Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Babe Ruth

Why won't govt explain this mystery?

448 posts in this topic

We are talking about a leaderless collection of supposed conspiracy loons who can’t even agree a set theory and use the internet as their main communicator vs. the mainstream media and government juggernauts. With that in mind, I’d say us so called “CT’ers” are doing a fine job of getting the message out. The whole set-up is against us, yet apparently around 60 million adults in the U.S. alone heed the message. Heck, give us a 24hr TV channel and it’d be game over.

I totally agree with you there Q.

The problem is, there is so much garbage on the media and on the internet that many people are confused on what to believe. This causes a lot of confusion on what is right and what is wrong.

I'd love to call it the Dan Brown effect. (im sure that name has been beaten enough to cause the horse to decay)

I am not saying the CT theories are right however. I believe people are entitled to their opinion regarding what happened on 9/11.

I have yet to see a slice of credible evidence that 9/11 is a-kin to Op Northwood, so I beleive the official story as there is more evidence to support the official story. Again my opinion whether people like it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The WTC demolitions could be falsified, it's just that the evidence to do so does not exist.

Of course it exists, it's just that you interpret it as evidence in favour of your "covert demolition".

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it exists, it's just that you interpret it as evidence in favour of your "covert demolition".

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.

Is this really coming from someone who claims an observation matching all characteristics of thermite must be anything but thermite?

Surely not from someone who knows the damage/fire collapses were against the odds but claims they are the most likely theory?

From someone who accepts the complete collapse of WTC7 looked like a demolition but claims it was a natural collapse?

I could go on, suffice to say you may want to consider how unfalsifiable your own mindset is.

And of course evidence that can be interpreted in favour of a covert demolition cannot falsify the theory. As all of the evidence supports or fits the theory, without going against the odds or disbelieving one’s own eyes as noted above… that should be telling us something. As you admittedly cannot falsify the demolition, what would go a long way to countering it is a damage/fire collapse theory actually based in reality. Kind of, getting your own house in order to begin with.

Also, no explosions? You are getting rusty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this really coming from someone who claims an observation matching all characteristics of thermite must be anything but thermite?

You may think it matches, but you want it to. I can't see anything that looks the least like thermite. The molten flow isn't hot enough, the fires in the debris are too long-lasting, the iron microspheres are sparks from metal working, etc.

The same holds for all your other "evidence". You interpret it the way you want. I remind you that AE911T still can't answer Ulrich's letter showing that none of the demolition claims is unambiguous evidence. Unless you can actually find some evidence that clearly says "demolition", you are left with "it must be a covert demolition because it doesn't look like a demolition".

Also, no explosions? You are getting rusty.

What explosions? You yourself admit that there are no explosions at the right time for an HE demolition, that's why you want thermite.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is coming from someone displaying all the signs of cognitive dissonance. It is not a matter of intelligence IMO, but a matter of just how one's brain is wired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is coming from someone displaying all the signs of cognitive dissonance. It is not a matter of intelligence IMO, but a matter of just how one's brain is wired.

So how is my attitude any different from yours?

I could be persuaded, but so far nobody has offered anything to persuade me with.

I'm sure a no-planer could just as easily play amateur psychologist with your attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certainly guilty of playing amateur psychologist. Doing such is part of my job description as a flight instructor, and human behavior has been a hobby of mine since my days in Vietnam when the psychologist and I were best of friends.

I could be persuaded of anything, PROVIDED the person doing the persuading can make his case.

You already have your mind made up, and you disregard any evidence that contradicts your view. Even though many facts and much testimony exist showing use of explosives and the presence of molten metal, you ignore or deny that evidence.

THAT is how your behavior and mine differ.

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You already have your mind made up, and you disregard any evidence that contradicts your view. Even though many facts and much testimony exist showing use of explosives and the presence of molten metal, you ignore or deny that evidence.

