News from downunder - the mystery of the falling tower on 9/11

by ozziepost 93 Replies latest social current

  • drwtsn32
    drwtsn32
    ... 911 has too many questions that are desperately trying to be answered by the U.S government ...

    Congrats on escaping the org. And it's great that you now question things. I believe you should question everything!

    Your statement above, however, has some inaccuracies. The government is by no means "desperately trying" to answer the questions brought up by the conspiracy theorists. Just like NASA doesn't try to answer the morons that think the moon landing was hoaxed.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with investigating the conspiracy theories. I do, because I want to know what they're talking about ... and I want to look at the evidence for myself. I looked into 9/11, the moon landing hoax, Roswell, etc.

    Just please remember one thing: there is a difference between "open minded" and "gullible". Be skeptical of everything, and demand evidence. To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." What is more extraordinary: terrorists exploited weaknesses in our airline security and flew into buildings, for which there is photographic, video, and tangible evidence; or that this is a gov't conspiracy, planned by the Bush administration and executed only 9 months after his administration took office, and the thousands of people required to pull it off have ALL kept quiet. And remember, the conspiracy has NO hard, tangible evidence. No smoking gun. Just speculations and guesses. Also, the Bush administration has one of the lowest approval ratings in history... Bush has a LOT of enemies. If this were a true gov't conspiracy, many people would have a lot to gain by exposing it.

  • What-A-Coincidence
    What-A-Coincidence

    Now for my 'surge'

    Uh, airborne planes don't usually leave skidmarks in the grass sweetbluff. Did you misspeak?

    http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/lawn.html

    many eyewitnesses and news reports said Flight 77 hit the ground before it slammed into the building

    Most of your questions seem to indicate you believe only "small fires" were present in bldg 7. The fires were by no means small. They were raging. But those alone probably wouldn't cause a building to collapse. I'm not a structural engineer so I don't know, and I bet you're not one either. But on top of the fires, there was massive damage done to the side of the building that faced the main WTC buildings. Those two things combined brought the building down.

    LOOK at how it came down for christ sake! For it to come down like that with just fires and damage .. do you know the odds? Every single support would have have be knocked out at the same time. It came down 'perfectly' into its own footprint!!! So ur saying that fires/and damage to the SIDES of bldg brought it down in that fashion? Do you have a bridge I can buy?

    alt

  • drwtsn32
    drwtsn32
    many eyewitnesses and news reports said Flight 77 hit the ground before it slammed into the building

    Video surveillance disagrees. Eye witness testimony is actually near the bottom of the ladder as far as evidence reliability goes.

    LOOK at how it came down for christ sake

    You expected it to fall like a tree?

    For it to come down like that with just fires and damage .. do you know the odds?

    Yeah, the odds are 100% that it would fall straight down. That's how they fall. They are not trees.

    Every single support would have have be knocked out at the same time.

    Wrong. Not every single support. Only enough supports and structural integrity had to be damaged so the building could not support its own weight.

  • What-A-Coincidence
    What-A-Coincidence
    Video surveillance disagrees

    How did you get them? Why are so many tapes not being released?

    Forget the eyewitnesses then ... since that is so convenient to 9/11 apologists ... the tapes ... in a court, if you have video surveillance tapes to the scene of the crime and you are asked to present them and you don't ... i would figure you have something to hide. Agree?

    FBI Withholding 84 More Tapes of Pentagon on 9/11
    Magically Only 1 shows impact so why not release the rest?

    Steve Watson / Infowars | May 17 2006

    The FBI is withholding at least another 84 surveillance tapes that were seized in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Pentagon.

    There is an ongoing lawsuit to get these tapes released via the Freedom of Information Act. The FBI has admitted in a statement to attorney, Scott Hodes, representative of Mr Scott Bingham who runs the website http://www.flight77.info/, that they have these tapes, that they have already analyzed them and are still keeping them under lock and key.

    A great deal of speculation has surrounded reports that on the morning of september 11th, 2001 the FBI visited two private businesses near the pentagon and confiscated several security camera video tapes.

    The first is said to be the Cigto gas station with several security cameras aimed in the direction of the pentagon. Flight 77 flew directly over the gas station at an altitude of roughly 50 feet, less than 3 seconds from impact.

    Three months after 9/11 The National Geographic and others reported on this, publishing short interviews with the gas station owner, Jose Velasquez.

    "His gas station, open only to Department of Defense personnel, is the last structure between the Pentagon and the hillside that, hours later, would become a wailing knoll. "By the time I got outside all I could see was a giant cloud of smoke, first white then black, coming from the Pentagon," he said. "It was just a terrible, terrible thing to be so close to."
    "Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."

