|
|
Unleashed: Unanswered 9/11 questions
The collapse of New York’s World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 is arguably one of the most well documented events in human history. Less well documented is the controversy over why the buildings fell as they did.
At the time of writing, 357 architectural and engineering professionals have signed a petition which directly challenges the National Institute of Standards & Training’s official finding that the destruction of these massive buildings was caused solely by structural damage from the impact of jet airliners and the resulting fires.
[…]
Current research indicates that an incendiary (thermite) may have been used to sever the massive box columns of the towers, causing the buildings to plummet to the ground at close to free-fall speed.
[…]
“As no reports have come to light of any steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, and as all steel framed buildings which had collapsed had done so due to explosive demolition, the logical way to have started the investigation of this surprising event would have been to question whether explosives had been used. This apparently did not occur.
William Rodriguez, an acknowledged hero of 9/11 who single-handedly rescued fifteen people from the North Tower, described a massive explosion in the basement which occurred before the first plane struck, pushing him upwards out of the seat of his chair.
The New York Fire Department’s oral histories project contains 118 witness statements which are strongly consistent with explosive demolition. Incredibly, none of this shocking testimony was included or acknowledged in any official investigation, including the 9/11 Commission.
If the towers were wired with explosives by terrorists prior to the planes, that would imply a lack of security on a massive scale that would be worth hiding. On the other hand, how do you hide that much work to rig buildings like that? If terrorists didn’t do it, why would the towers be rigged with explosives? Leaving aside the wacko’s government conspiracies, are other buildings routinely wired to blow to bring them straight down if something happens to prevent them falling onto other buildings? An interesting ‘protection’ scenario for the neighborhood that would be worth hiding for many reasons.
And then there’s this article from a few months ago with quotes from military experts like this one:
“A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible,” said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret). With doctoral degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.
“There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up,” continued Col. Bowman. “Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.”
RBG, you’re a font of glib rationalizations that “explain” how the laws of physics were suspended on 9/11, and two massive buildings went almost instantaneously from a state of smoldering quietly to showers of rubble and huge clouds of dust. And if one doesn’t look too closely, what you say sort of makes sense…
It’s like Ptolemy’s account of the motions of the sun and planets in our solar system. After all, it’s obvious that the sun orbits the earth, as we see it “move” every day through the sky. Not too many people buy that one anymore, but the belief held sway for centuries. Perhaps the tribulations that Galileo suffered simply for offering a better explanation can inform us vis-a-vis the conflict between the deniers and the truth movement today. Galileo was silenced, but others took up the cause, and it wasn’t long until Newton formulated the laws of gravity and closed the case. The moral of the story is that “Truth Will Out”.
This thread has meandered a bit but it hasn’t gotten too far off the subject, and now and as it winds down, let’s return to the video at the top of the page. In this case, it seems that You Tube is a modern-day analogy to Galileo’s telescope, providing a focus by which underlying mechanisms (and machinations) are made clear.
The problem for deniers is that for all of the elaborate explanations they offer, there are people on this planet who employ common sense. I.e., they hearken to those basic maxims such as, “If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…” Hence, when it falls like a controlled demolition, spits out squibs like a controlled demo, creates pyroclastic flows just like a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION… In sum, you deniers have got your work cut out for you…
A friend walked by just a moment ago, a lovely, lively Latina, and I asked her if she’d ever heard of building 7. “What’s that?” she asked, and I showed her the video, then some of postings on this thread… it struck her as hilarious and we started speculating on the implications of this information for the near future… It was a good laugh…
>>I’ll bet you can count many things you
>>evaluate as you “simply don’t know” and
>>life continues in a very fulfilled way?
Yeah, but wouldn’t it be nice to know? Or does the truth ==-==SCARE =-=— YOU =–==, Bobster?
#259–Mustard, most truth doesn’t really matter. In fact, I look forward to the thread where we can all list what really matters. Don’t think WTC would make my long list, if I had one. I look forward to that, so much the optimist I am.
=–Bobster–== so you”re saying that the truth DOES =-scare-= you? Otherwise /// why wouldn’t you want to ///know///?
#261–Mustard==no, I said most truth doesn’t really matter. What other people do/think doesn’t matter to me until they pass laws restricting my freedom. Same with god. So, “ideas” and “beliefs” don’t concern me, don’t scare me whether they are truth or lies. Likewise, the only things that scare me are actions taken against my freedom interests, and again whether or not such action is based on the truth or a pack of lies?
You know what freedom is right? Not doing what others feel free to do and doing what others won’t when sufficient anonymity exists? (Yes, that was a half joke=====where did all those flies come from?? Still cracks me up, but not for the right reasons.)
