| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| From a T1 survivor; official story? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 11 2008, 08:25 PM (1,439 Views) | |
| Mightyqueen801 | Aug 11 2008, 08:25 PM Post #1 |
|
Ugh, I just wrote this long post and lost it. Anyway. I do not believe there was a controlled demolition and not because--spare me--I love George Bush, believe whatever my government tells me, or swallow everything I hear in the media. I do not believe there was a controlled demolition because I've spoken with the civil and structural engineers who worked in and knew the WTC, some of whom barely got out themselves on 9/11. One of them, who worked in T1 when it stood and then spent the next year on the pile had gone so far as to check out one of the early sites. He said that while it would be persuasive to the lay person, what with all the physics and graphs and whatnot, it was not factual. He also said someone had gone to a great deal of time and trouble to make up that site. I believe these well-respected professionals against any website person with videos. They would be the first on line to tell the story if they'd found blasting caps or other evidence of explosives, but they didn't. They have examined the structural failure, the steel itself (no, it was not all sold off immediately to China or <insert country of choice>) and other elements of the collapse. We all contributed to the NIST report as far as providing information about what was happening on the floors we were on, such as fire, falling ceilings, cracks in staircase, etc. I have asked this question and never gotten an answer: How did anyone get in to plant the explosives? If your answer is "it was an office building so no one was there at night" you have just unveiled your absolute lack of knowledge about the WTC and its operations, and ignores the fact that the towers were a regularly-threatened terrorist target since the mid-80's (maybe earlier, but I remember a specific threat received in 1985). I want details that demonstrate real knowledge of the protocols for doing construction work within the WTC and related security access. One more thing--I just read that guy Scott Forbes story about the "power-down" the weekend before 9/11. Power-downs and shut-downs occurred all the time, probably EVERY weekend. And Mr. Forbes was quite incorrect, or more likely just didn't know, when he said there were no security cameras in the office areas. I saw the Security Control Room once, and let me tell you, you couldn't scratch your ass in the WTC without it being on video. I would appreciate it if you please: don't post the "truth" sites. I've seen them all. don't tell me that there were only small fires confined to localized areas. I have friends who were burned to death, including in the lobby when the fireballs shot through and in elevators that dropped at impact. don't tell me Larry Silverstein did it to make a killing--I know that's not true (he isn't building the Freedom Tower, is he? There's a reason.) don't tell me the planes were "incinerated". I saw the fuselage burning on the Plaza. Comments welcome. |
 |
 
|
| Bitterman | Aug 11 2008, 08:58 PM Post #2 |
|
What caused all that steel and concrete to turn to dust? What cause molten metal in the basements of all the buildings? |
|
|
|
| Bitterman | Aug 11 2008, 09:03 PM Post #3 |
|
Also, can you explain that comment a little more? |
|
|
|
| Mightyqueen801 | Aug 11 2008, 09:17 PM Post #4 |
|
What caused all that steel and concrete to turn to dust? What cause molten metal in the basements of all the buildings? The steel and concrete didn't all turn to dust. You are kidding, I hope. I don't know specific details about the metal or what kind of metal it was, but since the fires were burning down there until early January, I'm guessing that had something to do with it. Don't know what prolonged exposure to fire does to what metals--I am going to find someone to ask about that. |
|
|
|
| Mightyqueen801 | Aug 11 2008, 09:20 PM Post #5 |
|
I've seen that written sometimes, as in "if the planes were completely incinerated, how did XYZ happen?" It's an annoyance to those of us who have an image of a crashed and burning plane surrounded by things you don't ever want to see branded into our minds for the rest of our lives. |
|
|
|
| Flippy | Aug 11 2008, 10:19 PM Post #6 |
|
In honor of the forum section. I don't believe you. |
|
|
|
| Bitterman | Aug 11 2008, 10:36 PM Post #7 |
|
I know that everything didn't ALL turn to dust......but the majority of the building did. I'm not joking. Show me the pictures of the big hunks of building that survived? I haven't seen those. You can't tell me that if it all just "fell" from the sky and when it hit the ground, the concrete pulverized itself and the steel did something else entirely? What fires were burning down where?? What was fueling that fire? That had something to do with the metal? You guess? **EDIT** Also, where did you get that info that the fires were burning for FIVE months? To early January??? The only thing I saw about that was hot spots for 3-4 weeks after the day......so whats going on there?? Source or pictures....on that one please!. **/EDIT** Sir, if you're here to convince people you have to ante up with a little more than that. This is the place where you have to come and show something like solid irrefutable facts. Now before anyone goes nutso......let's just be clear......I'm sorry that you had to deal with that day. But, there ARE questions that need to be answered. Opinions are awesome, but solid answers are needed. One last question, why are you here then? Like, if you have all the answers and or at least VERY sure that no shenanigans were a-foot that day.....then don't worry about us man! We're cool! We're good! You can let us be.....let us stew in all of this and carry on with life as you surely have been these 7 years......just my....."opinion". I hope you won't take the comments the wrong way, adult conversations please. Edited by Bitterman, Aug 11 2008, 10:40 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Headspin | Aug 12 2008, 04:41 AM Post #8 |
