To our forum plane experts - shame on you., page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 52 times

reply posted on 7-10-2009 @ 09:53 PM by Aelur

Originally posted by JPhish

so, if a "qualified" person says or confirms something, you believe it?

i hope a psychiatrist never tells you that you're bugs bunny.

It's easy to talk about things you don't understand and use some pseudo-logical arguments to try to sound convincing, after all reading four wikipedia articles about steel and architecture is probably worth a PhD in something, right?

And the difference between your logic and mine is that if a psychiatrist tells me I'm Bugs Bunny, I'll tell him to show me a scientific stufy certifying that I have a psychological problem that leads me to believe I'm a different person. And you know what? He'll probably take one of those thigns called books they use to study in college and prove his claims with certified data.

Hey, I don't really care 2,000+ people died in 9/11, and I have enough common sense to know that the blame doesn't all fall on the big bad terrorist's shoulders, but my experience says that governments are too darn stupid to get away with something as big as this.

reply posted on 7-10-2009 @ 10:05 PM by impressme

And just imagine the FBI just walked in the crashed airplanes inside the WTC rubble and found all the hijackers DNA. Dose it look like the FBI is trying to play on our intelligent?

EXCLUSIVE: REMAINS OF 9/11 KILLERS FOUND

FORENSIC investigators have recovered the charred remains of most of the 9/11 hijackers - to honour a pledge that they would never be buried with the victims.

Flesh or bone from 13 of the 19 Al Qaeda terrorists who flew passenger jets into the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington have now been identified.

www.express.co.uk...

And yet more than a thousand people who died on September 11, 2001, have yet to be identified. “No trace has been identified of 1,151 of the 2,749 people who died at the Trade Center,” USA Today reported on April 20, 2006. “In February 2005, the medical examiner’s office announced that attempts to identify remains had exhausted current DNA-matching technology.”

www.matrixrebellion.com...

[edit on 7-10-2009 by impressme]

reply posted on 7-10-2009 @ 10:06 PM by GhostR1der

Originally posted by Aelur
governments are too darn stupid to get away with something as big as this.

That's what they want you to think. It's the only wriggle they have left, too bad the hook is rapidly approaching the fishing trawler.

reply posted on 7-10-2009 @ 10:11 PM by GhostR1der

Originally posted by impressme

Flesh or bone from 13 of the 19 Al Qaeda terrorists who flew passenger jets into the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington have now been identified.

www.express.co.uk...

Yeah and many of them made it through the building, likely landing on a bouncey castle, (keeping with 9/11 OS logic) and are still alive.

911review.org...

edit: very interesting to see them not i'd ing 6 of them - thats supposedly the number of 'alive' hijackers according to some sources. Funny that..

[edit on 7/10/09 by GhostR1der]

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 12:49 AM by mckyle

Originally posted by Aelur

It's easy to talk about things you don't understand and use some pseudo-logical arguments to try to sound convincing, after all reading four wikipedia articles about steel and architecture is probably worth a PhD in something, right?

Sadly, most "truthers" don't even feel the need to consult Wiki once, let alone several times. They seem to think a couple of grainy Youtube vids along with ATSpedia are more than enough to provide them with the equivalent of years of academic research.

Originally posted by Aelur

... and I have enough common sense to know that the blame doesn't all fall on the big bad terrorist's shoulders, but my experience says that governments are too darn stupid to get away with something as big as this.

Well said

Anyone who has worked in government can tell you that the level of incompetency inside government increases proportionally to the level of authority. And you can quote me on that.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by mckyle]

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 02:11 AM by impressme

reply to post by mckyle

Talk about incompetency you just demonstrated how ignorant you are about 911.
To anyone who thinks that the United States cannot carry out a false flag operation and kill their own citizens (collateral damaged) to wage a phony war against another country is delusional in its self.

but my experience says that governments are too darn stupid to get away with something as big as this.

Funny, they have gotten away with it before, many times. History always repeats its self and 911 was no different from any other false flag. You might try doing some real research on false flag operation.

