|
Post by shred on Oct 17, 2013 7:03:32 GMT -5
William Rodriguez original testimony:
transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.html
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 17, 2013 8:22:33 GMT -5
Read it again, just incase you have a problem with ENGLISH. I've just updated and added more facts. Unlike you, I'm pretty well versed in the English language. Anyone who understands it can easily see you didn't answer any of my questions. All your answers consist of your biased theories and opinions. Those are not answers, they're just your biased theories and opinions pretending to be answers. For example: I CLEARLY asked (this is an EXACT quote): "What motivated the 9/11 Commission to suppress Mineta's and many other testimonies (including the many accounts of explosions - i.e. Willie Rodriguez) in their report?"
And your pretend answer(s) was: 1. What motivates me to lie about Mineta (a question). 2. Your opinion about the explosion in the basement. 3. Something about Rodriguez being too far and what he actually heard regarding an explosion. Yet another one of your opinions. 4. A cherry picked quotation from Rodriguez that you claim was his "original testimony" and an alleged CNN interview, neither of which have anything to do with my question. Mineta testified in front of the 9/11 Commission. There is not one word printed in the 9/11 Commission Report from his video testimony. Willie Rodriguez testified in front of the 9/11 Commission. He claims he also submitted the names of several eyewitnesses to explosions who could corroborate his testimony. Not only is there not one word from his testimony or one mention of his existence in the 9/11 Commission Report, but none of the eyewitnesses he provided the names to the Commission were ever interviewed. Further, there is not one mention of any explosion in the 9/11 Commission Report. So you see, it's not me who has a problem with English, it's you. If you go back and read my question and read your pretend answers, none of them is an answer to my question and none of them have anything to do with my question. And that's just one example. The subject is "9/11 the question of MOTIVE" (your subject) and you accused me of changing the subject and I agree I did. But when I asked several questions about MOTIVE to get back to YOUR topic, you changed the subject. There is not one thing you posted that has anything to do with the questions of MOTIVE that I asked, just another one of your song and dance routines.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 18, 2013 16:35:32 GMT -5
Ahem, Mineta's testimony says he wasn't there when the shootdown order was given, but that he was made aware of the shootdown order as flight 77 was approaching:
Being English my understanding of my nation's language is very good.
2) William Rodriguez's story has changed many times, the early versions of his story describe fuel as being the source of the 'explosion' and that makes sense as an explosion in the basement would not cause a top down collapse. But burning fuel coming down lift shafts would explode when exposed to greater quantities of air when lift doors opened and backdraught kicked in.
Transcript of NIST Public Meeting in New York City – February 12, 2004, p. 70
Come on, think about it. Why would an explosion in the basement cause a top down collapse ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 18, 2013 17:20:04 GMT -5
"Ahem, Mineta's testimony says ..."
"William Rodriguez's story has changed many times ..."
"Why would an explosion in the basement cause a top down collapse ?"
"Being English my understanding of my nation's language is very good."
Then you're either lying, overstating your level of understanding of English or your reading comprehension is completely defective or pretending as usual. I say the last but you're not very good at that either.
I quoted myself and I'm sure you read what I quoted, both the original version and the copied quote. What does any of the above have to do with my question as to what motivated the 9/11 Commission to suppress the testimony of these 2 people (among many other questions I had about motives) and all the testimony about explosions? The question of MOTIVE is YOUR topic, not mine and that's what I assume you wanted to discuss when you started this thread, no? So why are you pretending to be so utterly brain dead and switching the topic? That's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer. Like I said your pretenses do not rise above the level of a school child.
If you don't want to discuss the question of MOTIVE, then just say so, don't accuse me of changing the topic when that's exactly what you're doing, not that I really give a $%#$@ about your silly childish games.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 18, 2013 17:58:33 GMT -5
You said Mineta testified to a NORAD stand down, show me where he said planes were ordered not to shoot down flight 77 ?