|
molten iron was found in dust samples collected prior to the collapse of wtc7. |
|
|
| look-up | Aug 12 2008, 09:44 AM Post #9 |
|
there were no fires burning beneath the rubble. what videos and pictures prove is that fires rose up when tehe molten materials were uncovered. there's no way an oxygen souce could exist in the dust and ruble. however, once you uncover the molten materials, you will be exposing it to oxygen and flamable rubble, creating a new fire. the question is, if the fires were up above, how did the bottom of the rubble pile become molten? many of the things you say about our claims are just talking points handed to you by skeptics of our theories, they are not actual rebuttals to real points we've made. you're being fed information that sounds like it makes sense. NIST has a website too, does that make them uneducated? Why did one of the lead investigators at NIST quit and say that they were not searching for the real truth? |
|
|
|
| Mightyqueen801 | Aug 12 2008, 10:03 AM Post #10 |
|
molten iron was found in dust samples collected prior to the collapse of wtc7. What is your source for this? I don't know either way, but I find it doubtful anyone was collecting dust samples that day, except maybe those souvenior hounds who were picking it up the first few days. |
|
|
|
| Mightyqueen801 | Aug 12 2008, 10:04 AM Post #11 |
|
"In honor of the forum section. I don't believe you." That is your prerogative. |
|
|
|
| Mightyqueen801 | Aug 12 2008, 10:23 AM Post #12 |
|
One thing--I'm not a "sir". I'm female, the sn is because I'm a very tall female. The concrete wasn't all pulverized. There were huge chunks. I'm not making this up. Where did I get that the fires were burning for five months? If you recall, they (news) said the fires were out at the end of December, but I know that a few flared up for another two weeks. I don't know what you would accept as a source, since you don't accept the news stories. Most of what I know I know from the conversations of the engineers who were working on the cleanup as it happened. I am honestly surprised to hear you question this. I thought it was a well-known fact. Also I don't understand the conviction that there was no oxygen in the sub levels. There were six basement levels. The part under the big brain-looking sculpture on the Plaza was reinforced to support it, and that area held (you see part of that area in the Naudet film when the FDNY chaplin dies). When Two came down a lot of people were blown through the Concourse by the force of the air--some died, others lucky enough to be thrown into the stores that still stood are alive. Also on the PATH level there were open areas--you seem to be automatically assuming that everything was filled in with debris. Not so. Have you read American Ground by William Langweiche? It takes no sides as to the attacks, but is a pretty good narrative of the cleanup. I came here out of curiosity--when I first heard of this, I laughed, like so many of the survivors and the engineers do, but then I saw some who believe as you do en masse at the anniversary two years ago, and I got angry--there was a lot of abusive language being shouted at passersby--no big deal in NYC, but I did get to witness a group screaming at an elderly woman wearing the family badge with a picture of whom I guess was her son being told she was just a "shill for Cheney", and there's no reason for that. To her credit, the old lady just turned and yelled "IDIOTS!" and kept going. It took me a while to realize that this isn't a game--that you really really do believe this. I can see why--but you must also take into consideration my point of view. If I know the engineers who worked on the pile and at Fresh Kills, and cops who worked at Fresh Kills, and they are people who lost coworkers and friends and in at least one case, a son--not to mention the building they constructed and maintained and knew inside out--and they say there was no evidence of explosives--do you find it that odd that I'd take their opinion over conjecture from those not even close to the event? |
|
|
|
| Mightyqueen801 | Aug 12 2008, 10:28 AM Post #13 |
|
many of the things you say about our claims are just talking points handed to you by skeptics of our theories, they are not actual rebuttals to real points we've made. you're being fed information that sounds like it makes sense. I am not being "fed" information, nor am I coming up with anything handed to me by skeptics. If that is your only response--an automatic assumption that I am a sheeple or listening to news media or any other tiresome overused response, I will not respond to the post. I am merely taking the stand that there was no controlled demolition because the people who would know most--the engineers who were at the site for a year--say that there wasn't. Period. If you are going to insist that somehow the federal government (FEMA? THE FBI? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? DIDN'T YOU SEE KATRINA???) managed to control 1000 people per shift from four different contractors, the Port Authority, the NYPD, the PAPD, the FDNY, the city department of Design and Construction...and get them to lie, I cannot have a conversation with you. |
