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

There are so many problems, that it would require an entirely separate thread to go over them all. But here are a few examples...

Under the heading "Part 1: A Summary of William Rodriguez's Statements and Claims", two "claims" made by Rodriguez...

"I’m the last survivor pulled from the rubble." "I saved hundreds of people."

Below these linked quotes, Roberts says.."These claims are false. Rodriguez's story is dramatic enough and needs no embellishment.

The reader is encouraged to click on the links "for much more information". So what do we find?

"last survivor pulled from the rubble"

Roberts concedes that Rodriguez "was likely the last person to leave the north tower before it collapsed. He was pulled from the rubble approximately two hours later." But Roberts then notes that someone else "was pulled from the rubble more than a day after Rodriguez escaped", and so he calls Rodriguez' statement "false" and an "embellishment".

Roberts is purely trying to nitpick - Rodriguez was the last person out of the tower, and one of the last people pulled out of the rubble. What Roberts doesn't realize is that if Rodriguez wanted to "embellish" his heroics, then he would only have "boasted" about being the last one out of the building!

Saved hundreds of lives

Roberts cites two comments from Rodriguez's website...

“On 9/11, Rodriguez single-handedly rescued fifteen (15) persons from the WTC, and as Rodriguez was the only person at the site with the master key to the North Tower stairwells, he bravely led firefighters up the stairwell, unlocking doors as they ascended, thereby aiding in the successful evacuation of unknown hundreds of those who survived.”

"The last man out of the North Tower who in the North Tower saved hundreds of lives, but the 9/11 Commission and the Major Media hid his revealing testimony from YOU, the American people!"

Roberts then says...

"While his actions on 9/11 are deserving of all praise, I am not aware of William Rodriguez single-handedly rescuing anyone, much less hundreds of people. Again, Rodriguez’s story needs no embellishment. He helped the badly-burned Felipe David to an ambulance. While doing so, the 14 people who were with him in the basement office also fled to safety through the loading dock area to Vesey Street. It is unlikely that they would have remained in the basement for an hour and forty minutes until the building collapsed. Rodriguez and a co-worker rescued two men from an elevator that was stuck between the B-2 and B-3 levels. On his way up the stairs he found a woman on the 33rd floor who didn’t know what to do and sent her down the stairwell with the evacuees (Rodriguez says that she was killed by falling debris outside). Based on his stories, that’s perhaps the closest example of him single-handedly saving someone that I can think of."

What nonsense...

"I am not aware of William Rodriguez single-handedly rescuing anyone" - Apparently, Roberts would like us to believe that helping someone half-burned to death out of the building and to an ambulance isn't "single-handedly rescuing anyone"!!

"much less hundreds of people" - This comment is pure crap! Rodriguez never claimed to have "single-handedly" rescued "hundreds of people", but Roberts is implying that he did. Smear tactic.

Varying claims of lives saved

Shocking! Roberts cites various articles which differ in numbers, as if Rodriguez is personally responsible for this.

What Roberts doesn't mention is that the different numbers were written by the authors of the articles!

This is just scratching the surface of all the crap written by Roberts in his article.

Instead of all this obfuscation, how about adressing the key accusation that Rodriguez has changed his story frequently and is therefore hardly a reliable witness?

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

That's one way to do it, but it's hardly the only way. They could simply re-assign them to other duties, and/or only let them go into areas which aren't sensitive, to potentially compromise the operation.

...and of course you have plenty of evidence that this happened?

Just like they watched WTC 7 collapse without recognizing it for what it was?

Perhaps they had the expertise to see the key ways in which it differed from a CD.

AFAIK, it's the only source for the complete info. A paper should be coming out soon.

Now it's up to you to look at the video.

I'll wait for the paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of all this obfuscation, how about adressing the key accusation that Rodriguez has changed his story frequently and is therefore hardly a reliable witness?

Why does it always seem like there are way too many holes in every 911 story to date?

I mean the truth is there, regardless of the interpretation!

Have you ever seen a plane crash "through" a building intact?

Forget the size and speed and weight of the building and the whole thing altogether...

Have you EVER seen anything that simply "glided" through something solid?