Now, bear the original version of Rodriguez's testimony in mind and consider the planes, they were carrying fuel, other people have testified to fireballs coming down lift shafts and being burned, and Rodriguez's original testimony corresponds. The latter versions of his testimony make no sense at all. An explosion in the basement could not cause a top down collapse. Furthermore, some ground level columns remained standing. There is no evidence that either of the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition, no evidence that anyone in the US Government, New York Port Authority or Larry Silverstein had the motive to pre rig them for controlled demolition and no evidence that explosive charges (if there had been any) would have ever survived the impact of airliners without being destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 18, 2013 20:11:11 GMT -5
Ok never mind. I don't blame you. You won't discuss the MOTIVE of the 9/11 Commission for suppressing testimony (and much more EVIDENCE of KNOWN SUPPRESSION) because then you would have to confront the issue of criminal FRAUD and ulterior MOTIVE. It's the same point with NIST, you won't discuss their MOTIVE for doctoring the structural drawings and the same FRAUD issue. That would work against your agenda.
So reality is you want to discuss MOTIVE only as it applies to conspiracy theories. But you don't want to discuss MOTIVE as it applies to real world HISTORICAL FACT.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 21, 2013 3:38:02 GMT -5
The 9/11 commission didn't suppress Mineta's testimony, it was broadcast on TV. Enough people have testified to jet fuel in the lift shafts exploding when exposed to greater quantities of oxygen when the lift doors opened for it to be clear that the explosion in the basement level was from burning jet fuel exploding out of the lift shafts.
It would make no sense for explosives down there to have anything to do with the top down collapse of WTC1 but burning fuel from the planes was exploding out of lift shafts on other levels.
I have seen no evidence that NIST doctored any drawings, have you considered that perhaps your truth movement doctored drawings like they've doctored videos and deliberately misquoted people to portray a false narrative.
Again, there is no motive for your government to destroy key economically important and symbolic buildings, there is no motive for your government to murder nearly 3000 Americans in the manner that the terrorist attack occurred.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 21, 2013 7:21:38 GMT -5
"The 9/11 commission didn't suppress Mineta's testimony, it was broadcast on TV."
It never fails, you just can't stop being an apologist for the US government, the 9/11 Commission and NIST. The 9/11 Commission is NOT a TV broadcasting entity. While Mineta's testimony appeared on the news, those who didn't see it that day missed it forever (other than YouTube if they ever want to do the research) because it did NOT appear in the 9/11 Commission Report, therefore it was suppressed by the 9/11 Commission. Rodriguez's testimony was also suppressed by the 9/11 Commission, they never interviewed any of the witnesses provided to them by Rodriguez and the Commission never mentioned any eyewitness testimony about explosions. There are well over one hundred of those from first responders and others that are fully documented. These are just some of the things that never appeared in the 9/11 Commission Report whose purpose was "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks".
"I have seen no evidence that NIST doctored any drawings"
I posted it in all the threads you responded to but you can't see what you don't want to see or pretend you don't see. The NIST drawings appear in their own report. The real drawings were obtained via FOIA requests by Jonathan Cole. They don't match. The stiffeners are MISSING from the NIST drawings. NIST also mentioned the shear studs in their initial report but claimed there were none in their Final Report. NIST did NOT mention the WTC7 collapse in their first report. Sunder later claimed "We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7”. No one doctored the NIST Reports, anyone can read them, even you and I'm sure you did for the most part.
"have you considered that perhaps your truth movement doctored drawings"
The issue is being brought to federal court. You think any engineer or other expert would add stiffeners to a WTC7 structural drawing? You think anyone would introduce doctored evidence into federal court for a 9/11 case? For what purpose? All are just rhetorical questions that exposes your fakery.
"they've doctored videos and deliberately misquoted people to portray a false narrative."
You have no evidence this is true for anyone competent. Who would that be and for what purpose? And why do you believe that but ignore or pretend to disbelieve the FACT that NIST doctored drawings and fabricated data and 2 computer simulation animations that have nothing to do with the reality of the actual collapse of WTC7? These are all rhetorical questions, you will never engage in a real discussion on 9/11, you make that all too obvious. In any case, a demand for a REAL INVESTIGATION is NOT a "narrative", which is the actual objective of all those who demand the truth (i.e. the "truth movement").
