9/11 facts - weigh in - OS VS others

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Logically thinking, there would not be a complete wingspan size hole in the Pentagon.


Logically thinking, any wing parts not entering the building would still be outside of it.




posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Al-Qaeda conspiracy theorists cling to their irrational beliefs for psychological reasons. The 9/11 scientific truth movement has debunked them over and over again. NYC didn't put its emergency management office in WTC7 because it was teetering on the verge of collapse on a weak foundation. The fires in the twin towers didn't burn nearly hot enough to significantly weaken the structural steel. And al-Qaeda as an organization doesn't even really exist.

But the best evidence comes from first-hand eyewitness accounts:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Now I'm sure the conspiracy theorists will claim all these people were confused or shell shocked and imagined the explosions and ground-level fireballs. But luckily the 9/11 scientific truth movement has empirical data to back-up its debunking of their irrational theories:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

I realize accepting the scientific truth of 9/11 might cause psychological distress in some people due to cognitive dissonance, but that doesn't make their outlandish al-Qaeda conspiracy theories true.
www.journalof911studies.com...


[edit on 2-2-2010 by Crito]



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

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


Since the Twin Towers came down in an unconventional manner it'll remain debatable. But for those who subscribe to Occam's razor and "if it walks and squawks like a duck" reasoning, the guys at ae911truth make a compelling case that WTC7 fits all the characteristics of a controlled demolition:

www.youtube.com...

When it comes to WTC7 the al-Qaeda conspiracy theorists really struggle to come up with explanations for their irrational beliefs.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Crito
 


Looked at a couple but gtg get some sleep. Thanks for the archive!



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 





The story you're telling just doesn't add up...
Crash of AA 77 that went into a building and basically stayed intact. It didn't even hit the ground at a steep angle because there would have been MAJOR damage to the ground. No pieces to identify the plane can be found.
Planes do not dissolve on impact (except in this case)
Black boxes stay intact at crashes far, far worse than this.

There's no explanation for a dissolving plane and flattened and burned CVR.

The wings didn't, as Viking guy pointed out, punch a perfect hole into the Pentagon and the hole isn't big enough for them to fit... so where are they? They SHOULD be outside the building! But they're not because no airplane actually hit the Pentagon that day.



No Identiable parts?



Part from emergency lighting system - note part serial number

More aircraft parts - painted in American airlines colors



Major damage to ground? - Plane hit building NOT the ground.

Planes dissolving on impact?

At the speed AA77 was traveling the impact forces reduce an aircraft to
what is mostly "metallic confetti" - some of the larger heavier pieces
will survive. In the process the energy is tranferred to the surrounding
objects.


As for the Cockpit voice recorder - agin while it is designed to resist
impact and fire is NOT INDESTRUCTIBLE! There are numerous crashes
where the recorders were damaged and data lost

A Damaged flight recorder

www.flightrecorder.com...

Cockpit recorder from AA77





In its report on the CVR, the NTSB identified the unit as an L-3 Communications, Fairchild Aviation Recorders model A-100A cockpit voice recorder; a device which records on magnetic tape. The NTSB reported that "The majority of the recording tape was fused into a solid block of charred plastic." No usable segments of tape were found inside the recorder.


Impact breached the case and fire melted the tape....



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by TinFoilBat
 


No fire ?

Again get your eys checked ......

Notice the soot staining on the wall above the hole? How do think you
got there?



How did the plane smash through the building and still have enough force
to knock hole in C Ring wall?

Well if did any REAL research rather than parroting drivel from conspiracy sites would have found this.....




Where in my post did i talk about fire? maybe you should check your own eyes first.

I did say there was some unburnt tinfoil on the lawn witch you claim is from the same plane thats CVR burnt. Should we start making the CVR out of tinfoil so maybe we can get some data from it next time



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



As for shredding into tin foil bits?? Planes don't do that...

If your final thought, looking at this picture, is that a Boeing 757 crashed here then you're sticking to your story for some reason other than fact.



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



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by thedman
 



As for shredding into tin foil bits?? Planes don't do that...

If your final thought, looking at this picture, is that a Boeing 757 crashed here then you're sticking to your story for some reason other than fact.



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


Does it look like a Boeing 757 crashed into this small, unburnt, 10ft deep hole??



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Impressive article! Given the exact circumstances the authors provide it exhibits a very plausible means for Tower 1 and Tower 2 to have collapsed straight down. So as I see it, you have given me two authors providing a plausible and scientific description how it happened... and I have given you 1,025 professional engineers with similar credentials saying the opposite. I really do appreciate the scientific citation!


...until you realize those "1025 professional engineers" are simply going to crackpots like Richard Gage and Morgan Reynolds for their information, rather than basing their judgement upon their own analysis and expertise. We know this becuase we see in the comments section that many of these people are just quoting what Gage and Reynolds say almost word for word.

Gage, as you recall, is the same guy who thinks the towers should have fallen the same way as cardboard boxes, and Reynolds, as you recall, is the same guy who sued NIST on the grounds that the towers were really destroyed by laser beams from outer space. I'm just not expressing it in the same seductive sounding diologue that those characters use.


Now how about Building 7? You may recall it DIDN'T get hit by an airplane, so it didn't have the exact circumstances your two authors provide. Yet, it imploded at free-fall speeds when every other steel framed building in the world that caught fire hasn't. Why?


