It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


If you're trying to say your assertion that there was an "extremely clear picture" presented by "multiple lines of inquiry" was irrelevant and off-topic, and so doesn't warrant discussion, then fine, I'll agree to that. I was just asking you to back it up.


If you need a cliff notes version, the point was that a few unexplained anomalies will not rewrite the events of 911 in favor of conspiracy.

I hope that clears it up.




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by bsbray11

If you need a cliff notes version, the point was that a few unexplained anomalies will not rewrite the events of 911 in favor of conspiracy.

I hope that clears it up.


S & F, if I could on a single post.

Threads could be much more productive if people didn't get hung up on their own lack of understanding. We are living in an age where "acting" like you know what you are talking about gets you as much attention as actually understanding. The truth movement depends on this.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
If you need a cliff notes version, the point was that a few unexplained anomalies will not rewrite the events of 911 in favor of conspiracy.

I hope that clears it up.


You just keep clearing up the fact that you don't want to discuss what evidence the government and media story is actually based on. I wonder why that is. I guess it's just too hard to remember what it's based on.


Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
We are living in an age where "acting" like you know what you are talking about gets you as much attention as actually understanding. The truth movement depends on this.


Then why is it people supporting the government account that are always speechless when asked what specific evidence it's actually based on?



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I learned years ago that you could not be reasoned with...


yet you continue to prove it...

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Jake the Dog Man]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jake the Dog Man
 


No, I can be reasoned with, you just don't have anything to work with.

All you do is ask others for evidence of a conspiracy. That's not hard to do. But unfortunately I also have questions and they're for the people who actually did the "investigations" and you people here who defend those investigations, most of the time without having read them or even knowing what they say.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Why the official 9/11 story doesn't make sense:

- Fire from jet fuels were not hot enough to melt the steel of the WTC, nor weaken it. But even if it were, that does not explain the virtual free fall speed of the WTC collapse and pulverization of the concrete. No fire scenario at all, no matter what the temperature, can scientifically result in such a collapse.
- On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, three skyscrapers collapsed completely from fire, the WTC towers and Building 7. Yet no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire before or after 9/11. There is no scientific scenario that allows a skyscraper to collapse at near free fall speed from fire. None at all.


Why the inside job hypothesis doesn't make sense:

- Why would the perpetrators of 9/11 leave so many suspicious smoking guns? If I were staging a false flag event, I would be trying to leave as little inconsistencies and anomalies as possible to prevent suspicion and exposure. Wouldn't smart criminals and conspiracists make sure not to leave suspicious contradictory evidence behind?
- Why would the perpetrators destroy Building 7 and collapse it like a controlled demolition even though it had not been hit by a plane? Why leave such an obvious smoking gun in public that would lead to the exposing of the fraud?


So we know airliners could not destroy the buildings and we know the buildings were destroyed.

So we don't know what and we don't know who. If you don't like the term "Inside Job" that is fine. Calling it that doesn't accomplish anything.

But at this point we have a HUGE social problem with all of our engineering schools. Can you imagine how different things would be now if most of the schools had come out and said it was physically impossible for airliners to do that by June of 2002?

So how can they say it now? They have painted themselves into a corner by being silent. They won't even explain to everyone why the distributions of steel and concrete are important to solving the problem.

It also says curious things about the people who did it. They believe that it is possible to lie about the laws of physics and get away with it. And they are coming pretty close to doing it. Most of the people in the so called Truth Movement won't deal with the physics. They just run around screaming INSIDE JOB!

psik



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777

Continuing...



- NORAD failed to intercept four airliners off course on 9/11, which was impossible according to their standard 24/7 procedures.


I don´t think you or I know NORAD´s standard 24/7 procedures in detail.
This looks more like rewritting something you´ve read over and over someplace and you´re somehow convinced that NORAD´s 24/7 procedures weren´t followed that day.
The fact is that the hijackings were very different from what could have been expected. Also, to say that NORAD failed to intercept four airliners is not fair. Why?? Because obviously the first two at least they would not have been able to intercept anyway since there was NO WAY they could have known they were hijacked, unless there had been information available in that regard, which there wasn´t.
So, wrong again in assuming NORAD failed at intercepting the four airliners. We might argue about the third and fourth, but not the first two.
Now, about the third and fourth, there was lots of confussion, bad communication amongst gov. agencies and defense forces, and aviation agencies. This played a big role in the failure to intercept.