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 21, 2013 11:53:02 GMT -5
You posted conspiracy theories without evidence. The building plans were not secret and are in the public domain, there is no reason for NIST to lie, there is reason for people who profit from conspiracy theories to lie and such people have and do doctor things to make cash from their fraud.
Stiffeners made of steel will soften in fire.
WTC7 wasn't a target but was heavily damaged by WTC1 and burned for seven hours when WTC1 suffered structural failure and collapsed. Despite colourful conspiracy theories there is no evidence that any burning building has ever been brought down by explosive initiated controlled demolitions.
There is no motive for NIST to lie, there is no evidence of controlled demolitions, you can clutch at straws all you like but you cannot make your conspiracy theories real.
There is no motive for the US government to do such a thing and if there were such a motive, far simpler ways to kill people exist and if they were going to kill American civilians they would be also killing anyone who could expose their plot. Last time I checked Richard Gage and his bunch of frauds are most definitely in the land of the living.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 21, 2013 12:35:44 GMT -5
"You posted conspiracy theories without evidence."I didn't post any "conspiracy theories". I posted indisputable FACTS. You're the only one who disputes the FACTS without any evidence that contradicts them. "The building plans were not secret and are in the public domain"Whether they're secret or not, it still took a FOIA request to get the actual original drawings. However, if you believe they're in the public domain, why don't you provide the original WTC7 structural drawings (or a link to them) yourself? Especially the ones that show the stiffeners. Like this one: "there is no reason for NIST to lie"Sure Mr. NIST Apologist. It doesn't matter that you believe there's no reason for NIST to lie, the NIST lies and contradictions are documented in the NIST reports and they are numerous. "Stiffeners made of steel will soften in fire."Whether that's true or not, it has nothing to do with the FACT that NIST published drawings that omitted the stiffeners. In fact, by saying that, you're agreeing that these were present but omitted, otherwise why would you even bring that up? The rest of your post, as usual, has nothing to do with NIST's motive for lying. And there's nothing about the 9/11 Commission's deliberate OMISSIONS either. Attacking others who have nothing to do with either NIST or the 9/11 Commission is just your way of trying to change a topic that YOU started.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 22, 2013 5:00:58 GMT -5
There you go again changing the subject, ignoring the root cause, the airliners that hit the twin towers as being responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, ignoring the lack of motive for your government to carry out something like this, ignoring the shoot down order that Mineta testified was given, "I was made aware of it during the time that the plane was coming into the Pentagon" he said. Again you ignore the structural damage and fire in WTC7 you ignore that even if there were 'stiffener plates' they would soften in fire and expand, and there is no evidence of any explosive charges having been responsible for WTC7's collapse, that only leaves one explanation left i.e. structural damage + fire was responsible for WTC7's collapse stiffener plates or no stiffener plates.
The NSA couldn't keep Snowden silenced, the US Government couldn't pull off Watergate, they failed to extract hostages from the US Embassy in Iran, yet despite this, you think they were able to infiltrate skyscrapers and perform incredibly invasive work requiring lots of workers to rig them for demolition, in a way that would survive the impact of planes without prematurely going off?