==The==- TRUTH -== acares =-=-=-BOBBO-=-=-=
=-=So sad, Bobbo. There appear to be enough unanswered questions here to warrant in independent investigation. =—= But I guess that might turn up the ======TRUTH=======, and that would be too scary for you to tolerate. =Eh=?
Bobbo,
Yes, I have a sense of humor even if I’m serious about something I don’t let it cloud by ability to see humor and appreciate it. As for the ‘Simply don’t know’ and move on. I would say that the fact that nearly 7 years later I’m still looking for information to satisfy my curiousity means that I haven’t dismissed it. I just try to keep objective.
Bobbo,
Yes, I have a sense of humor even if I’m serious about something I don’t let it cloud by ability to see humor and appreciate it. As for the ‘Simply don’t know’ and move on. I would say that the fact that nearly 7 years later I’m still looking for information to satisfy my curiousity means that I haven’t dismissed it. I just try to keep an objective outlook.
#263–Mustard==I don’t have any unanswered questions about 9/11==I saw the whole thing on tv. I take film at face value until “extraordinary evidence” overcomes it or direct contradictory evidence. Suppositions basically grounded in ignorance do not move me. I can’t imagine a truth about 9/11 that would scare me? Any suggestions?
#258, No Evidence,
RBG, you’re a font of glib rationalizations that “explain” how the laws of physics were suspended on 9/11,
RBG has posted rational arguments over and over. What has been offered in return? Nothing except hollow claims. When the twoofers can come up with some real, tangible evidence instead of all this bullshit about “I heard explosions” that only came to light months or years later.
I have yet to hear from ONE engineer that steel doesn’t soften with heat. I have yet to hear from ONE engineer that when the load exceeds the capacity of the truss we can expect the building not to fail.
That’s it. I’m done.
>>I can’t imagine a truth about 9/11
>>that would scare me?
Bobo, in spite of your Bohemian punctuation, I think the truth in general scares you. You imagine your three years of watching Star Trek makes you the LogicMeister. Desafortunadamente, logic suggest that you might be scared of the truth. =-===//. —-===—////! Terribly scared. ////
#268–Mustard, it concerns me that even with my tongue in cheek I endeavor to answer all/most questions posed whereas you studiously avoid answering any. Add to this your proclivity to believe the opposite of what is posted, and the interest starts to wane.
Turn over a slightly modified leaf. Engage. You can do better.
258 Empirical evidence
I love how you can contradict yourself without missing a beat.
“…there are people on this planet who employ common sense. I.e., they hearken to those basic maxims such as, “If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…”
After all, it’s obvious that the sun orbits the earth, as we see it “move” every day through the sky.
Well, the duck in this case is a 767 weighing 280,000 lbs loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel flying into a building at 500 miles per hour. And you’re so surprised a building should fall?
“…for all of the elaborate explanations they offer…”
As opposed to jet crash + hidden demolitions + convoluted cover up with a cast of thousands, you mean?
“when it falls like a controlled demolition”
Because “like” leaves no no trace of demolitions.
“spits out squibs like a controlled demo”
And “like” also means smoke forced out windows in the time it takes for one floor to crush to the next. (Where else does the smoke go?)
“creates pyroclastic flows just like a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION”
And just “like” a room full of lead batteries that happen to be on the floor in question.
So much for my work for today.
My dog just walked by. And we speculated on the implications of opinion over evidence. It was a good laugh…
RBG
Mr. Gawd Almighty,
I stated clearly that on the morning of 9/11 I heard the explosions and a brief mention of it on the news, that confirmed what I heard, that very morning not years later. As for no evidence, you are correct. I’ve been trying to find video with the soundtrack intact since that day. That is what frustrates most of us looking into this deeper than what is spoon fed to us in the media. We simply will not overlook what we know to be an untruth.
#270–tshirt==lets assume your darkest suspicions are confirmed. Then what? Bush has already ruined the economy and world standing of the USA. 9/11 would not add much to his long list.
Wouldn’t whether or not we should be using plastic food containers and the quality of your local water have a bigger impact on your very own personal life? (PS Mustard–I avoid plastic and water here is fine.==So, I am afraid of chemical contamination.)
tshirt. Actually, I don’t doubt for a second that you heard what you heard. Just that in the maelstrom of an unprecedented jet crash, there’s going to be more than a few weird sounds. Maybe it was one explosion followed by multiple echos off of numerous nearby buildings or falling heavy debris from any of the numerous buildings affected.
All you can say is that you heard multiple explosions, and not immediately feel qualified to ascribe it to anything extraordinary, as people do who see lights in the sky and immediately think they’ve just seen ET.
RBG
I am very proud to call myself a “conspiracy theorist”. I love a good conspiracy….they are absolutely fascinating and can, at times, be fun! However, I also like to think of myself as rational and realistic.
