The Best 11 9/11 Questions to 'throw back' at 'Official Believers....!

page: 15
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1-Care to post where I could actually get this information for these explosives? I doubt I nor you could obtain this information. It's nearly classified. So, rather than telling me what I need to do, why not except the fact that we don't know what was used. Therefore, we can not possibly calculate what was needed. If I pick the wrong mixture of chemicals, my calculation will become exponentially off.

2-Then why are the puffs of air consistant in their velocity all the way down the building?

3-Actually, Gage should use this meteorite instead. There used to be a video of the architect explaining this piece but like every other peice of evidence of the WTC attack it can't be found anymore. At least by me.



1- handwaving noted. I explained above WHY this is just a smokescreen to avoid any attempt to falsify the hypothesis.

2- cuz that's collapse front.

3- this isn't a response to the subject matter Griff. The subject is how the floors would act as an air plug. The meteorite you show is about an entirely different thing - namely "molten metal". I'm sorry to say that this looks like more handwaving away the fact that the floors can form a near perfect air plug.


ETA: why didn't you respond to the toppling columns that I wrote about? I realize that this would falsify the columns being "blown" 500' by explosives hypothesis, but it should be addressed if you want to pursue it with any intellectual vigor.........

[edit on 6-12-2008 by Seymour Butz]




posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Attention Everyone!

This thread has gone off topic several times, so let me remind you that the topic is The Best 11 9/11 Questions to 'throw back' at 'Official Believers....!

Since we don't want to hinder discussion and some of you would like to address these questions, I suggest the following:

If a question is raised that you feel has been answered in a previous discussion, then please find the thread where that discussion was and post a link along with ONE comment. If others are interested, then continue with that subject in the other thread. There you can discuss it all you want without taking this thread off topic.

This thread should not be where the questions are debated, so lets use links to other threads please.

[edit on 12/6/2008 by Hal9000]

[edit on 12/6/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


You said

"The impacting aircraft crash energies and everything onboard were contained inside the towers.

WRONG! Look at the picture!

z.about.com...

Can you see why you are wrong!

Mod edit: Changed reply to the original post.

[edit on 12/6/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


You are total off topic! In addition, you have no business dragging another topic in this thread. However, I made not such claims as you have stated.
Do you have anything to contribute to this thread?
The Best 9/11 Questions to throw back to Official Believer….



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Once again, this thread is not the place to debate various topics.

Further off topic posts will be removed.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Marlborough Red
 


There was no large wreckage found at the Pentagon that related to a 757 and the damage and size of the hole in the Pentagon building suggested a missile.
In all plane crashes the engines and undercarrige survive, however battered.
The official reason for the lack of engine wreckage is that the jet fuel "vapourised".it.
Simple answer to that is that if ignited Kerosene could indeed melt and vapourise titanium steel then jet engines wouldn't work!!!!!

James



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Any questions raised that are to do with physics are good ones, asking them to explain Newton's third law is usually a good laugh.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Forget questions, 3 people can be indicted for 9/11 right now, based on concrete evidence.
1. Larry Silverstein admitted on PBS that he deliberately brought down (pulled) WTC #7. Treason.
2. Rudy Guiliani admitted to foreknowledge that WTC7 was about to fall and removed evidence (WTC steel) within weeks, even scooping up NYFD body parts in his haste. Treason.
3. Vice-President Cheney ordered a stand-down of the Norad as witnessed by Norman Minetta. Treason.

Let's not forget the 5 Israelis who admitted on Israel Television to taping the FIRST plane. Treason.
9/11 and Israel, good read here:
blog.myspace.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Question: Why was the #4 light pole deliberately cut down and staged as if an aircraft had knocked it down, if we are to believe that Flight 77 actually flew down the hill, through the 5 light poles, and low and level across the lawn into the Pentagon?



*SNIP* Removed redundant images. See existing thread.

