IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
We All Know Now Corley Never Had A Clue What Became Of United Airlines Flight 175, A detailed analysis of corrupted UA175 evidence.

amazed!
post Oct 26 2011, 10:49 AM
Post #81





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Yeah, Q, maybe you could make a citizen's arrest on this.

Before attempting, however, you should consult with those folks in Surrey, Canada who just attempted the same on Dubya for his admitted criminal offences.

Or, perhaps you should consult with the VFP guys, God bless 'em, who attempted citizen's arrest on Rumsfeld a few months back.

Best of luck on that dude.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Oct 27 2011, 09:16 PM
Post #82





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



I’m known for far worse things I’ve stood for in the past, therefore, imply what you will of my “vichysto-résistant” political stance and exceptionally strong-minded will to serve a higher purpose. In contrast then to those who’ve done absolutely nothing to better their fellow lot, certainly without consideration given those sacrificed on the altar of 9/11. They will reap exactly what they’ve sewn in life and all because they'd failed to realize until too late that is our reason for being is to live with compassion, communally and constructively. That goes for being demonstrably proactive in the welfare and affairs of those who cannot fend for themselves. Therefore the coming social awakening and renaissance, or revolution if you will, won’t be kind at all to those who’ve spent their lives conspiring to do no good of others. Indeed, with history as my witness those deserving will get precisely what’s coming to them, when the épuration sauvage befalls America that is, sooner rather than later I suspect. God’s law, as with the rule of man, will fall by the wayside when those who ever con sidered making a citizen’s arrest of tyrants and instead turn to revenge, as Muammar bin Mohammad bin Abdussalam bi Humayd bin Abu Manyar bin Humayd bin Nayil al Fuhsi Gaddafi recently found out the hard way.

Not unlike the French Resistance then or francs-tireurs who dispatched any such tyrant and complicit collaborator in their midst, throughout the occupation of France and especially in the immediate last days of World War II. That’s when a wave of executions, public humiliations, assaults and detentions of suspected collaborators swept over the country. To paraphrase Gerald Celente “past events form future trends“, meaning then, when history repeats itself you’ll wish to hell you were serving the right side, but if wishes were horses even beggars would ride. So too he’s forewarned everyone “When people have lost everything and they’ve nothing left to lose well then they lose it” and the financiers of the occupying “Vichy Regime” now ensconced therein Washington are to blame for that. It’s they after all who serve and do the bidding of the International Bankers occupying the Federal Treasury. That seat of all power over the land.

Interestingly enough it’s been estimated a mere 500,000 activists or about 2% of the adult male and female French population served on French soil as francs-tireurs in one capacity or another. Approximately 200,000 of those had substantial involvement, meaning those propagandists, spies, and saboteurs harassed the occupiers to no end and to the point where retreat was the occupying aggressor’s only option. Think about it...2% of the population made all the difference there! So how many completely disenfranchised and underemployed activists who are now aware of the root of the problem in America and around the World would you say there are? How many of those who’ve been politicized by the years of looting the public purse are close to you, know of your allegiance to those tyrants and will recall the betrayal you now serve on your countrymen? Think about that the next time you act or open your mouth - consider yourself warned.

In the end Mr. Celente and I make-up what amounts to a handful of “Conspiracy Theorists” making a difference. I wish there were more like him in the resistance movement currently sweeping the globe but no matter. The rank and file are growing in number and when all is said and done both our politics, opinions as well our reputations will have been vindicated. For having made an effort at least to shed light on those responsible for the overall criminality leading up to the events of 9/11 as well those complicit in aiding and abetting the murder of their fellow countrymen and women and all for prophet...Oops my bad; I meant to say profit of course. Chalk that up to a Freudian slip.

Rest assured, history foretells, those who advocate such tyrannical measures as that of Nazi Germanys rule will get exactly what they deserve in due time. For having backstopped any such unconscionable “Vichy Regime” via their self-inflicted ignorance and by that I mean their blind obedience and patriotism to that cause that will be their downfall.

Not unlike those who met their fate at the hands of the 'franc-tireur’ so too the 9/11 traitors will inevitably be made familiar of their executioner, of whom and in the words of G. K. Chesterton therein the September 13, 1919 issue of Illustrated London News then “A 'franc-tireur' is a free man, who fights to defend his own farm or family against foreign aggressors, but who does not happen to possess certain badges and articles of clothing...In other words, a 'franc-tireur' is you or I or any other healthy man who found himself, when attacked, in accidental possession of a gun or pistol, and not in accidental possession of a particular cap or a particular pair of trousers. The distinction is not a moral distinction at all..."




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Nov 9 2011, 12:06 AM
Post #83





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



I find it all rather coincidental then. That eight days ago now, there on November 1, 2011, ‘the Demon’ posted a video at [http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542] and elicited broadly speculative assumptions about what he/she claims it proves.

By doing so that individual aided and abetted what amounts to a concerted conspiracy by fools and the mainstream media to disseminate false information about 9/11 and WTC7 specifically. One could argue it was done this time around in a desperate attempt to undermine and discredit the findings and expert testimony of the likes of Kevin Ryan and others. They recently spoke on the matter of 9/11 and at length in Toronto, Canada. Videos of that conference are available online at [http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17217220] or simply Google search 9/11 – The Toronto Hearings and then select video. I highly recommend listening to the very telling testimony of those expert witnesses to better understand my point here.

My point being then I’m concerned people just now coming to know about the World Trade Center 7 controversy may be wrongly influenced by such nonsense as what some consider to be factual reporting. For that reason I’m compelled to pipe up here and set the record straight on the written comments ‘the Demon’ made online quite recently. Not only had that individual disingenuously deduced the “rare raw 9/11 footage” shows World Trade Center 7 was “partially consumed by fire, melting the beams which then resulted in its collapse” on 9/11. Unbelievably then he/she also concluded “a direct ground shot of a large portion of the building missing at the bottom - look closely and your 9/11 conspiracy theories should take a back seat - the building was severely damaged by collapse of the Twin Towers.” All of which is pure bullshit and I’ll certainly not take a back seat to anyone who’s disseminating any such claptrap!

I’ll assume the latter statement made by ‘the Demon’ is in reference to the heavily damaged World Trade Center 5, seen to the left in that video footage, and not WTC7 because clearly the only WTC site office towers shown therein are two distinctly separate structures and quite clearly WTC7 on the right is in no way, shape or form damaged at ground level. Not on its West or the North facing wall there at street level. Therefore, how ‘the Demon’ managed to arrive at that conclusion is anyone’s guess. But regardless then of whether or not they were implying the building on the left was part of WTC7 the fact remains they’d demonstrably proven they’re nothing shy of being an amateur menace to 9/11-Truth research, if not an agent provocateur, for having made all those patently false statements!

