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.

 

Alternative 9/11 Theories

page: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
For the record, I saw what you saw. In addition I tried counting all the columns the plane destroyed as it entered. Needless to say, quite a few were destroyed.


Did you see the nose, wings, and tail inside the building?

Yes columns were destroyed but several sources have stateted that the buildings withstood the planes impacts.


I said I saw what he saw so just re-read his post. Also I have provided you with the number of columns I saw destroyed in the video. Re-read that post if you would like an exact number.




posted on May, 4 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I said I saw what he saw so just re-read his post. Also I have provided you with the number of columns I saw destroyed in the video. Re-read that post if you would like an exact number.


Did you see the nose, wings, and tail inside the building?

But i provided you with sources that state the buidlings survived the planes impacts, do i need to repost them?



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I can see this is going to get nasty again. I'm going to wait over there until it clears up.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
I can see this is going to get nasty again. I'm going to wait over there until it clears up.


Not nasty just trying to get the facts and evidence through to people.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Did you see the nose, wings, and tail inside the building?


I did - they are clearly getting into the building along with the rest of the plane and it's shown from several different angles to help avoid any misconceptions.









C'mon, it's an animated simulation. I would have at least expected a claim that the simulation was flawed, not a flatout denial of the blatantly obvious that leaves you with no credibility.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HLR53K
I can see this is going to get nasty again. I'm going to wait over there until it clears up.


Not nasty just trying to get the facts and evidence through to people.


Is that in the form of a book or video?

And where can I get it?



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


3. As shown in another thread with several links, most of the fuel was burned of in the intial explosion and what was left burned off in few minutes.


As shown in another thread, roughly 30% of the fuel was consumed in an initial fireball. 30% does not make "most"
wtc.nist.gov...



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I said I saw what he saw so just re-read his post. Also I have provided you with the number of columns I saw destroyed in the video. Re-read that post if you would like an exact number.


Did you see the nose, wings, and tail inside the building?

But i provided you with sources that state the buidlings survived the planes impacts, do i need to repost them?



I said I saw what he saw so just re-read his post. Also I have provided you with the number of columns I saw destroyed in the video. Re-read that post if you would like an exact number.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
As shown in another thread, roughly 30% of the fuel was consumed in an initial fireball. 30% does not make "most"


I hasve posted 5 sources (including NIST) that state a large portion of the fuel was burned off in the intial explosion and did not casue the fires to be any hotter then a normal office fire.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I did - they are clearly getting into the building along with the rest of the plane and it's shown from several different angles to help avoid any misconceptions.


Gee, can you read?

I asked if the nose, wings, and tail WERE SHOWN INSIDE the building not getting into the building.



[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Yep, I knew this would get nasty. And look who was the first to start...



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Yep, I knew this would get nasty. And look who was the first to start...


Sorry but i get a little irritated when people ignore or misquote what i post.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


You've also made several posts saying "most" of the fuel burned off in a fireball. You still haven't resolved that...



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
You've also made several posts saying "most" of the fuel burned off in a fireball. You still haven't resolved that...


I am not going to repost the 5 sources i posted on another thread because you will just ignore them anyway.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

As shown in another thread, roughly 30% of the fuel was consumed in an initial fireball. 30% does not make "most"
wtc.nist.gov...


Don't forget who you're dealing with here.

He claims that an F-4 was mostly steel. Then amends that to perhaps 40% steel. Then links to a site saying that it has "some" steel.

"Some" steel ia apparently enough for him to claim that the "mostly steel" statement is factual.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
There are so many examples in so many threads, it's hard to keep track. Notice he then attacks me for pointing out the inconsistency by saying "I posted it five times. You're a stupid head for ignoring it" without actually addressing the issue. I've already been mod edited for calling him a liar. So I'll just say it appears dishonest in my opinion.


[edit on 4-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
This is what the NIST final report says about the jet fuel
Page 74 of the report.

