Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

To those who believe the 911 official story


Zaus

Recommended Posts

It does NOT take a genius to figure out the 2 planes defied the laws of physics...

It makes sense to me, fake the footage that shows planes to cover up the controlled demo that would be obvious from any actual camera's on site...

Say... this?

And ofcourse, the elite give the most obvious clue possible...

Noone really mentions that one, i wonder why?

Edited by Zaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • flyingswan

    313

  • Q24

    205

  • turbonium

    180

  • merril

    113

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Re-attached - as in replaced - any fireproofing which was removed during inspection.

So you scrape off the fireproofing, fit explosive charges, re-spray, and miraculously, you are left with no suspicious lumps and bumps? Incredible.

Not necessarily. Consider this CD....

Of particular concern were the post-tensioned, reinforced concrete support shafts which had been added after original construction at either end of the Villa Panamericana buildings. Acting like structural “bookends,” these shafts were designed to bolster the structures against high wind loads imposed by the tropical storm systems prevalent in the region. As these reinforcing shafts were extremely rigid, they could not be "telescoped" like other portions of the structures. CDI's design allowed the towers to separate from the main structures, and "lay out" in pre-determined fall areas, away from Villa Feminina and other adjacent structures. Of the 35 elevator shafts which acted as free-standing structures adjacent to the buildings, all but 5 were felled as planned. The remaining 5 could not be fully prepared for explosives operations due to safety concerns of Drillex as respects placing their workers over the open shaft of that specific style of elevator tower. The 5 elevator towers which stood were conventionally demolished following the implosion.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7

The WTC 7 east penthouse was also...

- reinforced

- added after original construction

- at either end (one end) of the building

So if the east penthouse was "extremely rigid", then it's also possible that it "could not be "telescoped" like other portions of the structure".

The only difference would be in the way it was demolished separately from the main structure.

So? How is that relevant? Where is the mention of a several second delay from charges at the top before the charges at the bottom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have an argument, and I hope you can finally get a grasp on that.

I do have an argument, and your quibbling about whether it was a fireball or a fireball theory is irrelevant. In his early statements Rodriguez says that a fireball came down the liftshaft, in his later statements he denies this. The basic question of his reliability as a witness is right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vanity fair?? google - col donn de grand-pre

oh yeah and there are these facts--

NORAD Stand-Down

The Prevention of Interceptions of the Commandeered Planes

It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. 1 In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times. 2

But only once over continental US airspace. All other intercepts were over international waters.

New York City

Flight 11 had been flying south toward New York City from about 8:30 AM. Yet no interceptors were scrambled from nearby Atlantic City, or La Guardia, or from Langley, Virginia. Numerous other bases were not ordered to scramble fighters.

As already mentioned, there were no fighters on alert at Atlantic City, or La Guardia. Only Langley and Otis.

Washington D.C.

No interceptors were scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base to protect the capital, at least not before the Pentagon was hit. Andrews Air Force Base had two squadrons of fighters on alert, and is only 10 miles from the Pentagon.

Andrews did not have jets on alert to be scrambled, as already mentioned.

Failures to Intercept

Even though the interceptors were not dispatched from the most logical bases, the ones that were scrambled still had adequate time to reach their assigned planes. Why didn't they? Because they were only flying at a small fraction of their top speed. That is the conclusion implicit in NORAD's timeline.

Otis to the WTC

The first base to finally scramble interceptors was Otis in Falmouth, Massachusetts, at 8:52, about a half-hour after Flight 11 was taken over. This was already eight minutes after Flight 11 hit the North Tower, and just 9 minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower.

According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower Impact the two F-15s from Otis were still 71 miles away. Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15s were flying at: (153 miles - 71 miles)/(9:03 - 8:52) = 447 mph

That is around 23.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph.

At 9:11 the F-15s finally reached the World Trade Center. Their average speed for the trip was: 153/(9:11 - 8:52) = 483 mph

That is around 25.8% of their top speed.

Langley to the Pentagon

The F-16s from Langley reached the Pentagon at 9:49. It took them 19 minutes to reach Washington D.C. from Langley AFB, which is about 130 miles to the south. That means the F-16s were flying at: 130 miles/(9:49 - 9:30) = 410.5 mph

That is around 27.4% of their top speed of 1500 mph.