Bullets change trajectory on impact with bones... and the corner of a building is going to have way more structure to absorb the impact than the middle-sections because the corners are holding most of the load.

The nose doesn't bend, the wings dont bend, the tail doesn't bend... no bending/crushing/explosion hello!!!!

Think about it, your crashing a plane into a building! The most kinetic energy is given off at the moment of impact with the solid structure, and steel is fairly freaking solid compared to aluminum!!!!

If you look closely, after the wings of the plane pass, before it is completely in the building, somehow, there is gray there(??????)

is that the steel, if so HOW DID IT BEND BACK SO QUICKLY??? is that what the inside of the building looks like??!??? WTF!

I emplore you watch this series i found just a minute ago about this mass media ploy

EDIT: Yes, TV Fakery is the reality, and reality is still reality free from your interpretations!

Edited by Zaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does it always seem like there are way too many holes in every 911 story to date?

I mean the truth is there, regardless of the interpretation!

Have you ever seen a plane crash "through" a building intact?

Forget the size and speed and weight of the building and the whole thing altogether...

Have you EVER seen anything that simply "glided" through something solid?

Bullets change trajectory on impact with bones... and the corner of a building is going to have way more structure to absorb the impact than the middle-sections because the corners are holding most of the load.

The nose doesn't bend, the wings dont bend, the tail doesn't bend... no bending/crushing/explosion hello!!!!

Think about it, your crashing a plane into a building! The most kinetic energy is given off at the moment of impact with the solid structure, and steel is fairly freaking solid compared to aluminum!!!!

If you look closely, after the wings of the plane pass, before it is completely in the building, somehow, there is gray there(??????)

is that the steel, if so HOW DID IT BEND BACK SO QUICKLY??? is that what the inside of the building looks like??!??? WTF!

I emplore you watch this series i found just a minute ago about this mass media ploy

And the reason your opinion counts for more than the engineering simulations is...

Perhaps you could start looking at the explanation for all this with the theories of Sir Isaac Newton.

Edited by flyingswan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the buildings were brought down by CD, and all the "amateur" footage is from the mass media, which faked the planes in order to authorize the "war on terrorism" and "homeland security".

The one-two- punch to start a war with three countries(Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan) for oil and opium, and whatever else our evil corporate owned government is interested in. Plus, they get to rid us of civil freedoms, in the name of "security" from the same imaginary "terrorist" enemy?

Look at the video, its not some stupid youtube crap. It shows how the "amateur" footage was just a colorbalanced full version of the cnn version, and how the other amateur footages have numerous faults.

Edited by Zaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your lines are in the right place because they mark where activity starts, and this is something you can see in the graphs. However, the fine detail you are trying to use to fit the rest of your theory, "calm points", etc, is not what you think it is for the reasons I have given. The data you are trying to extract from the graphs is just not there to be extracted.

Well that is just one astounding coincidence the seismic readings show the activity levels they do, exactly when they do. You must appreciate I am not on it's own attempting to extract data from the seismographs - I am overlaying the graph with timings from video evidence. This is what corroborates the calm points in the seismic data occurring after the upper blocks have fallen through their height.

I appreciate your explanation of two events possibly cancelling each other out somewhat, as unlikely as I find it in a building collapse. I find it more reasonable the seismic data shows reduced activity at the point it does, exactly due to there being reduced activity. Also, after mentioning the gradual increase in activity that would be expected in a 'natural' progressive collapse, you failed to comment on the actual step change in activity after the calm points.

This has come down to the usual case of one person accepting what they see and another making excuses - "yeah the data may show reduced activity but that doesn't mean there was reduced activity." :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has come down to the usual case of one person accepting what they see and another making excuses - "yeah the data may show reduced activity but that doesn't mean there was reduced activity." :rolleyes:

It has indeed come down to the usual case, and it's the case of your confirmation bias. You can take any piece of evidence whatever, and find that it miraculously supports your theories.

The original conspiracist argument was that the seismic data showed big peaks from explosions before the buildings started to fall. I showed that this wasn't the case, but - surprise, surprise - in your view this is still evidence for a controlled demolition. CD because it looks like a CD and CD because it doesn't look like a CD.