Therefore, it would appear that they were ordered to stand down.


This has been played many times around in conspiracy theories.
However, there´s not a shread of evidence to indicate any stand down by any force or gov. agency.
Quite the contrary in fact.



Additionally, there were war games on 9/11 that confused NORAD as to which of the hijackers were real and which were simulated.


War games in fact would have been of great help contrary to what many conspiracists might think. Because you already have all hands on station, and you don´t have to get them ready.
You only need to establish that this is not a drill. That´s all. So, wrong here too. If there were war games, they were very helpfull instead of jeopardizing the needed actions.



Dick Cheney is also reportedly said to have taken control of NORAD and ordered a stand down.


Wrong theory again. Cheney was not in control of NORAD and Cheney DID NOT order any stand down.



- Many eyewitnesses report underground sub-basement explosions in the WTC that occurred at different times from the airline hits. William Rodriguez for instance reported an explosion from below that pushed him UPWARD. This contradicts the official story or leaves it incomplete. Yet the 9/11 commission ignored this testimony cause it didn't fit into what they were assigned to find.


Wrong.
The explosions happened in the elevator shafts of the Towers, caused by the crash of the planes above. Either from fuel that travelled down the shaft or by elevators falling down after their cables were severed by the airplane crash and explosion.
Witnesses in the lower floors or basement sub levels were not aware of the airplane impact a few seconds before and that´s why they confused what happened AFTER the impact with something happening, before the plane impact.



- Hundreds of people heard and felt explosions and bombs going off before the WTC collapse, including members of the mainstream media. This is well documented and featured in CNN interviews.


There were large fires going on in the building filled with all sorts of things that could explode at one time or another. So, having many things exploding all over the place at different times is something logical. There were gas tanks, electrical transformers, batteries of many types, and lots of other things that were exploding because there was no water either to fight the fires. But this is very different from having explosives around.



- There is not enough force from the jet fuel fires or the top portions of the WTC to pulverize all the concrete to dust and fine powder like that. Where did all that unexplained energy come from?


Wrong. The force to destroy the concrete to dust came not from the jet fuel fires. It came from the upper portion of building falling down on the lower portion. This force was too great and the lower part was not able to support it, causing the progressive collapse. It´s called potential energy, then kinetic energy and it´s all dependant on gravity.



Abundant video footage of these hundreds of witnesses can be viewed online and in 9/11 documentaries, one of which is "9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used?" which you can see on YouTube and Google Video (video.google.com...).


We all have seen, maybe too many videos, but there´s no evidence in any of them of any explosives.
People that hear explosions is not proof of explosives. People saying the building exploded or blew up, doesn´t mean explosives either.



- Thermite or thermate evidence was found in the WTC dust and debris by scientists, and so was molten metal, which suggests that explosives were used. Scientific papers have been published on this by Dr. Steven Jones and others.


Although it sounds nice, to say that scientists found thermite or thermate in the WTC dust is a little bit of a stretch. Dr. S. Jones has claimed this but has not been able to demonstrate that these components didn´t get there as a result of the collapse and fire. There are many things that were present at the towers that could explain Jones nano-spheres.
And explosives would have had a much more obvious signature all over the place. Very loud explosions, much much louder than reported, in much greater numbers and with a distinct timing right before collapse and during collapse.



Therefore, since the official explanation of the collapses are ZERO for 10, it would appear to be conclusively and scientifically ruled out. Nothing could be more concrete and scientific than that.


I don´t know what you mean by ZERO for 10. But I do believe that the official explanation for the collapses (which I think would be NIST´s) is satisfactory to many people. A majority probably.





posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
I don´t think you or I know NORAD´s standard 24/7 procedures in detail.


Its very easy to look up what NORADs policy was prior to 9/11. Why are you afraid of this information?


Because obviously the first two at least they would not have been able to intercept anyway since there was NO WAY they could have known they were hijacked, unless there had been information available in that regard, which there wasn´t.


