It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Challenge for All 9/11 Debunkers

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


I disagree with your opinion as to the shoot down of flight 93. Of all the evidence I have read, and witnessness statements, I don't beleive it was shot down. (I suggest starting another thread if you want to chat about evidence)




I suggest I already have - quite some time ago. And in many other threads. I think you're getting carried away on a point I used only as a talking point.




posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Not to derail my own thread, but I never did see a picture of Flight 93's crash sight with some actual plane wreckage in the hole. Maybe they are with the confiscated Pentagon tapes


Perhaps this should be challenge #4, anyone that has photographic evidence of plane wreckage in the hole at the Flight 93 crash site please post it here. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I have some questions that maybe some of the folks here can answer.
1.Why prior to Larry sliverstien taking over the leases of the WTC complex why wasn't any of the building insured for possible terrorist attacks?

2. Larry Silverstien was told by the city of New York he would have to remove the asbestos coating that had be applied during the contstruction of the WTC'S the amount given for this removal was quoted at 1 billion dollars.


3.How does a 110 story buliding fall at free fall speed into its own foot print without the help of explosive devices?

4. If the heat from the fires contained inside the WTC brought the building down then why hasn't any other steel frame building fallen from burning a much longer period of time?


5.Why was the areas around the WTC cordined off prior to the planes hitting the buildings? Why on this particular day the WTC going to be used as a part of a terrorist simulation put on by NORAD and Vice president Cheney


6. Why did Cheney have the fighter jets stand down.


7.If no explosives were used how does jetliner hitting the WTC at the 86th floor blow out the windows at street level?


8.The plane that hit the pentgon where did it go there was no wreakage no 12 ton engines no wings no seats no bodies or bones from passengers that where suppose to be on this flight?The WTC was completely destoryed and six years later there still finding body parts. The pentgon was just bruised a bit but no bodies were found at the crash site missles don't carry passengers

[edit on 21-8-2007 by thunderwolf]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by thunderwolf

3.How does a 110 story buliding fall at free fall speed into its own foot print without the help of explosive devices?


It did not fall at free fall speed.



7.If no explosives were used how does jetliner hitting the WTC at the 86th floor blow out the windows at street level?


Good question. An explosion on the lower levels would be required.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


From what is pictured in the video unless it was altered in some way WTC 2 fell in appox 9 seconds thats free fall speed Wtc 1 fell in less than 9 seconds thats free fall speed they both fell almost as fast as if you would drop a brick off the top floor. With the furnishings inside the towers plus steel floor supports it would slow down the collapse



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by thunderwolf


From what is pictured in the video unless it was altered in some way WTC 2 fell in appox 9 seconds thats free fall speed Wtc 1 fell in less than 9 seconds thats free fall speed they both fell almost as fast as if you would drop a brick off the top floor. With the furnishings inside the towers plus steel floor supports it would slow down the collapse


No, no it didn't fall in 9 seconds and I'm not sure what video you're looking at but it's probably a video of a portion of the collapse, not the entire thing.

WTC 1 fell in about 16 seconds and I believe WTC 2 was around 14, but I'm going off memory on that one. Anyways, they weren't anywhere close to free-fall and the calculations have been posted numerous times on this board to show all of this.

[edit on 8-22-2007 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 01:59 AM
link   
well my question to the "it fell at free fall speed" crowd it this: if the towers were collapsing at freefall speed, why did all the debris that fell off the towers as they collapsed fall even faster then? look at any photo or video, theres large chunks of debris falling wayyyyyyy faster than the building is collapsing. just wondering



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Wow, I've been gone for a day and this thread is already going the way of so many others, the whole point here was to not slide back into arguments over CD, is that inevitable?? There are already dozens of threads about these issues, if you want to debate them further, please go there.


Originally posted by thunderwolf
I have some questions that maybe some of the folks here can answer.


I respectfully request you start another thread with your own questions and stick to the 3 statements presented in the opening post of this thread. Exception being given to any one who has a picture of the Flight 93 crash site with some plane wreckage in the hole. Please post it here, I would like to see that. Not a theory or conjecture, but a picture.

thanks.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 07:08 AM
link   
YES, they DID lie.

thats another reason. not only about ´weapons of mass destruction´.
american war history is a big book.

we should ask for the political background. the motives.
and then we can say, YES, there is propably a REASON to do something like project Northwoods.

( for reasons of theories, too. otherwise they ALL ARE SPECULATIONS, RATHER THAN THEORIES .)



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
well my question to the "it fell at free fall speed" crowd it this: if the towers were collapsing at freefall speed, why did all the debris that fell off the towers as they collapsed fall even faster then? look at any photo or video, theres large chunks of debris falling wayyyyyyy faster than the building is collapsing. just wondering


here, dude.