False Flag Terrorism

"False flag terrorism" occurs when elements within a government stage a secret operation whereby government forces pretend to be a targeted enemy while attacking their own forces or people. The attack is then falsely blamed on the enemy in order to justify going to war against that enemy. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension.

Moreover, recently declassified U.S. Government documents show that in the 1960s, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan code-named Operation Northwoods to blow up American airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. The operation was not carried out only because the Kennedy administration refused to implement these Pentagon plans.

www.wanttoknow.info...

Sadly, most "truthers" don't even feel the need to consult Wiki once, let alone several times.

Your pathetic attacks on Truthers are noted furthmore, who made you the expert on where Truthers get their information from?

I am surprised that you depend on Wiki for their true transparency and accuracy and truthfulness when it is a well-known fact that anyone can make edit, changes to any subject about anything and put in disinformation to fool the public. It has been proven repeatedly that is why most of us who seek the Truth always approach Wiki cautiously and we do not depend on it accuracy all the time.

Anyone who has worked in government can tell you that the level incompetency inside government increases proportionally to the level of authority. And you can quote me on that.

I agree with you on that but, we are not talking about a bunch of pencil pushing bureaucrat. We are talking about a very small group of well-organized military professionals who have the technologies and expertise to pull off such an event as 911.

One has to really wonder how a foreign entity was able to hijack four commercial airlines from two different airports at the same time without a hitch then fly around for an hour over highly restricted air space and we are talking about flying over our nuclear power plants, and not one f16 or f18 intercepted those planes. I am sorry but there are no excuses for our government, of why they didn’t intervene, NONE.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by impressme]

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 02:24 AM by optigon

reply to post by impressme

Well said impressme,

The 9/11 pseudo-skeptics need to check out what Sibel Edmonds has to say. I believe she's the key to getting a real investigation into A LOT of things.

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 02:32 AM by mckyle

reply to post by impressme

Hi impressme

I'm sorry if I came off as attacking all "Truthers". That was not my intention.

There seems to be some misconstrusion about some of what I said: whilst Wikipedia is ostensibly a good source for the novice to get some 'grounding' in a particular field, I don't think for a minute that it should be used as an academic-level source.

Whether it be "truthers" or Ufologists, etc. etc., good, sound, analysis comes from scrutinising recognised sources. The problem with most posters here who take a dogmatic stance, is that they are 'borrowing' analysis and theories, without having done the slightest bit of genuine research.

That's not to say everyone on ATS falls into that category. Indeed there's some very sharp and thorough analysts here on ATS. And they have my respect - regardless of whether I am in agreeance or not with their argument.

Solid and independent critical research wins respect. Not standing on the shoulders of geniuses.

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 02:36 AM by Nola213

OP you said....

"Four planes - 8 black boxes, 12 landing gears, 8 engines, 28 of parts that have a nigh on 100% chance of being retrieved from crashes in accessible places, no matter what, these were 4 planes and jet fuel, nothing more, nothing less. "

Now while I believe 9/11 was a False Flag operation. I do lean toward the LIHOP side of things these days than MIHOP.

Except for building 7, that was rigged and levelled by well placed " highly advanced"explosives, imo.

But onto the staement above. I've never actually looked into this, and I feel a bit silly not haveing had (though I doubt many people know off the top of thier head).

Of the above material, exactly what does the government claim to have recovered?

I'm most interested about the boxes, harder to make duplictes to plant.

Anyone can answer this if they know.

good thread btw starred and flagged

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 03:13 AM by TrickoftheShade

Seventh, I do enjoy your posts. They're often thought provoking.

But this

Originally posted by Seventh

No matter what, these parts endured nothing more (apart from the Tower collapses) than the normal scenarios involving plane crashes endure,

is not your finest hour.

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 03:13 AM by JPhish

Originally posted by Aelur

Originally posted by JPhish

so, if a "qualified" person says or confirms something, you believe it?

i hope a psychiatrist never tells you that you're bugs bunny.

It's easy to talk about things you don't understand and use some pseudo-logical arguments to try to sound convincing, after all reading four wikipedia articles about steel and architecture is probably worth a PhD in something, right?

What the hell are you talking about?? I made a joke. You need to lighten up. But within my joke is the truth that simply because someone has credentials does not mean they are any more qualified to deduce truth than someone who doesn’t.

And the difference between your logic and mine is that if a psychiatrist tells me I'm Bugs Bunny, I'll tell him to show me a scientific stufy certifying that I have a psychological problem that leads me to believe I'm a different person.

Oh jez . . . Without going into some long drawn out explanation for why I believe you are wrong, I’ll ask you this . . . have you ever seen the movie Changeling???

Put simply . . . If you were ever framed for a murder, and were told by the detectives that your fingerprints are on the murder weapon, told by a psychiatrist that you’re insane, and all the evidence is against you. You would change your mind that you are not innocent simply because they presented you their BS lie in a scientific way? Sheesh . . .

And you know what? He'll probably take one of those thigns called books they use to study in college and prove his claims with certified data.

The same law books that say a man who shoots himself goes to jail for 7 years and a man who murders nearly a hundred dogs goes to jail for two years?

The same physics books that say the speed of light is constant?

The same history books that leave out the genocide of the Native Americans?

Hey, I don't really care 2,000+ people died in 9/11,

You’ll care when it happens again to you or your loved ones.

and I have enough common sense to know that the blame doesn't all fall on the big bad terrorist's shoulders,

what terrorists?

but my experience says that governments are too darn stupid to get away with something as big as this.

the government is stupid? ;shakes head; at least you’re giving the government spies that frequent this website a good laugh with that one.

[edit on 10/8/2009 by JPhish]

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 03:26 AM by impressme

reply to post by mckyle

I'm sorry if I came off as attacking all "Truthers". That was not my intention.

On behalf of all Truthers, I accept your apology no harm done.

There seems to be some misconstrusion about some of what I said: whilst Wikipedia is ostensibly a good source for the novice to get some 'grounding' in a particular field, I don't think for a minute that it should be used as an academic-level source.

I am happy that you do understand Wikipedia, and not everything is always accurate as some people are led to believe.

The problem with most posters here who take a dogmatic stance, is that they are 'borrowing' analysis and theories, without having done the slightest bit of genuine research.

I agree with most of this but I on the other hand believe in facts supported by sciences, physics, mathematics, and top experts in the fields of expertise. When in search for truth there is little room for theories, don’t get me wrong if there is any way to prove a theory, I am all for it.

Indeed there's some very sharp and thorough analysts here on ATS. And they have my respect - regardless of whether I am in agreeance or not with their argument.

Thank you for acknowledging this because so few do, and yes, we all don’t always agree. There are some very good people on ATS that are Truthers and I do not support everything they believe in because their research and presentation lacks credible sources, or evidences to support their claims.

Solid and independent critical research wins respect. Not standing on the shoulders of geniuses.

I agree.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by impressme]

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 03:34 AM by impressme

reply to post by tezzajw

I'm making pop-corn to sit it out and watch.

Pass me some of that popcorn and move over this is going to be good!

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 03:46 AM by McGinty

Originally posted by Seventh

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Seventh

Again, confused?

The multicolor explosions support the case that it was explosives rather than jet fuel? So.............

Okay I will explain the explosions part, the forum plane experts will say that there are no secondary explosions it was jet fuel..period, we can plainly see there are two explosions at least going on here, they have yet to make any sort of reply to this point.

I just pasted the two explosions from WTC2 North face, check the seemingly lack of debris from the initial explosion to the second explosion, if this was one explosion where is this debris in the initial explosion?.

Apologies if this has been said already:

The differences in colour between the 2 explosions could simply be down to the cameras; two cameras in slightly different location, with slightly different shutter, gain, white balance settings, could turn out two not so slightly different shots, with lighting temperatures that make the same event looks quite different.

It's a pain in the ass for filmmakers and photographers to get right. Not saying you're theory is wrong, just that the colours shown aren't necessarily 100% accurate - the 2 explosions could well be identical in terms of luminosity and colour.