Ah yes the top speed argument. The top speed is at altitude, running full afterburners. It takes time to get to altitude and up to speed. Even then, you don't want to run at afterburners for very long for two reasons. One, you'll run out of fuel. What good is it to have fighters inthe area if they have no fuel left to maneuver and are already at Bingo? Second, afterburners can't be run for very long or the engines will overheat and flame out. Another reason not related to the fighters but to the conditions of the day, they were not allowed to go supersonic over land without prior authorization.

Andrews to the Pentagon

Andrews Air Force Base, located on the outskirts of the capital, is just over 10 miles from the Pentagon. One would have expected interceptors to be scrambled to protect the capital within a few minutes of the 8:15 loss of contact with Flight 11. Instead, no fighters from Andrews reached the Pentagon until 9:49, several minutes after the assault.

Again, no fighters were on alert at Andrews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just how would the debris of an explosion at roof level, ever reach the controlled demolition setup at the basement level?

Why should debris move in a downwards direction? You've really caught me there - that's a real poser - wait - I think I've got it - GRAVITY!

It’s becoming quite a habit of yours to make claims you cannot backup. Can you list details even of these “hundreds” who had any significant input to the conclusions of NIST’s ‘investigation’, much less who actually “support” it? Take for instance NCSTAR1-6, which I would say, as it sets out the supposed collapse sequence, is perhaps one of the more obviously important papers of the ‘study’. Last I looked there were only two authors named. Even looking at the entire cast of NIST’s WTC investigation team reveals only 17 members.

NCSTAR1, pages v to x, lists contributors to the investigation, six whole pages of them.

What was that about not backing up my claims?

That is because you have an unfalsifiable theory – where evidence is clearly out of place in the official theory you invent a story.

On the contrary, I would certainly change my beliefs if you actually had any evidence. The trouble is, all your evidence is explainable and you have to go to the lengths of claiming that all the engineers who have explained it are somehow US government stooges, even the ones in China.

For example, the molten flow from WTC2 prior to its collapse could not possibly look more like thermite if it tried… yet you invent a story about shorted batteries. Another example, the iron-rich spheres found in the WTC dust that can only have been formed in a molten state; evidence of temperatures higher than the fires could reach… you create the excuse that it was formed during construction over some 30 years ago. Yet another example, the high temperature steel corrosion indicative of an attack on the structural steelwork, reported by FEMA and stonewalled by NIST… you produce some idea about ‘baking in the ground’. And on and on...

I didn't invent the batteries, they were there. The theory of them being shorted out came from an Italian engineer with experience of such systems. Iron-rich microspheres are a normal result of metal working - welders who ignore safety measures can end up with lungs full of them. High temperatures in office fires are normal, as are long-duration undergroud fires. I am not inventing anything, it is all commonplace stuff which you would know about if you were an engineer.

... an individual contentious and coincidental invention for each when the single simple premise of controlled demolition explains the body of observations and findings in one go.

Some things would happen whether it was a CD or a natural result of the impacts, and this is all you have. The extra things that would happen if it was a CD are absent, and to explain their absence you have had to develop your "single simple premise" which is actually an incredibly complex theory involving both thermite and high explosives, which could somehow survive the impact and fires and leave no residues. Other things are inconsistent with CD, and you again go to great lengths to try to fit these into your CD theory. In addition, you cannot demonstrate that the type of thermite device you need has even been demonstated at that scale, how large it would need to be (whether it would even fit in the building), or why no-one who worked in the building saw anything suspicious.

As stated, in a covert operation, unless something goes wrong, there is never going to be that direct, blatant, ‘in your face’, evidence you request. There will be ‘pointers’ or indirect evidence and it is the sheer quantity of such, that reveals the covert operation. An indicator taken on its own could perhaps be put down as a quirk or coincidence; there can be isolated anomalies in many situations. But excusing the dozens of strong indications that would point to a controlled demolition of the Towers, much less the literally hundreds that point to the wider 9/11 operation... no, there can be only so many coincidences and excuses before they become patterns and lies.

What strong indications? All you have is fanciful interpretations of normal physical events.

Remember, the plural of anecdote is not data.

The ‘calm points’ are not necessary to my theory. As I said a while back I did not expect or predict to find anything of interest in the seismic data. I thought the change between the steps of the demolition process I have laid out would be seamless. After viewing the evidence and noting it does in fact indicate the step change, I can add it as supportive evidence of my theory.