As can be easily seen in this blowup of the #4 light pole base, the break-away base would never have broken off at the strengthened bottom end of the base. It is absolutely certain that it was cut off by a man with a saw or torch, and was not broken off by a 90 ton 535 mph aircraft. The straight cuts are easily discernable. Anybody disagree?



The light poles were staged and no aircraft impacted the Pentagon. The actual aircraft flew over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, and was much too far away from these 5 light poles.



Mod edit: For more info, or to discuss this subject please use the existing thread.

If An Aircraft Hit The Pentagon, Why Was Light Pole #4 Cutdown And Staged?

[edit on 12/10/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Here is more I hope this helps.

Barbara Olsen phone call never happened.

BREAKING 9/11 NEWS: FBI Says Barbara Olsen Did Not Call Ted Olsen. Bush Solicitor General LIED !!


www.opednews.com...

NIST tells lies watch the video!


9/11 CONSPIRACY: NIST CHIEF ENGINEER LIES ABOUT MOLTEN METAL


www.youtube.com...




NIST WTC 7 "Fire" Conclusion Blatantly Contradicts FEMA Report

www.nowpublic.com...


The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie


www.911truth.org...


Using their own words against them to prove that they are Lying


benfrank.net...


There's Never Been a Real 9/11 Investigation
For example, the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

And the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.
And former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".
More importantly, the 9-11 Commission refused to examine virtually any evidence which contradicted the administration's official version of events. As stated by the State Department's Coordinator for Counterterrorism, who was the point man for the U.S. government's international counterterrorism policy in the first term of the Bush administration, "there were things the [9/11] commission[s] wanted to know about and things they didn't want to know about."
Indeed, there are even indications that false evidence may have been planted to deflect attention from the real perpetrators.


georgewashington.blogspot.com...



Aircraft Parts and the Precautionary Principle
Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:
Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity
by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)
The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government’s theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government’s 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.
As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country’s history.

physics911.net...

The more I read about 911 the more it looks like our Government was involved, it is obvious they are hiding something (like the Truth!)



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Why was so little money spent on the investigation ? This in relation to President Clinton's affair with the intern.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   


Mod edit: For more info, or to discuss this subject please use the existing thread.

If An Aircraft Hit The Pentagon, Why Was Light Pole #4 Cutdown And Staged?

[edit on 12/10/2008 by Hal9000]


Hal9000 I posted this the day before (12-9-08) I started that thread (If An Aircraft Hit The Pentagon, Why Was Light Pole #4 Cutdown And Staged?) on 12-10-08. This post gave me the idea for that thread, which I subsequently expanded upon. I did not intentionally post too many photos in this thread. Sorry.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston


Mod edit: For more info, or to discuss this subject please use the existing thread.

If An Aircraft Hit The Pentagon, Why Was Light Pole #4 Cutdown And Staged?

[edit on 12/10/2008 by Hal9000]


Hal9000 I posted this the day before (12-9-08) I started that thread (If An Aircraft Hit The Pentagon, Why Was Light Pole #4 Cutdown And Staged?) on 12-10-08. This post gave me the idea for that thread, which I subsequently expanded upon. I did not intentionally post too many photos in this thread. Sorry.



It's worse than that! For the plane to have hit the light poles it would have to have passed extremely low over the nearby main highway. If that happened cars would have been literally blown off the road, just like this. . .

uk.youtube.com...

As far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong, but that didn't happen did it.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   

posted by Mintwithahole.
It's worse than that! For the plane to have hit the light poles it would have to have passed extremely low over the nearby main highway. If that happened cars would have been literally blown off the road, just like this. . .



As far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong, but that didn't happen did it.


Question: Was there jet fuel inside the Pentagon or not? Why was there no damage done to the lawn, automobiles, and pedestrians allegedly in the path of a 90 ton 535 mph 124 foot wingspan aircraft?

