Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11 facts - weigh in - OS VS others

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
As a logical person I can't get past these facts... help me out! Why doesn't EVERYONE know these are true?


Becuase they're not facts. You got this rubbish from those damned fool conspiracy web sites deliberately misrepresenting everything and trying to get people all paranoid over shadows. Case in point...


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


Wrong. There were shattered bits of airplane fuselage all pover the Pentagon lawn, and heavier wreckage like engines and landing gear was found inside. There can be no debate that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. The debate is over what the physical procession of the impact was on the aircraft and on the Pentagon.


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


Wrong. Silverstein said "Pull it" as in "pull the firefighter operation out of the building". The only people who ever claimed "pull it" means "blow somethign up" are- you guessed it- the damned fool conspriacy web sites.


3) No black boxes.


Wrong. The black boxes were recovered from flight 77 and flight 93


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


Wrong. The fires did NOT melt the steel, and the only ones who are saying the fires melted the steel are- you guessed it- these damned fool conspiracy web sites. The fires heated critical supports to the point of structural failure, whoch is only 1/2 of the actual melting point. All investigating agencies agree this is what caused the collapse. The debate is what exact component failed.



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!



Actually, what *I* dont understand is why people are so madly in love with these ridiculous conspiracy stories to the point where they WANT them to be true. They sinply can't believe the attack was terrorism caused by muslim fanatics, despite the fact that terrorism caused by muslim fanatics ain't exactly some brand new event in the world...and yet they believe all sorts of whackadoodle claims of controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, hologram planes, UFOs, and god knows what else. Heck, these conspiracy theorists are all but getting into fistsfights among themselves over what the supposed conspiracy even is.

If you don't believe anything else I tell you, then believe this, at least- the real world is goofy enough as it is without needing to make stupid sounding conspiracy stories up.




posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 






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 were 2 HOLES IN THE PENTAGON

Hole at ground level was almost 90 ft, created by wings/jet engines



Hole at 2 floor level was about 16 ft - width of fuselage

Wider shot of impact hole

/q67lv

As for "lack of debris" - need to get eyes checked....

Debris on Pentagon lawn







C Ring wall - debris punching through wall




As for WTC 7 - FDNY had abandoned building hours before because it was
too dangerous to fight the fires inside

BBC "prediction" was based on fact that many expected WTC 7 to collapse

BBC was repeating a story from Reuters which got it from local source - in haste to got on air didn't check

No Black boxes ?

Flight Data Recorder Flight 93



Voice Recorder Flight 93



Voice Recorder American 77 - damaged by impact



Flight Recorder American 77



As for steel melting

Steel has 1/2 of original strength at 1100 F, 1/4 at 1500 F, 1/10 at 1800 F

Office fires frequently reach temps of 1800 F as attested to by presence
of melted glass



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


convenient blanket statements to fight facts just ain't gonna cut it in this thread ol' dave...



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


This isn't the first time I've seen Ol Dave respond followed directly by the D man... coincidence? Hmm.

But, nice post thedman - I appreciate the pictures and reasonable arguments.

Let's take a look at some logical deduction using the pictures you provided and a few facts from an FAA fact sheet.

EXHIBIT 1

This is allegedly a hole caused because a 757 crashed into the Pentagon and went through all the levels intact enough to create this round hole... with no fire on it.

EXHIBIT 2

Allegedly the flight Cockpit Voice Recorder from AA 77. It was presented as evidence in a trial.

A few facts based on FAA requirements for CVRs (Cockpit Voice Recorders)
* Must be able to withstand up to 3,400 Gs for 6.5 seconds
* Must be able to withstand 1100 degrees F for 10 hours

Planes have fallen from 30,000+ feet, hitting the ground at well over 500 MPH to have the CVR remain 100% intact, in fact this is the norm! They are VERY rarely destroyed.

So, based on your "evidence" a 757 crashed nearly horizontal, stayed intact through 3 wings of a building and the flight recorder somehow turned into a pancake of blackened metal.

Sit with that for a moment. It really doesn't make sense.

Edited to remove the following personal, friendly jab at Good Ol Dave: "I know ol' Dave would give up his religion before he succumbs to facts but I think if a reasonable person thinks about those few simple facts above it just doesn't add up."