Rather than initially forming an opinion and then seeking evidence to support that prediction, I view the evidence first and following that, allow the conclusion to fall where it may – it’s called being ‘objective’ or ‘unbiased’. Prediction as validation of a theory can be equally as dangerous as useful. A prediction is in effect a conclusion drawn prior to viewing the evidence; a form of preconception that can blinker individuals, driving them on to a grand fallacy.

Turbonium at least had the guts to make a prediction about the seismic data, all you did was look for something you didn't understand - not hard to find with your general level of understanding of the physical world - and then manipulate your theory until it fitted. This isn't verification, its the narrative fallacy.

The NIST ‘investigation’ demonstrates a prediction at its worst, as it initially concludes the airliners and fire were the cause of collapse and strives on no matter what, flying pigs and all metaphorically speaking, to ‘prove’ the preconception is correct

So, is it really better for the hypothesis or the evidence to come first?

With an investigation into a past event, the evidence necessarily comes first. If you can start from the observed impact, follow what happens with standard engineering methods and end up predicting the remaining evidence, fires, bowing walls, final collapse, as NIST did, there is not much need to hypothesise extra causes. You only need a hypothesis if the predicted sequence of events doesn't match the actual one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And ofcourse, the elite give the most obvious clue possible...

Noone really mentions that one, i wonder why?

Zaus, this has been discussed many times before on here. Towards the bottom of this thread is the most recent example I can think of, but I'm sure you can find plenty more if you use the search function. It probably doesn't get brought up a lot because it's such a non-issue.

Edited by ifisurvive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC airs the collapse of WTC 7 and its a "non-issue" eh?

Yep. I assume you mean 'BBC News reporting that WTC7 collapsed before it had' (because "The BBC airs the collapse of WTC 7" would be it's job, yes?).

People hear that WTC7 is going to collapse, get's incorrectly reported as 'has collapsed'. Just one example of the many inaccurate reports given on the day of 911 as news channels were scrabbling around to bring the most up to date information to it's viewers. Happens with pretty much every story that's still in a 'Breaking News' status.

Edited by ifisurvive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Vanity Fair article...fascinating and distressing read:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature.../08/norad200608

Frenat has well covered my responses. Sunofone, you have again confirmed my observations of the CT crowd, you have no idea what you speak of when discussing the real world air defense system on 9/11. Fighter top speeds aren't those you see via Wikipedia or Google, and there were not armed fighters all over the place...just the 4 for the entire northeast. It was a peacetime posture

You watch too much TV, as I said before the real world isn't nearly as "neat" as shown in movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep saying this, but shouldn't the bigger issue be about the government's prior knowledge of 9/11 and why they did nothing to prevent it? They more or less let it happen. Than after it happened, they lied about what they knew and acted as if they had absolutely no idea something like this was in the works.

It's BS.

Edited by Left Field
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidently, have you seen the Vanity Fair account of NORAD's response that morning? I read it, and listened to it...it was a bad day, they did their best. They did not "stand down".

I'm not sure I have read the Vanity Fair account, mrbusdriver, but I am sure you are correct in implying that a lot of good people work for NORAD and that they did perform to the best of their ability on 9/11. The question I would raise is if that ability, through the points I raised, may have been compromised to a degree, with all the cards held by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney (two former PNAC members who years earlier had speculated a "new Pearl Harbor" was required to assert US influence in the Middle East) on that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I know that's what you said. I asked you to show me a place in the reports where the authors actually said that. You haven't yet done that.

The authors do not specifically say the seismic signal originating at 10:28:31 is the debris impacting the ground either but ‘conspiracists’ and ‘sceptics’ alike all understand that it is. Rather than having to be told every specific detail by the ‘experts’, it is often of value to think for yourself and understanding the seismic data is one of these occasions.

If these seismic readings are so blatantly part of the collapse signal, then why don't the expert seismologists at Lamont-Doherty ever mention them? Surely those blatant signals would be worthy of at least a little attention in a refereed article titled "Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City," wouldn't they?

Yes, I would have thought so too – you would have to ask Dr. Kim to be sure exactly why only the largest signal was relevant to the analysis. My own suggestion is that, as the paper was geared toward understanding the seismic effects the collapses may have had on other structures within the area, the signal of largest ML in any event is of greatest relevance.

