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 5
joc

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

3,684 posts in this topic

The coverup was certainly planned at the highest levels, but that was planning separate from the planning for the tactics to be used to accomplish the mission.

Considering there is no evidence of a government 911 coverup, you have no leg to stand on. :no:

Wally Miller at Shanksville is a perfect example. He did not plan or execute the events of the day. Encouraged to be "a team player" he participated to some extent in the coverup.

Personally, I think you made that up that false story because you have been caught making up stories by others as well. You became upset that Wally Miller was very angry and he was very angry because people like you were taking his comments out of context and misrepresenting his position. After all, I posted his video interview for all to see and hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The firefighters first said they heard explosions at the base of the building, but they later determined the sounds they heard were crashing elevators.

I don't buy that either though...because...why would elevators be crashing? and how would elevators crashing cause plumes of white smoke to appear on the outside of the building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious about something. When you talk about participation in the coverup, what does that mean? Based on previous posts, you seem to mean making false statements knowingly.

Why would someone do that? They wouldn't do it just to be a "team player", so what would motivate it?

Bear in mind, we're not talking about Wally Miller at Shanksville. We're talking about a large number of engineers here. Why would they all be attaching their name to false statements? (Bear in mind, you've done ZERO to prove that their statements are false.)

EDIT: Taking 4 years of military science isn't necessary to know what "planning" and "execution" mean. The coverup is a necessary part in the overall execution of the conspiracy. Otherwise it isn't a conspiracy. Quit playing word games.

BR, has been put on notice on many occasions by myself and others for making up stories and this is just another example. A case in point is that. he claims that no Boeing struck the Pentagon and no Boeing crashed at Shanksville despite photos to the contrary. In addition, there are confirmations on the loss of American 77 from American Airlines, operator of American 77, and the loss of United 93 from United Airlines, operator of United 93. There are confirmations from coroner Wally Miller, recovery crews and investigators, aircraft black boxes and yet he suggested that a P700 anti-ship missile could have been responsible for the strike on the Pentagon and that no aircraft crashed near Shanksville and he has added that no aircraft can make a crater in the ground or penetrate concrete walls despite the fact we posted photos that trashed his claims.

He also claims that explosives knocked down the light poles near the Pentagon despite the fact it was clear that the light poles were knocked down by force of impact, and nothing to do with explosives and he says that nuclear weapons were used to demolish the WTC buildings.

Just a heads up as to where he is coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy that either though...because...why would elevators be crashing?

The aircraft were responsible.

Elevators were disaster within disaster

By Dennis Cauchon and Martha T. Moore, USA TODAY

The World Trade Center had one of the world's great elevator systems — 198 of the biggest, fastest elevators ever built. On the morning of Sept. 11, this technological marvel turned against the people who worked there. USA TODAY estimates that at least 200 people died inside World Trade Center elevators, the biggest elevator catastrophe in history.

Some people plunged to their deaths after elevator cables were destroyed by the hijacked jets that crashed into the buildings. Others burned to death as flames shot down shafts. And some who were trapped inside stalled elevators died when the buildings collapsed.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm

...and how would elevators crashing cause plumes of white smoke to appear on the outside of the building?

A large displacement of air can be one reason; much like a plunger in a tube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aircraft were responsible.

A large displacement of air can be one reason; much like a plunger in a tube.

So, you actually believe that a Jet Airplane hitting high up in the building sent all the elevators crashing to the bottom, on fire, pushing plumes of white smoke outside the building? You are stretching dude...really stretching. :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you actually believe that a Jet Airplane hitting high up in the building sent all the elevators crashing to the bottom, on fire, pushing plumes of white smoke outside the building? You are stretching dude...really stretching. :yes:

Let's just call it reality. Let's take a step back into history and read the account where a B-25 crashed into the Empire State building and sent elevators crashing into the subbasement.