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



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
convenient blanket statements to fight facts just ain't gonna cut it in this thread ol' dave...


I would prefer to believe this too, but blanket statements to fight facts is all the conspriacy theorists have to justify their conspiracy stories, and yet we see that's all the steam they need to keep their conspiracy machine running.

That, and perhaps the insatiable desire that these conspiracies actually do exist. It comes as no suprise that the vast majority of 9/11 truthers I've encountered here subscribe to one or more OTHER conspiracies where some secret shadowy force bent on world domination is constantly plotting to murder us all, for one reason or another.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
This is allegedly a hole caused because a 757 crashed into the Pentagon and went through all the levels intact enough to create this round hole... with no fire on it.


No fire? You can see where the fire was, just actually have a look at the picture you can see the blackened interior and exterior wall - no fire? Just "truther" garbage


stayed intact through 3 wings of a building


Who said it stayed intact? Have a look where the bodies were found! Stayed intact? Just another "truther" lie!


those few simple facts above it just doesn't add up.


Except, as shown, they are not facts at all!



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave you're pullin' my leg! you've never heard the term 'pull' used in demolition? old movies? I'm not trying to pull the wool over your eyes or pull a fast one, 'pull' is a pretty common term for demolition!

Etymology of Pull (pŏŏl):
10.To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
Dictionary.com



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Dave you're pullin' my leg! you've never heard the term 'pull' used in demolition? old movies? I'm not trying to pull the wool over your eyes or pull a fast one, 'pull' is a pretty common term for demolition!

Etymology of Pull (pŏŏl):
10.To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
Dictionary.com


Sorry, but bait and switch doesn't work on me. "Pull down an old office building" means exactly that -pull it down AS IN WITH CABLES. This is exactly how they demolished the remains of WTC 6- with cables. It's not lingo for anything. It's the description of the actual act, and it most certainly does NOT refer to "blowing it up". That's coming entirely from these damned fool conspircy web sites, so unless you're attempting to claim that WTC 7 was secretly pulled down with cables, you're on the losing end of this debate, here.

BTW just what old movie ever said "pull it" meant to blow something up with explosives? Let me know and I'll Netflix it.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Sorry, but bait and switch doesn't work on me. "Pull down an old office building" means exactly that -pull it down AS IN WITH CABLES. This is exactly how they demolished the remains of WTC 6- with cables. It's not lingo for anything. It's the description of the actual act, and it most certainly does NOT refer to "blowing it up". That's coming entirely from these damned fool conspircy web sites, so unless you're attempting to claim that WTC 7 was secretly pulled down with cables, you're on the losing end of this debate, here.

BTW just what old movie ever said "pull it" meant to blow something up with explosives? Let me know and I'll Netflix it.


So your saying , when he said "Pull It" he was referring to the firemen?

Weren't they out of the building hours before ?

Not nice of ole Lar to refer to firemen as "It" either.

Dave, you gotta get some new material from your damn fool conspiracy site

The OS is the conspiracy now.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Since you're ignorant to the fact that "pull" is an industry term, which I happened to know for some odd reason, I'll use a different term.

How 'bout, "Keep your eye on that building, that thing's coming down."
or "We're walking back, there's a building about to blow up."
CNN videos of firemen leaving Bldg 7

Here's Larry Silverstein's exact words in a conversation with the NYFD, "You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, uh... and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse." ~ Larry Silverstein
funny - I didn't notice them throw a bunch of cables on there either!

****

To get back on track, building 7 went from mostly intact to a pile of rubble in 6.4 seconds as seen in numerous live coverage videos.

@Dave - I see you challenging every small aspect of this, generally derailing from the actual point being discussed, but I never see you writing any facts of why you believe it fell? We all watch the same videos but for some reason you feel that building 7 fell on it's own. Why?




[edit on 1-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48
So your saying , when he said "Pull It" he was referring to the firemen?


Yes, that's exactly what he was refering to. You can see right away this is what he was referring to when he said the decision to "pull it" was due to the horrendous loss of life throughout the day as it was. These damned fool conspiracy web sites are quoting THAT out of context, too.


Weren't they out of the building hours before ?