If you want to claim that they're part of the same, larger amplitude signal that follows, then you need to show some real evidence to prove that (1) they're really seismic waves from the collapse and (2) that they're really time-correlated with the events in the video. All you've done so far is to assume that they MUST be seismic waves and to assume that the MUST have the same propagation delay as the signal identified by the experts because that's what you need to support your theory. That's not science. That's wishful thinking.

Considering I have correlated the seismic evidence with the video evidence and NIST’s timings it is ignorant to say that I have assumed anything. The 17s propagation delay for Rg waves is a factor given by Dr. Kim’s paper, not an assumption. The evidence you ask for (1) and (2) is reasonable and for the umpteenth time is exactly the evidence that my correlation has demonstrated. How do you want me to ‘prove’ it other than pointing to the relevant data?

  • The seismic data is here
  • The video evidence is
  • The NIST timings are here

Now you would need to research and correlate the above if you want your own confirmation of my findings. I tell you now, you will find distinct changes in the seismic signal, from t=6, coincide ±1s with distinct observable events in the collapses and further that these initial signals are at the approximate ML of the recorded WTC7 collapse. Are you seriously saying that you have been disputing my point without even carrying out this basic research first?

Speaking of straw men ... :rolleyes: No, that's not my theory. I'm making no claims of my own about these signals because I just don't have the expertise to identify them. I simply asked how you ruled out possible noise sources as an explanation for your mystery signals and mentioned a truck as an example of a potential source.

When you have done the research above, you will understand how insanely far-fetched it is to believe a truck or other source could create readings that coincide at the exact times of observable events in the Tower collapse... not once but twice. Also if you want to put the signal I am looking at for the Tower initial movement down to ‘background noise’ then, as it is at approximately the same ML, it would also be necessary to do the same for WTC7.

Not that it really matters, but I actually read six papers by Dr. Kim while doing a bit of research on this subject before posting. I know that's pretty irrelevant when compared to watching a few YouTube videos, but it's the best I could manage.

Excellent – you read a lot of opinion from a single ‘expert’. As it is said - “there is an expert for every opinion” and “how fortunate for leaders that men do not think” – alongside expert opinion, it is always advisable to do your own research where possible. The collapse videos on YouTube are visual records – the same ones the media or any other researcher will be viewing.

More handwaving. I'm asking you to tell me exactly what characteristics of those squiggles conclusively identifies them as short-period Rayleigh surface waves. I'll also point out that you reached your conclusion long before I posted those links, so you must have used some other rationale for your identification.

The article here gives details of the different seismic signals and their wave propagation. Figure 4 in your own link shows how Rg waves clearly differ from P and S waves: -

linked-image

Did you write this?

Perhaps my reading comprehension is slipping in my old age, but that sure sounds like a claim of "direct or obvious readings from explosives" to me.

There is no evidence that any of the seismic readings are the direct product of explosives. The seismic data is a direct product of the collapses, indicative of a loss in momentum of the upper block fall before a resumption of greater activity for the lower block collapse, importantly for both Towers – a two phase process, supportive of the demolition theory I have laid out.

Edited by Q24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should debris move in a downwards direction? You've really caught me there - that's a real poser - wait - I think I've got it - GRAVITY!

Damn it, silly me, I forgot about GRAVITY! Oh no, wait, I remember what I was thinking now… the 47 floors between the roof and basement… how does the debris of an explosion pass through all of them?

NCSTAR1, pages v to x, lists contributors to the investigation, six whole pages of them.

What was that about not backing up my claims?

And which of those ‘contributors’ made any significant input to the conclusions of NIST’s investigation? Most of these are just the technical support staffs that work for NIST, not the core of the team, and could have played a minor role such as in data input or calculations on pre-specified parameters. As I said, there are only two staff ultimately responsible for the conclusions of arguably the most important of NIST’s papers.

With an investigation into a past event, the evidence necessarily comes first. If you can start from the observed impact, follow what happens with standard engineering methods and end up predicting the remaining evidence, fires, bowing walls, final collapse, as NIST did, there is not much need to hypothesise extra causes. You only need a hypothesis if the predicted sequence of events doesn't match the actual one.