What evidence showing the use of explosives? There are plenty of reports of explosions, not unusual for burning buildings where any closed container of liquid has the potential to explode, but no such reports correspond in the slightest to a demolition.

I don't deny the presence of molten metal, but that is hardly exceptional for a large fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first explosion reported, by Willie Rodriguez in the bowels of the WTC, happened before the airplane struck, and it was of sufficient temperature to melt the skin off the arms of one of his co-workers. His hero status as the last living person to be pulled from the rubble was short-lived, as he soon began making statements that did not comport with the official story.

His testimony before the 911 Commission was taken behind closed doors, and none of his testimony was included in the report. Thank you Philip Zelikow.

The debris field at the towers was quite symmetrical, and steel pieces of the structural exoskeleton were displaced outward several hundred feet. That is impossible for what is supposed to be a gravitational collapse. Gravity works only in one direction, and it is NOT horizontal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first explosion reported, by Willie Rodriguez in the bowels of the WTC, happened before the airplane struck, and it was of sufficient temperature to melt the skin off the arms of one of his co-workers.

How would he know it happened before the impact? What event after this happened to him does he interpret as the impact? Why couldn't his explosion have been related to the impact? The impact fireball high up in the building is going to send fire and shockwaves down any available shaft faster that the sound of the impact.

The debris field at the towers was quite symmetrical, and steel pieces of the structural exoskeleton were displaced outward several hundred feet. That is impossible for what is supposed to be a gravitational collapse. Gravity works only in one direction, and it is NOT horizontal.

Seeing the height of the towers, that doesn't take explosive force, nor does it happen before the top of the building starts to move, at the time when you would expect any demolition explosions to occur. However, you can see material being pushed outwards by the collapse after the movement starts.

I think you need to read this link, an analysis of the AE911T demolition claims written by someone who believes in the conspiracy but has the honesty to admit that the evidence isn't there:

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf

My conclusion is that there is no claim favoring the controlled demolition hypothesis over NIST’s

impact/fire/gravitational collapse hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that the tower collapsed at about 90% of the free fall value, what provided the resistance to the downward force to drive those pieces horizontally, in essentially a perfect circle?

He knows it happened before the impact because he remembers the impact, and it came later--a short period of time later.

Willie's testimony was hidden from the report because the report was meant to protect the guilty and hide the truth. It was a coverup, in the finest of government traditions.

Colonel Anthony Shaffer, regarding Operation Able Danger, is on record as to exactly how much of a coverup the Commission was.

You can certainly deny whatever evidence you wish in constructing your world view, but denial is a part of the cognitive dissonance I mentioned. The selective denial of threatening evidence is what we're talking about. Offering "what if" as a means of disregarding testimony and evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that the tower collapsed at about 90% of the free fall value, what provided the resistance to the downward force to drive those pieces horizontally, in essentially a perfect circle?

Read that open letter before you make any more such claims.

He knows it happened before the impact because he remembers the impact, and it came later--a short period of time later.

That doesn't answer my questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that nothing will answer your questions.

They are petty and trivial--one must look at the big picture. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You already have your mind made up, and you disregard any evidence that contradicts your view.

THAT is how your behavior and mine differ.

:wacko:

Oh the irony!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:wacko:

Oh the irony!

No ****. (Edit: I'm agreeing with you. The masking kind of creates unneeded ambiguity...)

Edited by booNyzarC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though many facts and much testimony exist showing use of explosives...

No evidence of explosives was ever found by investigators.

Reactions

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "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."

My link

As I have said before, there was no evidence that explosives were used.

...and the presence of molten metal, you ignore or deny that evidence.

There was molten metal, which was aluminum.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that the tower collapsed at about 90% of the free fall value, what provided the resistance to the downward force to drive those pieces horizontally, in essentially a perfect circle?

Willie's testimony was hidden from the report because the report was meant to protect the guilty and hide the truth. It was a coverup, in the finest of government traditions.