Aside from that, as well the fact the video footage in question has been public knowledge since 9/11, what raised my hackles even more is Meghan Keneally, an alleged freelance journalist now living in New York. Quite fortuitously then she’d happened upon that “Unseen 9/11 Footage” the same day it was posted online and promptly decided to write an article about it then. So entitled ‘Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire’ that utterly maleficent antithesis is a flagrant miscarriage of the truth that was picked-up and published by the ignoble rag ‘the UK Daily Mail’ newspaper on November 2, 2011. As posted online at [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html].

By it all I can’t help but wonder how one could be so very stupid and brazen to write such nonsense and think for a second expert witnesses dedicated to researching 9/11-Truth wouldn’t catch her out on that lie! In light of that fact it’s obvious to me she was put-up to the task, by the editorial board at ‘the Daily Mail’ whom for that reason never bothered to vet the claims she made therein that hit-piece. Nor did it establish the veracity of the source material underpinning her story. Those two facts alone say everything about the lack of ethics of the editorial board at the UK Daily Mail. Not to mention the mindset and modus operandi of those at its helm who steer the official 9/11 narrative and public knowledge of the matter in the direction they’ve done so from the onset of September 11, 2001. Had one of them a conscience and bothered to establish her background or vet the evidence so too they would have discovered the following qualities of Meghan Keneally.

First of all with respect to the overall WTC 7 issue she hasn’t a clue what she’s talking about and certainly not when it comes to the official record of intergovernmental agencies who investigated that crime scene. But more importantly then she’d either plagiarized, verbatim, at least some if not all of what she’d written therein her article. That or she’d planted the video to begin with then capitalized on doing so after the fact.

Quite frankly then I suspect the latter, due to the fact the entire first paragraph therein her article reads word for word the same as that of the commentary posted by ‘Kruz200’ on November 2, 2011 at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b-AfXkEvgs]. That suspicious “newly released video” footage mentioned therein having been sourced from ‘the Demon’ at [www.LiveLeak.com]. A fact confirmed by the “posted on LiveLeak” hallmark in the upper left corner in every online version of that particular video, including the one linked to ‘the Mail’ article in question.

It’s my opinion then either she or the editors at the Daily Mail planted the ‘Kruz200’ video. One or the other most certainly did, in a failed attempt to lend false credence to the official narrative “Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center – and not explosives, as the conspiracy theorists claim.” I believe it was Meghan Keneally’s job to put a freelance spin on that video and by doing so she’d curry scraps of favour from the powers that be down the road, hopefully. For all the aforementioned reasons then Meghan Keneally’s reporting is anything but that of a freelance journalist writing with an impartial view from an unbiased vantage point. If I’m proven right her reputation will be irreparably damaged as diminished for having been exposed as nothing better than a mainstream media “presstitute” akin to the likes of James Meigs, the consummate stooge, government apologist and editor of Popular Mechanics fame.

She’s welcome to rebut my accusations and even sue me in court over them but in the end you’re my judge and jury deciding who’s telling the truth here and that’s why I tell it like it is.

Her credibility and trustworthiness as a freelance journalist is shot all to hell then in my opinion! Therefore Mr. Watson was right and justified write and chastise her bizarre leap of logic, so too her opportunistic accusations levied against 9/11-Truth researchers in general therein his rebuttal ‘Footage That Kills 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Actually Validates Them.’ If you haven’t already read either article I suggest you begin with Paul Joseph Watson’s piece, posted there on Alex Jones ’Infowars’ at [http://www.infowars.com/footage-that-kills-911-conspiracy-theories-actually-validates-them/] followed by Ms. Keneally’s dubious extrapolation of the events and evidence shown therein the video footage.

It goes without saying I side with Paul Joseph Watson’s take on the matter. If for no other reason because that 2 minute video collage [http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542] shows quite matter-of-factly then a maximum of four floors of the 47 storied Building 7 either aflame or having been damaged by fire. As a result only sections of the exterior aluminum panels nearest the open flames had melted away from the exoskeleton of that structure. That’s a far cry different from “beams” shown to be “melting” and massive structural support columns at the heart of the building giving way as a consequence of fire/heat induced failure.

In fact the design of WTC7 had no such structural beams designed into its exterior walls and even the NIST investigators only went as far as to claim in their final report the fires “weakened” the interior core columns of the building, not the “exterior metal beams” so imagined by ‘the Demon’ and Ms. Keneally. Obviously then what both individuals would have people believe is structural steel melted was away by the rather low intensity fires burning therein. Rather than the reality of the situation, which is ceiling tile support latticework and minor secondary structures above it have come adrift of their anchors. As evidenced when the camera zooms into the buildings shattered window openings for a birds-eye view.

All said and done I’m inordinately disgusted by both of their inept, incredibly unqualified and absurd conclusions. In fact their deeply incredulous opinions are impossible to ignore, especially when such stupidity emboldens others of like mind and ulterior motive to follow suit by weighing in and publicly with equally moronic conclusions.

For those not yet convinced I’m right to say there’s an ongoing, concerted campaign involving such fools and the mainstream media to plant stories and corrupt facts by fabricating evidence intended to veil the truth of 9/11 I suggest you Google the ‘Kruz200’ video at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b-AfXkEvgs] then open up the “read more” tab and compare the two descriptions of the same video.

Oh hell then I’ll save you the steps – what follows then is the commentary from the ‘Kruz200’ video footage headlined Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building consumed by fire:

“Footage that kills the conspiracy theories. Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories. Footage below to LiveLeak site.
Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims.
But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center – and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.”

...and here’s the Headline, as well the full first paragraph of Meghan Keneally’s article:

“Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building consumed by fire
Its dramatic collapse hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories. Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims. But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center – and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.”

Now compare the original raw Vince Dementri video footage to the online version and finally the aired edited CBS2 video footage that was shown around the world on 9/11. The unedited Vince Dementri video footage is located in Release_14 of the NIST Cumulus dataset in file CBS-NET NIST Dub #7 and WCBS NIST Dub #2 ADDED CLIPS. An example of the complete, edited and aired Vince Dementri/CBS2 video is here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR0IL7K39v4] or alternatively then it. Alternatively then it can be downloaded at Youtube by searching “Vince Dementri - WTC7 Expected To Collapse CBS2 News – YouTube”.

Lastly then very telling photographs of WTC7 being constructed in 1985 are located in Release 32 and 36 of the NIST Cumulus datasets. For that reason their authenticity vis-a-vis their chain of custody is well beyond reproach. Revealing images in Release_32, files 42A0372 - G33D6 and 42A0373 – G33D7 (sub-files Mitchell, Paul-2 and Mitchell, Paul-3 respectively) as well as Release_36, 42A0516 – G37D3 (Paul MitchellTIF) show the the columns and beams that made up the perimeter, or exoskeleton, of Building 7 were exceedingly robust. Therefore it’s extremely unlikely they overheated, buckled and failed do to being what Meghan Keneally described as “the intense heat from glowing flames on the sixth floor” of WTC7. I will link those photographs when I’m able to successfully download them – they’re too large a format for Flickr, apparently.

Please stay tuned because there’s more to come here on this matter.

