Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

Why won't govt explain this mystery?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
445 replies to this topic

#421    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,327 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:00 PM

One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink.

Some people prefer to dismiss statements by Rodriguez and other ordinary citizens caught up in the middle of these attacks, whilst placing high value on the statements of known liars in government.

Great testimony as to the efficacy of government propaganda.


#422    SurgeTechnologies

SurgeTechnologies

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined:21 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Not disclosed

  • "Why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction"

Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:05 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 29 January 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink.

Some people prefer to dismiss statements by Rodriguez and other ordinary citizens caught up in the middle of these attacks, whilst placing high value on the statements of known liars in government.

Great testimony as to the efficacy of government propaganda.
:tu: :tu: :tu:

" Technology has exceeded our humanity. "

#423    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,708 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:14 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 29 January 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Some people prefer to dismiss statements by Rodriguez and other ordinary citizens caught up in the middle of these attacks, whilst placing high value on the statements of known liars in government.
The reason I dismiss Rodriguez' claim that the explosion he experienced was prior to the impact is that I cannot see a way for him to know when the impact occurred if it was not in fact the cause of his explosion.  I've asked you to explain this and you can't either.  You are therefore placing high value in a statement that has no logical explanation.

Rodriguez himself was initially much less adamant about the sequence of events.  Here he is in 2004:
"The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying 'explosion, explosion, explosion.' When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized."
https://sites.google...statementtonist

Edited by flyingswan, 29 January 2012 - 03:34 PM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#424    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,327 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:35 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 29 January 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

The reason I dismiss Rodriguez' claim that the explosion he experienced was prior to the impact is that I cannot see a way for him to know when the impact occurred if it was not in fact the cause of his explosion.  I've asked you to explain this and you can't either.  You are therefore placing high value in a statement that has no logical explanation.

I'm curious if you have actually watched any of Rodriguez' testimony?

It's been several years now, but I've watched him tell the story several times, in several different venues, including one to an audience in Europe somewhere.

He comes across as credible to me, and I think he gives an explanation to the question you pose regarding his statements.

That his testimony was taken behind closed doors, and that it was NOT included in the Report, speaks volumes.  It is highly likely that his story was too much in conflict with the official story, and thus excluded.  That has all the hallmarks of government reaction to hearing something it doesn't want to hear.


#425    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,708 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:41 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 29 January 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

I'm curious if you have actually watched any of Rodriguez' testimony?

It's been several years now, but I've watched him tell the story several times, in several different venues, including one to an audience in Europe somewhere.

He comes across as credible to me, and I think he gives an explanation to the question you pose regarding his statements.

That his testimony was taken behind closed doors, and that it was NOT included in the Report, speaks volumes.  It is highly likely that his story was too much in conflict with the official story, and thus excluded.  That has all the hallmarks of government reaction to hearing something it doesn't want to hear.
Did you catch my edit to my previous post to add a statement by Rodriguez?  Back in 2004 he was pretty much in agreement with the impact sending a fireball down the shaft.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#426    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:43 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 29 January 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

You are looking for similarities and ignoring the differences.  As your examples show, thermite tends to cut straight down through anything in its path, so how does the WTC molten flow flow across to the outside of the building instead of down through the floors?  The obvious answer is because it isn't thermite but something considerably cooler.
There are many examples where thermite flows over surfaces (you actually have to look though flyingswan).  This includes metal and concrete (which was poured to create the WTC floors).  It doesn’t have to flow “straight down through anything in its path” at all.  It is just more nonsense from you.

I am looking at examples and noting the the perfect match.

You are clinging to any example which might be dissimilar and ignoring the rest.


View Postflyingswan, on 29 January 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

The most likely outcome to my mind would be that the upper part would settle by the width of the cut and weld itself back in place as the thermite cooled.
That is because you don’t think – there is no innovation in you whatsoever.


View Postflyingswan, on 29 January 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

The structure doesn't need to be weakened away from the impact region, because once the collapse starts, nothing is going to stop it.
As we know, Sir Isaac Newton disagrees.

Please come back when the official narrative has an explanation based in reality.


View Postflyingswan, on 29 January 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

I didn't say no explosions, I said no explosions in the right time and place to demolish the buildings.
You said:  No explosions, no demolition debris, none of the demolition people who helped with the clean-up noticing anything familiar, it all proves to you just how clever the conspirators were at covering it up.”  Then you asked:  What explosions? You yourself admit that there are no explosions at the right time for an HE demolition, that's why you want thermite.”

