20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

reply to post by tezzajw

It's obvious from jthomas' erroenous 'burden of proof' claim and his lack of underpinning knowledge about basic physics (speed vs acceleration) that he's excused himself from taking part in an intellectual discussion. No doubt, we still welcome his contributions, for at the very least, they do bump the thread and keep it prominent at the top of the forum.

I agree with that BUT, we already proved that NIST failed to scientifically explain this basic physics. Jthomas knows this yet he continues to ignore this well-known fact.
We know that NIST did everything in their power to avoid into looking demolition.
I found it quite amusing when Richard Gage said live on television that the reason we didn’t look into demolition because there was no eyewitness to confirm there were explosions. LOL

The Sept. 11 Records
A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has published all of them.

The oral histories of dispatch transmissions are transcribed verbatim. They have have not been edited to omit coarse language.

graphics8.nytimes.com...

Richard Gage proved himself a lair and proved himself compliant in the false flag cover-up. He will be held accountable when the truth all comes out. I hope the money was worth it to him.

reply to post by impressme


With all due respect, Mr. Gage was probably just listening to too many internet trolls when he said there were no eyewitness accounts of explosions in or around WTC7. The kind of trolls that think, because they haven't personally seen the witness accounts, none must therefore exist.

Former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer's is one testimony, Barry Jennings' is another. There are also videos of news reporters walking around Ground Zero after the towers had both collapsed, and were still hearing explosions coming from WTC7. There is also seismic data from FEMA showing seismic events continued at Ground Zero after both towers had collapsed, and before WTC7 started its free-fall.

When and how did the fires start burning in WT7? What caused them? I remember watching a TV report later that evening stating WT7 had been demolished on purpose.

Also, don't jumbo jets have some sort of over-riding remote control feature? And what about preprogrammed flights on autopilot, could a programming hack to a flight plan or some other electronic sabotage cause a plane to fly into a target?

reply to post by bsbray11

With all due respect, Mr. Gage was probably just listening to too many internet trolls when he said there were no eyewitness accounts of explosions in or around WTC7.

You are probably right LOL I mean for him too make a such a statement to a room full of people who have done some real research into the events of 911, it must have blew their socks off LOL When anyone watches him tell this lie,( no explosions, no molten steel, ect..) One has to think who is he trying to fool.

reply to post by impressme


Are you sure you don't mean John Gross. And not Richard Gage?

reply to post by bsbray11

ON QUESTION NUMBER 3 AGAIN.

FROM THE SAME SOURCE THAT YOU PROVIDED.

But an eyewitness, Linda Shepley, said she had an unobstructed view of Flight 93's final two minutes and has reached the opposite conclusion. She recalls seeing the plane wobbling right and left, at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing abruptly dipped straight down, and the Boeing 757 plunged into the earth.

"It's not true," said Shepley of the persistent rumors. "If it had been shot down, there would have been pieces flying, but it was intact -- there was nothing wrong with it."

WHY DID YOU OMIT THIS?
Why give more credit to people who "heard" things than to people who actually saw it!!!

reply to post by rush969


I also realized that this is the weak question presented by bsbray. Amazing how you picked up on it.

Anyway, this can easily be written off by the fact that there were fighter jets in the area at least after the crash.

So, I'm sorry bsbray.....it is down to 19 questions now. Just for the fact that this question can be written off so easily.

Originally posted by rush969
But an eyewitness, Linda Shepley, said she had an unobstructed view of Flight 93's final two minutes and has reached the opposite conclusion. She recalls seeing the plane wobbling right and left, at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing abruptly dipped straight down, and the Boeing 757 plunged into the earth.

"It's not true," said Shepley of the persistent rumors. "If it had been shot down, there would have been pieces flying, but it was intact -- there was nothing wrong with it."

WHY DID YOU OMIT THIS?

For one thing, there were pieces flying off of it, including people, that were distributed across 8 miles. Remember? Just because she personally didn't see this happening doesn't invalidate the fact that it did, as the state police and coroner even reported.

She saw it "wobbling right and left," nothing to contradict the idea that the fuselage was torn open and decompression was sucking things out of the fuselage before it went down.

Why give more credit to people who "heard" things than to people who actually saw it!!!