NIST did follow the process you describe above and found that the expected impact did not cause collapse. NIST then all at once increased the airliner speed, weight and failure strain, whilst reducing the Tower’s weight and failure strain from the base case to reach a collapse situation. All NIST have done in effect is to supply the figures that would cause collapse; a better example of ‘fixing’ the data to support a desired conclusion could not be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can get on a chalkboard, and spin every last detail unto infinity.

But, with zero facts, zero proof, zero substance, it amounts to diversionary, intellectual dishonesty, and or paranoia.

I would hate to think my dad was so crazy. Or, anyone, for that matter.

But then, given a pencil, a piece of chalk, or a keyboard- almost anything is possible to fabricate or mentally mangle.

Those poor victims, and the subsequent political and military pots that got stirred need to be viewed with as much understanding as is possible. Armchair guesswork won't do it. Nor, will even the serious thinkers whose ideas fail to carry the day.

There were professional and departmental failings, and even corruption, that contributed from every level, allowing what finally happened.

It was not a false flag operation, for the purpose of changing the world to benefit the already powerful.

Nothing like that has subsequently occured. Life is complex. But, this concept of demolition explosives in New York, etc., is way out of the mix.

Who and why, wants this idea to persist?

Edited by merril
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can get on a chalkboard, and spin every last detail unto infinity.

But, with zero facts, zero proof, zero substance, it amounts to diversionary, intellectual dishonesty, and or paranoia.

250 FACTS that were skewed, screwed up, or outright lies in the mainstream...

First thing i want to point out, is that the mainstream knows what happened, which is why they like to throw it in your face like...

"You DONT have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder exactly what president bush knew about the attacks, and when he knew it!"

Bush gets caught in yet ANOTHER lie...

The american "president" and his administration have been proven to be a bunch of liars! Wow, i didnt see THAT coming from ten miles away especially when prescott bush and the rest of the corporate top end have heavy ties to the Nazi party... ever googled "IBM nazi holocaust counting machines?"

It is so simple its r******ed... say someone you don't know comes up to you and says "ill give you all the power in the world, if you just give me all your money now"

Do you think he is going to give you all the power in the world, or scram with your money and leave a trail of confusion to follow?

Who wants your money? Who wants money in general? Who owns the federal reserve?

and...

Who said this...

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

Truth is, people dont care, or they are too oblivious, or they are afraid, or they simply cannot think beyond themselves.

In any case, the rain is coming, and it will pour like noone has ever seen, be prepared to go to war with Iran, because thats whats next.

But then, given a pencil, a piece of chalk, or a keyboard- almost anything is possible to fabricate or mentally mangle.

Get in touch with reality, its not that far away from you.

There were professional and departmental failings, and even corruption, that contributed from every level, allowing what finally happened.

It was not a false flag operation, for the purpose of changing the world to benefit the already powerful.

Nothing like that has subsequently occured. Life is complex. But, this concept of demolition explosives in New York, etc., is way out of the mix.

Who and why, wants this idea to persist?

You assume too much, you rely on information from treasonous liars playing the "friend" game, while we are, and have been at war for 7 years...

It DOES benefit the already powerful, as EVERY WAR has ALWAYS benefited those in power, for one thing they dont have to die, but they can send thousands to their graves.

Have you seen our deficit? It is up to 9 TRILLION DOLLARS.

We(meaning the government/people) owe other countries 9 trillion dollars, do you think for even a second that inflation is not coming, considering we dropped below the euro in value months ago, and the gold price is skyrocketing above $1000 an ounce.

The last time gold skyrocketed we called it "the great depression" which was really the Zionists unlawfully stealing the people's money...

I am he who wants the truth to be heard, i for one think if this idea did not persist we would be in VERY deep crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you scrape off the fireproofing, fit explosive charges, re-spray, and miraculously, you are left with no suspicious lumps and bumps? Incredible.

First of all, the fireproofing was upgraded (or replaced) to 1 1/2" thickness. It would allow them to conceal explosive charges under a thin layer of fireproofing without leaving any "suspicious lumps and bumps". And the only thing that's "incredible" is if someone (not involved in the plan) would have even had the opportunity to access these areas after the charges were planted. For all we know, they could have planted them just a few weeks before 9/11.

So? How is that relevant?

Because...

- it shows that a CD is not always done in one shot.

- it points out that an addition to the original structure may require its own CD, separate from the main CD.

- it cites 2 features of the addition (that required a separate CD) which also pertain to WTC 7's east penthouse - heavily reinforced structure, off-center from the main structure.