Becuase when WTC 1 fell, thousands of tons of wreckage fell all over the place and smashed up every building within range, including WTC 7. Here's an aerial photo of ground zero:

Aerial photo of WTC 6

The remains of WTC 6 is in the center, the remains of WTC 7 are on the right, and the remains of WTC 1 are on the left. You can see a trail of the distinctive waffle shaped siding of WTC1 leading from the left, right through and onto WTC 6, and right into WTC 7. You can even see the direction that it fell from the way it's laying on the ground.

These damned fool conspiracy web sites claiming that WTC 7 wasn't hit by wreckage from WTC 1 are lying through their teeth. Little wonder why "1025 professionals" have been so badly hoodwinked by those con artists.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Logically thinking, any wing parts not entering the building would still be outside of it.


Logically thinking, any large components of aircraft such as wing parts that were involved in a crash would certainly not remain in their original aircraft wing shape.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave , Dave , Dave

Why the Lies friend .

Did WTC 6 Collapse ? No

Did WTC5 Collapse ? No

Both had Massive parts of 1 and 2 fall on them, ENGULFED in flames

No Collapse , Because STEEL BUILDINGS DON"T COLLAPSE



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Lillydale
Logically thinking, any wing parts not entering the building would still be outside of it.


Logically thinking, any large components of aircraft such as wing parts that were involved in a crash would certainly not remain in their original aircraft wing shape.


I did not say that they would retain their shape. I said they would be outside of the building. I am sorry that you got confused by my very simple premise. There was just not enough there for you to twist so you resort to just plain making stuff up? Sad, really. You find me wing parts in any shape that were found on the lawn in front of the building and perhaps your point would have some value. As it stands, it is just a fantasy you made up to make the OS make sense to you. I am sorry you need to sink this low.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by thedman
 



As for shredding into tin foil bits?? Planes don't do that...

If your final thought, looking at this picture, is that a Boeing 757 crashed here then you're sticking to your story for some reason other than fact.



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


Does it look like a Boeing 757 crashed into this small, unburnt, 10ft deep hole??


Nope. I'm not saying that either. What's your point.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
On the other hand I've heard so many conflicting aspects of this, such as chemical analyses by numerous independant companies that found exploded and unexploded nanothermite.


No they didn't. They found tiny bits of aluminum stuck to tiny bits of iron, which THEY THEMSELVES are saying is thermite. Actually I take that back- They say it's "thermitic" material, to get people to think it's thermite without actually coming out and saying it's thermite. I know this becuase there's no such word as "thermitic".

The fact that they found this material in so many areas around the towers means there had to be a gigantic source of it. The largest source of both aluminum and iron was the towers themselves, so this material had to have come from the structure itself.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


So, if WTC 6 did not suffer at least a partial collapse....what created that giant hole in the middle....since steel buildings dont collapse......


I wonder if it might just have a little to do with the construction of 5 and 6 as opposed to 7......



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
There comes a point when all the back-and-forth discussion leads to a single final question.

DID A BOEING 757 CAUSE THE DAMAGE HERE, OR DID SOMETHING ELSE?


According to the original story:
a Boeing 757, American Airlines flight 77, hit the Pentagon. THIS (above) is the spot where it hit... is there an airplane here? No.
Is the damage commensurate with other plane-into-building airplane crashes? No - the whole building is intact and there are no airplane pieces.

You can dig up some pictures of airplane pieces that allegedly came from this, but... DOES THIS LOOK LIKE THE SCENE OF AN AIRPLANE CRASH?



If you feel defensive after reading this, I urge you to sit with that for a few moments. I recognize some people are unable to answer whether there is a plane there... maybe your job depends on it, or maybe you lost friends or family in 9/11 and the pain is too great to face; there could be many reasons. What we say online is still our own word, even with an avatar/username - I hope you choose the side of integrity when you answer: Is there an airplane here?


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



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You're not gonna believe it, but fiefighters actually used little bits of Hydrogen and Oxygen stuck together to put out the flames!

Neither of us are expert Chemists, let's not pretend to be. If a scientist says it's weapons grade nano-thermite explosives I chalk that up as one side of the story. I don't know all the sides of the nanothermite argument so I'm happy to just let it go for now. It wasn't one of my original four "proofs" because there IS some speculation on it.

My eyes have been opened by the scientific articles and architectural aspects of why the Twin Towers and Bldg 7 fell, offering a very plausible explanation. I hope you also look with open eyes, and without preconceived ideas, when answering the above question on whether a plane hit the Pentagon.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 



DOES THIS LOOK LIKE THE SCENE OF AN AIRPLANE CRASH?


Yes.

There - now what are you going to do? I say it looks like an airplane crash site. Therefore it must be, correct? Or are we going only by your opinion?



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 



If a scientist says it's weapons grade nano-thermite explosives chalk that up as one side of the story.


Question - what makes someone a scientist? A Ph.D.? I had a professor of Anthropology in college, an absolutely brilliant woman, she was often sought out by law enforcement to help identify and age human remains, but should I take her word on some subject that she has no background in? If she were to sign a paper saying the paint chips are just that, paint chips, does that then negate the findings of other "scientist"?



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 



DOES THIS LOOK LIKE THE SCENE OF AN AIRPLANE CRASH?


Yes.

There - now what are you going to do? I say it looks like an airplane crash site. Therefore it must be, correct? Or are we going only by your opinion?


You could also say it's an alien craft landing site, but normally people have some evidence for why they say things.
You apparently formulated an opinion based on some mythical TV story, rather than by looking at a picture of the event right after it happened. No plane or plane parts at the explosion site = no plane.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]





top topics
 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join