The Day A Bomber Hit The Empire State Building

esb-crash02.jpg

On July 28, 1945, residents of New York City were horrified when an airplane crashed into the Empire State Building, leaving 14 dead. Though the events of that day have largely faded from public memory, they remain etched in the minds of those who experienced them. When the plane hit, parts of the engine flew ahead and severed the lifting cables of two elevators on the 79th floor, according to Weingarten. The elevators crashed to the subbasement.

In one of the elevators was a 19-year-old elevator operator named Betty Lou Oliver. She broke her pelvis, back and neck — but she survived

http://www.npr.org/t...toryId=92987873

And, you thought that I was joking.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy that either though...because...why would elevators be crashing? and how would elevators crashing cause plumes of white smoke to appear on the outside of the building?

You "don't buy" what, exactly...? Physics (which you have already displayed an almost non-existent understanding of) which dictates what happens to a falling object?

Tell us... what do you think would happen to an elevator car weighing several thousand pounds when its cable's are severed and its emergency systems compromised...?

What do you think will happen when an elevator car falls anywhere from 70 to 100 stories into the sub-basement of a building? What does your "heart and soul" think it will sound like when it hits bottom?

Maybe you think this man was "in on it" as well...?

The Elevator Man's Tale

Featuring the unabridged transcript and audio.

Robert Jones

Age: 52

Hometown: Montgomery

Family: Two children

Occupation: Elevator mechanic for Ace Elevator in the World Trade Center

Was in the south tower when the first plane hit.

...

As I turned around to go back toward the core of the building in the lobby, the second plane hit, and that shook the building.

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

I’m looking from the lobby up to a mezzanine area or the second floor where they lined up all the people to go up to the rooftop, and I’m looking up expecting something, building parts to be coming down, because I wasn’t quite sure what that noise was.

But I found out later, when the plane came through the building, it cut the hoist ropes, the governor ropes, of (the) 6 and 7 cars, which was the observation cars.

Every night they would park those two cars up on the 107th floor. At the time the plane impacted B Tower, the observation deck wasn’t open yet, which was another life-saving factor. At the time it impacted the building, they hadn’t opened the observation deck.

Had they, there would’ve been many, maybe another 1,000, 2,000 people on the rooftop, because it was a clear day. It was a beautiful day.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

And apparently from what I talked to with other mechanics, they saw the doors, the hatch doors blow off in the lobby level of 6 and 7 car.

[SOURCE]

Cz

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you actually believe that a Jet Airplane hitting high up in the building sent all the elevators crashing to the bottom, on fire, pushing plumes of white smoke outside the building? You are stretching dude...really stretching. :yes:

Nice strawman you're building. :rolleyes:

Please quote for us exactly where Skyeagle or his article specifically states that "all the elevators fell".

Do you even know how the elevators in the WTC Towers were configured? I'm guessing you don't.

It seems to me that the more you talk about this topic, the greater the gaps in your knowledge of this subject appear to become.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice strawman you're building. :rolleyes:

Please quote for us exactly where Skyeagle or his article specifically states that "all the elevators fell".

Do you even know how the elevators in the WTC Towers were configured? I'm guessing you don't.

It seems to me that the more you talk about this topic, the greater the gaps in your knowledge of this subject appear to become.

Cz

But wait...I read the entire story of the Elevator Man...and...I believe him. So, okay the Elevators came crashing down..some of them..okay two of them...fair enough...I'm sure that sounded incredibly like an explosion...could have even been an explosion when they hit...but...when did they fall? If the cables were cut...wouldn't they fall then? yes...and they did fall...that's what he said...they fell right after the plane hit...

...that may account for some of the explosions heard...but what about the explosions heard at the bottom, seconds before the building came down?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But wait...I read the entire story of the Elevator Man...and...I believe him. So, okay the Elevators came crashing down..some of them..okay two of them...fair enough...I'm sure that sounded incredibly like an explosion...could have even been an explosion when they hit...but...when did they fall? If the cables were cut...wouldn't they fall then? yes...and they did fall...that's what he said...they fell right after the plane hit...