This post has been edited by questionitall: Nov 9 2011, 12:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Nov 15 2011, 11:13 PM
Post #84





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



I'm looking for video footage showing a clear, unobstructed view of the North face of World Trade Center 7 at street level and just as it begins to collapse. Has anyone seen such a video online or there in the NIST Cumulus datasets?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
727fan
post Nov 21 2011, 10:53 AM
Post #85





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 14
Joined: 5-July 11
Member No.: 6,033



QUOTE (questionitall @ Nov 15 2011, 11:13 PM) *
I'm looking for video footage showing a clear, unobstructed view of the North face of World Trade Center 7 at street level and just as it begins to collapse. Has anyone seen such a video online or there in the NIST Cumulus datasets?


QIA, you are 100% correct. Nothing other than a controlled demolition brought down WTC 7, there is video proof on Utube where the detonation explosions in the top corner of the building are seen exploding in a downward pattern literally one second before the collapse begins. The video is described as showing the north side of WTC 7, I do not know if that is accurate.

Here's the link: WTC demolition video (You may want to turn the sound off, it's music if you can call it that).

And there are other similar videos. It is well known that the BBC and other news media reported WTC 7 had collapsed before it had actually happened.

My personal opinion is that WTC 7 is one of the best starting points to begin a discussion with someone who has difficulty considering scenarios other than the lies and garbage of the official story.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Nov 24 2011, 12:47 AM
Post #86





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



QUOTE (727fan @ Nov 21 2011, 10:53 AM) *
QIA, you are 100% correct. Nothing other than a controlled demolition brought down WTC 7, there is video proof on Utube where the detonation explosions in the top corner of the building are seen exploding in a downward pattern literally one second before the collapse begins. The video is described as showing the north side of WTC 7, I do not know if that is accurate.

Here's the link: WTC demolition video (You may want to turn the sound off, it's music if you can call it that).

And there are other similar videos. It is well known that the BBC and other news media reported WTC 7 had collapsed before it had actually happened.

My personal opinion is that WTC 7 is one of the best starting points to begin a discussion with someone who has difficulty considering scenarios other than the lies and garbage of the official story.



Thanks for the feedback 727fan. For what it’s worth I agree with you, in principle that is. Although it seems to me you’re focussed on the upper reaches of WTC 7 where the alleged explosive charges are said to be quite noticeable to the naked eye as they detonate. I’ve seen the videos and it certainly could be explosive detonations and just as you say, but to be honest I don’t see it that way. At the risk of coming across as a know it all the event you mentioned doesn’t seem that convincing to me. In fact it looks to me like nothing more than shimmering light. However, having said that I’m 99% convinced WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and that’s purely mechanics intuition, but the world demands smoking gun proof of the inside job, and so do I for that matter and especially if I’m going to sate my suspicions.

What’s more I’m unable to accept the argument the flashes of light a split second before WTC 7 crumples is proof positive of explosive detonations. Not because it isn’t plausible but more so then because the official explanation for it hasn’t been ruled out. The fact is those flashes of light had been explained away and rather convincingly by the “experts” as being window panes that became detached from the building as it buckled, and that glass simply reflected the light as it fell away from the building. I find that answer far too abbreviated of course and it’s because of curt answers like that I’m on the other side of the controlled demolition debate to begin with. However, all said and done the onus is on the “truthers” to prove to their peers the “experts” wrong and not the other way around. That’s how it works and how one counters a wrong with a right without considerably more compelling proof than what they’ve afforded us is a question of stratagem.
By that I mean I have a problem with being told by clueless authoritarians what to think and do and believe and because of it I don’t expect it of others to take me at face value. I’m sure most people are that way and that’s why I try to educate rather than dictate. It’s imperative we “truthers” win the trust of those we’re trying to reach by explaining to them exactly why it is the NIST findings are flawed. All the while giving examples of it, by pointing out those flaws therein the “experts” own documents. Contrary to the mainstream media presstitutes then who routinely forsake honest journalism by plagiarizing and embellishing on known fallacies and not unlike NIST might I add. They do so to cover-up pretty much every inconvenient truth there is of 9/11. Not to mention the criminality of those who compromised the WTC site and investigation to begin with. It’s for that reason I take great pleasure rubbing the expert’s noses in the evidence, by pointing out word for word and every damning detail belying their lies and contradictions. It’s all I’ve got to my name, because I’ve been robbed of everything else in life by the system, therefore it gives me great pleasure exposing them.

As an aircraft mechanic I work with engineered solid facts that require computer logic to work and together the two generally work quite well. When they fail to do so the problem usually can be easily solved using applied logic and mechanical principle. Even when a catastrophic failure occurs the fault is most often found to have been preventable and many decades of technological advancement have all but taken mechanical failure out of the equation. That should be especially true for structural steel frame tall building design which have been around a lot longer than tin-pot aircraft but in the case of WTC 7’s design and construction it wasn’t, according to NIST that is. Nowadays when something goes terribly wrong with an aircraft more often than not it was human error. So was the collapse of WTC 7 also a result of human factors or was it poor engineering? You be the judge.

Truthfully then I’m far more interested in what’s happening at the base of that tower in the lead-up to its collapse, because as I see it then if WTC 7 had been rigged to blow it makes more sense to have initiated the brunt of that explosive force at ground level and especially the 5th through 7th floors. That’s because the building was designed much larger than originally anticipated for the existing Con Edison site and for such a small existing caisson foundation design. Therefore the existing caissons installed were used, along with new ones, to accommodate WTC7 and its 5th floor area was designed to function as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons via a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders located there. What’s more the 5th through 7th floor also housed large mechanical equipment of all description that was essential to the normal function of the office tower and above the 7th floor the building structure was a typical tube-frame design.

What’s more a shipping and receiving ramp, which served the entire World Trade Center complex, occupied the Eastern quarter of the WTC 7 footprint. The building was open below the third floor, providing space for truck clearance on the shipping ramp. In other words WTC 7 was unique in the sense that the design of its lower few floors was extremely critical to the structural integrity of the floors above them.

The layout of the 5th and 6th floor of WTC 7 is located on page 27 of the November 2008 NIST NCSTAR 1-9 final report at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/n...nt_unlocked.pdf

That’s why I asked the question I did. As for online WTC 7 collapse footage I’ve analyzed every known WTC 7 collapse video there is but unfortunately then not a single video shows the explosive sequence I’m looking for in its entirety. The vantage point in the video footage [WTC7COLLAPSE] is of particular interest to me because it shows the North face of WTC 7 at street level. Unfortunately the FBI and FEMA butchered it as well before handing it over to NIST but it shows enough. You can find the video I’m talking about here at http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream

Believe it or not this was an abbreviated reply and if you’re interested in more of what I have to say about this subject stay tuned. I’m working on a piece that sheds light on the contradictions therein the November 2008 NCSTAR 1-9 final report. Despite the fact the investigators told us explosives were not the cause of WTC 7’s destruction I beg to differ and I’m looking at that report from the perspective of Mr. Barry Jennings testimony. As for Mr. Michael Hess clearly he hasn’t any balls or backbone enough to stand-up for himself and shame on him for it.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
727fan
post Nov 24 2011, 10:04 AM
Post #87





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 14
Joined: 5-July 11
Member No.: 6,033



[quote name='questionitall' date='Nov 24 2011, 12:47 AM' post='10802607']
Thanks for the feedback 727fan. ... I’m 99% convinced WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and that’s purely mechanics intuition, but the world demands smoking gun proof of the inside job, and so do I for that matter and especially if I’m going to sate my suspicions.

