9/11 facts - weigh in - OS VS others

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
To Weedwacker,

You and i both know what the nose of a 757 is made of and how thin the aluminum is.

Now we both should know there is no way as stated in the official story that the nose of the plane survived the imapct of the wall and the internal collumns.




posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
The government is now crooked beyond belief .Just watch the planes flying every day to dimm the sun since global warming is real. they turn a blue sky to haze everymorning. Now if they lie about that they will lie about everything. BECOME A LONE WOLF -plan and wait.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

I made my case: pictures of an explosion with no airplane.


...and the case *I* made trumps the case *YOU* made: eyewitnesses in the area specifically saw that it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon.

So I will ask again- what alternative scenario do you have that explains both the strange wall damage AND the eyewitnesses seeing an airplane hitting the Pentagon? Many of them were pretty explicit.

Eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack


If you honestly think that people's eye-witness accounts WITHOUT PICTURES, are better evidence than pictures of the explosion site then we have nothing more to talk about... [You may want to research that eye-witness accounts are often times not used in trials any longer because of the high propensity for error.]

To avoid future annoying diversions and name-calling I decided to include the NIST picture of the damage - basically so no one claims the pictures I showed were from some OTHER part of the Pentagon...
[I think I added that caption a while back lol]


Here's also a final version of the pictures of the explosion site - again with proof no airplane crash happened there.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


I was looking at Google Earth the other day (one of my favorite sites) and notice that in my old hometown I can't see anybody inside the houses. I guess no one lives there any more. What a pity, such a nice place too.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
A little synopsis of people's ideas - for posterity.
[This is my opinion based on what I feel was said, please feel free to supply quotes or argue if I happened to misinterpret anything.]


GoodOlDave
* Rumsfeld's story didn't match the media story (Rumsfeld claimed Flt 93 was shot down by terrorists over American soil.)
* blizzard of eyewitnesses without pictures are better evidence than actual pictures.
* If you wish to disprove one point, you better have a fully working alternative already in place (pictures that counter the proof is not enough).

Sean48
* "No broken windows" is a pretty good indicator no airplane crashed through that wall.

Weedwhacker
* the physics about a non-present airplane is more important than if the plane is there or not; some people are too young and nieve to see this.
[The Physics involved in incredibly high-speed airplane (estimated 350 mph - MSNBC) crashes apparently causes planes to dissolve or teleport through an intact wall - I clearly don't understand that yet]

REMISNE
* The nose of an aircraft wouldn't survive crashing into a wall that didn't fall down until later.
[I guess if the nose dissolves the rest of the plane does too]

Hooper
* What were those Pentagon windows made of?
[Apparently really strong windows can cause a plane to disappear from the site of the explosion, or appear on the other side of an intact wall/windows.]
* Not being able to see people from a satelite or airplane means they don't exist and this somehow carries the same logic as if you're only 100 feet away.

Thermo Klein
* An explosion happened and pictures were taken
* Then, the wall collapsed and pictures were taken
* No airplane is ever seen in the explosion/NIST "crash site" location

******
* Edited to remove DSM - Delusion bit *

I'm pretty much done here. People claiming there is an airplane at an explosion site, when there is very clearly no airplane is just getting a little old for me. I don't wish to carry on all the side conversations about a "blizzard of witnesses" just to keep arguing. Some of you have your reasons but your reasons are really NOT based on fact.

I gave you commonly available, irrefutable pictures centered on the Pentagon explosion when the building hadn't even collapsed yet - there was no airplane, I gave you pictures after the building collapsed - there was no airplane. The evidence can't be any more clear, yet you stick to some old story - I don't get it.




[edit on 4-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

[edit on 4-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 



Not being able to see people from a satelite or airplane means they don't exist and this somehow carries the same logic as if you're only 100 feet away.


Pretty much. Looking at the outside of a building and making an absolute determination about what is inside. Your logic, not mine.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


somebody gave you a star for this????


He's saying that because we can't see a six foot person from a satellite, we should also not be able to see a 124 foot wide plane from 200 feet away!!

All this work, research, marking points on pictures, and I get only 4 flags... and this Hooper person gets a star for THIS!!? Guys - stop backing each other! You're just making it worse.

Hooper - keep in mind none of us can see your brain.

While we're at it - you do realize you're backing the idea that there is a huge Boeing airplane INSIDE a militarily sealed building... and it got there by flying through a wall!!


[edit on 4-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 



He's saying that because we can't see a six foot person from a satellite, we should also not be able to see a 124 foot wide plane from 200 feet away!!