    The second business was initially believed to be the Sheraton National Hotel which overlooks I395 and the Pentagon. Initial reports pointed out that hotel staff had sat watching the video surveillance in horror before the FBI arrived and shut down the scene.

    However, according to FBI statements in response to the FOIA request from Mr Bingham, The hotel in question was not the Sheraton but was in fact the Doubletree in Arlington, VA. AND this video did not capture the impact of the flight. (Maguire, page 7)

    According to the same document, the Citgo gas station video DOES NOT show flight 77 impacting the pentagon either. (Maguire, page 6, item 15)

    If this is the case then why did the FBI confiscate the gas station and hotel security videos within minutes of the crash and why haven't they subsequently released these videos?

    According to a CNN FOIA request however, the nearby hotel's video DID capture the impact. The following exchange is from a CNN transcript of a report on the 2002 release of the original four frames of Pentagon footage:

    MCINTYRE (on camera): These pictures are the first to be made public, but they are not the only images of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Sources tell CNN that the FBI on September 11th confiscated a nearby hotel's security camera videotape, which also captured the attack. So far, the Justice Department has refused to release that videotape. Aaron.

    BROWN: Why? Do we have any idea why they won't release it?

    MCINTYRE: Well, the claim - we have filed a freedom of information request for it. They claim that it might provide some intelligence to somebody else who might want to do harm to the United States. But officials I talked to here at the Pentagon say they don't see any national security or criminal value to that tape. The FBI tends to hold on to things. But the government may eventually release that tape, and if they do, we'll bring it to you.

    BROWN: Jamie, thanks. I must have missed something in how, where the intelligence possibilities are there, but that happens with me sometimes. Thank you for your work today, nice job.

    Whichever story you believe, whether the footage does or does not show the impact, the fact that the footage exists is not denied. So something does not tally up here. Both FOIA requests were denied yet we have one FOIA request denial saying the footage does not show the impact, yet a second FOIA request denial saying it does show the impact.

    After determining that only 13 of the 85 had footage of the crash site, the FBI states that 12 of these only show footage AFTER the impact of flight 77. WHY? Did someone forget to turn them on? ALL TWELEVE OF THEM?

    Furthermore how unlikely is it that in Washington DC there were only 13 cameras pointing in the general direction of the most surveilled building in the world? The area is littered with buildings and roads that have their own surveillance systems, in addition to the pentagon itself - does the sole world superpower's military HQ only have a couple of cameras at the front gate?

  • drwtsn32
    drwtsn32

    Nice copy and paste job. Look, are you surprised the gov't grabbed all the evidence they could find? Admit, for a second, that there was no conspiracy and that these truly were surprise attacks. Of *course* the gov't would collect video evidence! And I admit that if there were a conspiracy, they would also try to confiscate the video footage. So either way the collection of video footage is worthless by itself as evidence for/against the conspiracy.

    What do you expect the tapes to show? A missile? Even though it was only like one or two eye witnesses that reported a "missile"? Everyone else reported seeing an airliner.

    I do hope that it is released some day, because maybe it will shut up the conspiracy theorists. But look at the moon landing; all the video footage in the world doesn't convince the moon hoax nuts. I'm sure when/if the FBI releases the tapes that people will just say they are Hollywood special effects!

    As with all conspiracy theories, evidence against the conspiracy is really evidence for the conspiracy (in the eyes of the conspiracy believers).

  • What-A-Coincidence
    What-A-Coincidence
    I do hope that it is released some day, because maybe it will shut up the conspiracy theorists. But look at the moon landing; all the video footage in the world doesn't convince the moon hoax nuts. I'm sure when/if the FBI releases the tapes that people will just say they are Hollywood special effects!

    There u go again. Pigeonholing!!! That's exactly what I am talking about! When a person can't back up his claims, he always resorts to ... "well if you believe 9/11 was inside job then you must believe in x."

    Why u keep on bringing up the MOON landing??? Total diversion!!! Total pigeonholing!!! I am sure even someone as bright as you would agree.

    Stop bs'ing around the question. Answer why the TAPES are not being released! Come on! Do it!!! You just can't!!! Admit it! The official 9/11 story doesn't stand up and you know it! You know it in your heart it doesn't. But since u started something already, u just don't have the bollas to admit to it that u are wrong. It takes a man to admit he is wrong. You still have time. I am full of abundant kindness ;-) ... as long as you repent ... heehee ... where are all the 9/11 apologists now? They are smart, unlike others.

    Your like the JW who is given all the information regarding how the BORG is a sham, but u still hold to your beliefs.