What’s more I’m unable to accept the argument the flashes of light a split second before WTC 7 crumples is proof positive of explosive detonations. Not because it isn’t plausible but more so then because the official explanation for it hasn’t been ruled out. The fact is those flashes of light had been explained away and rather convincingly by the “experts” as being window panes that became detached from the building as it buckled, and that glass simply reflected the light as it fell away from the building. I find that answer far too abbreviated of course and it’s because of curt answers like that I’m on the other side of the controlled demolition debate to begin with. However, all said and done the onus is on the “truthers” to prove to their peers the “experts” wrong and not the other way around. That’s how it works and how one counters a wrong with a right without considerably more compelling proof than what they’ve afforded us is a question of stratagem....


QIA, Thank you too.

Describing "flashes of light" is qualitatively different than "explosions". In the vidoes, "explosions" are seen (at least by me and many others), as each is seen as a cloud of smoke bursting forth.

If you think I focus primarily on the smoke explosions in the videos, it may be because they are additional clear evidence of the controlled demolition that numerous first responders have stated they heard on the radio channel the countdown commands being issued leading up to the controlled demolition.

At the same time, I do not have the education and knowledge of mechanical repair of aircraft that you do, nor do I have the education and knowledge of building structures that you do.

Even so, I have never claimed to have that advanced knowledge. Clearly you know very, very intricate details of the exact construction of WTC 7 that I had not heard before. While I said that it appears that the explosions progress downward in the videos, that does not in any way rule out that there also were other detonation charges exploded at exactly the same time or in the immediate 1-3 seconds before or after at the most strategic points of the 3rd through 7th floors that you mentioned. That would actually almost certainly have to be the case for accomplishing a controlled demolition in the most efficient manner possible, and you know the perps would want to do that as much as they could. It is unknown if that can be seen in any video.

What you are trying to do is very commendable and fits well with Rob's and this site's policies. There is a big difficulty, and that of course is: data supplied by what many view as by far the most likely suspect.

It is to Rob's credit and those that assisted in the efforts, to have pages and links on this web site to a number of different analysis that proved that the government had supplied fake data in response to the FOIA requests. Fake data, fake staged videos, a lot of fake in the official story, a lot of fake involving airplanes.

Also, it has been noted that some of the data supplied is internally contradictory, supposed official data from one agency contradicts supposed official data from a different agency. A similar example is the finding of woodybox that the FAA and United were following two different aircraft that each was calling "Flight 93".

The big difficulty being the enormous doubts as to the authenticity of official data, including not manipulated or altered data. One thing I need to add to my basic Real 911 Truth site is the part about how ATC at TRACON Ronkonkoma destroyed recordings of voice transmissions on 9/11/01.

And therefore, what likely was some of the most damning evidence of all to the official story from that morning was purposely destroyed almost immediately before the end of that very day.

Please understand, I hope you find the video and/or other stronger proofs you are looking for about WTC 7 and any others. For me and hopefully many others, maybe it's OK to reject the official story on the basis of our level of knowledge at the present time, without having to resort to further, deeper proofs.

And it may even be possible that the same would be true in a court of law, if it would be heard before a jury who would hopefully grasp the general ideas, a few very strategic proofs of the forming of the plot and preparing for it beforehand and carrying it out may be enough, if ever those bahstids are even brought before court.

And I say that not as any legal expert, but in response to observing the percentage of people who still accept the official story or have no opinion/don't care, combined with the percentage of the population completely preoccupied with games, sports, and what kim kardashian ate for breakfast.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Nov 25 2011, 12:41 AM
Post #88





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



If I insulted you 727fan I apolgize, as it certainly wasn't my intention to do so. I was merely emphasizing the point that only hard evidence and facts will convince those in office, who still have a conscience, to re-investigate WTC 7. I'm stepping out on a limb here and breaking my own rule by saying what I think opposed to what I know by saying as far as I'm concerned those flashes of light are most definitely indicative of explosive detonations. However, the trick is to prove that with hard evidence. Unfortunately that is proving quite difficult, seeing as the FBI and FEMA edited the more damning WTC 7 video evidence prior to handing it over to NIST. Cheers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Nov 25 2011, 01:07 AM
Post #89





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



As a quick follow-up to my November 8, 2011 post ‘making a case against Meghan Keneally’s utter stupidity’ I just want to say I’ve looked into the suppositions she made therein, of which I didn’t rebut at the earlier, but now that I’ve done a little digging I’m fully apprised of how totally misleading they were.

For instance, she couldn’t have made a more asinine statement in her November 2, 2011 hit-piece than “it does show how there is legitimacy to the explanation provided by the government's 9/11 Commission investigation”. That statement suggests that video footage [http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542] confirms the floors of WTC 7 were overheated then buckled and eventually collapsed bringing the entire structure down as a result. In addition to that clap-trap she opined therein her hit-piece “Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell” which not surprisingly glosses over the entire event, as if to suggest the collapse of WTC 7 was an insignificant occurrence sometime later that day. Having blundered through all that that she then erroneously concludes “It is unclear when exactly during the day the video is shot, but considering the fact that the building is still standing it must be well before its collapse...”

Might I inform Meghan Keneally the “fact” not only was the collapse of WTC 7 the smoking gun event of 9/11 in actuality then the 9/11 Commission didn’t even investigate WTC 7. Indeed, there’s no mention of WTC 7 in the 9/11 Commissions final report. What’s more the CBS2 reporter and his camera operator who captured the video footage did so at approximately 16:34 on the 24H clock, or in other words 4:34 in the afternoon, just as the time code recording shown in the opening still shot of the video [http://youtu.be/cNFBUQEzCNY] indicates. By my estimation that puts him at the foot of WTC 7 on Barclay St. a little more than one hour prior to that buildings collapse and not well before the collapse of WTC 7 as she suggests. The fact she never bothered to get her “facts” straight to begin with nor did she even bother to get the CBS2 reporter’s name which is Vince Dementri by the way, and that says everything about her credibility and acumen as a journalist.

By the way, it’s interesting to note he too believed the collapse of WTC 7 looked like a controlled demolition [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fygnOrKaI_Q]. So in light of just those few reasons alone she’s proven herself a fraud but more to the point then.

WTC 2 collapsed more than seven hours before WTC 7 collapsed and WTC 1 a little under seven hours prior to that event. That is to say almost seven hours had elapsed between WTC 1’s collapse and that of WTC 7. That timeline is old news to everyone who knows better than to believe the likes of Meghan Keneally and Mike Rudin but I’ve mentioned it to stress a critical point here, of which I’m investigating and expanding on therein a new article I’m currently writing about the potential for explosives in WTC 7.