Don't care if your 20 feet away, if what you want to see is inside and your outside, well distance isn't really an issue.


All this work, research, marking points on pictures, and I get only 4 flags... and this Hooper person gets a star for THIS!!? Guys - stop backing each other! You're just making it worse.


Doesn't take a lot to shine on your stuff.


Hooper - keep in mind none of us can see your brain.


Yeah, and even if you were standing 2 inches away from me you STILL COULDN'T see it - it is INSIDE my skull.


While we're at it - you do realize you're backing the idea that there is a huge Boeing airplane INSIDE a militarily sealed building... and it got there by flying through a wall!!


I'm sorry - I didn't realize it was in a "militarily sealed" building. Well, then that changes everything. You just can't get through those military seals - they're made of real tough stuff -remind me again what military seals are made out of, will you? Yes, and it did get there by flying thorugh the wall - now I think you get. The plane flew THROUGH the wall and into the building, which is why you can't see it in photos of the OUTSIDE of the building, get it?



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

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....


In fact I paid close attention to the very big fact that the cabin door was shown as closed on every previous flight. That is perfectly normal. Very few flights involve the pilot leaving the cabin during flight for any reason. Why is that very normal situation of the door not being opened surprising to you? I've never seen either a pilot or a co-pilot after the engine has been turned on... and that is when the FDR starts to record the data.

You imply that you know more than I do and everyone else does as well about the flight recorder data. So tell me, what is the documentation that shows the value for "not connected" or "not recording" of the flight door data is a value of zero... since the recorded value for the pilot cabin door was zero for all flights just as one would expect. Or cite any other sources that have you believing the value of the flight deck door was not being recorded.

I have reason to believe the data was being recorded (thats the whole point of a flight deck recorder... to record whats going on) but I've never seen a reason to believe the data was not being recorded. I look forward to you presenting evidence to the contrary.

Regarding your personal attack on me, for all you know, I spend most of my day on the James Randi forums, got that Mr. "silly conspiracy site ATS visitor"... do you think you can throw that attitude you have in the trash where it belongs? I don't appreciate your stereotyping and belittling efforts. In fact, please screw off if you can't conduct a civilized debate. Don't insult my intelligence. If I'm wrong you can simply supply the reasons for that.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by truthquest]



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 





You and i both know what the nose of a 757 is made of and how thin the aluminum is.

Now we both should know there is no way as stated in the official story that the nose of the plane survived the imapct of the wall and the internal collumns.


Its not the nose of the aircraft - its whats behind it that did the damage

The keel beam the strongest part of an aircraft - main structural member
provides support to cabin and cargo bay floors.

Landing gear - some of the heaviest components on an aircraft, designed to resist impact of 250,000 lbs at 180 mph during landing

Jet engines - built of exotic high strenght alloys to resist high temperaturs
and stress of turbines spinning at 10,000 rpm Weigh 6 tons each

Wing spars - large sections of high strength aluminium alloy, provides
main strength and support to wings, resists weight of fuel


What you have here are large massive pieces. Now accelerate to 500 mph

More than enough impact force to smash through wall and columns



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Its not the nose of the aircraft - its whats behind it that did the damage


So you agree then that the official story is wrong about a lot of things?


The keel beam the strongest part of an aircraft - main structural member provides support to cabin and cargo bay floors.


WOW, 1 whole beam out the whole plane.


Landing gear - some of the heaviest components on an aircraft, designed to resist impact of 250,000 lbs at 180 mph during landing


How did the landing gear get out of the heavy, protected wheel wells?


Jet engines - built of exotic high strenght alloys to resist high temperaturs and stress of turbines spinning at 10,000 rpm Weigh 6 tons each


Yes, 1 engine was found oputside the building but has not been properly IDed a belonging to AA77.


Wing spars - large sections of high strength aluminium alloy, provides main strength and support to wings, resists weight of fuel


Where are the photos of the wings or wing debris?



[edit on 5-2-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

I gave you commonly available, irrefutable pictures centered on the Pentagon explosion when the building hadn't even collapsed yet - there was no airplane, I gave you pictures after the building collapsed - there was no airplane. The evidence can't be any more clear, yet you stick to some old story - I don't get it.


Alright, then, what say you consider this...

Question 1) what is your experience in crash site forensics? How many plane crashes have you analyzed? I don't see how you can be screaming something looks suspicious when you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what a crash site should look like to even know what's suspicious and what isn't.

Question 2) what is your expertise in aircraft design and construction? An aircraft of one design will have stress loads that differ from an aircraft of another design. I don't see how you can insist a given aircraft should have broken up in a certain way when you have no idea how the aircraft was put together to begin with.