I give them equal credibility, but nothing is contradicted by the testimony you posted. Why do YOU ignore all the testimony of hearing jets, explosions, and the debris itself being scattered over 8 miles (which isn't just testimony but actually reported fact from state police and other local officials)? You already admitted that you agree that there were military jets in the area. I'm not the one ignoring witness testimony.

Originally posted by Nutter
So, I'm sorry bsbray.....it is down to 19 questions now. Just for the fact that this question can be written off so easily.

The sources I posted under that question actually said this:

But press the mayor for details, and he will add something surprising. "I know of two people -- I will not mention names -- that heard a missile," Stuhl said. "They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards. . .This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them, and he heard one that day." The mayor adds that based on what he knows about that morning, military F-16 fighter jets were "very, very close." 3

Laura Temyer, who lives several miles north of the crash site in Hooversville, was hanging some clothes outside that morning when she heard an airplane pass overhead. That struck her as unusual since she'd just heard on TV that all flights were grounded.

"I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny," she told the Daily News. "I heard two more booms -- and then I did not hear anything."

What does Temyer think she heard? "I think the plane was shot down," insists Temyer, who said she has twice told her story to the FBI. What's more, she insists that people she knows in state law enforcement have told her the same thing, that the plane was shot down and that decompression sucked objects from the aircraft, explaining why there was a wide debris field. 4

Also, according to sources, the last seconds of the cockpit voice recorder are the loud sounds of wind, hinting at a possible hole somewhere in the fuselage. What caused the smoke and explosion? Why the wind sounds? 9

UA93 was identified as a hijack at 9.16am. At 9.35am three F-16s were ordered to "protect the White House at all costs" when it turned towards the capital. At 10.06am it crashed at Shanksville, less than 10mins flying time from Washington

It was already understood that jets were within a few minutes' flight of Flight 93. And also that they would have had more than enough time to actually get there and do "business."

What still isn't understood is the totality of the testimony that goes along with the same people who heard these jets. They also heard missiles and explosions in their backyards that morning.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
What still isn't understood is the totality of the testimony that goes along with the same people who heard these jets. They also heard missiles and explosions in their backyards that morning.

I'm in total agreement. But, shouldn't question # 3 be: Why did people hear missles and explosions? Instead of Why did people hear military jets? Just a small point, but it may refine your question so that it doesn't have an answer. Unlike just hearing jets.

reply to post by Nutter


Yes, on retrospect, I could have worded that question to better fit the testimony that I posted under it.

Originally posted by tezzajw

You have not explained it to me.

Tough.

As I said, the info is in there. Competent individuals accept the free fall period as not unusual.

Deal with it.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Tough.
As I said, the info is in there. Competent individuals accept the free fall period as not unusual.
Deal with it.

I don't expect you to be able to explain it, Joey. The entire body of NIST scientists could not explain it and I know that your education and qualifications do not surpass the collective 'brain power' of NIST.

It's ok for you to admit that you don't know how WTC 7 fell at free fall rate for 2.25 seconds.

So far, all you have done is avoid, dodge, deflect and spin your way into believing that the answer appears in the NIST report - which it doesn't.

Please, keep bumping the thread with your delusional posts about what does and doesn't appear in the NIST report. You allow lots of other people to see your false reasoning when you continue to push this thread to the top of the pile.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Wow. Yet the exact same "competent individuals" are unable to explain it or even say where in the report an explanation can be found.

As long as there is no answer, I'll just keep posting threads like this for 8 more years.

Deal with it.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


One more time. From your source:

At 9:24 that morning, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) ordered three F-16s from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to scramble. They were airborne at 9:30. It's not clear how close any of the planes were to Flight 93, although Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said a few days later on TV that "we were already tracking that plane that crashed in Pennsylvania."

Quote.- "It´s not clear how close any of the planes were to Flt. 93".

And also:
"Authorities also sought to explain why a number of residents saw a small, unmarked jet circling over the crash site shortly after. Workers at a marina saw it, and so did Kathy Blades."