Edited by flyingswan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has indeed come down to the usual case, and it's the case of your confirmation bias. You can take any piece of evidence whatever, and find that it miraculously supports your theories.

You said yourself a 'natural' progressive collapse should show "a gradual build-up as the building collapses, then a big increase as pieces hit the ground." If this is what the seismograph had shown, it would not miraculously support a controlled demolition. Fact is though, the graph shows something that fits with my controlled demolition process theory but not the official story. Fact is, the graph does not show what we would both expect it to in a 'natural collapse' and the official story is having to make excuses for that.

I will add your 'cancelling out' theory as yet another large 'coincidence' in the official story.

The original conspiracist argument was that the seismic data showed big peaks from explosions before the buildings started to fall. I showed that this wasn't the case, but - surprise, surprise - in your view this is still evidence for a controlled demolition. CD because it looks like a CD and CD because it doesn't look like a CD.

That was never my theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Zaus... run with it... what is YOUR theory on the events of 9/11 ? What ACTUALLY happened, in your opinion ?

Meow Purr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said yourself a 'natural' progressive collapse should show "a gradual build-up as the building collapses, then a big increase as pieces hit the ground." If this is what the seismograph had shown, it would not miraculously support a controlled demolition. Fact is though, the graph shows something that fits with my controlled demolition process theory but not the official story. Fact is, the graph does not show what we would both expect it to in a 'natural collapse' and the official story is having to make excuses for that.

I didn't say that it should show that, I said that is what it actually does show. Anything more is constructing data that isn't there.

That was never my theory.

I didn't say it was. However, it was put forward by your fellow-conspiracist as evidence for his CD theory, and you see the actual data, which is completely different, as evidence for your CD theory. Confirmation bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say that it should show that, I said that is what it actually does show. Anything more is constructing data that isn't there.

You see "a gradual-build up" as the collapses progress and not a step change in the reading before and after the calm point? If that is the case, there is certainly a big difference between what we actually see on the seismograph and your 'interpretation' of it.

WTC1: -

linked-image

WTC2: -

linked-image

The change in activity is not gradual and the calm points are like no other reading through the collapse duration, occurring specifically where the upper blocks have fallen through their height. Yet you say they occur by pure chance at that point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it should be fairly obvious that along the way this knowledge was "lost", but it never was. It was simply kept away from the mass populace, and with the advent of television, hollywood, the music industry, and finally mass media the brainwashing became so effective that on 911(a day that screams "help!" and within even the way it is written you can see the 2 towers...) the project had reached completion and the elite knew it would be simple as pie to direct the people's attention to any adversary of their choosing, which happens to be Afghanistan(opium), Iraq(oil), and Iran(oil).

exactly

secret societies and "special" bloodlines make all the decisions, they also produce the mundane forms of media and "entertainment" which keep us dumb and keep us buying in

it seems so crazy but it shouldn't, those same people wrote the history books too, could they possibly be telling you the story they want you to believe or are they just giving you the honest truth straight up? (just like the news-they paint the portrait they want you to see)

do you really think a TV network is going to do an unfavourable report on a company that owns it ? there is a conflict of interest as the Government, the Corporations, the Banks, and the Media are all in the hands of the same people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question.

Why would the goverment go through all this planning, putting explosives into the Trade Centers only to have them fall straight down? They went through all the trouble to make this event happen, wouldn't it have been better to have them fall over in effect leaving a larger "footprint"?

OK I lied here's another question.

All of you that believe this big goverment conspiracy where do you stand on TWA Flight 800? The plane that mysteriously exploded on July 17th 1996. Here's what the goverment says happened.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/aar0003.htm

This would have been a perfect excuse to "Invade" Iraq because many people think it was shot down. Like all these pilots.

http://www.twa800.com/index.htm

The goveremnt could have ran with this idea and said it was shot down by terrorist (which it probably was)

There are so many easy ways to start a war why go through all the hassle that 9/11 would have taken to put together? Wouldn't the claim that Iraq had WMD's be enough to start the whole thing up? I don't get it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of all this obfuscation, how about adressing the key accusation that Rodriguez has changed his story frequently and is therefore hardly a reliable witness?