No, you are correct. No automobiles were blown over by the jet blasts or ground effect of a 90 ton 535 mph aircraft less than 30 feet off the ground. No people were hurled into the wall or inner courtyard by the jet blasts or ground effect of a 90 ton 535 mph aircraft less than 30 feet off the ground. No light poles were hurled for hundreds of feet by the impact of a 90 ton 535 mph aircraft less than 30 feet off the ground. No turf torn up from the lawn either.

And NO JET FUEL burned up April Gallup and her baby boy, even though they were only 35 feet away from the alleged impact of an alleged aircraft with wing and belly tanks allegedly half filled with jet fuel. Why did April Gallup see no trace of that jet fuel? How did they escape being burned up to a crisp? Where did all that jet fuel go?



Guns and Butter broadcast with Dave von Kleist interviewing April Gallup. There was an explosion and she crawled out from E-Ring through the hole onto the Pentagon lawn. She saw no jet fuel and nobody burned with jet fuel. She and her baby boy were about 35-45 feet from the alleged impact hole and no jet fuel was splashed on them. What happened to the huge infernos and fuel-air explosions inside which allegedly incinerated all the aircraft parts and engines and wheel hubs and baggage and seats?

Guns and Butter April Gallup - audio live testimony


Did these miraculous events only happen on 9-11? Does it mean that there was really no aircraft impacting the Pentagon at all? Were we lied to? Was it actually just a simulation of an aircraft impact? Why does none of the actual evidence fit a real aircraft impact into the Pentagon wall? Is that why no aircraft parts showed up on the lawn until much later? Did it take the parts that long to fall out of the sky, or were they planted later? So many questions; so few answers that make any sense whatsoever.

The 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is just too ridiculous to believe. Isn't it?




[edit on 12/11/08 by SPreston]



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
My one and only question to add to those already posted would be.

What are the odds that everything that had to fall in place, for this all to happen as it did, would fall perfectly?

Far too many coincedences for my liking.

My opinion is, the odds are much longer than a person winning the powerball drawing 4 times in a row.

The lone fact that not one of the four hijacked airplanes was intercepted, makes it an inside job. Ok, one more, what are the odds that a drill, practicing for the very same thing that happened, would fall on the very same day? 1 in 365 you say? Sure, but everything that happened? no way.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Thanks to the great find Leo Strauss made here
NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

I would like to add:
How could building 7 have fallen at freefall speed if it simply collapsed, and wasn't demolished?



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ashamedamerican

I would like to add:
How could building 7 have fallen at freefall speed if it simply collapsed, and wasn't demolished?


I have a feeling that none of the "believers" are going to answer this one. I thought one would at least give it a shot by now but hey...



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ashamedamerican

Originally posted by wmd_2008
So can you all shut up about steel not being melted it doesn't need to be melted to loose enough strength that it could not support the weight above the impact point SO SIMPLE ISN'T IT!!!!!!when you actually work in the CONSTRUCTION industry !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm hereby instituting a new personal rule, and hope others will follow this example.
If a post has more than 99 exclamation marks I will not be replying to it.

Even if the individual posting is following 'construction industry' standards.


[edit on 2-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]


LMAO! Agreed.



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by systemic.aberration
 


Lmao, what construction company heats steel on a regular basis?


No, you don't have to melt it for it to lose strength, but whoever said that is also completely ignorant of NIST's hypothesis. Strength loss had nothing to do with it. It was expansion in the trusses that caused deflections (according to their "official" theory). There was not enough heat to sufficiently weaken so much steel directly, even the government investigators realized this, though they won't rub it in Joe Public's face as long as he's contently ignorant in his own little way.

There are people that still believe in the "pancake collapse" too even though that also contradicts NIST, and NIST openly rebuts that theory.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Why was the investigation stonewalled for almost a year?

Why is the tax paying public not allowed to know the complete testimony given to the 911 Commission?

If there were a true unbiased investigation, where would the above circumstantial evidence lead competent investigators?

911 in conjunction with the anthrax attacks lead to preemptive war and loss of liberty.

Do the "official story" believers think there was any lying about prewar intelligence?

Was there any lying about the origin of the anthrax attacks?





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join