|
|
|
| Mightyqueen801 | Aug 12 2008, 11:54 AM Post #14 |
|
What fires were burning down where?? What was fueling that fire? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CEEDF113BF93AA25752C1A9679C8B63&&scp=35&sq=WTC%20fire%20extinguished&st=cse |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Aug 12 2008, 12:03 PM Post #15 |
|
There-in lies the heart of the problem. The truth is often much uglier and painful to acknowledge than a lie. Those responsible for investigating the truth have many reasons to rubber stamp the Official Story and very little incentive to martyr themselves by seriously challenging it. Who really believes; That the invasion of Iraq was conceived by George Bush? That Bush's 'exercise of power' was not pre-approved by the military-industrial complex? That those who wield power are not likely to do everything in their means to maintain it? That in a world with uncontrolled population growth and diminishing resources, that those who control the world's No1 super power would be willing to let that status slip away because the means of gaining the necessary public support required inhuman and unethical acts? That many members of the general public don't also share similar fears about their future, and silently condone this maintenance of power through whatever means are necessary? That the majority would rather know a terrible ugly truth, than hold onto the belief that their country's merchants of power are incapable of sponsoring such evil? MM |
|
|
|
| Headspin | Aug 12 2008, 02:23 PM Post #16 |
|
33:46, BBC narrater: "using a scanning electron microscope professor jones is able to produce high resolution images of the spheres in the 911 dust, and he was given one sample from brooklyn bridge found within an hour of the collapse of the twin towers" http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=Conspiracy+Files%3A+9%2F11+-+The+Third+Tower+&hl=en&emb=0# |
|
|
|
| Bernie big shorts | Aug 12 2008, 03:15 PM Post #17 |
|
Headspin, There are other explanations for iron rich spheres in the dust sample other than therm*te. The potash, contaminated samples, remnants from previous engineering work etc etc. Until those are thoroughly investigated i would be sceptical about Dr Jones' claims that spheres = therm*te. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Aug 12 2008, 03:20 PM Post #18 |
|
Not that it entirely relates to the towers, but 9/11 has already been proven to be an inside job, with a simple wave of the hand toward the north side of the former Citgo gas station across from the Pentagon by eyewitnesses we interviewed. They unknowingly proved the plane could not have hit the light poles or building as outlined by the ASCE report. Perhaps if you take a look at this, Might Queen, and are able to understand the implications you might be able to come back and look at the towers with a more open mind.   http://thepentacon.com/index.htm Hope that helps you in your quest for understanding what happened that day. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Aug 12 2008, 03:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Bernie big shorts | Aug 12 2008, 03:34 PM Post #19 |
|
Miragememories,
I don't accept this. If you were involved in investigating this and knew that it was an inside job would you keep quiet? I doubt you would and neither would I. Apart from the obvious immorality in remaining silent about the murder of thousands of people, it would be extremely dangerous, i would worry that the story would eventually leak and i would be held accountable for my cover up of the truth. I wouldn't run the risk of a possible jail sentence or a death penalty i would go straight to the authorities/media with any information. People exposing this would not be martyring themselves, look at the careers of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, they exposed the Watergate scandal and collected the Pulitzer Prize and were venerated in Hollywood by Hoffman and Redford. I can't understand how you would expect people to behave so cynically. If you asked anyone you know if they would keep quiet about something like this for the sake of a job would anyone say yes? |
|
|
|
| Bernie big shorts | Aug 12 2008, 04:03 PM Post #20 |
|
Aldo, Witnesses misidentifying the approach of a plane in a traumatic moment does not prove 911 was an inside job. In the clip below, 75 people out of hundred, didn't notice that the man at the desk changed halfway through. Now you wouldn't argue that the 75% are right because they are officially documented and independently confirmed, would you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAnKvo-fPs0 In the clip below there is multiple corroboration in the audience that they have just seen the words "sweet" and "angry". Would you claim that this makes them right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfhIuaD183I You need to understand how fragile eyewitness testimony is. There is calls in legal circles to prevent convictions based on eyewitness testimony. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Aug 12 2008, 04:16 PM Post #21 |
|