It's just not possible Bob.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 22, 2013 7:41:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jettz on Oct 22, 2013 22:08:38 GMT -5
There you go again changing the subject, ignoring the root cause, the airliners that hit the twin towers as being responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, ignoring the lack of motive for your government to carry out something like this, ignoring the shoot down order that Mineta testified was given, "I was made aware of it during the time that the plane was coming into the Pentagon" he said. Again you ignore the structural damage and fire in WTC7 you ignore that even if there were 'stiffener plates' they would soften in fire and expand, and there is no evidence of any explosive charges having been responsible for WTC7's collapse, that only leaves one explanation left i.e. structural damage + fire was responsible for WTC7's collapse stiffener plates or no stiffener plates. The NSA couldn't keep Snowden silenced, the US Government couldn't pull off Watergate, they failed to extract hostages from the US Embassy in Iran, yet despite this, you think they were able to infiltrate skyscrapers and perform incredibly invasive work requiring lots of workers to rig them for demolition, in a way that would survive the impact of planes without prematurely going off? It's just not possible Bob. with that in mind it would be impossible to keep everyone quiet.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 22, 2013 23:48:47 GMT -5
There you go again changing the subject, ignoring the root cause, the airliners that hit the twin towers as being responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, ignoring the lack of motive for your government to carry out something like this, ignoring the shoot down order that Mineta testified was given, "I was made aware of it during the time that the plane was coming into the Pentagon" he said. Again you ignore the structural damage and fire in WTC7 you ignore that even if there were 'stiffener plates' they would soften in fire and expand, and there is no evidence of any explosive charges having been responsible for WTC7's collapse, that only leaves one explanation left i.e. structural damage + fire was responsible for WTC7's collapse stiffener plates or no stiffener plates. The NSA couldn't keep Snowden silenced, the US Government couldn't pull off Watergate, they failed to extract hostages from the US Embassy in Iran, yet despite this, you think they were able to infiltrate skyscrapers and perform incredibly invasive work requiring lots of workers to rig them for demolition, in a way that would survive the impact of planes without prematurely going off? It's just not possible Bob. with that in mind it would be impossible to keep everyone quiet. First, the entire claim is mostly Shred's biased opinion, it has nothing to do with the FACTS and reality of 9/11. All you need to do is review the many links I provided to understand that. And second, keep everyone quiet about what? There are numerous 9/11 whistle blowers (see links below) who as much as government wanted to silence, have been quite vocal. Regardless none of this has anything to do with any NIST and 9/11 Commission fraud that has been exposed and their motive for committing fraud. In fact, the 9/11 Commission refused to grant any of these whistle blowers immunity and as a result, some were not willing to testify. This is just one more FACT that clearly shows the 9/11 Commission deliberately suppressed testimony. www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100305_911_whistleblowers.htm
|
|
|
Post by shred on Nov 20, 2013 12:50:21 GMT -5
Bob, you're the one ignoring the facts, the planes, the passengers, the hijackers, air traffic control, the airliners, air crash investigators, the buildings, the people in the buildings who would have seen and heard workmen if anyone had tried to rig the buildings, it's invasive work you can't just stick a bomb in a filing cabinet and expect it to work, a charge would have to be directly mounted on a pre weakened column or it would not work. Planes crashed through the floors which failed first, had charges been planted the planes would have set them off.
What happened that day is too complicated to fake.
The conspiracy s**te you've been fed has warped your little mind.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Nov 20, 2013 13:52:49 GMT -5
"The conspiracy s**te you've been fed has warped your little mind."
So then why do you pay so much attention to what I post? If my mind is warped to you, you don't seem to treat my posts as coming from a warped mind. In fact it seems you're so disturbed and defensive by what I post that you have to try to rip every single thing apart and you wind up pissing in wind and exposing yourself as a complete fake. And that includes this nonsensical diatribe. Why don't you try reporting me for spamming yet again, you never know, it might work next time.
Don't you think it's a bit too late to try to silence me on this subject? Just count all the threads I've started and the many posts I've written on the subject. Maybe one day they will all disappear, but for now, the information posted is massive and impossible for your fakery to cope with.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Nov 22, 2013 5:28:56 GMT -5
You're telling lies on a public forum I'm countering your lies with truth, it's called debate, dumbarse.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Nov 22, 2013 8:15:10 GMT -5
You're telling lies on a public forum I'm countering your lies with truth, it's called debate, dumbarse. Your "truth" consists of parroting everything you've been fed about 9/11, plus a few extra made up tidbits and now sprinkled with name calling. As to a "debate", debates don't include name calling last I checked. That's a clear sign of someone who's desperate, not to mention extremely immature.
|
|