This particular event, conspiracy or not, is the best of both worlds. Just reading these blogs has provided me with excellent arguments for BOTH sides. I do find it amusing to sense the anger building in the bloggers statements.
I have no idea what happened that day. Mr. Gawd Almighty’s blog seems to some up the rationality of it very well…..and he certainly makes sense. But consider this, if you remove all the various theories, you are left with nothing but the official report. Most of the blogs I’ve read arguing against the theories seem to suggest that the report is accurate,flawless, absolute and final. While the rational side of me is perfectly willing to accept an engineer’s explanation of how events occurred on that tragic day, the theorist side of me reminds me of that report. The report is anything but complete. A lot has been left out, leaving a lot of unanswered questions. And this, I feel, is where the conspiracy is born. Why is there no mention of WTC 7 in the official report? Why was it reported to have fallen before it actually did? Why do some survivors and some of the firemen report hearing explosions from various spots in the building before the building fell?
Granted, most of my information on this subject comes from forums just like this one, so the possiblity of misinformation becomes a probability. But I have also read a lot of articles, watched and re-watched documentaries and spoken to people who were actually there.
The fact is, the official report just doesn’t cut it. Hence, the conspiracy theories.
#271 Bobbo,
Just because there is the possibility that demolition charges existed does not mean that I believe our government ie Mr. Bush did it. There could be many possibilities as to who and why they were there. I do not leap from personal observation of something unexplained to the same conclusion as most others.
As for the economy being destroyed, there are many factors that come into play that were in place prior to this administration.However this president has not undone them and added to the list of problems.
Absolutely I have other things to concern myself with regarding my personal life and I do. As for the water, I have my own well and it’s been tested.
One question for all of you who think the official story is true…
Why would so many people go against a “rational” explanation, risk being called crazy and devote their lives to warning others if there was nothing to it? Seriously, is there a mass delusion, mass paranoia?? Why would physicists and engineers speak out against the official story and say it isn’t plausible? None of these people gain from this–in fact, many face serious loss—loss of reputation, loss of jobs and loss of life.
If you believe the “official” story, what does it hurt to explore the suppositions of the “conspiracy theorists” with an open mind? Just remember: If the official story could stand up to scrutiny, the movement wouldn’t be gaining momentum.
A couple of questions for all of you who think the official story is true…
Why would so many people go against a “rational” explanation, risk being called crazy and devote their lives to warning others if there was nothing to it? Seriously, is there a mass delusion, mass paranoia?? Why would physicists and engineers speak out against the official story and say it isn’t plausible? None of these people gain from this–in fact, many face serious loss—loss of reputation, loss of jobs and loss of life.
If you believe the “official” story, what does it hurt to explore the suppositions of the “conspiracy theorists” with an open mind? Just remember: If the official story could stand up to scrutiny, the movement wouldn’t be gaining momentum.
# 272 RBG,
I’m glad you understand my point. I heard something and want to know what it was that caused it. I know what it sounded like but have no way to prove it out.
These explosions were well after the jet hit while the buildings were burning. I’d have to look at a timeline to know how much time actually elapsed between the last jet crash and the first collapse but there was no apparent cause of the explosions I heard but I could only see what was being filmed. Having a television news reporter draw the same conclusion that I did and stating as much led me to believe I’d find out more. This did not happen. This is where my curiosity lies and nothing more.
@276–tshirt==isn’t the aircraft collision and fire the “apparent cause” of everything else that happened that day?
Unanswered questions do not controvert the apparent cause of the WTC collapse which is right there in front of your eyes.
All reports don’t answer all questions. All important issues/occasions have detractors.
On the moon landing conspiracy, I thought the fact that the film did not show any stars was pretty gosh darn conclusive==as I say, right there in the filmed record==until I read that film is not sensitive enough to pick up those stars. Gee, that makes sense.
I’m no engineer, but how many buildings have been hit mid tower by airplanes and burned for 2-3 hours? Any experts say it “absolutely” could not fall just as it did? Sure, it “seems like” internal steel girders should have tilted the building top to fall one way or the other–like a tree in the forest, but==just what are the “odds” and conditions that would have made it fall as a pancake? Fairly complex stuff.
Occams Razor.
Bobbo-
It is amazing to me that you used the ‘lack of stars’ analogy of the moon landing conspiracy in your last blog, because I ALMOST used it when I typed my last blog.
My point was to refute the ‘proof’ offered by the “deniers” (I picked that term up by from reading these very blogs and I kinda like it). They claim we have no proof to back up our conspiracy claims (and they’re usually right) but they refuse to acknowledge that they have very little, and usually rather flimsy, proof of anything themselves.