That's what I did. The author accuses Rodriguez of changing his story, and lists the "evidence" for it. I picked out some of this so-called "evidence" and showed how it is NOT evidence.

Roberts piles on so much crap in his propaganda smear piece because he hopes that some of it will stick. That's why I said it would need a separate thread if you wanted to go through it piece by stinking piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and of course you have plenty of evidence that this happened?

As much as you have that it didn't. The issue is nothing but speculation at this point. Not yet relevant.

Perhaps they had the expertise to see the key ways in which it differed from a CD.

Really? What would those "key ways" be?

I'll wait for the paper.

That's the spirit. We should all be inspired by your tireless dedication to seeking out the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Action: heavy plane at 400+ crashes THROUGH 6 FLOORS OF REINFORCED STEEL AND CONCRETE LIKE A HOT KNIFE THROUGH BUTTER.

Reaction: ... ... ... NONE.

seriously... im talking about the moment of impact SPECIFICALLY, and i cannot believe you are trying to use the argument that the "opposite" side of the building is the opposing force that SHOULD have been there. This just goes to show how degraded education is today... i guess you have to do that in order for it to work eh?

You are absolutely correct about the degraded state of education in this country, I obviously way over-estimated yours. Funny you should even mention that, considering you are a recent product of our education system. You’re in good company though, since my 17 year old son and 26 year old daughter are also recent products. I mostly blame text messaging for our deteriorating English skills and over use in the classroom of calculators for our poor math. That of course is a subject for another debate.

I carefully read that entire link you gave. I’m amazed at how poor the supposed science was. However, it did provide a very nice picture of the impact site. It looked very much like the type of damage a plane that large and going that fast along with that large of an explosion would have done at the moment of impact. It’s not really that deep into the girders. Of course, as the videos show, the inner walls are mostly very thin and the resulting explosion carried the blast out the other side.

I know you think I’m foolish for not believing your “scientists” and instead going with those that actually believe the evidence that a plane hit the building, but just for kicks, lets talk about one of the main concepts of science – that being that a theory needs to be repeatable to be considered proven. Since it would be a bit unrealistic to experiment with crashing any more planes into buildings, how about we just go with something from history similar, albeit on a smaller scale. In 1945, a B25 bomber accidentally crashed into the Empire State Building. Here’s a link with a picture, although several more can be found with a quick google. Notice the impossible, according to your science, plane sized hole in the building?

Fire... Explosion... PAPER.

As you’ve been told before, that wasn’t the only thing found and quite a bit of paper was clearly seen on the ground, surviving the explosion, before the towers collapsed. The main reason I don’t really think it was planted is because it would serve no purpose to fake something that improbable.

There are no stupid questions here, only stupid... answers.

Being thereby decreed, that way too much evidence was found in a trashcan in a hotel...

Again, what would you expect to find? They only needed to hide evidence until aboard the planes. After that, they probably didn’t mind getting credit, posthumously of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see "a gradual-build up" as the collapses progress and not a step change in the reading before and after the calm point? If that is the case, there is certainly a big difference between what we actually see on the seismograph and your 'interpretation' of it.

The change in activity is not gradual and the calm points are like no other reading through the collapse duration, occurring specifically where the upper blocks have fallen through their height. Yet you say they occur by pure chance at that point?

Read my posts again. You cannot make the interpretations that you do because the data is not there in the graphs. Your "calm points" are not significant, because you cannot make inferences from such a short length of the graph. The gradual build-up that I mentioned is there because, on average, the swings on the left of the graph are smaller than the swings on the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I did. The author accuses Rodriguez of changing his story, and lists the "evidence" for it. I picked out some of this so-called "evidence" and showed how it is NOT evidence.

Roberts piles on so much crap in his propaganda smear piece because he hopes that some of it will stick. That's why I said it would need a separate thread if you wanted to go through it piece by stinking piece.