That article marries the irritable, credible testimony of Mr. Barry Jennings with language therein the November 2008 NIST NCSTAR 1-9 final report. Mr. Barry Jennings as many know had experienced firsthand at least one explosion in the East stairwell at the time he and Mr. Michael Hess were attempting to extricate themselves from WTC 7 on 9/11, to which both men testified to having felt under their feet. Mr. Jennings testimony to that affect, both on 9/11 and since then had never changed, right up to his death, and contrary to what Mike Rudin implied in his atrocious hit-piece documentary ‘9/11-The Third Tower’. Mr. Hess however inexplicably recanted his earlier testimony in the weeks following the death of Mr. Jennings. The only point Mr. Jennings ever waivered on in the seven years he remained alive after 9/11 was the issue of dead bodies in the lobby of WTC 7. That being the case the video [Barry Jennings Uncut I Am Dylan Avery on blip.tv] makes it quite clear Mr. Jennings was being pressured (later in his life) to recant his story and original testimony, which he did not. Never in all that time did he change his testimony regarding having experienced an explosion in the East stairwell on the 6th floor landing and prior to WTC 1 or 2 collapsing.

The main point I’m making here, besides discrediting Meghan Keneally’s hit-piece on 9/11-Truthers, is the fact NIST claims seven hours was not time enough for whomever to have planted even the most rudimentary of explosive devices therein WTC 7 and especially on the day of 9/11. However, as I will show, the NIST investigation looking into the possibility of explosives in WTC 7 never took into account the likelihood those explosives had been planted on the lower levels WTC 7 and below floors 7 through 14. That is where WTC 7 was most vulnerable to structural failure and a Global Collapse caused by any such explosions.

According to NIST however that scenario never occurred, even though the investigators hadn’t considered that scenario in its investigation, according to its final report that is, and neither did it consider the use of exotic materials such as Mixed Metal Oxide Nanocomposite Energetic Materials. Rather the NIST investigators concluded then in Section 3.3 entitled “Hypothetical Blast Scenarios” thereon page 26:

“Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC 7. As a minimum, the explosive material would have had to cause sufficient damage to a column or truss that it became unable to carry its service load or that a lateral deflection would cause it to buckle. Six combinations of explosive location and column/truss sections and two implementation scenarios were considered. In the first scenario, there was ample time for optimized preparation of the structure (including possible preliminary cutting of structural members) and use of the minimum mass of explosives. In the second scenario, the explosive charge was to be placed in the shortest possible time, which was to be no more than a 7h to 8h time frame.

SHAMRC, a software program that is used for analysis of explosive detonations...was used to predict window breakage. Simulations were performed for differing degrees of partitioning of a tenant floor.

Attention focussed on a single hypothetical blast scenario. This scenario involved preliminary cutting of Column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 Ib.) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection. Calculations were also performed for a lesser charge size of 1 kg (2 Ib.) to evaluate threshold explosive requirements for window fragility. Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the building without detection. Preparations would have included removal of column enclosures or walls, weld torches to cut column sections, and placement of wires for detonation. Occupants, support staff, and visitors would have noticed such activities, particularly since they likely would have occurred around more than one column.”

In light of the aforementioned I had no choice but to extensively quote from Chapter 3 of the NIST final report because, again, my point being the NIST investigation looking into the possibility of explosives in WTC 7 never took into account the likelihood those explosives had been planted on the lower levels to that of floor 7 and particularly floors 5 and 6, where WTC 7 was most vulnerable to structural failure and a Global Collapse caused by such explosions. That being the case, when that section of the NIST final report is read through a number of times and seriously considered in that context one begins to realize the “Hypothetical Blast Scenarios” NIST undertook were intentionally limited in scope and for obvious reason. To summarise then, according to the November 2008 NIST NCSTAR 1-9 final report only one type of a commonly used explosive (RDX) was hypothetically planted on floor levels limited to the 7th to 14TH floor “Collapse Zone” NIST claims was the root cause and “Leading Hypothesis” for the “Global Collapse” of WTC 7. No consideration was given to the possibility Mixed Metal Oxide Nanocomposite Energetic Materials might have been used in a far more discreet and efficient manner than high explosives, just as 1500 Architects and Engineers insist.

...Truth in mainstream media news my ass!





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Heiwa
post Nov 25 2011, 04:36 AM
Post #90





Group: Troll
Posts: 34
Joined: 5-November 11
Member No.: 6,445



QUOTE (questionitall @ Nov 25 2011, 01:07 AM) *
... she couldn’t have made a more asinine statement in her November 2, 2011 hit-piece than “it does show how there is legitimacy to the explanation provided by the government's 9/11 Commission investigation”. That statement suggests that video footage [http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542] confirms the floors of WTC 7 were overheated then buckled and eventually collapsed bringing the entire structure down as a result. In addition to that clap-trap she opined therein her hit-piece “Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell” which not surprisingly glosses over the entire event, as if to suggest the collapse of WTC 7 was an insignificant occurrence sometime later that day. Having blundered through all that that she then erroneously concludes “It is unclear when exactly during the day the video is shot, but considering the fact that the building is still standing it must be well before its collapse...”


Evidently the US National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, issuing a report that the failure of one column (due thermal expansion) of WTC7 brought the whole structure down, is clap-trap and supports terrorism. The terrorists are encouraged to start fires and whole buildings will suddenly collapse. No need to hijack planes!
A fire anywhere inside a steel structure, bottom, middle or top, will never produce total collapse of the structure. Basic: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jan 3 2012, 09:37 PM
Post #91





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



This snippet of info based entirely on fact is but a brief heads-up rebuttal to Mark Robert’s fallacious hit-piece ‘WTC not a Demolition’ which just goes to show its true, “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” In fact human history is replete with accounts of entire societies becoming stupefied under the spell of madmen akin to Joseph Goebbels and a despicable liar he was too fulfilling his dutiful obligations as that of Gauleiter - his gift for propaganda served the cause well and masterfully so, much to the dismay of countless millions butchered for his ideology. Indeed his lunacy culminated in the litany of Noble Lies told the German people by the NAZI leader Adolf Hitler. Who in the name of their best interests and that of German society’s ordered hunted down and liquidated all manner of those dissenting of the States abuse of power and criminality. For most people now his story is nothing more than a footnote in history - a tale of an elitist demigod left to run amok and circumstance which couldn’t possibly occur today so we’re told. What most alarms me then about Mr. Robert’s demeanour and modus operandi is very few people recognize his seething fanatical fervour for precisely what it is – the same existential threat of obedience demanded of us which lent itself to NAZI Germany’s rise and ultimate abuse of authority.