...that may account for some of the explosions heard...but what about the explosions heard at the bottom, seconds before the building came down?

So... I take it your "heart and soul" tell you that its not possible for anything else other than demolition charges to be the source for explosions, or things that that sound like explosions and that elevator cars in a damaged building that is in the process of tearing itself apart can only fall when / if their cables are severed....

I think your heart and soul need to learn some critical thinking and investigative skills....

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...that may account for some of the explosions heard...but what about the explosions heard at the bottom, seconds before the building came down?

There was no bomb explosion. On another note, are you aware that William Rodriguez has been discredited?

William Rodriguez, Escape Artist

https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no bomb explosion. On another note, are you aware that William Rodriguez has been discredited?

I've never even heard of William Rodriguez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious about something. When you talk about participation in the coverup, what does that mean? Based on previous posts, you seem to mean making false statements knowingly.

Why would someone do that? They wouldn't do it just to be a "team player", so what would motivate it?

Bear in mind, we're not talking about Wally Miller at Shanksville. We're talking about a large number of engineers here. Why would they all be attaching their name to false statements? (Bear in mind, you've done ZERO to prove that their statements are false.)

EDIT: Taking 4 years of military science isn't necessary to know what "planning" and "execution" mean. The coverup is a necessary part in the overall execution of the conspiracy. Otherwise it isn't a conspiracy. Quit playing word games.

I'm not playing word games, and we're talking about the proverbial Big Picture--Wally Miller, engineers, steel recycling merchants, airline companies, the mainstream media, various members of academia, the federal judiciary, and many many others.

Wally Miller WAS encouraged by the FBI to be a "team player", and he did. What small town coroner would not?

I'm glad you understand planning and execution, and I assume that you have not served in the military, and thus cannot appreciate the military style, regarding planning and execution. I hope you also understand the notion of "compartmentalization" as it applies to the various federal bureaucracies. In a nutshell, that means that one bureau is not always informed of the intents and activities of another bureau.

At the highest level of planning, yes, it was known that a coverup would be necessary. They knew that certain details, if made public, would expose the hoax. They knew that if they could control what the media said and knew, the hoax could be kept intact.

However the tactical end of the operation need not concern itself with the coverup so much, but OF COURSE secrecy and compartmentaliztion was critical. The tactical guys just needed to pull off the events, with secrecy and compartmentalization, but did not need to concern themselves with the coverup in the media so much, as there work was basically done when the day was over.

But to your other point, companies that derive a large part of their income, perhaps ALL of their income from DoD contracts, or other government contracts, have every reason in the world to be "team players", to cooperate and graduate, to do as they are asked. That does not mean that they were planners or involved in the tactical execution. It merely means they dance with the ones that brought them. They know by whom their bread is buttered. The DoD had a program called Blast Mitigation for Structures Program, BMSP. Greenhorne & O'Mara and others were participants in that program, and other DARPA programs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The keywords quoted in my previous post were "detailed study", which at a minimum when drawing conclusions, one would think, should include demonstrating a match to the effects seen in the WTC steelwork through experiment – of course this was never achieved.

My, don't those goalposts shift. When your claim of "no detailed study" is proved false, you start quibbling about how detailed it should have been.

Why am I not surprised when Q24 has better knowledge of the implications of an investigation than the people who actually did it?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Babe, I'm only going to ask this one more time. Did the engineers in the NIST reports I linked, or that Canadian guy whose name escapes me, knowingly make false statements, and what are those false statements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Babe, I'm only going to ask this one more time. Did the engineers in the NIST reports I linked, or that Canadian guy whose name escapes me, knowingly make false statements, and what are those false statements?

Good luck getting a straight answer from BR. He has proven that he has little time for mature, intellectually honest debate or discussion...

Cz

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My, don't those goalposts shift. When your claim of "no detailed study" is proved false, you start quibbling about how detailed it should have been.

Why am I not surprised when Q24 has better knowledge of the implications of an investigation than the people who actually did it?