And:
Authorities said that a private Falcon 20 jet bound for nearby Johnstown was in the vicinity and was asked by authorities to descend and help survey the crash site.

reply to post by rush969


So what does that have to do with an 8-mile debris spread or any of the witnesses that reported hearing missiles, etc.?

reply to post by bsbray11


Also, from:
www.historycommons.org.../11=ua93

Pilots Do Not Receive Shootdown Authorization - At around 9:35 a.m., according to Spencer, a NEADS weapons controller will ask one of the pilots that launched in response to the first hijacking whether he would be willing to shoot down a hijacked aircraft (see (9:35 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Spencer, 2008, pp. 153] According to the 9/11 Commission, however, NEADS personnel will only learn that NORAD has been cleared to shoot down threatening aircraft at 10:31 a.m., and even then they will not pass this order along to the fighter pilots (see 10:31 a.m. September 11, 2001).

So, if Flt.93 crashed at 10:06 and the clearance to shoot down was issued at 10:31, it´s not possible that Flt. 93 was shoot down.

reply to post by rush969


Once again, what does that have to do with an 8-mile debris spread or the witness testimonies of hearing missiles, all of that?

Do you know what kind of distance 8 miles is, off the top of your head?

Originally posted by tezzajw

I don't expect you to be able to explain it, Joey.

Not to you, correct.

It would be a waste of time and bandwidth.

So, if you want to understand what kind of resistance a buckling column gives, and what happens when it's unsupported for 105' vertically, I guess you'll have to go to another website.

Do you truly rely on ATS as your source of info on these matters?

You DO have the ability to go elsewhere to find info, correct?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
Read the NIST report. And it didn't fall through a "vacuum." You already admitted there was air inside and claimed it should have provided air resistance thereby invalidating your "explosive demolition" claim right off the bat.

The acceleration of gravity is 9.8m/s^2 or 32.2ft./s^2. Drag has not been factored into either of those numbers.


And here is NIST showing the free-fall (accelerating at the rate of gravity) according to their own measurements:

[ats]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Wtc7-nist1a-fig3-15.jpg[/ats

Yes, and?

You need to support your claim that "I just realize that the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition."

The burden of proof is, always has been, and remains on your shoulders.

No, this is a lie that you repeatedly post as if it's going to magically make it true. You can say something that is wrong 100000 times and it will still be wrong every single time.

I have to remind you that no one made any claim that "...the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition" other than YOU. Sorry, Bsbray11, you are just evading YOUR responsibility to support your own claims. You cannot get anywhere with your persitent attempts to shift the burden of proof from your shoulders.

The "burden of proof" was on those who carried out the investigations. I never got so much as a letter in the mail about anything even remotely similar to such a responsibility.

Let me make it crystal clear for you again. I repeat: "That means you have to not only deal with all off the implications of claiming "controlled demolition", but you also have to refute the entire body of evidence and conclusions of the NIST report, and explain why the entire industries of structural engineers, architects, forensic scientists, university professors in the relevant subjects, and physicists are not collectively up in arms."

I am still waiting for you to show me where NIST explains what allowed an entire building to fall as if nothing was under it, when there should have been a foundation under it, and columns ascending all up throughout it.

I already did. I refer you to the NIST report and, apparently, you refuse to read it. You need to refute the evidence presented. Maybe you should watch this over and over and finally stop trying to shift the burden of proof from your shoulders.

See: WTC 7 Collapse with Debris Impact Damage – Physics Based Model
Credit: NIST (Upper right video)

www.nist.gov...

After you have finished refuting the NIST report, then you can support your claim that "...the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition."

You have a responsibility to support that claim or withdraw it. Now please explain why the minimum amount of explosives to accomplish a controlled demolition would produce a decibel level of sound from 120 db to 130 db at 1/2 mile away and there are neither ANY reports of that, nor any physical evidence of explosives. You must deal with the implications of your claims.

Now, Bsbray11, please support your own claims and stop evading your responsibility to support them.

We're still waiting.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
The explanation of the internal collapse is there for you to refute. Get busy.

jthomas hits back in a big way with more of his false logic. Obviously, he must have consulted some physics text books over night, as he has corrected his misunderstanding between free fall speed and free fall acceleration.

What still confuses you about what I already quoted you, tezzajw?:

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at wtc.nist.gov...).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

www.nist.gov...