Nope, and here's why.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

A basic engineering assessment of the design of the World Trade Center dispels many of the myths about its collapse. First, the perimeter tube design of the towers protected them from failing upon impact. The outer columns were engineered to stiffen the towers in heavy wind, and they protected the inner core, which held the gravity load. Removal of some of the outer columns alone could not bring the building down. Furthermore, because of the stiffness of the perimeter design, it was impossible for the aircraft impact to topple the building.

However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.

My link

As I have said before, no evidence of explosives was ever found, and there was no government conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that nothing will answer your questions.

They are petty and trivial--one must look at the big picture. :ph34r:

On the contrary, unless those questions can be answered, there is no basis for Rodriguez' claim that his explosion happened before the impact.

Have you read this link yet?

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf

If the claimed evidence for controlled demolition cannot convince someone who already wants to believe in a conspiracy, why should it convince anyone else?

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this really coming from someone who claims an observation matching all characteristics of thermite must be anything but thermite?

You may think it matches, but you want it to. I can't see anything that looks the least like thermite.

I don’t need to argue with your nonsense here…

A picture speaks a thousand words (so here’s five thousand of them): -

ethg2.jpg

The upper-left and lower-right pictures are a particularly good match.

The upper-right and lower-left pictures have a slightly higher glow due to proximity/focus of the camera.

The centre picture for anyone wondering is taken from an experiment where a real engineer (as opposed to one who doesn’t believe his eyes if it’s not in a textbook or official report) demonstrated that even a homemade thermite device can cut through a steel beam, therefore making it a viable demolition method.

Would you like to view the white aluminium oxide smoke produced by the WTC2 flow next?

What explosions? You yourself admit that there are no explosions at the right time for an HE demolition, that's why you want thermite.

What explosions? Ha-ha. What a joke.

The many explosions that you prefer to believe were a result of the fire…

Despite their occurrence far below the impact/fire zone.

The many explosions which the FBI and FDNY believed on the day were due to secondary devices planted in the building.

The many explosions which weakened the structure prior to the thermite initiated collapse.

Try actually paying attention to the accounts I set out: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=188700&view=findpost&p=3562455

Welcome to the world of flyingswan – a place where there is nothing “that looks the least like thermite”, where thermite cannot be used in demolition, where there were no explosions, where denial is the standard. This is the ‘eyes wide shut’ method required to uphold the official narrative folks. It’s your choice whether to be a part of it or believe your own senses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The centre picture for anyone wondering is taken from an experiment where a real engineer (as opposed to one who doesn’t believe his eyes if it’s not in a textbook or official report) demonstrated that even a homemade thermite device can cut through a steel beam, therefore making it a viable demolition method.

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.

While thermite can indeed cut a beam, getting it to cut a column is a much harder task, involving substantial extra assemblies, hard to conceal either before or after the event. Furthermore, while an unsupported column can be cut by such a device, no-one has ever demonstrated that it would work on a supported column. 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.

The many explosions that you prefer to believe were a result of the fire…

Despite their occurrence far below the impact/fire zone.

The many explosions which the FBI and FDNY believed on the day were due to secondary devices planted in the building.

The many explosions which weakened the structure prior to the thermite initiated collapse.

The structure doesn't need to be weakened away from the impact region, because once the collapse starts, nothing is going to stop it. Whatever these explosions were, and the presence of a lot of aircraft fuel in a building with lift shafts and stairwells gives a clue, they are not part of any demolition process.

Welcome to the world of flyingswan – a place where there is nothing “that looks the least like thermite”, where thermite cannot be used in demolition, where there were no explosions, where denial is the standard. This is the ‘eyes wide shut’ method required to uphold the official narrative folks. It’s your choice whether to be a part of it or believe your own senses.

I didn't say no explosions, I said no explosions in the right time and place to demolish the buildings.

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/site/911stories/rodriguezstatementtonist

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.