Question 3) what is your expertise in building construction and materials engineering? I don't have to tell you that all buildings aren't all put together the same way, so a heavy, traditional concrete structure from the 40's like the Pentagon is obviously going to have a different design from modern glass enclosed skyscrapers. I don't see how you can insist how a structure would react when an object hits it when you have no idea how the structure was designed and what it was built out of to begin with.

I have no idea what happens to every single nut, bolt, and seat cushion when a modern passenger flies head first into a concrete building so you'll have to forgive us for not taking you seriously when you're pretending to be an expert in crash site forensics, aircraft construction, building construction, and materials engineering when your entire sum knowledge of these fields is from your looking at this one single photo. More so, when I know full well that the bone headed idea that "there's something suspicious here" is being put into your head by those damned fool conspiracy web sites deliberately trying to get people all paranoid over nothing in the first place.

There, do you get it now?



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
If you honestly think that people's eye-witness accounts WITHOUT PICTURES, are better evidence than pictures of the explosion site then we have nothing more to talk about... [You may want to research that eye-witness accounts are often times not used in trials any longer because of the high propensity for error.]


Would you mind terribly explaining where you got THAT claim from? My house was broken into last year so I know full flipping well from personal experience that the first things cops do when investigating a crime is to go to everyone nearby and ask, "Did you see anything?" If you even attempt to claim they do anything else, you will be lying through your teeth.

If you had only one witness saying they saw a plane, you may have had a point. If you had only three or four witnesses that saw a plane, you still would have had a point. The problem for you is that EVERYBODY in the vicinity saw a plane. If your conspiracy stories can't get past that, then they can't get out of the gate regardless of how desperately you try.



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
1) The hole in the Pentagon is smaller than an airplane and left basically no airplane debris? 1000's of eyewitnesses saw an airplane. A large airplane. Many of those people were driving on the highway and saw the plane. A plane hitting the Pentagon would have done what is was designed to do. Protect the Building. Look at the debris fields from the WTC 1 and 2 and you can see how far the pieces described earlier flew from the crash site. Blocks away....

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

This is a moot point at this conjecture. I think you should take a look at hte plans of the building and stop watching youtube videos with #ty compression and overlayed graphics.

3) No black boxes. Here is a quote from someone onsite



Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts.


You can add this to the Pentagon theories also.

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

It did not have to melt but it did soften which did not help the way the building is designed to distribute load. Again, not 'bad physics' but bad websites.

Also, can anyone tell me when the conspiracy theories began? In Europe, and it was not until almost 2004 that the US started to pick up on it and try to make a buck. It also seemed to coincide with the election in 04? Hmmmmm...there is conspiracy folks.



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Here are a few facts, not imaginations or suggestions, about AA 77.

Radar places AA 77 at the Pentagon.

Air Traffic Control places AA 77 at the Pentagon. Air Traffic Control at nearby Reagan National Airport attests to the crash at the Pentagon.

The Flight Data Recorder recovered at the Pentagon places AA 77 at the Pentagon.

The flight crew of a C130 in the area attests to AA 77 crashing into the Pentagon.

The recovered DNA of passengers and crew places AA 77 at the Pentagon.

Scores of witnesses saw a large passenger jet approach and crash into the Pentagon. Some say it was a Boeing 757, some say it had AA logo.

Wreckage of a Boeing 757 has been recovered from the Pentagon. Some of it imbedded within concrete within the Pentagon. Not a bolt from a missile or a whiff of an explosive was detected at the site.

To contradict that, all we seem to have is your personal opinon of what a crash site should look like. It is not as though you even pretend to have any expertise in the field.

From the morning of 9/11 to today no-one has seen AA 77,its crew, or passengers. Where are they ?



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Alright, so we have one guy, Kilsheimer, stating, "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Interesting that NOBODY took any pictures, and also that this alleged airplane crashed at around 350 MPH into cement and the airplane dissolved or turned into liquid, while leaving the wall intact, AND... it was hot enough and intense enough to melt an airplane, but crew uniforms stayed unburnt.



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
The recovered DNA of passengers and crew places AA 77 at the Pentagon.

Scores of witnesses saw a large passenger jet approach and crash into the Pentagon. Some say it was a Boeing 757, some say it had AA logo.

Wreckage of a Boeing 757 has been recovered from the Pentagon. Some of it imbedded within concrete within the Pentagon. Not a bolt from a missile or a whiff of an explosive was detected at the site.