Actually several foreign and domestic intell agencies warned that something was going to happen involving hijackings.


Wrong theory again. Cheney was not in control of NORAD


Now i am afraid you are wrong, Cheney was in control of NORAD. Its very easy to look up and see that chain of command had been changed. Why are you afraid of this information?



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by rush969

Its very easy to look up what NORADs policy was prior to 9/11. Why are you afraid of this information?


Please post the NORAD policy on 9/11/2001 relative to HIJACKED commercial passenger planes. Not UNKNOWN AIRCRAFT, but specifically HIJACKED commercial passenger planes.


Actually several foreign and domestic intell agencies warned that something was going to happen involving hijackings.


So?


Now i am afraid you are wrong, Cheney was in control of NORAD. Its very easy to look up and see that chain of command had been changed. Why are you afraid of this information?


Unless there was a constitutional convention held sometime after the 18th century and before 9/11/2001 there has been no change in the chain of command. The POTUS is commander -in-chief and:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Why are you so afraid of this kind of basic information?



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
If you need a cliff notes version, the point was that a few unexplained anomalies will not rewrite the events of 911 in favor of conspiracy.

I hope that clears it up.


You just keep clearing up the fact that you don't want to discuss what evidence the government and media story is actually based on. I wonder why that is.


Maybe if you actully read the reasons I typed out multiple times you wouldn't be wondering why. Ignorance isn't a becoming quality.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by bsbray11
You just keep clearing up the fact that you don't want to discuss what evidence the government and media story is actually based on. I wonder why that is.


Maybe if you actully read the reasons I typed out multiple times you wouldn't be wondering why. Ignorance isn't a becoming quality.


Denial isn't, either. I know the real reason why you aren't posting the evidence you keep talking about, and the fact that you already know I'm not going to buy it, is probably a good hunch, but not the real reason you're not posting it.

You don't post it because you either don't know what it is yourself, or you know it's not really conclusive of anything.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777



- None of the hijacked airliner pilots punched in their emergency code to signal a hijacking in progress, as they were trained to do.


This is true but I don´t think you know what it exactly means. You see, it´s not as easy as flipping a switch, or pushing a button. It does require the pilot to have a few seconds without interference.
If you´re fighting for your life, or to keep control of the airplane you might not be able to "punch in, the emergency code".



- Airline pilots do not usually give up the cockpit controls to hijackers. That is the last thing they would do, as their first priority is the safety of the passengers.

They usually will fly hijackers to wherever they want to go, but will not give up the cockpit, especially to hijackers with only knives and box cutters. And besides, cockpit doors are usually not open for people to get into.


True. Not usually. And before 9/11 what we had seen was the hijackers forcing pilots to fly them someplace, and in a couple of cases we had shootings on the ground or killing on the ground of crew members.
But until 9/11 flight crews were actually trained to try and negotiate with hijackers.
And yes, you are correct, the first priority is the safety of your pax.
Under previous circumstances that usually meant, accepting to fly somewhere different from your normal destination, and accepting terrorists to be at the cockpit sharing space with them.
All that changed that morning.
About the box cutters and knifes you can´t simplify this so much.
Think of having a couple of guys on your neck, each one with a blade right to your face and your co-pilot´s, and having witnessed how one of them cut the throat of your flight attendant in front of you!!
And telling you there´s another guy back in the pax. cabin with a bomb, ready to blow you all up!!
I would think we could loose a little bit of our "cool" under such conditions.
Woldn´t you agree??




posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Please post the NORAD policy on 9/11/2001 relative to HIJACKED commercial passenger planes. Not UNKNOWN AIRCRAFT, but specifically HIJACKED commercial passenger planes.


Thats so funny and sad, you do not even know that aircraft that are off cource and do not have radiao contacty, or no transponder are refered to as UNKNOWN.

Please do research so you know what you are talking about.