The explosions were related to ensuring complete collapse, not the initiation.

How many times have I said this to you?


View Postflyingswan, on 29 January 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Welcome to the world of Q24, a perfect example of the quote that sky's just provided:
"These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."
It’s just a shame I put in two years of research before I’d even entertain the WTC demolitions were possible.

Like most, the only pre-determined belief I held was for the official narrative.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#427    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,708 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:55 PM

View PostQ24, on 29 January 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

There are many examples where thermite flows over surfaces (you actually have to look though flyingswan).  This includes metal and concrete (which was poured to create the WTC floors).  It doesn’t have to flow “straight down through anything in its path” at all.  It is just more nonsense from you.
Ye gods.  You think it's a multi-ton thermite charge that can cut through the primary structure, but it can't penetrate a floor?

Quote

I am looking at examples and noting the the perfect match.

You are clinging to any example which might be dissimilar and ignoring the rest.
That's how science works.  You disprove a hypothesis by noting the discrepancies.

Quote

That is because you don’t think – there is no innovation in you whatsoever.
I apply my knowledge of engineering.  Do you have any evidence that I'm wrong?

Quote

As we know, Sir Isaac Newton disagrees.
Funny, the analysis based on his theories comes to a different conclusion.
http://www.civil.nor.../Papers/405.pdf
http://www.civil.nor...TC collapse.pdf

Quote

The explosions were related to ensuring complete collapse, not the initiation.
Why would any such explosions be needed?  Once a structure starts to move, it's very difficult to stop.  That's why a conventional demolition normally only has charges at one level.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#428    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,327 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:58 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 29 January 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

Did you catch my edit to my previous post to add a statement by Rodriguez?  Back in 2004 he was pretty much in agreement with the impact sending a fireball down the shaft.


Should I take that as "No, I have not seen the Rodriguez testimony" ??

This began reference explosions heard by people present, in response to your claim that there were no explosions.

Are we changing the subject to avoid uncomfortable answers?


#429    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,708 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 29 January 2012 - 04:09 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 29 January 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

Should I take that as "No, I have not seen the Rodriguez testimony" ??
I've not seen him personally, but he does appear to have changed his story over the years.

Quote

This began reference explosions heard by people present, in response to your claim that there were no explosions.
That was a reply to Q24, and before you entered the conversation I'd clarified that to "no explosions at the right time for a demolition".

Quote

Are we changing the subject to avoid uncomfortable answers?
Have you read that link yet?  
http://www.cool-plac...RichardGage.pdf

Does it make you comfortable to believe something that can't even convince an engineer who wants a conspiracy?

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#430    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 29 January 2012 - 07:36 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 29 January 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Some people prefer to dismiss statements by Rodriguez and other ordinary citizens caught up in the middle of these attacks, whilst placing high value on the statements of known liars in government.

Let's take a closer look at Mr. Rodriquez.

Quote

Rodriguez: "Because that came out in the investigation that, probably that, this explosion was to weaken the base of the foundation of the building, to be synchronized with the hit on the top, so it would fall automatically."

Note that Rodriguez does not state what investigation he is talking about. He gives the misleading impression that the official investigation came to this conclusion. It did not. No investigation did.
Mr. Rodrequez claims that there was an explosion at the base of the building when the aircraft struck the building.

Quote

\The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying explosion, explosion, explosion.

The explosion occurred at the time the aircraft struck the building, and not before the impact.


Quote

Meanwhile, in addition to the official NIST investigation, a major independent investigation into the cause of the collapses was done by Weidlinger Associates and others. It concluded that the collapses were caused by damage and fire.

Other scientific studies were done by ARUP Fire, by the Centre of Fire Research Excellence at the University of Edinburgh, and by MIT. They do not support the conspiracist claims.



Quote

Rodriguez told me that he smelled kerosene in the basement just after the noises he heard below and above, but he somehow fails to connect that with the jet fuel that so many other people reported (jet-A fuel is basically kerosene).

https://sites.google...statementtonist
I guess you might say that the testimony of Mr. Rodriquez has now crashed and burned in an explosion of kerosene-based jet fuel..