Just as it happened in 1930’s Germany so too now it’s the 9/11-Truthers that are branded undesirable (dissenting) enemies (conspirators) against the state for simply asking questions and similarly then I suspect the fate of millions before us will be ours in the not too distant future, should the likes of Mr. Robert’s get their way and see to the criminalization 9/11 Truth. It came as no surprise to me then having recently viewed that outrageous fabrication ‘WTC not a Demolition’ he produced Mr. Robert’s is very much a propagandist. Therefore I had no choice but to point out why exactly he’s little more than a likeminded Conman similar to Goebbels, using sleight of hand trickery and the same deceptive means to relieve people of their senses. As I’ll show in quick order then with all the compelling evidence available to him in the public domain that weasel uses it to fabricate evidence and arguments he then lies through his teeth about. He does so to your face while confronting those who rationally contest his brand of 9/11 truth. Hell then he even makes-up his own words where needed, such as the word “conspiracist.”

Have no doubt he rails against 9/11-Truth all because he reviles Truths ability to cut straight through his bullshit to where it inevitably illuminates the minds of those looking for honest answers. The truth in this case being Mr. Roberts insinuates all “conspiracists” claim three World Trade Center buildings were destroyed by explosives and namely then by some material similar to RDX - That was his first lie told in the video ‘WTC not a Demolition’.

The fact is the peer reviewed paper entitled ‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe’ so published therein The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31 by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen concludes “The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite or super-thermite...After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 degrees Celsius we found numerous iron-rich spheres and shperiods in the residue, indicating that a very high temperature reaction had occurred...This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite...This would be expected for super-thermite formulations...the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction...Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

That point alone makes it pretty damned clear those experts NEVER claimed and DO NOT insist all three WTC Towers were rigged to blow with RDX and toppled by it, but rather some material similar to Super-Thermite was discovered in their pulverized wake, which merely begs the question how did it get there. What’s more those experts have stuck to their findings and opinion from the beginning. Contrary then to the NIST WTC 7 investigators having bobbed and weaved on what the computer simulated “hypothetical blast events” NIST promoted throughout its 2008 NCSTAR 1A final report actually proved. Wherein its authors presumed only RDX could have brought about the collapse of WTC 7 in such fashion - an argument Mr. Robert’s has parroted ever since that reports release in 2008. Needless to say then the fact Mr. Robert’s feels threatened by and continues to rail against the professional opinion of Steven E. Jones and Richard Gage, as well the other aforementioned contrarians he’d declared guilty by association and names at the beginning of his hit-piece that says a great deal about his character and credibility. Not to mention his confidence as the all knowing authority on 9/11. In addition to that because Mr. Roberts merely assumes Mr. W. Gene Corley established United Airlines flight 175 crashed into WTC 2 when clearly I’ve proven that official claim is yet another false construct on his part, for that reason as well then neither individual is to be trusted and taken seriously.

Make no mistake that’s precisely why Mr. Roberts made a point of including numerous video clips showing misleading examples of completely different scenarios wherein buildings are demolished using high explosives - Notice he didn’t include the countervailing NIST video footage showing Super-Thermite causing “melted” or “eroded” steel if you prefer to pour from WTC 2. Just as David Ray Griffin and Mr. Daniel Jowenko made it clear loud explosions as Super-Thermite incendiaries were detonated likely wouldn’t have registered with anyone, due to the inherent characteristics of the explosive and everything else going on that day. Adding to their hypothesis are the videotaped experiments of Jonathan H. Cole P.E. [9 11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate]. In that video footage he gives demonstrably proof of their point and the feasibility of how exactly all three WTC Towers 7 could easily have been rigged for demolition. Those illuminating videos are posted online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucZag9-Cgyk
In fact Prof. Sisson doesn’t find it very mysterious at all the piece of WTC 7 steel Prof. Jonathan Barnett recovered in a salvage yard appears to have “melted” rather than burned.

Accordingly to both men they claim it was attacked by liquid slag rich in iron, sulphur and oxygen and not by open flames. In fact they’re adamant that piece of steel did not melt but rather it was eroded over the course of weeks by the liquid slag it lay in, and any steel found in that sort of extremely high temperature atmosphere rich in oxygen and sulphur would erode in much the same manner he claimed. Yet there’s not a single government apologist to be found who is willing to go on record and explain the source of the fuel that fed the fire for weeks, thereby sustaining the extremely high temperature in the (WTC 7) debris. However, confirming those temperatures were quite likely sustained by something other than diesel fuel resides in the statement made by Mr. Michael E. Newman of NIST who emphatically stated on September 19, 2011 “metal compounds indicative of Thermite/Thermate were present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.” As well then there’s the matter of confirmation of their hypothesis that came about in the weeks after 9/11 and not just days as suggested.

In fact according to the article ‘NOAA remote sensing expertise aids World Trade Center recovery efforts’ that was posted on September 28th, 2001 at www.geocomm.com a NOAA aircraft flew over the WTC 7 site to record conditions on the ground. Indeed NOAA's Citation jet (N52RF) flew two (4) hour missions over the World Trade Center complex, on Sept 23 and Sept 26, 2001 consecutively, for a total airtime of 8 hours, at an altitude of 5,000 to 6,000 feet. In the course of doing so NOAA recorded ground temperatures in the WTC 7 debris far in excess of (727 degrees Celsius) even though massive amounts of water had been poured on the fire all that time.

On that note allow me then to make the distinction between Thermite and Thermate and further clarify what conclusions were made in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31 on page 29. Whereby its said trace amounts of iron oxide particles discovered in the WTC dust qualifies the material to be characterized as (Nanothermite) or (Super-Thermite).

Standard Iron-Thermite is a basic combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide. The reactants are stable at room temperature but when heated to ignition temperature they burn with an extremely intense exothermic reaction and a tremendous amount of heat is given off. The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached (up to 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) with iron (III) oxide) although the actual temperature reached depends on how quickly heat can escape to the surrounding environment. Standard Iron-Thermite isn’t just difficult to ignite but its flame burns in a small radius of action and for that reason it’s rarely used on its own as an incendiary composition. Standard Iron-Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be easily extinguished with water and when used for welding underwater this can produce hydrogen which will in turn burn also. Although enough water will remove heat and may stop the reaction. Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction.

MICs or Super-Thermites on the other hand are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s. Thermates (Super-Thermite) is normally described as “one enriched with a salt-based oxidizer (usually nitrates, e.g. barium nitrate, or peroxides) whereby it’s often employed with other ingredients added such as sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound’s thermal effect, produces a larger flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature while enhancing its incendiary effects, thereby improving penetration of target by the burning composition, as the evolved gas is projecting the molten slag and providing mechanical agitation.

Thermates burn with evolution of flame and gases hence this mechanism makes Thermate (Super-Thermite) far more suitable than Standard Iron-Thermite for incendiary purposes, as its effect is more localized. Incidentally Thermate-TH3 is a mixture of Standard Iron-Thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to Standard Iron-Thermite for incendiary purposes. Not surprisingly then the primary purpose of Thermate-TH3 by the armed forces is an incendiary anti-materiel weapon. Its composition by weight is generally about 68.7% Thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur, and 0.3% of a binder (such as PBAN). Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives. Nanoenergetic materials can store more energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy.