Unless there was a constitutional convention held sometime after the 18th century and before 9/11/2001 there has been no change in the chain of command. The POTUS is commander -in-chief and:


You really need to do research so it at least looks like you know what your talking about.

www.globalresearch.ca...
A May 8th 2001 Statement by the President gave responsibility for coordinating, training and planning all national defense programs related to weapons of mass destruction to Vice President Cheney, whose office was not part of the National Command Authority. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission that he was present and observed Dick Cheney in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center tracking the position of Flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon.1 “Based on Norm Minetta's testimony and other information, it appears that the military have regarded Cheney as a ‘Deputy Commander-in-Chief’. They also understand that he is the real power behind the throne...It appears that Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge of all the many air defense exercises that took place on the morning of September 11, 2001."2


[edit on 3-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by WWu777
After researching the whole 9/11 debate for a long time now, and seeing almost every film out there about it, I've come to realize that there are many anomalies, gaping holes and mysteries on both sides that make no sense.


The problem, unfortunately, is that most of the "mysteries" you're using to base your skepticism upon are hogwash, and are entirely the fabrication of these damned fool conspiracy web sites intentionally putting out false information to get people all paranoid over shadows-

1) The fires never melted the steel. It heated the steel unevenly and caused iregular thermal expansion, resulting in warping and loss of structural integrity. Gravity did the rest.


PROVE IT
Where is the 'physical' evidence that leads NIST to their HYPOTHESIS?

for, isn't that HOW you arrive at a ...HYPOTHESIS?...the EVIDENCE leads you there....
where is the ...compromised steel...where are the high temps needed to do this to the steel
and IF it heated...UNEVENLY...HOW is there SYMMETRICAL total global collapse from the asymmetrical damage...X2
which by itself is physically imposable

For the ONLY mention of the condition of the steel, show....."low steel temps"

NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600ºC Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC:.Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250ºC.
NIST-1-3 p.xli,101,132

oh...and P-L-E-A-S-E don't go into a spheel about how..."oh..these are not the ones from the fire"....really...if there is NO fire BELOW the impact floors....then they are from the fires....which show NO failure from heat

Since when do we destroy evidence before we identify the cause of collapse? We don’t solve crimes, or get safer buildings by destroying evidence, and then hypothesize the cause....

HOW do you arrive at a HYPOTHESIS of "thermal expansion" of the steel in WTC7 to BLAME the entire event on FIRE alone...

'specially when...NCSTAR1-3 p.iii, 7.7.3..."NO STEEL WAS RECOVERED FROM WTC7"



2) Yes, plane parts were found at the WTC and Pentagon site

which the NTSB never saw and the FBI locked in a vault in the side of a mountain...still REFUSING to release


3) The BBC openly admitted they made a mistake in their report. Someone handed them a bulletin misidentifying the proper name of the building that had fallen and they ran with it.


lol...how...the ONLY other ones are the TOWERS.....that fell hours before...so what 'other' building just fell, that they were talking about?



4) This "fell at free fall speed" bit is nothing but a red herring, as noone has been able to determine how fast the towers *should* have fallen, given the peculiar design of the building, the damage from the impact, and from the resulting fires. If you can't know how fast it should have fallen, then you can't determine whether it fell too fast.


I can tell you one thing...it would NOT keep the SAME CONSISTENT speed...X2

oh and...WTC7 DID fall as fast as an object falls....through a VACUUM

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"

-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s.



5) The FBI isn't listing him on their web site becuase they can't.


how about what the FBI spokes person said...."they have NO evidence connecting him to the event"....DUH




...and on and on it goes. It goes without saying that if these conspriacy web sites are knowingly embellishing and misrepresenting the facts to get people to believe what they want them to believe, it's a de facto admission that they know what they're saying is false. You have my compliments for wanting to examine both sides of the issue, but for you to do that, you know you need to start with accurate information beforehand.


EVERYTHING I quoted came from NIST....NOT a ..."conspiracy web site"
...lol....Good OLD Dave



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


If you're trying to say your assertion that there was an "extremely clear picture" presented by "multiple lines of inquiry" was irrelevant and off-topic, and so doesn't warrant discussion, then fine, I'll agree to that. I was just asking you to back it up.


If you need a cliff notes version, the point was that a few unexplained anomalies will not rewrite the events of 911 in favor of conspiracy.