  • What-A-Coincidence
    What-A-Coincidence
    You expected it to fall like a tree?

    You expect it to fall on it's footprint?

    all the experts agree...this is a demo job

    alt

  • Shawn10538
    Shawn10538

    I hereby challenge drtn32 or whatever the name is, to actually answer each and every question I posed, and also answer the following additional questions. For his benefit, I have changed the word "small' to "significant, though not raging all encompassing infernos." Is that fair?

    1. If Building 7 were really demolitioned as you say it was NOT, how would it have looked different than it does falling completely uncontrolled and unplanned, as you say it WAS?

    2. Could the world's best structural engineers have made the building fall even more straight down on top of itself than it actually did?

    3. How would it look different had it been planned and executed by the world's finest demolition experts?

    4. Has any building in the history of human kind ever fallen so magnificently straight down due to a "significant, though not a raging, all encompassing inferno" fire?

    5. Should we now expect other buildings to fall similarly?

    6. Would you sue your contractor if the building he built fell like Tower 7 after a "significant, though not a raging, all encompassing inferno" fire?

    7. Do we have the technology to build buildings that do not totally collapse when experiencing a "significant, though not a raging, all encompassing inferno" fire?

    8. Have there ever been towers that have been practically completely engulfed in fire and yet did not fall?

    9. In light of the fact that buildings are now known to completely collapse when they experience a "significant, though not a raging, all encompassing inferno" fire, do you still venture into high rises?

    10. Should contractors and engineers be expected to build structures that can stay standing inspite of being totally engulfed with flames? Is that kind of technology anailable?

    11. Are the engineers and archetects of Bldg. 7 now totally revamping their approach to building high rises? What lessons did they learn from the collapse of bldg. 7?

    12. Would you hire the builders or designers of building 7?

    13. Are there other buildings that are similar to bldg. 7 (in size, shape, materials used to build it) still standing? Other buildings built by the same firm that built building 7 still standing? Should we then investigate these other structures lest a "significant, though not a raging, all encompassing inferno" fire bring them down as well?

    14. Would you feel safe entering into a building that is similar to building 7, built by the same contractors and designers and around the same age, knowing that their other work failed so easily during a "significant, though not a raging, all encompassing inferno" fire?

    15. Does anyone know if the firm that built bldg. 7 is being sued right now? What do these builders say in their defense? Was their product a good one?

    16. Is there any footage of bldg 7 totally enveloped in flames and smoke before its collapse?

    17. Is there any footage showing STRUCTURAL damage to the "outside" of the building? (As someone who has years of experience working construction on high rises, particularly what is commonly refered to as "the shell" I can tell you that exterior siding in no way supports a high rise. Clarify, it gives very little support to the overall building. Haven't you ever seen a high rise before it has its skin on it? It's just steel, and it stands up quite well all on its own.)

    18. Describe the "flying debris" that damaged the STRUCTURAL integrity of the high rise bldg 7. Do we have photos of these gigantic shards of steel of approximately the same size as a jet airliner? (I'm assuming that floating paper is not enough to structurally damage a building.)

    19. How large of a piece of "flying debris" would it take to damage a skyscraper structurally? What was it made of? Where is it now? Any photographs of the HUGE piece of solid steel that must have been flying at 100s of mph at the time of impact in order to cause structural damage to bldg. 7?

    20.( This one is to dwnt32 personally since he claimed that there was structural damage to the OUTSIDE of the building which contributed to its collapse.) Watching the footage of bldg 7 come down, is it obvious that the building is falling in on itself due to CENTRAL supports giving way simultaneously (hence the classic crimp seen on every other demo'd building that has ever been demo'd in all of demo history), and NOT any of the OUTER supports giving way? If so, why did you bring up OUTER damage and claim it caused the collapse?

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    So then I guess the majority of building demolition experts agree that WTC7 was demo-ed?

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    Unfortunately, Ozzie, the article did not put the matter to bed.

    Some will never be satisifed with investigations into these matters.

    Jeff (and Ozzie), what I've come to realize is that some people don't want to discuss, or even talk. They want to preach.

    I wish I knew why the idea of some massive conspiracy on Sept. 11, 2001 sparks a fantatical gleam and the urge to shout incoherently from the street corner. I really do.

    Frankly it's a subject I would love to discuss, and I really mean that. But what I've observed over the years (and just to prove it to my stupid self more lately), these folks just don't want to interact. They want to convert. They absolutely refuse to respond or engage in anything approaching a discourse in any way whatsoever.

    After a time you've got to let go and let them throw their tantrums and have a good bottle of shiraz.

    Good on ya both.

    Chris

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit