Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11 facts - weigh in - OS VS others

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
As a logical person I can't get past these facts... help me out! Why doesn't EVERYONE know these are true?

1) The hole in the Pentagon is smaller than an airplane and left basically no airplane debris.

2) Larry Silverstein video, NYFD video, and precognition video by BBC all point that Bldg 7 was destroyed by explosives.

3) No black boxes.

4) Melting temperature of steel building frame is around 3000 degrees but airplane fuel and building materials only reach around 1100 degrees.

****

I watched 9/11 happen. It was a dreadful, shocking, emotional day and week. Psychologically I can understand people not wanting to look into it, and I appreciate and accept their space. What I don't understand is the people who vehemently get involved but don't seem to care about the facts!

If you got home and there was a 3 foot hole in your house, logically, under ANY circumstances your conclusion should NOT be that it was a car that made the hole. Why do people do this with the Pentagon hole??

****

There are a lot of these threads and to not simply re-hash it all I'm mostly curious about the Psychology behind denial of obvious facts.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by Thermo Klein]




posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
The 911 attack was a diversionary operation to camouflage 70 trillion dollars worth of catastrophe bonds & derivative carbon credit trading at the Chicago Merc through KPMG's hedge funds to UN's environmental trust banker Zug (Al Gore & Maurice Strong Generation Investments) during a 30 hr standown of American and Canadian military forces.
The failed attempt of the flight that exploded over Pennsylvania, most likely headed to the Capitol forced Chinese Naval and Russian Air Forces to standown their war games occurring at the same time in the Straights of Formosa and the arctic above Canada.
Operation Mockingbird
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
about the pentagon really ... we dont know what hit it, but you should add

why cant we see the plane hit the building? I mean, WTH!!



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


You only scratch the surface of the strange "impossibilities" that occured on 9/11. Regarding what you covered though, there was a team of college students who simulated the plane going into the Pentagon. They had to omit the engines from the plane simulation because they couldn't fit the plane into the building without doing so. The engine should have severely scraped the ground before punching the foundation of the building very hard, probably enough to crack it really good. No scrape marks can be seen in the lawn, and so that didn't happen.

That doesn't mean a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon... it only means a large jumbo jet did not crash into the Pentagon.

Just to correct you though, at least one of the black boxes was recovered... the one from the Pentagon. But data released by the NTSB is not even close to being compatible with the damage path... it even lists the pilot cabin door as "closed" the entire flight.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


I agree there are TONS more impossible facts but these very few I listed are pretty hard to deny. Wonder why a few days went by and only 3 responses? No ammunition for the flamers.

It's been shown, based on numerous, very credible eye-witnesses that "the plane" did not take the path elicited by the black box info allegedly belonging to a plane that hit the Pentagon. It's also been shown that the path they say it took is PHYSICALLY (Laws of Physics) impossible. I'll say that again... the trajectory/path of the plane DID NOT HAPPEN THAT WAY - it is not possible based on the weight and physical make-up of the plane.
The black box they allegedly have didn't belong to an airplane that hit the Pentagon, so my claim still stands.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
But data released by the NTSB is not even close to being compatible with the damage path... it even lists the pilot cabin door as "closed" the entire flight.


Oh dear, you ignore the little fact that the cabin door was shown as closed on every previous flight - that sensor was not connected, as you would know if you visited other than silly conspiracy theory sites....



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Oh dear, and you ignore all the other points and focus on something completely irrelevant to the grand scheme of things...

Locked cabin doors do not make buildings defy physics.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


1) That's not actually true.

The hole was huge and the walls were scorthed on either side for meters... there's no missile that BOTH explodes on impact AND drills into a building and exploded.... but the damage at the Pentagon was three rings deep... that's incredible.

2) All those people got wrong info and passed it on.

I seem to remember hundreds of media outlets around the world reporting that Saddam, had WMDs....

The media wants to be the first to break news... and many people repeat slalcious gossip, especially if others suddenly think the repeaters are special and interesting... in other words, repeating hoaxs can make you the centre of attention (The ATS motto)

3) So. Did you see the damage?

4) That's been explained by dozens of scientists... use google.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 







There are a few pictures of the damage shown before the media got ahold of them. These clearly show the main wall collapse but no damage to the ground and no airplane wreckage.

For clarification, I never implied it was a missile, explosives, a smaller plane, etc. I'm very simply stating that it was NOT a Boeing 757 as the media told us on 9/11/2001.


[edit on 31-1-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Thermo Klein
4) That's been explained by dozens of scientists... use google.


I assume you're addressing my #4 - that it takes 3000 degrees Fahrenheit to soften steel but the Twin Towers only got to around 1100 degrees.

That's simple physics, your argument of "use google" ... well

I found this on Google once - it's 1,000 Engineers, Scientists, and Demolition experts all backing the story that explosives were used.
www.ae911truth.org



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Locked cabin doors do not make buildings defy physics.