Less then 15% of the jet fuel burned in the spray cloud inside the building. A roughly comparable amount was consumed in the fireballs outside the building. Thus, well over half of the jet fuel remained inside the building, unburned in the initial fires. Some splashed onto the office furnishings and combustibles from the aircraft that lodged on the impacted floors, there to ignite (immediately or later) the fires that would continue to burn for the remaining life of the building. Some of the fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts, blowing out doors and walls on other floors all the way down to the basement. Flash fires in the lobby blew out many of the plate glass windows.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
What a surprise. This thread has turned into another WTC collapse thread. Since the topic of the thread is Alternate theories, I will continue with mine.

Another example of hijackers getting help from the "inside" comes from a man named Aukai Collins. Collins is a white Muslim living in the Phoenix area. The FBI puts Collins on their payroll to monitor Arab and Islamist activities in the late 90's. He was also an overseas asset, and was so "in" with the people that he received an invitation to actually meet Bin Laden. Collins alerts the FBI to Hani Hanjour activities and tells them Hanjour is part of a large and orginized group that are taking flight training. Collins says that the FBI knew everything about Hanjour from his address to the model car he drives. The FBI, of course, claim they knew nothing about Hanjour. Collins describes Hanjour as: "He wasn’t even moderately religious, let alone fanatically religious. And I knew for a fact that he wasn’t part of al-Qaeda or any other Islamic organization; he couldn’t even spell jihad in Arabic."

Collins goes on to say that based on his work with the FBI and CIA, he was 100 percent that they knew the hijackers and knew about their 9/11 plans, and the just let it happen. He is quoted in an interview with Salon, “Just think about it—how could a group of people plan such a big operation full of so many logistics and probably countless e-mails, encrypted or not, and phone calls and messengers? And you’re telling me that, through all of that, that the CIA never caught wind of it?”

It's Collins' information that later would be part of the Phoenix memo.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Hani Hanjour attends flight schools between '96-'98. He is described as a "weak student" and "was wasting our resources", yet in 1999 he certified as a multi engine commercial pilot. His certification comes from Daryl Strong of Tempe, Arizona. Strong is a private examiner and is contracted by the FAA. At Hanjour's next flight school, the instructors are so appalled by Hanjour's lack of skills and lack of English, they contact the FAA repeatedly to investigate how he was able to receive a pilot's license. The FAA refuses to discuss.

Also in '99, Nawaf Alhamzi and Khalid Almihdhar receive passports from Saudi Arabia despite being Al-Queda veterans. Then, Saudi intelligence puts them on a watch list for suspected involvement in the embassy bombings. They say they shared this info with CIA, but the CIA claims this never happened. However, it's at this time the CIA begins to track these two and put them on a US watch list.

The CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center sends a cable reminding all its personnel about various reporting obligations. The cable clearly states that it is important to share information so suspected members of US-designated terrorist groups can be placed on watch lists. The US keeps a number of watch lists; the most important one, TIPOFF, contains about 61,000 names of suspected terrorists by 9/11. The list is checked whenever someone enters or leaves the US “The threshold for adding a name to TIPOFF is low,” and even a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is connected with a US-designated terrorist group warrants being added to the database. Within a month, two future hijackers, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, will be identified as al-Qaeda operatives, but the cable’s instructions will not be followed for them. The CIA will initially tell the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry that no such guidelines existed, and CIA Director Tenet will fail to mention the cable in his testimony to the Inquiry.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by RomanMaroni]

[edit on 4-5-2008 by RomanMaroni]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
This is what the NIST final report says about the jet fuel
Page 74 of the report. Less then 15% of the jet fuel burned in the spray cloud inside the building.


You do realise that this statement proves nothing at all right?

They're doing nothing more than guessing. There is no way they could know how much fuel was ignited and how much spread inside the building.

Even if they could it doesn't change the fact that the fire could not have caused global collapse, nor explain the physics anomalies that the NIST report doesn't address.

This whole thread is a major example of ignoring the real relevant points of the collapses and concentrating on irrelevant points that make no difference to what we observe in the collapses.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join