In principle, all of these examples use aluminum as the reactive metal. Any reactive metal could be used instead of aluminum but that is rarely done. This is rarely done of course because the properties of aluminum are nearly ideal for this reaction. Besides, it is by far the cheapest of the highly reactive metals; it also forms a passivation layer making it safer to handle than many other reactive metals. The melting and boiling points of aluminum also make it ideal for Thermite reactions. It’s relatively low melting point (660 °C (1,220 °F)) means that it is easy to melt the metal, so that the reaction can occur mainly in the liquid phase and thus proceeds fairly quickly. At the same time, its high boiling point (2,519 °C (4,566 °F)) enables the reaction to reach very high temperatures, since several processes tend to limit the maximum temperature to just below the boiling point. Such a high boiling point is common among transition metals (e.g., iron and copper boil at 2,887 °C (5,229 °F) and 2,582 °C (4,680 °F) respectively), but is especially unusual among the highly reactive metals (cf. magnesium and sodium which boil at 1,090 °C (1,990 °F) and 883 °C (1,621 °F) respectively).

Gee, after all is said and done do you think it was copious quantities of undetonated Super-Thermite feeding the fires in the soaked and wet wreckage? We know diesel fuel in the WTC 7 debris wasn’t the fuel source, because months after the fire were quashed a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel while NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totalled 1,000 ± 1,000 gallons.

It stands to reason then Mr. Roberts motive for imposing thunderous cracks of sound or loud “BOOMS” synonymous with the detonation of high explosives (RDX) was intended to impress upon the unsuspecting mind the belief the controlled demolition of any WTC Tower at ground zero wouldn’t have gone undetected. More importantly then it was essential he distract people from the aforementioned empirical laws of physics and for good reason, obviously. Not unlike Pavlov then he attempts to condition the unconscious mind to respond favourably to his assertion the “conspiracists” are “wrong for many reasons” when in fact he’d compared apples to oranges in that charade of a video, and that my friend is ‘propaganda’ or ‘crystallizing public opinion’ equal to Joseph Goebbels very best effort.

Piggybacking on that fallacy then Mr. Roberts opined the plumes of ejected debris seen after the collapses began couldn’t possibly have been caused by “EXPLOSIONS” per se but rather pressure waves caused by the collapsing floors above ‘pancaking’ down. In fact his entire argument therein was based on the premise “there were no such ejections BEFORE the collapses began...within 18 minutes of flight 175’s impact.” Therefore there wasn’t any controlled demolition of WTC 7. On a side note then but never the less important to my insistence Mr. Roberts id a fraud in his own right is the fact my analyses of the NIST repository of United Airlines flight 175 evidence, otherwise known as the NIST Cumulus datasets, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the authorities planted that evidence. Those who’ve read my research on that issue are the wiser for it and likewise then the authorities and namely Mr. W. Gene Corley and FEMA have yet to explain NIST what Mr. Roberts has failed to prove.

What’s more, in reference to evidence of any explosions possibly associated with the “initiating event” of WTC 2 to which Mr. Roberts commented “Note the absence of detonations that would have ejected smoke and debris... Sounds like detonations! There’s just one problem: The detonation sounds are fake. They were added for a TV show, and accepted as real by conspiracists.” one needs to consider the source, literally so.

Having attempted to discredit the entire 9/11-Truth movement with his fleeting mention of one measly propped-up visual aid to that effect how I ask can anyone seriously consider his argument no explosive material whatsoever was detonated in WTC 2, especially when he neglected to back that statement up with supporting evidence via an impeccable chain of custody. Rather he merely suggests you visit his website at unauthorized link.com/yulwb6 where more of the same claptrap awaits. Keep in mind then as you watch and listen to his theorizing, and regardless of what high explosive demolition charges look and sound like according to this paradoxical 9/11 expert, the truth is the real life trained experts at “Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice” and those at “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” are not disputing the sights and sounds of explosive detonations; only all mention of them to begin with. Indeed the issue those experts argue is exactly what Professor Sisson explained for them and on their behalf, unintentionally so that is when he described steel in all three Towers hadn’t been compromised by explosions so much as it was “melted” or rather “eroded” away in very short order, in a corrosive environment much the same as that of the WTC 7 debris pile in the days and weeks following its collapse.

As for the remainder of Mr. Roberts video ‘WTC not a Demolition’ in which he argues Dylan Avery tried “to compare the collapse of WTC 7 to an explosive demolition” but neglected “to show that the massive East mechanical penthouse, and everything below it, has already plummeted through the building...” Please explain for us Mr. Roberts, if you can, what possible example of NIST WTC 7 video footage could Mr. Avery have used and should have in order to meet with your approval? Answer me that you titmouse of 9/11 researchers, especially when Mr. Michael E. Newman of NIST had admitted on September 19, 2011 “The video footage released under the FOIA request was copied from the original video exactly as it was received from NBC News, with video documentation of the WTC 7 East penthouse collapse missing. The footage was not edited in any way by NIST.” In other words then Mr. Michael E. Newman of NIST effectively admits all the NIST Cumulus datasets video footage wherein the sequence of “the massive East mechanical penthouse, and everything below it, has already plummeted through the building” appears that way for a reason – because it was tampered with and edited to appear as it does by the authorities.

As for Mr. Roberts inexcusable ploy of putting words in the mouths of bed ridden key witnesses by stating “He’s using a figure of speech” that’s unspeakably poor judgement and forensic investigative work on his part, not to mention eerily reminiscent of the Barry Jennings witch-hunt for which I’ll have no part of commenting further on.

You be the judge of who’s telling the truth, but whatever you decide, make your mind up from evidence and not his brand of speculation.
Despite Mr. W. Gene Corley having attested “We looked at everything. Controlled demolition was ruled out because there was no evidence of controlled demolition...we looked for it yes and we found no evidence of controlled demolition” the fact remains he and NIST ignored reports of Thermite and simply limited their scope of the WTC 7 investigation to exploring RDX (only) and never did NIST conduct computer simulated tests for Super-Thermite. By all accounts then not the NIST investigators or their hired hands like Corley and certainly not the ever present cling-on Mr. Roberts have been honest in their reporting throughout. By narrowing the goal posts considerably, only then could NIST truthfully conclude “blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event” whereas in Mark Roberts own words then “His dishonesty is revealed by what he chose to admit”.

This expose is just a taste of what's to come in the far more in-depth and detailed summary of WTC 7 and Barry Jennings testimony I’d promised is yet to come, and it is shortly.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Feb 17 2012, 11:22 PM
Post #92





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



Just a quick word so people don't think I've abandoned this site altogether or washed my hands of the World Trade Center 7 issue. The reason I haven't weighed-in with my opinion so far as to the matter of whether or not WTC 7 was a controlled implosion has to do with how very complicated the evidence is proving to be. By that I mean there's a good deal of video evidence pointing to the fact the "initiating event" which lead to the "global collapse" of WTC 7 began on floors below 7 thru 14.