Let's take this one step at a time. The author of that link gives several inconsistent quotes from Rodriguez. You merely dispute the author's interpretation. Cut to the core of the matter - which of those inconsistent quotes are incorrect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as you have that it didn't. The issue is nothing but speculation at this point. Not yet relevant.

You made the accusation that maintenance staff were part of the conspiracy, the burden of proof is on you.

Really? What would those "key ways" be?

In the case of WTC7, the fact that the building was damaged and on fire, and the curious way that the penthouse collapsed seconds before the rest of the building started to move.

That's the spirit. We should all be inspired by your tireless dedication to seeking out the truth.

Why should I waste my download allowance on a long you-tube presentation? If Jones has a serious technical argument rather than a piece of propaganda, he should publish it in a conventional manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read my posts again. You cannot make the interpretations that you do because the data is not there in the graphs. Your "calm points" are not significant, because you cannot make inferences from such a short length of the graph. The gradual build-up that I mentioned is there because, on average, the swings on the left of the graph are smaller than the swings on the right.

Every one of your posts is a repetition of "nothing to see here" without any attempt to answer the points I raise.

My understanding is that a seismometer measures vibrations through the ground and a seismograph is a display of these recordings. There are reasons they produce the data they do and they can only record what is there. Yes?

Now let's assume that you are correct and the 'calm points' I have highlighted are insignificant and cannot in fact be interpreted as reduced activity. We will assume they are simply lines on a graph that are lower and flatter than those lines around them. Now you cannot say that information is not there, it is, I can see it, so can you.

  1. What would cause the seismometer to record and display a lower, flatter line at that point?
  2. Is the answer you give, a chance occurrence that may be present at varying times?

Please do attempt to answer those questions (in particular the second requires a "yes" or "no" :o ) rather than another repetition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faked footage = cover for use of a small nuclear device.

I talked to a person who was at ground zero a month afterward, it was still smoldering.

Why? How? um HELLO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh bloody hell, now it's a nuclear device??????

um... nuclear devices, as a rule, tend to involve large quantites of radi...

why am i bothering?

it's Zaus.

yes, Zaus, it was probably a nuclear device.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to basics.

A question for those who do not believe the official story: what's with the planting explosives business?

In looking over this forum and others I see tens of thousands of words spent on arguing the evidence or otherwise on planted explosives being used to bring down the WTC buildings.

Put the fine points of that debate out of your heads for a moment while I put myself in the shoes of an evil government/military/corporate mastermind who wants to bring about mass fear and compliance and excuses to start wars and restrict freedom. Why would I bother with rigging the buildings with explosives? If I could arrange to have two planes flown into the WTC buildings and have the blame placed on some Middle Eastern patsies, wouldn't that be more than enough? Why should I care if the buildings collapse or not? Surely having a couple of 757s slamming into two iconic buildings in downtown Manhatten is a job well done from my point of view.

Thanks for your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every one of your posts is a repetition of "nothing to see here" without any attempt to answer the points I raise.

It isn't my fault if you cannot follow a technical argument.

My understanding is that a seismometer measures vibrations through the ground and a seismograph is a display of these recordings. There are reasons they produce the data they do and they can only record what is there. Yes?

You are ignoring the way that the instrument responds. A seismometer has a mass/spring/damper system. A single input event will give several cycles of the graph. During these cycles, the response to a second event will depend on where the instrument is in responding to the first event.

Now let's assume that you are correct and the 'calm points' I have highlighted are insignificant and cannot in fact be interpreted as reduced activity. We will assume they are simply lines on a graph that are lower and flatter than those lines around them. Now you cannot say that information is not there, it is, I can see it, so can you.

  1. What would cause the seismometer to record and display a lower, flatter line at that point?
  2. Is the answer you give, a chance occurrence that may be present at varying times?

Please do attempt to answer those questions (in particular the second requires a "yes" or "no" :o ) rather than another repetition.

As explained several times already, the response to a later event can either add to or cancel the response to an an earlier event. The answer to the second question is thus yes, there is a chance element. Note that in addition to the "calm points" you highlight, there are similar lower amplitude cycles in the high response regions associated with the buildings reaching the ground. Are you going to argue that all the debris hovered in mid-air for a second or two?

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.