I'd be interested in some citations and pictures of these. DNA from 170 victims would be a solid clue depending on which company allegedly collected and tested it.

Why is it that with all these claims NO ONE can produce a single picture of a lot of wreckage?



To contradict that, all we seem to have is your personal opinon of what a crash site should look like. It is not as though you even pretend to have any expertise in the field.


I don't claim to be an expert, although, I am an ex-airline employee who has gone through several types of crash training and I'm eligible to work on the scene of airplane crashes (not just anyone off the street can do this). I've seen plenty of evidence and crash sites and one thing they ALL have in common, is airplane wreckage.



From the morning of 9/11 to today no-one has seen AA 77,its crew, or passengers. Where are they ?


If there NEVER WAS crew and passengers, evidenced by the fact there's no video of that plane taking off from anywhere and no pictures of the wreckage, they wouldn't be missed.

***

I'm very much willing to change my mind on this - in fact I'd be HAPPY to! I don't want a government and media that lie, I don't want to be part of a small minority that gets ridiculed for not being able to let it go. All I'm asking for is some pictures of a crash scene, which so far, no one has been able to show me.


[edit on 5-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 



Alright, so we have one guy, Kilsheimer, stating, "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Interesting that NOBODY took any pictures,


Why would you assume that? Because no one will show you? The accurate phrase would be "I've never seen any photos" Unless you percieve yourself as the measure of all things.


and also that this alleged airplane crashed at around 350 MPH


I thought it was closer to 500mph?


into cement and the airplane dissolved or turned into liquid,


Your words, no one else's.


while leaving the wall intact, AND...


Again, only you are saying this.


it was hot enough and intense enough to melt an airplane,


Your words.


but crew uniforms stayed unburnt.


Really, do you really believe anybody is buying this stuff you make up?



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Alfie1
The recovered DNA of passengers and crew places AA 77 at the Pentagon.

Scores of witnesses saw a large passenger jet approach and crash into the Pentagon. Some say it was a Boeing 757, some say it had AA logo.

Wreckage of a Boeing 757 has been recovered from the Pentagon. Some of it imbedded within concrete within the Pentagon. Not a bolt from a missile or a whiff of an explosive was detected at the site.


I'd be interested in some citations and pictures of these. DNA from 170 victims would be a solid clue depending on which company allegedly collected and tested it.

Why is it that with all these claims NO ONE can produce a single picture of a lot of wreckage?



To contradict that, all we seem to have is your personal opinon of what a crash site should look like. It is not as though you even pretend to have any expertise in the field.


I don't claim to be an expert, although, I am an ex-airline employee who has gone through several types of crash training and I'm eligible to work on the scene of airplane crashes (not just anyone off the street can do this). I've seen plenty of evidence and crash sites and one thing they ALL have in common, is airplane wreckage.



From the morning of 9/11 to today no-one has seen AA 77,its crew, or passengers. Where are they ?


If there NEVER WAS crew and passengers, evidenced by the fact there's no video of that plane taking off from anywhere and no pictures of the wreckage, they wouldn't be missed.

***

I'm very much willing to change my mind on this - in fact I'd be HAPPY to! I don't want a government and media that lie, I don't want to be part of a small minority that gets ridiculed for not being able to let it go. All I'm asking for is some pictures of a crash scene, which so far, no one has been able to show me.


[edit on 5-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]


Ah, now we are getting to the nitty gritty. Are you saying that AA 77 and its passengers and crew didn't exist ? The bereaved relatives are what ? paid stooges ?

Still doesn't account for radar, atc, fdr, witnesses, C130, wreckage placing AA 77 at the Pentyagon morning of 9/11.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by Alfie1]



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Here's a link. It's comonly accepted in law and Psychology that eyewitness accounts are unpredictable and not reliable. There have been numerous studies on this, such as people identifying a purse snatcher as the wrong sex! It's very commonly wrong.
visualexpert.com - eyewitness memory

The group of people here who believe the original story keep saying there is a "blizzard of eyewitnesses", "1000s of witnesses", etc but I'm not familiar with all those - got any citations or links for that?

From what I've heard there are very reliable witnesses, such as Pentagon security, or store owners at a fixed location, that say where the airplane was, and it WASN'T where the alleged black box says. Many people saw a plane, maybe even an American Airlines plane (speculation) but I haven't heard of any who actually saw the plane hit. There's also that cab driver who lies on hidden camera - but we won't count him


If it's so cut-n-dry why won't the Pentagon just release the full footage of the crash/explosion!?


[edit on 5-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]





new topics
 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join