WTC 7
while I've been pouring over evidence for and against the argument WTC 7 was a controlled implosion
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Feb 17 2012, 11:52 PM
Post #93





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



QUOTE (questionitall @ Feb 17 2012, 11:22 PM) *
Just a quick word so people don't think I've abandoned this site altogether or washed my hands of the World Trade Center 7 issue. The reason I haven't weighed-in with my opinion so far as to the matter of whether or not WTC 7 was a controlled implosion has to do with how very complicated the evidence is proving to be. By that I mean there's a good deal of video evidence pointing to the fact the "initiating event" which lead to the "global collapse" of WTC 7 began on floors below 7 thru 14.

WTC 7
while I've been pouring over evidence for and against the argument WTC 7 was a controlled implosion



My aplogies - finger trouble! What I was trying to write is there's strong video and written evidence showing the initiating event which lead to the global collapse of WTC 7 DIDN'T start on floors 7 thru 14 but rather on floors 5 and 6 and I've been pouring over evidence to prove that point, including the NIST NCSTAR 1-9 final report, the NIST Cumulus datasets and Mr. Barry Jennings testimony. Cheers for now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 19 2012, 11:33 AM
Post #94





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



WTF does that have to do with United 175? whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 19 2012, 12:24 PM
Post #95





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 909
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (questionitall @ Feb 16 2012, 02:52 AM) *
My aplogies - finger trouble! What I was trying to write is there's strong video and written evidence showing the initiating event which lead to the global collapse of WTC 7 DIDN'T start on floors 7 thru 14 but rather on floors 5 and 6 and I've been pouring over evidence to prove that point, including the NIST NCSTAR 1-9 final report, the NIST Cumulus datasets and Mr. Barry Jennings testimony. Cheers for now.



Will look forward to see what you're coming up with next, q.i.t.!

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Feb 19 2012, 06:28 PM
Post #96





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Feb 19 2012, 12:24 PM) *
Will look forward to see what you're coming up with next, q.i.t.!

Cheers


Thank you for the words of encouragement but I have to be honest with you. The World Trade Center 7 issue is far more involved for me than the issue of United Airlines flight 175 ever was. While I understand aircraft all too well and what their destructive wake upon impact looks like figuring out the controlled demolition of a tall building is a whole new bag of worms. Especially when the authorities have made thorough work of covering their tracks while censoring the evidence supporting the fact the initiating event which led to the global collapse of WTC 7 did not begin on floors 7 thru 14. As mentioned from what I've learned of the evidence I believe that buildings collapse began on floors 5 thru 7. I hope to demonstrate why I believe such a thing but not before I have the proof in hand.

By the way, once I feel I've amassed sufficient evidence to show the NIST WTC 7 investigators fabricated their own WTC 7 evidence while falsifying crucial countevailing evidence which came into their possession from various sources I'll be posting that information in the appropriate forums here at P4T. When the time comes to do so I'll let people know about each and every article I post right here.

Salute!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 20 2012, 01:00 AM
Post #97





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 909
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (questionitall @ Feb 17 2012, 09:28 PM) *
Thank you for the words of encouragement but I have to be honest with you. The World Trade Center 7 issue is far more involved for me than the issue of United Airlines flight 175 ever was. While I understand aircraft all too well and what their destructive wake upon impact looks like figuring out the controlled demolition of a tall building is a whole new bag of worms. Especially when the authorities have made thorough work of covering their tracks while censoring the evidence supporting the fact the initiating event which led to the global collapse of WTC 7 did not begin on floors 7 thru 14. As mentioned from what I've learned of the evidence I believe that buildings collapse began on floors 5 thru 7. I hope to demonstrate why I believe such a thing but not before I have the proof in hand.

By the way, once I feel I've amassed sufficient evidence to show the NIST WTC 7 investigators fabricated their own WTC 7 evidence while falsifying crucial countevailing evidence which came into their possession from various sources I'll be posting that information in the appropriate forums here at P4T. When the time comes to do so I'll let people know about each and every article I post right here.

Salute!



You're welcome!
I think it pretty much established that you have proved beyond doubt, the fuselage on the roof of WTC5 has been planted there,
and that not much else at this point in time can be added to this very fact!

Agree of course that WTC7 was obviously control-demolished, but how they did it, is a question that probably still baffles all of us.
It's going to be interesting to see what you can unravel of good-bits, and how much 'juicy meat' there will be on it!

Much 'Good Luck' with your endeavour -

cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Mar 24 2012, 10:15 PM
Post #98





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



Alex Jones has a contest going; now until April 30, 2012 at 2 PM Central in which he's offereing $5,000.00 and possibly a position reporting fulltime at Infowars. The rules for the contest can be found at http://www.infowars.com/become-an-infowars...porter-contest/ and I believe this issue provides such a segue. I am not a writer nor am I even remotely competent at putting together a ten minute video in accordance with such a contest and guidelines, but I encourage those who are to take whatever research material of mine you need and do your best with it. The more people who learn of this issue, the irrefutable hard evidence I've presented here and the diabolical domestic act of terrorism and cover-up 9/11 was all the better. The money and accolades are both yours for the taking should you win - I want none of it.

All the best to anyone who takes me up on this offer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tit2
post Mar 26 2012, 09:00 AM
Post #99





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 123
Joined: 27-April 07
Member No.: 999



Quote: “I think it pretty much established that you have proved beyond doubt, the fuselage on the roof of WTC5 has been planted there, and that not much else at this point in time can be added to this very fact!”

This is an important fact. Another important fact is the work of pilotsfor911truth.org about the ACARS which confirms that Flight 175 was not in New York at the time of its alleged crash. The fuselage with windows on the roof of WTC5 was supposed to prove the error of some witnesses who said the plane that hit the south tower was not a commercial aircraft. Today, it appears that visual impressions of these witnesses were not a mistake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHHghW4Pg5k
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Mar 26 2012, 03:47 PM
Post #100





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



QUOTE (tit2 @ Mar 26 2012, 09:00 AM) *
Quote: “I think it pretty much established that you have proved beyond doubt, the fuselage on the roof of WTC5 has been planted there, and that not much else at this point in time can be added to this very fact!”

This is an important fact. Another important fact is the work of pilotsfor911truth.org about the ACARS which confirms that Flight 175 was not in New York at the time of its alleged crash. The fuselage with windows on the roof of WTC5 was supposed to prove the error of some witnesses who said the plane that hit the south tower was not a commercial aircraft. Today, it appears that visual impressions of these witnesses were not a mistake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHHghW4Pg5k


I agree 100%...so how best can we tell the world and convince the sheeple this irrefutable evidence? Using my research I challenge some bright minded young techno-wizkid to make a film in accordance with Alex Jone's challenge I've mentioned and submit their work accordingly. I'll even walk that individual through it and better explain it point by point should that be necessary.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st September 2014 - 06:05 AM