As no building defied physics.... and it is not irrelevant, just confirms the lies the "truthers" spread!



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


All three building on that day collapse globally through the path of most resistance, supposedly from carbon based fires.

That is defying physics, and if you don't understand why you need to go through a few 9-11 threads and catch up with the discussion, because I'm not going to repeat the information you need to understand my point just to make you happy in this thread.

Locked cabin doors have NO relevance to the buildings collapses, which is the ultimate conspiracy, no?

[edit on 1/31/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


There are some OS people who can relate to the science.

Then there are some , one, who stamps his foot and yells, Lies

I enjoy your postings Anok.

I am learning from them,



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by dereks
 



Locked cabin doors have NO relevance to the buildings collapses, which is the ultimate conspiracy, no?

[edit on 1/31/2010 by ANOK]


So why did your P4T pals bang on about them for so long and so embarrassingly?

This is a constant refrain here. Something is brought up, peddled as truth, then made to look foolish. At that point the ground is not conceded, but instead you jump back to some other trope of 9/11 lore.

I've lost count of the number of times someone has been made to look foolish about some facet of 9/11, only for them to splutter "What about Building 7 though????"

The fact is that most of you have a vague feeling that something isn't right, and you rely on an enormous supply of massed innuendo, most of which collapses when any proper scrutiny is placed on it. Only if you have a gigantic bias can much of this even be countenanced as evidence. Come at it with a vaguely open mind and it looks flimsy, pathetic even.

So if you want to stick to the core 9/11 issues, be my guest. But let's leave off all these tedious evidence-free sideshows.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by dereks
 



Locked cabin doors have NO relevance to the buildings collapses, which is the ultimate conspiracy, no?

[edit on 1/31/2010 by ANOK]


So why did your P4T pals bang on about them for so long and so embarrassingly?

This is a constant refrain here. Something is brought up, peddled as truth, then made to look foolish. At that point the ground is not conceded, but instead you jump back to some other trope of 9/11 lore.

I've lost count of the number of times someone has been made to look foolish about some facet of 9/11, only for them to splutter "What about Building 7 though????"

The fact is that most of you have a vague feeling that something isn't right, and you rely on an enormous supply of massed innuendo, most of which collapses when any proper scrutiny is placed on it. Only if you have a gigantic bias can much of this even be countenanced as evidence. Come at it with a vaguely open mind and it looks flimsy, pathetic even.

So if you want to stick to the core 9/11 issues, be my guest. But let's leave off all these tedious evidence-free sideshows.


I'll keep it simple for ya trick.....

What the planes were doin at the time of impact, if they were serving fish or chicken , doesn't relate to the collapse of the building.

A little thought before posting saves these little lesson's.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48


I'll keep it simple for ya trick.....

What the planes were doin at the time of impact, if they were serving fish or chicken , doesn't relate to the collapse of the building.

A little thought before posting saves these little lesson's.



Then I repeat, why did P4T spend so long insisting that the door was of vital importance? It's almost as if they had some kind of preconceived bias...

Still a long way from that definitive "alternative narrative" of 9/11 aren't we?

Oh, and I'd go easy with chucking the patronising little bon mots around if I didn't know how to use a f**king apostrophe.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Sean48


I'll keep it simple for ya trick.....

What the planes were doin at the time of impact, if they were serving fish or chicken , doesn't relate to the collapse of the building.

A little thought before posting saves these little lesson's.



Then I repeat, why did P4T spend so long insisting that the door was of vital importance? It's almost as if they had some kind of preconceived bias...

Still a long way from that definitive "alternative narrative" of 9/11 aren't we?

Oh, and I'd go easy with chucking the patronising little bon mots around if I didn't know how to use a f**king apostrophe.


p4t = Pilots for Truth

These guys are experts at..... Flying, so they will address flying issues.

Anok seems quite well versed in Physics of buildings so he will talk about...

Building Physics.

Why is this hard ...



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


It is indeed relatively easy. ANOK wishes only to discuss the building collapses. That's entirely his prerogative. But that doesn't mean that others can't talk about the P4T closed cabin door nonsense, or indeed anything else the TM produces that is complete nonsense. There is no privilege given to particular areas of the TM narrative just because you happen to feel that they're more important.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Sean48
 


It is indeed relatively easy. ANOK wishes only to discuss the building collapses. That's entirely his prerogative. But that doesn't mean that others can't talk about the P4T closed cabin door nonsense, or indeed anything else the TM produces that is complete nonsense. There is no privilege given to particular areas of the TM narrative just because you happen to feel that they're more important.


I agree 100% .

Those are all important aspects to be discussed, They should be talked about.

I can only say for myself, I wont talk airplanes ,flight . Why would I , I have very limited knowledge of those things.

If its cabin doors on planes you want to talk about , start a thread , or check out the P4T site





new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join