Where is the mention of a several second delay from charges at the top before the charges at the bottom?

It doesn't. But why should it, since it's totally irrelevant to the issue? They were different structures, with different additions. You surely realize that the CD's aren't going to be exactly the same, in each and every detail.....right? Right. Let's move along....

You originally asked me to present a possible reason(s) they would have for demolishing the east penthouse first, just a few seconds before the main CD. In your words - "why does it need a separate demolition sequence?"

And so I answered you - by posting an actual case, with 2 separate CD's, which described the reasons (specific to this example) for separate CD's.

Whether or not they had exactly the same reasons for the WTC 7 / east penthouse being 2 separate CD's is not relevant to the question you raised..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have an argument, and your quibbling about whether it was a fireball or a fireball theory is irrelevant. In his early statements Rodriguez says that a fireball came down the liftshaft, in his later statements he denies this. The basic question of his reliability as a witness is right there.

Nonsense. The simple fact is that...

You said Rodriguez "questions the reality of the fireball"

You said Rodriguez "suggests that there was no fireball"

You said Rodriguez "mentions the fireball only to question whether it was real"

You said Rodriguez "is again now claiming that there was no fireball"

It's your claim. You made this very same claim, repeatedly.

Now, if you didn't really mean it (in that exact way), then at least show some backbone and admit to your mistake. But don't try and twist it around as if I'm the one at fault here, because you'll just end up looking like a weasel.

You call Rodriguez a liar, claiming that he changed his story. But with your comments, I could already make a better case against you for changing your story. It's quite ironic.

But that would be petty and irrelevant to the main issue, so I'll move along...

What you (now) claim is...

"In his early statements Rodriguez says that a fireball came down the liftshaft, in his later statements he denies this. The basic question of his reliability as a witness is right there."

I assume his comments below are still considered to be your evidence?.....

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.

He says-A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators. The fireball exploded onto numerous lower floors, including the 77th and 22nd; the West Street lobby level; and the B4 level, four stories below ground- Very strange indeed ,since there were only one elevator shaft (the 50A car) that went all the way to B6, the operator was inside, Mr. Griffith and he survived with a broken ankles. He should have died burnt since on this theory the ball of fire went down. He is alive and well and I will interview him in the future to clear the disinformation.

This was taken from his first comments above...

"And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force.."

Rodriguez asked the man who suffered these horrific burns ... "what happened?".

And so, the man tells him - "He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force.."

Now, think carefully - Is this Rodriguez' first-hand account of the event, or is Rodriguez recalling what the burned man told him at the time?

There is no possible way Rodriguez is giving his own account here. Rodriguez didn't know what had happened. He specifically asked the burned man "what happened?", so the burned man told him.

Your claim that this was Rodriguez' personal account of the event is wrong. It's the burned man's account of the event, as told to Rodriguez at the time, and Rodriguez is recalling what he was told by the burned man, in his statement to NIST.

That was your basis for accusing Rodriguez of changing his story later on. It's invalid, because it was not Rodriguez' original claim to begin with.

The 1692 Salem witch trials look respectable, compared to Roberts' smear campaign against Rodriguez. What you don't yet realize is just how much of a smear campaign it is.

Anything else, or is this despicable non-issue finally settled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hearing concussive noises from a large building undergoing massive structural fire and stress from airliner crashes, does not prove the use of explosives- as is claimed by story spinners.

Here is reality-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, merril, I have only just realised you believe the official story. When you were writing this piece...

You can get on a chalkboard, and spin every last detail unto infinity.

But, with zero facts, zero proof, zero substance, it amounts to diversionary, intellectual dishonesty, and or paranoia.

... I honestly thought you were speaking about the 'official' version of events! :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because...

- it shows that a CD is not always done in one shot.

- it points out that an addition to the original structure may require its own CD, separate from the main CD.

- it cites 2 features of the addition (that required a separate CD) which also pertain to WTC 7's east penthouse - heavily reinforced structure, off-center from the main structure.

That is a really interesting piece of research you have done, turbs. It is quite different to my interpretation but it appears another very plausible reason for the initial collapse of the WTC7 penthouse. I'm going to take that onboard so now there are two ways this event reasonably fits, or even is supportive of, a controlled demolition.