I hope that clears it up.


clears it up fine...you have NO faith or belief in the NIST HYPOTHESIS...'official story', so you cant defend it with NO physical proof to back it up...you make it appear....that YOU'RE above all that...lol

you just don't want your ass handed to you....

so..tell me how the free fall accelerated collapse of WTC7...is an.."anomaly'?

tell me how an investigating organization, that doesn't look at ONE PIECE OF STEEL from the building, then turns around and blames the collapse on ...the steel

from fire no one can see

the facade is attached to ALL the perimeter vertical support, which FIRE didn't touch, yet, WE SEE , when the kink forms, EVEN global free fall acceleration...though itself,
as fast as an object falls...in a vacuum



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
One more anomaly on the conspiracy side:

- If the Bin Laden family and the Bush family have such close business ties, as conspiracists and journalists report, then did both families stage 9/11 together, using Osama Bin Laden as the fall guy? Was OBL a CIA operative, as some reports claim? If so, why would Bin Laden agree to have his name demonized the world over as "the most wanted man"? Even if he profited from it somehow, who would want their name falsely attributed as the mastermind behind 9/11, which would tarnish their name and image forever? Who would want to go down in history for a crime he didn't commit? Also, if OBL did not agree to be the fall guy in this plot, then wouldn't the Bush family have ruined their business ties with the Bin Ladens by falsely implicating him?



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


OBL himself denied involvement in the attacks in several interviews published by Middle Eastern news sources.

The Bushes and Bin Ladens are business partners and go back, but OBL is the "black sheep" of that family, though he nonetheless led Afghani rebels who were trained and funded by the CIA through the Pakistani ISI.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
A lot of the arguments you've presented as problems with the original story seem to be based on incorrect and/or misleading premises. Sorry, but the more these myths and falsehoods persist, the more 'truthers' will suspect these falsehoods are actually truth.

Kudos for bringing in both sides of an argument. Still though, it's quite upsetting to see how many people buy into the notions that a few unexplained anomalies can rewrite an extremely solid picture established though multiple lines of inquiry. I imagine that if the incorrect information ever ceases to be disseminated, the less likely it is that people will be subjected to falling into the traps presened by so-called "truthers".


Wait a second. How do you know this?

I mean, if you weren't involved in 9/11, then all you can do is take one side on faith and disbelieve the other. But how do you know the government isn't lying?

Bush is a proven pathological liar who lies even about little things, so why would you take on faith any of his conspiracy theories about OBL and hijackers?

It seems like you are simply calling the government story "the truth" just like the Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses assumes that it's a given that the Bible is God's word.

It appears that you are looking at both sides and saying that whatever the official establishment says is the truth by AUTOMATIC DEFAULT, anything else is false, utilizing black and white thinking.

Am I right?

And why do you have no skepticism toward the official story?

Also, where is the evidence connecting OBL to 9/11?

[edit on 3-4-2010 by WWu777]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


If you're trying to say your assertion that there was an "extremely clear picture" presented by "multiple lines of inquiry" was irrelevant and off-topic, and so doesn't warrant discussion, then fine, I'll agree to that. I was just asking you to back it up.


If you need a cliff notes version, the point was that a few unexplained anomalies will not rewrite the events of 911 in favor of conspiracy.

I hope that clears it up.


But it's not "a few". We are talking about hundreds of anomalies, facts, evidence, scientific data, eyewitness testimonies, etc.

How come William Rodriguez and many others said they felt an explosion from the basement that pushed them UPWARDS?

That's not an anomaly. That's a DIRECT FACT contradicting the official story. Why do you ignore or dismiss it simply because it doesn't fit into your version of events? On what logic and rationality?

Do you claim to be objective and rational? If so, why the closed minded subjective dismissals?



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by bsbray11
You just keep clearing up the fact that you don't want to discuss what evidence the government and media story is actually based on. I wonder why that is.


Maybe if you actully read the reasons I typed out multiple times you wouldn't be wondering why. Ignorance isn't a becoming quality.


Denial isn't, either. I know the real reason why you aren't posting the evidence you keep talking about, and the fact that you already know I'm not going to buy it, is probably a good hunch, but not the real reason you're not posting it.

You don't post it because you either don't know what it is yourself, or you know it's not really conclusive of anything.


For the millionth time, I'm not engaging your derailing tangent. You know as well as I do how the account of 911 was arrived at. If you want that debate take it to a thread where someone cares.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join