You say you read about the film not being sensitive enough to pick up the light of the stars and that “proves” the pictures authenticity. I saw it with my own eyes on a show on National Geographic Channel or History or Discover or hell, maybe even all of them. They showed how, when taking a picture even with a modern and very sophisticated camera, the stars don’t show up. And I, like you, said “Wow! Guess they won that argument.” But then it hit me. To prove their point that the pictures were taken on the moon….they took pictures on earth(!) which is what the theorists are saying they did in the first place!
Not trying to turn this into a moon landing conspiracy discussion….just trying to show that “proof” and “truth” seem to be in the eyes of the beholder. For the record to anyone else reading this, I do believe we went to the moon. But I also believe that we faked some of the pictures for reasons not yet known to us!
Call me what you will!
#278–evil==I don’t know if this makes a difference in your reverie, but the fact that the film did NOT show the stars was supposedly proof that the film was NOT shot in space “where stars are clearly visible to the human eye.” It does cut my argument though in that even “film” has to be explained and common experience cannot always be our guide.
What do you mean by “faked.” I doubt moon landing photos are faked. I would expect many to be “enhanced” for clarity and to make some point?
So I agree–proof and truth too often are meant as “absolute” like a math solution. “Best evidence” is usually the way to go, if one cares enough to engage the exercise.
I will take the simplest explanation absent overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Planes hit building, building falls. Simple.
Thanks RBG for clearing those matters up for me beyond any shadow of a doubt.
As for your offer of “Anything else?”, well, how much time do you have?
Obviously I can’t list ALL of my questions here but here’s one more for you….how about the reports of explosions that seemed to come from below BEFORE the planes hit the towers at all?
I’m not saying that this, in fact, did occur but there are survivors who report that it did. To the best of my knowledge, there is no mention of that in the report, either.
Just out of curiosity, do you put your complete and utter faith in the official report? I’m not at all attempting to be disrespectful or confrontational…I am genuinely curious.
on May 21st, 2008 at 4:30 pm, RBG said:
“creates pyroclastic flows just like a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION”
And just “like” a room full of lead batteries that happen to be on the floor in question.
You just went from glib to pathetic in less time than it took WTC7 to fall… have you ever thrown a flashlight battery in a campfire and watched it explode? How many batteries would it take to create a pyroclastic flow of that size? Maybe if all 47 floors of the building were floor to ceiling with batteries and they all exploded at once… but that too would require some detonators… and I suppose you see it as a mere “coinydink” that three such flows were witnessed that day.
RBG said: So much for my work for today. My dog just walked by. And we speculated on the implications of opinion over evidence. It was a good laugh…
Was it laughing with you or at you? Whatever, I’m happy that you’ve found an intellectual peer to share your thoughts with… but I bet that even fido doesn’t buy that crap about the batteries…
on May 21st, 2008 at 6:23 pm RBG said:
Who are these engineers? More than 10? 50? 2?
See the website of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!
http://www.ae911truth.org/
“385 architectural and engineering professionals
and 1489 other supporters including A/E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.”
Wassup RBG… you got a problem with that?
285 Ee: You’re probably right. I’m wrong on that. As a percentage, wonder how many architects and engineers concur? Bet you could find at least 385 engineers who believe in flying saucers, too.
See how easy it is to admit you’re wrong. Practice on the “w” sound first.
RBG
on May 21st, 2008 at 8:17 pm RBG said:
285 Ee: You’re probably right. I’m wrong on that. As a percentage, wonder how many architects and engineers concur? Bet you could find at least 385 engineers who believe in flying saucers, too.
Hey, that’s cute… but you know, when I found that site some months back, there were only a few hundred members total, where there are now 1800+ and counting. It looks like momentum is building here…
I personally find Gage’s University of Manitoba presentation very compelling (there’s a link to it on the site) and so evidently do others who have been persuaded to the cause of reopening the investigation. (It’s curious that GWB was adamantly opposed to even the first inquiry… no doubt you have an explanation for that.)
As for batteries, yes, they’re very heavy… my backup power module has about twice the weight of a standard car battery… So what? Water weighs more than gasoline. Try to reference the real world here… ever been around a car fire? Ever heard people say “Run! The battery’s going to explode!”…? Like I say… pathetic. Even NIST has more self-respect than to advance an explanation as facile and implausible as that one… I would hope!
In closing, there is at present a growing consensus that the 9/11 investigation(s) should be reopened, and I am confident that this assertion will prevail.
Good old Uncle Dave.
We’re talking David Icke here….right??
The man whose been trying to open up everyone’s
eyes for the past 20 years and getting NOTHING but pressure from every government going?
Just managing to keep out of the way of the ‘atomic flak’?
Google him.
Listen to him.
Read all he has to say.
One day you’ll appreciate what you’ve got Peep’s.
Take care, Pete.