yes, but through stonewalling and restrictive interviews etc they were prevented from investigating it completely (as I understand)


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?

If there was some evidence he based his statements on extra information then perhaps so. That's not the case though, he makes a number of misleading statements in basically every public speech, the policies his administration put forward were not logically sound. It's not something I have any particular worry about (contradicting a sitting president).


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.

Right, so why is this evidence for anything nefarious? No conspiracists would ever permit such a ridiculous situation to come about, the only coherent explanation is idiocy and incompetence on the part of Bush. That makes much more sense to me!


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?

I do not fully agree. As I said, I feel the controlled demolition theories have been pretty comprehensively dealt with. They've been under more scrutiny than practically any other engineering investigation ever. I do however agree with investigating the outstanding issues with intelligence/policy failings etc. I don't really care either way whether you call the investigation complete or incomplete, I care only about the facts of the matter. In this case that the demolition conspiracy theories are based on faulty information.


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 also don't agree with this. A new investigation covering intelligence failings? That's fine with me. Spending tens of millions to recreate the exact same NIST report? What a waste. Having said that, I'm not an American and so I don't pay any taxes towards such a thing, so from that perspective have at it!


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?

I don't think you quite understand the psychology of most conspiratorial belief. In short yes, it's too much to ask, because what personal benefit is there to just investigating? Run out of space here so we'll continue later.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   


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.
reply to post by exponent
 


!00 - 40 equals 60. 60 is most. Then the rest burnt very quickly in the fires. The report states this.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
!00 - 40 equals 60. 60 is most. Then the rest burnt very quickly in the fires. The report states this.


So what's your point? You've gone on a big circle of insulting me and acting as if I didn't know what I was talking about, then reading, then agreeing with me. Now you're trying to argue about definitions, which I have no interest in doing.

You've shown that clearly the protection for the elevator shafts was not sufficient to survive a plane impact. You've shown that there was huge quantities of fuel present on these floors. Gravity tells us that these pools of liquid will flow downwards.

There are many accounts of seeing, smelling and even feeling jet fuel from both officials, firefighters and workers. How can you look at all this evidence and then say that it's not sufficient to prove jet fuel was present in large quantities and on fire throughout WTC1. What more do you want?



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

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.






edit on Mon Sep 24 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: --Off Topic, One Liners and General Back Scratching Posts--



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




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.


Well here we go again.... I don't think of it as a controlled demolition, to me it appears like the goal was to blow up the buildings and they accomplished it. WTC 7 on the other hand appears just like a successful controlled demolition with a a cover story.



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.


In this case nearly everything is circumstantial evidence...



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.


First I want to remind you that calling people conspiracy theorists don't have the same effect as it did in the past.

I decided that they are good friends? lol
You can cover your ears and scream nah nah nah all you want, the FACT is that they are not only friends on a personal level but also on a professional level as well. And that would be a conflict of interest in any other case.




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.


How many engineers had actually examined the physical evidence? I don't know but it seems very unlikely that it was anywhere near a 1000. I think a much smaller team worked on this part of the investigation and at the end the reports from all the teams were submitted to Bush's buddy prior to publishing. Wikileaks don't go out and look for stories, they depend on whistle blowers. Bradly Mannings is a very good example of what happens sometimes when you say too much.



Precisely, that's where I feel that conspiracy theorists often fall down.


This is where the government fell down too.



You don't want to know, suffice to say there's a reason this exists: en.wikipedia.org...


I don't have the facts to back this up, but I heard that the Gremlins Royal family deemed Hobgoblins non grata and expelled them from the community, although the Hobgoblins maintain some high level contacts in Gremlins Country club long after. Their status was made official in 1994 when their Gremlin citizenship were revoked. I also heard that they were found and killed in a firefight and berried at sea.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

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:


This is a disingenuous reply and you know it. Noone is saying there wasn't ANY blast. The broken glass is evidence enouugh without the Naudet brothers' video having to confirm there was a blast. What YOU are claiming is that there was a blast meant to cut steel that was powerful enough to destroy three inch glass across the room and yes didn't turn the people in the lobby into bloody smears on the wall.

OR, I should say, this is what those damned fool conspiracy web sites are claiming and you're simply repeating it blindly, without stopping to critically think that human tissue doesn't react to explosives too well.


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.


As I mentioned elsewhere, the woman I talked to who was working in the south tower when it happened personally saw sheets of flame erupting from the elevator shaft which blew a man across the room. There's a difference between the force produced by the combustion of aviation fuel and the force of 25,000 fps plus velocity of demolition grade explosives. You can't NOT know this.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

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"


...and as I said many times before, I am relying on the eyewitness testimony of people who were physically there. The woman I know who worked in the south tower knew the security procedures and it is her opinion that those who claim the towers were destroyed by secretly planted controlled demolitions are horribly uninformed and ignorant of how the real world security procedures of the WTC complex actually functioned. She needed a pass key and clearance simply to visit her friend located on a different floor while the conspiracy theorists are trying to claim security was so nonexistant that a marching brass band complete with baton twirlers and shriners driving those midget cars could march through the lobby without a single person noticing them.

Besides, I have already said many times I "don't believe what the gov't tells me" so if you still need to cling to that mythology to get you through the day then you are certainly noone to be criticizing the perceived blind devotion to propaganda of others.


You make me


Nahh, that's simply the nausea from trying to digest so much abject paranoia all at once. Turn off the computer and go outside for some fresh air. You'll feel better.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
You don't base it on anything more than similar look and similar sound

So, we find a new species of animal. It looks similar to a dog. It's bark is similar to a dog. We are going to call it a dog! If it looks similar to a duck and sounds similar to a duck, it's a freakin duck!

The buildings collapsed like controlled demolition, exhibited the signs of controlled demolition, and sounded like controlled demolition. It's a controlled demolition.



Originally posted by exponent
but them immediately dismiss hundreds of hours of modelling and experimentation when it disagrees with you.

Yes. Hundreds of hours of modelling and experimenting to explain away the blatantly obvious. And they deliberately didn't test for explosive or incendiary residue. That's pure negligence and incompetence.



Originally posted by exponent
Your assertions that wind noise = explosives

I asked in another post whether your previous statement was made out of denial or dishonesty. This statement above is absolute, deliberate, calculated dishonesty.

First and foremost, the explosions in that video sound like what distant thunder sounds like. Very low-level, far-away booms. Those explosions sound nothing like wind.

Secondly, this number of pre-collapse explosions:




I posted testimony from a firefighter who also stated there were that almost exact number of pre-collapse explosions. And you're going to sit there and claim that the firefighter mistook loud explosions for wind? Really?

And then this magical wind of yours that sounds exactly like far away booms, knew to blow exactly when each of the three buildings collapsed, and for the duration of each collapse?

That is some amazing wind. Except that wind can't possibly know when to blow as each building collapses, nor blow only for the duration of those collapses.

Nice try, but the disinformation campaign that's been going on isn't going to work in this case.




edit on 24-9-2012 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join