FASTER than freefall

the whole towers did not fall at the rate of acceleration due to gravity(freefall), but some explosions travelled down the side of the building from the inside far faster than things falling on the outside.




posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   
realla strange why DC_Brooklyn isnt posting here..



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 



so wait then, was it some of the debris or the building that fell faster than freefall? i mean, isnt that the arguement that the WHOLE BUILDING fell faster than freefall?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
reply to post by billybob
 



so wait then, was it some of the debris or the building that fell faster than freefall? i mean, isnt that the arguement that the WHOLE BUILDING fell faster than freefall?




i don't think you visited the "faster than freefall" thread.

the video www.plaguepuppy.net... is proof of demolition.

real proof.

watch it one frame at a time. think about trajectories and acceleration forces.

the demo is obvious always, but in this video, it is measurable due to the near perfect 2D view.

i measured between two frames. the length of the vertical purple portion of the purple line represents the distance traveled by a piece of debris freefalling on the outside of the building for at least one storey. the length of the vertical portion of the blue bar is the lowest point on the building that 'puffs' can be seen shooting out from inside the building.

from one frame to the next, probably between 1/24 and 1/30 of a second, the metal falling through air is outpaced earthward by whatever is causing pulverized stuff to shoot out of the corners of the building.

bombs timed to slightly outpace the acceleration of gravity could do this.

also notice that some plumes of dust accelerate outwards at ninety degrees, faster than the downward mass is moving.

notice also, that the building accelerates as it falls, with NO STUTTER.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by billybob]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles


so wait then, was it some of the debris or the building that fell faster than freefall? i mean, isnt that the arguement that the WHOLE BUILDING fell faster than freefall?




WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell slower than free fall. Approximately 16 seconds for WTC 1 and around 14 seconds for WTC 2. Freefall would have been right at 10 seconds.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I'm not sure if we can take debris falling on the outside as a measure for freefall. Suppossedly these huge pieces of facade were thrown out by torquing forces right? How can we judge what is falling at freefall (something that would just fall off with no force) compared to something that has been forcefully thrown out and down? That's the only way for the trajectory of a torqued facade is out and down. So, those pieces that everyone says are falling at freefall are not because they were forced downward and not just dropped. In both scenerios they would be thrown down (explosives or torque), so none of us can use the falling debris outside the footprint as a gauge to freefall speeds. Just saying.

Oh, BTW, the government sources are the ones who came up with the 10 seconds and 11 seconds for the speeds of fall. Not that I agree with the governments take on most of 9/11 anyway, but it is the government's reports that state the collapse times closer to freefall. I'm not arguing that they did or didn't, but I say we can't judge from falling debris outside nor can we judge from government sources.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
If we know for 100% certainty that an offical from Pakistan was involved with wiring money to fund 911...we attack the entire country to get him? What if Prince Charles wired some $$ to Atta? Should all of England get attacked?


Please explain to me why we are in Afghanistan again. Other than the poppy fields. Thanks


To build that pipeline, of course. The heroin is just icing for the CIA.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by DrZERO
 


DZ

Good questions, so I'll go back OT.

Q1: "We had no idea"/collective amnesia. Patent, bald-faced lies, linked inevitably to Q2--ISI involvement and denying the money trail.

All indications are that the ISI was funding Atta, who was no misguided Islamic fundamentalist but a coc aine-sniffing, alcohol-drinking and womanizing intelligence asset, aka patsy. Just who's is the real question. The ISI is strongly linked to the CIA and in the run up to 9/11 (just check out the published reports complied at the official 9/11 timeline website) just about every intelligence agency in the world was sending in reports to the CIA about the planning of the attacks. Much of the content that has been revealed shows that the sum of these reports indicated the use of airplanes against major urban centers in the US. None of this was any surprise, and the reports were coming in like a hard rain in the last months before the attack, so you almost have to be brain dead not to believe some complicity of the LIHOP flavor was chosen as the course of action.

So the bald-faced lies of "we didn't know" are just that. We knew, boy did we know. Yet nothing, nada was done. No tightening airline security, no alerting high-profile targets, nada.

Also, you have to go back to the '93 bombing and look at that, the FBI involvement there too. Indications are that they gave them the *** bomb.

So you've got a very nasty mix from one of the nastiest parts of the world, the ME. Throw in 26 pages of the 9/11 Commission report involving the Saudis being redacted for "national security" reasons, dancing Mossad agents, and Mossad cells trailing the AQ cell in Fla., the whole bin Laden/AQ/CIA/Afghanistan/Bush family/Carlyle Group/Saudi royal family can of worms, and you've made it mind-numbing.