Bernie, we've already done the rounds on this. Actually it does. And they didn't misidentify anything. You proved the "misidentified the approach" by being anonymous behind your computer screen and having never spoke with them or any witness who you think refutes them???????????????????????/ Come off it, Bernie. Perhaps u are unfamiliar with the total of 13 eyewitnesses we now have to a NoC flight path, witnesses on each side of the plane. It is in our new presentation. This is a simple detail that can be continued to be corroborated, especially by witnesses who are unaware of the implications. This is where the plane flew, everyone who was genuinely there saw it fly there. It is refuted by no one, except anonymous commentators who weren't there. You know, like you. Corroboration is the key here. You are using a totally irrelevant example to make your point. This is a very simple detail that anyone who was there would be able to get right. Again, corroborating witnesses who independently say the same thing about the sameblack or white detail who can be subpoenaed are evidence... they are proof. You being a die hard pseudoskeptic who moves goal posts and has an ego vested interest in being right doesn't change that. Please don't insult our intelligence by thowing an irrelevant video up like you are some type of psychologist or eyewitness expert. Better yet, "bernie", show our video to a video expert and see if they think the witnesses all got it mistaken. I dare ya. Make sure you show them all the interviews and give them the dates of the interviews, and even give them copies of their first statements shortly after 9/11 that put it on the north side. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Aug 12 2008, 04:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Mightyqueen801 | Aug 12 2008, 05:32 PM Post #22 |
|
"using a scanning electron microscope professor jones is able to produce high resolution images of the spheres in the 911 dust, and he was given one sample from brooklyn bridge found within an hour of the collapse of the twin towers" http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=Conspiracy+Files%3A+9%2F11+-+The+Third+Tower+&hl=en&emb=0# OK, wait a minute. I only watched about a minute of it, and I will watch the rest, but already I find this a little hokey, unless that's typical for Brit TV. They've got a spin on it as if this tower just suddenly fell down, unexpectedly. Building 7 falling was the first thing I saw on TV that day. If you recall, they had the cameras trained on the building waiting for it to come down. I got to where I was (bar in a restaurant in Newark) just before 5 o'clock. The screen was nothing but Building 7 at that time and the newspeople were talking about how they were expecting it to come down. It finally did. Then they were expecting the Millenium Hotel to possibly fall, but it didn't. I'm not claiming to know exactly how or why 7 fell, mind you, although I do know there was a lot more fire than some know. But these video things should tell the whole truth, IMO. Not "THREE towers fell that day" followed by jarring chords--we didn't know THAT? C'mon, now! Ahem, back to the video.... |
|
|
|
| Mightyqueen801 | Aug 12 2008, 05:41 PM Post #23 |
|
"If you asked anyone you know if they would keep quiet about something like this for the sake of a job would anyone say yes?" Helllloooo. Let me tell you something as, far as I know, the only person here right now who knows what it was like to be inside a building when it's hit by a commercial jet. When the floor you are standing on suddenly lurches sideway, fire has blown out a nearby elevator door and engulfed the man who was waiting there, you see ceiling tiles crumbling down and the ceiling frame being bent--you are pretty sure you are about to die, but you run. And in the next few days you pass back and forth phone calls about who died and who is alive and the sound of someone dragging his garbage can to the street is enough to make you jump. Eventually you go back, and you see the others and you go to funerals and you just keep living, even though you can smell the that godawful smell from the smoke for months because they can't get the fire out...but you keep on going. There were 15,000 of us who got out. DO YOU REALLY REALLY THINK THAT WE ARE AFRAID OF LOSING OUR JOBS????? Think. |
|
|
|
| C.H. | Aug 12 2008, 05:44 PM Post #24 |
|
From wikipedia:
This has nothing to do with reporting the plane on the north side of the Citgo gas station. There was no disruption- witnesses from multiple view points all witnessed the same thing.
Short-term memory is not the same as visual memory.
This article deals with witness identification of people. The article does not say that convictions based on eyewitness testimony should be prevented, but that expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitnesses shouldn't be categorically inadmissible. You're not fooling anyone with this bs. |
|
|
|
| look-up | Aug 12 2008, 05:50 PM Post #25 |
|
well that's fine. you don't have to believe me, but you should probably tell the firefighters there were no bombs, because there are countless examples of them testifying that there were. I'm sorry you found my response offensive. I didn't think it would be. To keep from repeating myself endlessly, I suggest you read through this thread. Some people on both sides got a little out of hand, but pay attention to the discussions between myself, Pguillory, and Shopnut, specifically. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/506819/1/ Post anything you want into that thread. peace, Edited by look-up, Aug 12 2008, 05:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
12:07 PM Nov 23