The initial claim of "no detailed study" has not been proven false, it is simply apparent that I have higher standards of what constitutes a detailed study than you do.

Why am I not surprised that it took flyingswan all of two posts to give up any vestige of addressing the argument presented in preference of an attack on the messenger/appeal to authority?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The initial claim of "no detailed study" has not been proven false, it is simply apparent that I have higher standards of what constitutes a detailed study than you do.

Why am I not surprised that it took flyingswan all of two posts to give up any vestige of addressing the argument presented in preference of an attack on the messenger/appeal to authority?

I reported the conclusion of the people who discovered the phenomenon, the same people who asked for a further study, the same people who conducted that study.

I certainly don't have more expertise in the subject than they do, but you obviously think you do. As we've seen so often before, an expert opinion is only correct if it reinforces Q24's opinions.

You were quite happy to appeal to their authority when they say they want a further study, but you question that authority when they conduct that study and present their conclusions.

Edited by flyingswan
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Babe, I'm only going to ask this one more time. Did the engineers in the NIST reports I linked, or that Canadian guy whose name escapes me, knowingly make false statements, and what are those false statements?

Just as you are no Socrates, I am NOT an engineer. That said, I can comment only as a layman. But I understand that all the "reports" issued were sheer speculation. There were no sensors in the buildings to measure anything. There were no video cameras to record the dynamics of what happened before, during or after the airplane strikes, and certainly that applies to WTC7 too.

So, in the sense that they were merely speculating about what REALLY happened, I'm not qualified to say whether or not they were technically false, but their statements and analysis and conclusions sure as hell do not pass the common sense test, all things considered.

Simply put, their speculative conclusions were that jetfuel and gravity caused what we saw. Hogwash!

What IS certain is that many or all of those parties were in fact dependent upon government contracts for their livliehood. The NIST guy was a Bush appointee as I recall, and the whole gang of them closely resemble a gang of thieves and liars.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as you are no Socrates, I am NOT an engineer. That said, I can comment only as a layman. But I understand that all the "reports" issued were sheer speculation. There were no sensors in the buildings to measure anything. There were no video cameras to record the dynamics of what happened before, during or after the airplane strikes, and certainly that applies to WTC7 too.

So, in the sense that they were merely speculating about what REALLY happened, I'm not qualified to say whether or not they were technically false, but their statements and analysis and conclusions sure as hell do not pass the common sense test, all things considered.

Simply put, their speculative conclusions were that jetfuel and gravity caused what we saw. Hogwash!

What IS certain is that many or all of those parties were in fact dependent upon government contracts for their livliehood. The NIST guy was a Bush appointee as I recall, and the whole gang of them closely resemble a gang of thieves and liars.

Suffice to say that the bold print in your quote is true...they don't pass the common sense test. But, most people these days don't really have Common Sense. Sense isn't exactly common these days. We sense something is wrong with the entire scenario.

If any of you have actually watched the video you will have seen that the sounds of the buildings collapsing have been enhanced and the graphics of the sound frequencies shown. The result of this shows that there were indeed a series of explosions as the buildings collapsed. All arguing amongst ourselves without watching the video is really ineffectual because the video has very clear arguments that no one to my perception has been able to debunk.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as you are no Socrates, I am NOT an engineer. That said, I can comment only as a layman. But I understand that all the "reports" issued were sheer speculation. There were no sensors in the buildings to measure anything. There were no video cameras to record the dynamics of what happened before, during or after the airplane strikes, and certainly that applies to WTC7 too.

So, in the sense that they were merely speculating about what REALLY happened, I'm not qualified to say whether or not they were technically false, but their statements and analysis and conclusions sure as hell do not pass the common sense test, all things considered.

Simply put, their speculative conclusions were that jetfuel and gravity caused what we saw. Hogwash!

What IS certain is that many or all of those parties were in fact dependent upon government contracts for their livliehood. The NIST guy was a Bush appointee as I recall, and the whole gang of them closely resemble a gang of thieves and liars.