Look at the state of our gov't. There is no accountability. They do what they want, legal or not, and either ignore or bludgeon the feeble protest or pretend repentance but simply bull their way ahead regardless. Everywhere you look, the same MO. So what's to be different about 9/11?



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
well, if the falling debris on the outside was acceleration was not just gravity driven, but driven by some sort of extra downward force(which i can't see without explosives being that source), AND the debris on the inside is coming out even faster than that, then that would also indicate more than just gravity was at work.

griff, if a piece is dropped straight down, and another is thrown straight outwards, both will hit the ground at the same time. gravity works downwards on both pieces equally. the thrown piece will land further away from the drop point, obviously, but they will hit at the exact same time(minus negligible differences in wind resistance effects) .

so, any extra force speeding things earthwards need to come from a different source.

but, to me, the falling debris IS indicative. i see many pieces falling, and they all seem to be going the same rate.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
griff, if a piece is dropped straight down, and another is thrown straight outwards, both will hit the ground at the same time.


True but I never said they were thrown straight outwards. Torque is something different than a straight horizontal force (if torque is what is to be believed), Either way, there are more forces acting on the members than just gravity (vertical) and torque which produces a straight outward force (horizontal). But torque also has a vector that is circular in the direction of down to be thrown horizontally. We learned what is called the right hand rule in school. You point your right thumb in the direction of the force and the direction your fingers curl is the torque (moment) direction. The only way to have the member go straight out horizontally is to have a torque in the downward direction. Try it yourself and you'll see. So that added torque can't be negligible in evaluating the force that the members are falling under.


so, any extra force speeding things earthwards need to come from a different source.


Yes, either torque (official story) or explosives (CT). Either way, there are added forces in the vertical direction and not just gravity alone.


but, to me, the falling debris IS indicative. i see many pieces falling, and they all seem to be going the same rate.


Which would be more indicative of the same amount of force in all directions and not just gravity IMO.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
True but I never said they were thrown straight outwards. Torque is something different than a straight horizontal force (if torque is what is to be believed), Either way, there are more forces acting on the members than just gravity (vertical) and torque which produces a straight outward force (horizontal). But torque also has a vector that is circular in the direction of down to be thrown horizontally. We learned what is called the right hand rule in school. You point your right thumb in the direction of the force and the direction your fingers curl is the torque (moment) direction. The only way to have the member go straight out horizontally is to have a torque in the downward direction. Try it yourself and you'll see. So that added torque can't be negligible in evaluating the force that the members are falling under.


well, if i'm clear on what you are saying, because i'm viewing it through my own phsyical behaviour models(right or wrong, it's how the brain works), then the sideways kick from the instant release of tension/compression will provide a downward thurst in addition to the sideways kick(and upwards for the other half of the broken beams)?
in my mind, at the moment in time that the buckling point is breached, the circular force of torque derived from a combination of pent up energy quickly released 'pulling' on a beam on one inside(compression release), and 'pushing' out on the other side(tension release). any energy trying to act vertically will be returned in the opposite direction by the still attached lower point of the beam. this can send the beam violentally sideways, but i can't see how it would add to the downward velocity.
maybe i'm missing something in my mind's eye.

such a huge energy cafuffle would cause much more violent spinning, and more varied trajectories of the falling objects, in my instinctual opinion.


Originally posted by Griff
Yes, either torque (official story) or explosives (CT). Either way, there are added forces in the vertical direction and not just gravity alone.


i don't know? like i tried to say, it seems like the intact building is in the way of vertical force vectors. once the debris detaches from the source of tension/compression the next instant has it trying to release the downward toque into an intact steel building.


but, to me, the falling debris IS indicative. i see many pieces falling, and they all seem to be going the same rate.



Originally posted by Griff

Which would be more indicative of the same amount of force in all directions and not just gravity IMO.


i would guess that explosives would cause greatly varied results on individual pieces, as a factor of size and proximity to the 'ground zero' of each explosion.
in the video, the stuff that is falling is not that far from the building, and is falling near parallel. it's(the stuff's) horizontal vector is nearly zeroed, i figger.
i think when the core was dropped first, as indicated by both the antenna and logic, then the things that are first to fall are things(weakest links, most compromised structural elements) being broken off by impact of top section with bottom section.

the velocity of vertical ejections of dust plumes are going faster than gravity(and perhaps you are correct, too, and the falling debris is actually going faster than gravity as well, but is still outpaced by dust ejections from inside the building.), and some are highly localised, and right about where you put a series of bombs if you wanted to drop the building(building corners, specifically).


ultimately, the accuracy of the video's timeline/framerate would be known, and actual descent acceleration rates measured.
but that might take two or three good college kids a week or a month to nail down. might cost twenty million dollars.

cheers.

[edit on 30-8-2007 by billybob]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join