You'll have to know what time he made the claim to "pull it" before you can make that statement. Not that it matters, becuase it was firefighter command who made the decision to "pull it" regardless of what Silverstein said.


Not nice of ole Lar to refer to firemen as "It" either.


He was referring to the firefighter OPERATION. He may have referred to the firefighting SQUAD as well. What difference does it make? You're arguing over symantecs youre creating yourself.


The OS is the conspiracy now.


If this mantra is what bolsters your ego from not getting anywhere with your conspiracy claims, hey, whatever floats your boat. You have to know these conspiracy stories aren't even remotely taken seriously outside of your own little conspiracy cliques.

What Bill Clinton thinks about the 9/11 conspiracy theorists



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

How 'bout, "Keep your eye on that building, that thing's coming down."
or "We're walking back, there's a building about to blow up."



Good grief, you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Are you saying that it was the New York Fire Department that blew up WTC 7? The same bunch who lost 343 of their own during 9/11? After all, this IS what you're saying whether you realize it or not, whenever you repeat-

"You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, uh... and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse." ~ Larry Silverstein

The THEY is obviously the NYFD. This is what happens when you base your conspiracy stories 100% on innuendo and quotations out of context. Sooner or later, throwing around accusations willy nilly and grasping at any vague straw to support your conspiracy stories inevitably comes back to haunt you. So, go ahead and accuse the NYFD of conspiring to kill off 3,000 people. I double dog dare you.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I don't use innuendo; every quote I've brought up is from a live video except the one from the Larry Silverstein interview.

If anyone but you said what you just did I'd be offended. I didn't accuse or in any way insinuate the NYFD caused this. There is a video interview I've seen with the NYFD fire chief stating, on camera, that Building 7 would either come down on it's own, or they'd bring it down if needed. That means certain members of the NYFD new ahead of time that explosives were in Bldg 7, and they got their men and women out. All the above is based on live interviews.
I can't believe how much time I spend defending these ludicrous claims... this thread is meant to be about facts.

Fact: Building 7 collapsed from almost entirely intact, to a pile of rubble in 6.4 seconds. This has never happened in the history of steel frame buildings. You defend your answer for once... why did it happen on 9/11 and never once before or since?


[edit on 1-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
There is a video interview I've seen with the NYFD fire chief stating, on camera, that Building 7 would either come down on it's own, or they'd bring it down if needed.


So show us this video where the firemen say that they will bring WTC7 then...
Just how do you think that they could bring it down?


Fact: Building 7 collapsed from almost entirely intact, to a pile of rubble in 6.4 seconds.


easily explained "In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at wtc.nist.gov...).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. "

www.nist.gov...

[edit on 1/2/10 by dereks]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Here's what I don't get: if people are really looking for the 'truth', why are they presenting statements like what is included in the OP as 'facts' when they are not? Doesn't that obfuscate the truth more than it does help it search for it? What is the motivation behind doing this?



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Geez I did it again! Fell right into the GoodOlDave playbook of diversionary tactics.

I'd love to hear you answer:
Fact: Building 7 collapsed from almost entirely intact, to a pile of rubble in 6.4 seconds. This has never happened in the history of steel frame buildings. You defend your answer for once... why did it happen on 9/11 and never once before or since?



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 


Which of these do you dispute?

1) The hole in the Pentagon is smaller than an airplane and left basically no airplane debris. [see pictures in this thread]

2) Larry Silverstein video, NYFD video, and precognition video by BBC all point that Bldg 7 was destroyed by explosives. [see videos in this thread]

3) No black boxes. [Black boxes provided, and alleged data, do not abide by the laws of physics, therefore they aren't the actual black boxes]

4) Melting temperature of steel building frame is around 3000 degrees but airplane fuel and building materials only reach around 1100 degrees. [simple physics, you prove why this happened]


[edit on 1-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
It was mentioned earlier that the melting point and the point which can cause collapse are not in synch, that the collapsing point is roughly half the melting point. I'd be interested in a scientific citation for this.

Without a citation I'm going to believe the 1,000+ engineers, demolition experts, and scientists on www.ae911truth.org...



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
All four are not facts. Trying to paint them as such is, ironically, misinformation.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
why did it happen on 9/11 and never once before or since?


how many other buildings were severely damaged and had a uncontrolled fire burning in them?





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join