Some have incorrectly tried to say there is no way the penthouse collapse fits a controlled demolition but really the only nonsense idea I have heard is that limited fire at a low level caused the penthouse to burrow its way down internally through 47 odd floors 'hollowing out' the building. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets take a look at what the 911 conspiracy believers, the "inside job" loonies, are asking us to believe....

All the people who would have to be involved in order to pull this massive conspiracy off.

-The Bush Administration, who failed at everything they ever did. Yet all of them and the people below are helping him cover up the largest mass murder in US history...

-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most if not all of them. Many of these men and women come from the military yet we are to believe they are so afraid they rather die in the governments next mass murder than come out and expose this.

-The courts for imposing a gag rule

-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation. Motive? None...

-The NYC port Authority who lost personnel. Motive?

-All the people in the pentagon who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly truck in airplane parts to cover the crime. Why? again, no answer...

-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who rather have investigations of the decisions which lead to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it's the money... [note: Whenever killing someone, pay off the relative. They wont say anything.]

-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like like the BBC and Al Jeezera. Why? No answer here either...

-The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only support the NIST hypothesis but discredits the "Controlled demolition" account.

-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.

-PBS Nova since they created a documentary explaining in detail how and why the buildings fell. None of it said bomb.

-Everyone in the NIST who covers up the largest mass murder in US history. This independent org doesn't have a moral person in hundreds of employees because not one has come out exposing this so called "Conspiracy". In fact the hundreds of scientist who signed onto the report are willing to not only lie for Bush but cover up the largest mass murder in American history. Some suggest only a hand full can do the job but that's simply impossible. The team in charge of the computer modeling has to be in sync with the team in structural engineers and so on. There are hundreds involved in this investigation and every team has to work other teams using the same evidence and specifications.

-NY Governor Pataki because he sold steel to from the WTC for the construction of the USS New York. If the argument is the government sold the steel in order to cover up the crime then Pataki is one of the criminals.

-The NY city scrap yards because they also sold steel to china before all of it was tested. Bush would have needed to call them up and tell them to sell it before they could have investigated every beam. A task which would have taken years and years not to mention millions more. Ironically the republican Mayor Bloomberg could not be involved since he asked the scrap yards not to sell the steel on behalf of the fire fighters.

-EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries. Why? The answer they give is the engineers don't know about Jones work. So in all this time no one has e-mailed Jones's work to any structural engineer?

-The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history. Why" No clue...

-The CIA

-The FBI

-FEMA

-The American Society of Civil Engineers who have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what Conspiracy Theorist say is impossible is possible.

-NORAD

-The FAA who saw planes which conspiracy theorist never existed.

-The Silverstein Group who they say got together with Bush to blow up the building for insurance money.

-Silverstein's Insurance Company who didn't question the collapse and paid out over 2 billion to Silverstein. Why? Conspiracy Theorist say the insurance company just wants to pass on the bill to the public but they already fought Silverstein in a number of law suits concerning the amount.

-American Airlines (Pentagon)

-United Airlines (Pentagon)

-Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport for losing the planes

-Scientists and engineers who developed the remote control plane technology

-Installers of the remote control devices in the planes (Pentagon)

-Remote controllers of the planes (Pentagon)

-Scientists and engineers who developed the new demolition technology and carried out practical tests and computer models to make sure it would work.

-Installers of the demolitions devices in the three buildings

-People who worked at the company(s) the installers used as cover

-Airphone etc employees who said they got calls from passengers (Pentagon)

-Faux friends and relatives of the faux passengers or just the faux relatives who claim to have been called by their loved ones or just the psyops who fooled relatives into thinking they really were their loved ones. (Pentagon)

-People who detonated the buildings"

-anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.

Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed, Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involved the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers. It's absurd to think this many people could keep a mass murder for Bush secret for this long.

Controlled demolition!!!!!??

No planes?!

Perhaps someone should tell that to Stanley Praimnath who was on the 81st floor of WTC 2.

"What I see is a big plane coming towards me. This plane is coming, eye level towards me. Eye contact. I'm seeing a big gray plane, with a red stripe.

The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway. "

Sorry but I'll listen to the people that were there and actually saw the events occuring with their own eyes over someone who's entire claim is "Everyone else is lying to you." If a plane didn't hit the Pentagon explain how the wreakage got there, this was not a small amount either, it was quite a pile and included passanger luggage as well as pieces of fuselage, seats, glass from windows, the data flight recorders for Flight 77 and engine parts. How come all the passangers and the crew's remains (except for one small girl) were recovered from the Pentagon, or are you going to claim all the rescue services were in on it too?