Alright, I'm going to condense your whole answer down to a yes. I imagine it's as close as you're going to come to actually answering the question. So, we now have reached the point where we can say that every single engineer involved in the reports, including the Canadian academic with no government credentials, was acting on behalf of the government, and knowingly lying in the reports.

We have also arrived at the understanding of what precisely they lied about. They knowingly lied about gravity and jet fuel causing the buildings to collapse. We haven't determined if they were actually lying, because no one has pointed out anywhere in the reports where they were, but that's a minor glitch. I think we can happy with the critical thinking process that just calls the scientific report "hogwash", since it's easier to not think so hard.

Good, I'm glad we have a baseline to work from. So, now we come to, why did they do it? It seems you've implied time and time again that they did it for the money?

EDIT: I'd like to point out that your understanding of the lack of video evidence is false.

NIST acquired and organized nearly 7,000 segments of video footage, totaling in excess of 150 hours and nearly 7,000 photographs representing at least 185 photographers. This guided the Investigation Team's efforts to determine...etc.

I'd also like to point out that nowhere do they say that just gravity and jet fuel caused the buildings to collapse. So that's wrong too.

I'd also like to point out that calling the reports "sheer speculation" demonstrates a disgraceful understanding of the scientific method, of the diligence of the investigators, and of the evidence contained within them. Maybe you should read them.

I'd also like to ask you to stop continually commenting on my username. It's childish, and not germane to the argument. In other words, you're being a Sophist, and I hate Sophists. Because I am actually Socrates.

Edited by socrates.junior
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any of you have actually watched the video you will have seen that the sounds of the buildings collapsing have been enhanced and the graphics of the sound frequencies shown. The result of this shows that there were indeed a series of explosions as the buildings collapsed. All arguing amongst ourselves without watching the video is really ineffectual because the video has very clear arguments that no one to my perception has been able to debunk.

First of all, I've been watching the video in bits and pieces. I already gave my analysis of the debris question, which I've noticed you've stopped bringing up as unassailable evidence. Then the sound of explosions, and "squibs" were brought up, and subsequently shot down. Now you've moved the the series of sounds as the building collapses.

What noise do you think 2 floors of a large building slamming into each other as it collapses makes? A big, big noise? Yes. Do huge elevators falling into sub basements make big big noises, which could also be accompanied by clouds of dust at street level? Yes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I've been watching the video in bits and pieces. I already gave my analysis of the debris question, which I've noticed you've stopped bringing up as unassailable evidence. Then the sound of explosions, and "squibs" were brought up, and subsequently shot down. Now you've moved the the series of sounds as the building collapses.

What noise do you think 2 floors of a large building slamming into each other as it collapses makes? A big, big noise? Yes. Do huge elevators falling into sub basements make big big noises, which could also be accompanied by clouds of dust at street level? Yes.

I am not debating that question at all. It's feasible. I've already said that. But is that all that was heard? Was there nothing more? Now, I am answering the question I was posing even as I am posing it and that is: Was it a coincidence that the elevator shaft explosions happened just as the building began to fall? The answer is: It is also feasible that the beginnings of collapse released the elevators hanging by a thread and that it is coincidence and nothing more. However; do we know that the timeline of the Elevators crashing fits that scenario of the beginning of collapse of the buildings? No. We don't. Because once the building began to collapse, in 16 seconds it was a pile of dust. Now, thinking again: Does that necessarily mean that no other Elevators could have been released? That's possible but I find the other explosions of the timeline from beginning to end very hard to explain. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any of you have actually watched the video you will have seen that the sounds of the buildings collapsing have been enhanced and the graphics of the sound frequencies shown. The result of this shows that there were indeed a series of explosions as the buildings collapsed.

There were no bomb explosions in those videos. I have seen, heard and felt real bomb explosions in war and I saw no bomb explosions nor heard bomb explosions in those videos.

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 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.