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 January 2012 - 07:46 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#431    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 29 January 2012 - 08:00 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 29 January 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

Ye gods.  You think it's a multi-ton thermite charge that can cut through the primary structure, but it can't penetrate a floor?
The thermite charge would originally be set-up flush against the column with the angle and dispersion designed to cut steel.  The location of the WTC2 flow indicates the thermite charge was dislodged from the core in course of the impact.  There is no reason the thermite charge, now laying amidst the debris, should necessarily melt through the concrete floor.  That is yet more nonsense from you.

To recap: -

You claimed there is nothing “that looks the least like thermite” and were proven wrong.
You claimed thermite can only move “straight down” and were proven wrong.
You claimed cutting a column is the same as penetrating the floor and were proven wrong.

What’s your next wrong claim going to be?

Also, the thermite charge was possibly less than 200 kg as I previously demonstrated here.  You initially estimated the WTC2 flow was “several hundred kg” and only changed it to “multi-ton” when you realised the first could be contained in a reasonably sized charge.


View Postflyingswan, on 29 January 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

That's how science works.  You disprove a hypothesis by noting the discrepancies.
There are no discrepancies between the WTC2 flow and thermite.


View Postflyingswan, on 29 January 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

I apply my knowledge of engineering.  Do you have any evidence that I'm wrong?
As they say, knowledge is not the same as wisdom - the former is no use without proper application.

Tasked with setup of a thermite initiated collapse, the best you can come up with is to melt a neat straight line cut through the column allowing it to weld back together?  That would be quite hopeless – thus why I say you have no innovation.  I’d get a wide dispersion nozzle on there, hit it at an angle, multiple times over a period of minutes… it ain’t gonna “settle” or “weld itself back into place” then.


View Postflyingswan, on 29 January 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

Funny, the analysis based on his theories comes to a different conclusion.
http://www.civil.nor.../Papers/405.pdf
http://www.civil.nor...TC collapse.pdf
Oh dear, it excludes Newton’s third law… not to mention the rest of reality.


View Postflyingswan, on 29 January 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

Why would any such explosions be needed?  Once a structure starts to move, it's very difficult to stop.  That's why a conventional demolition normally only has charges at one level.
So you haven’t seen all of the high-rise demolitions where several levels of charges were required.

Sorry, I keep mistaking you for someone who’s researched the subject.

Do you enjoy being consistently wrong, Swanny?


View PostBabe Ruth, on 29 January 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

Are we changing the subject to avoid uncomfortable answers?
That is exactly what flyingswan does   :yes:  

One claim is disproven, so he raises another claim in attempted counter which is disproven, then another claim intended to counter that is disproven and so on resulting in a long line of disproven claims… but of course comes the point where flyingswan has forgotten the first claim was disproven so he reverts back to the start again.

That is why after years of discussion he still pops up initially claiming there were, “No explosions”.

But hey, he’s a great tool for keeping the information at the top of search engines   ;)

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#432    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 29 January 2012 - 08:18 PM

View PostQ24, on 29 January 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

The thermite charge would originally be set-up flush against the column with the angle and dispersion designed to cut steel.  The location of the WTC2 flow indicates the thermite charge was dislodged from the core in course of the impact.  There is no reason the thermite charge, now laying amidst the debris, should necessarily melt through the concrete floor.  That is yet more nonsense from you.


Actually, thermite was expected to be found within the WTC buildings. After all, there was large amounts of aluminum present in the buildings (over 43,000 aluminum panels weighing over 4,000,000 pounds)  and the aircraft were constructed of over 100,000 of pounds of aluminum, and coming into contact with the steel structures and other materials within the buildings under high temperatures, thermite would have been expected to be found within the buildings, and I would have been surprised if thermite was NOT found, but nothing to do with explosives.

Remember, you can create thermite in the garage and yet, the conspiracy folks wrongly assumed that the discovery of thermite within the building proved that explosives were used when in fact, they were incorrect.

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 January 2012 - 08:44 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#433    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,327 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 30 January 2012 - 01:43 AM

OK Sky, I'll play--thermite was expected to be found at WTC by exactly whom?   :cry:


#434    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 30 January 2012 - 01:47 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 30 January 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

OK Sky, I'll play--thermite was expected to be found at WTC by exactly whom?   :cry:

The law of physics.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#435    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,327 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 30 January 2012 - 01:50 AM

Ah, the laws of physics predicted that thermite would be formed and then burned that day at WTC....

OK

Which law of physics would that be Sky?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users