How many people do you claim are in on this? Let's see so far as I can tell, all the survivors, all of those in Manhatten who saw the planes that morning. All of those in Washington DC that saw them. The check in staff at Logon and Boston who saw and identified the Hijackers (including one girl who commited suicide because of what she considered her part in not stopping them.) Every firefighter, ambulance worker and police officer who attended the three scene, including those that were killed. Every Structural Engineer, half the CT crowd, nearly everyone on boards that actually know what they are talking about.

So what's that? At least a hundred thousand people? (probably more.) How exactly do you shut up that many people? You can't pay them all $10 million, that'd be $10 Trillion. The US GDP is only $11 Trillion. So how do you keep them from spilling the beans? How do you stop them taking the money and spilling the beans? By threatening to kill them? If so, what's to stop the same killers coming after you?

Even the conspiracy lovers would have to think -anyone who believes this needs to seek the nearest mental health professional.

Conspiracists in general, and 9/11 conspiracists in particular, will not criticize any claim, no matter how blatantly at odds with reality or with the the other conspiracy stories, as long as it "supports" the overall existence of the conspiracy.

This is because they are interested in lashing out at the perceived power structure, not in discovering any kind of objective truth.

God help anyone ignorant enough to buy into this crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, didn't even bother to address the Racist comment... I like to know who's in the bed before I jump in mate.

Sorry, but if the people in your bed are a bunch of Racist internet kids then I'm sleeping on the floor.

The "racist comment" that you referred to was not a racist comment at all, but was a referrence & put-down of the racism common in the Bush Administration's official 9/11 bullsh!t story.

I noticed that you deliberately tried to take the thread off-topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets take a look at what the 911 conspiracy believers, the "inside job" loonies, are asking us to believe....

All of those loony exaggerations of yours have already been responded to many times, I did so as well in a previous thread months ago when I was last on this site. Perhaps you would do better by avoiding posting such a blatant misrepresentation of what other peoople are saying.

Edited by Lovelynice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, the fireproofing was upgraded (or replaced) to 1 1/2" thickness. It would allow them to conceal explosive charges under a thin layer of fireproofing without leaving any "suspicious lumps and bumps". And the only thing that's "incredible" is if someone (not involved in the plan) would have even had the opportunity to access these areas after the charges were planted. For all we know, they could have planted them just a few weeks before 9/11.

Perhaps you'd better check with q24 as to how large the supposed CD charges are supposed to be. He says the molten cascade down WTC2 was a misplaced charge going off, and estimates of the amount of material in the cascade range from severl hundred kgs to several tonnes. He's also posted a link to a video of a thermite device that can cut a column, and it's much bigger than the column it cuts.

Even Danny Jowenko, the conspiracists favourite demolition man, denies that the towers were CDs, and says that it would have taken the best part of a year to prep them. How do you get "just a few weeks"?

Because...

- it shows that a CD is not always done in one shot.

- it points out that an addition to the original structure may require its own CD, separate from the main CD.

- it cites 2 features of the addition (that required a separate CD) which also pertain to WTC 7's east penthouse - heavily reinforced structure, off-center from the main structure.

It doesn't. But why should it, since it's totally irrelevant to the issue? They were different structures, with different additions. You surely realize that the CD's aren't going to be exactly the same, in each and every detail.....right? Right. Let's move along....

You originally asked me to present a possible reason(s) they would have for demolishing the east penthouse first, just a few seconds before the main CD. In your words - "why does it need a separate demolition sequence?"

And so I answered you - by posting an actual case, with 2 separate CD's, which described the reasons (specific to this example) for separate CD's.

Whether or not they had exactly the same reasons for the WTC 7 / east penthouse being 2 separate CD's is not relevant to the question you raised..

This is all irrelevant, I never claimed that CDs were always done in one shot, I questioned why a part of the building at the top should be demolished several seconds before the rest of the building.

Your argument about a reinforced part of the building coming down outside the footprint of the rest of the collapse doesn't hold water, either, if that part is at the top. If its supports are cut it will drop, that's the way gravity works.

Edited by flyingswan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.