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 04:00 AM by mckyle

reply to post by impressme

impressme: thanks for taking the time to read my reply and I'm happy that we can both discuss this controversial topic in a respectful and friendly way

It's sad to see that this thread is monitered/scrutinsed at higher level than normal. I hope that members can - by their own actions and conduct - make such monitoring unnecessary.

I have been looking at your other posts and have enjoyed reading them. You've put forward some impressive arguments

Added you as a friend

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 04:17 AM by MADCZAR

No one really takes into account the reality we live in. 9-11 has been made into the new holocaust. U cant debate or even talk about it without being ridiculed. If I were to say the Vast majority of victims in ww2 were
none jews I would be labeled an Anit Semite. Jews suffered horrible atrocoties for 1000's of years but the holocaust is used so no one actually ever looks into the real resons for ww2. The same with slavery during the civil War. A good example of this is when i tell people MLK was a Republican they say Im crazy but its true. Until are socity wants to be open to learning and debate nothing will change. How many of us will stand up at work and say 9-11 was an inside job to push an imperialistic agenda very few for good reason we could lose are job.

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 04:37 AM by whatukno

Do you know how hard it is to keep engine parts intact with all that C-4 and thermite? Shesh oh Pete! What! Do you think that engines are completely indestructible?

I mean some people

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 04:48 AM by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by MADCZARbut the holocaust is used so no one actually ever looks into the real resons for ww2.

I actually agree with some of what you wrote, but that's not really true, is it? WW2 is about the most analysed conflict in history. Certainly it has its fair share of generally accepted simplifications and fallacies, but there are literally thousands of works on the "real reasons" for the war that properly contextualise the holocaust.

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 05:10 AM by McGinty

Originally posted by Aelur
Hey, I don't really care 2,000+ people died in 9/11, and I have enough common sense to know that the blame doesn't all fall on the big bad terrorist's shoulders, but my experience says that governments are too darn stupid to get away with something as big as this.

Certainly something this big is tough to completely cover-up, and it hasn't been totally covered-up, hence the debate on ATS, as well as in popular media. So they didn't 'get away with it' in terms of a total cover-up, but they did in terms of 'there's sod all that you & me can really do about it

The only way for a government not to 'get away with it' is for a Coup d'état to take place, or at least for the leaders to be indicted.

Now, if we imagine that politics is a puppet show for the masses, controlled by a single entity (personally i have no problem imagining this), then TPTB would have to indict themselves - not likely (unless it's part of an larger plan to usher in a saviour that we suckers give even more control over to).

What i think we're left with is an indeterminate number of people around the world (probably a majority) that don't believe the official story, and in whose eyes the American regime 'got away with it', despite their 'stupidity'. But they are powerless to affect any indictment and TPTB know this, thus their strategy need be no more subtle and no less stupid than to simply keep telling us again and again their own version of events - and to keep telling everyone black is white when confronted by holes in their story. Whenever we start to question their validity they throw another scary distraction at us and as very 'stupid' as it sounds, this seems to work.

Sadly, the kettle en masse keeps proving to be pretty docile.

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 05:40 AM by jimmyx

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
Lets talk about the "color" of the explosions.

The first picture is a brighter color. If you have ever taken a basic chemistry class, you should know that "red" fire is not as hot as brighter colors, such as orange to white.

So as others said, the first picture shows a "hotter" or brighter fire. This means it was hotter. More energy. A plane flying into a building is quite a lot of energy.

The second picture is of a redder flame and more black smoke. To me, that looks as if the initial impact energy has worn off and the fuel is starting to burn (black smoke).

The reason I hate 9/11 "debunkers" is because if they do not know the answer, they claim it was a cover up. You use a series of failed comparisons to try and further your point. Personally, I feel I have presented more than enough information for you just to label your few pictures wrong, which eliminates all credibility I could have given you in the first place, which was not much.

how does an airliner EXPLODE on impact, in the first second of impact it's just sheet metal against building material. the front of the plane, and the rest of the plane structure, does not have a detonator on the nose like a military cannon round, or a missile.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^