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.

 

I DON'T CARE about HOW 9/11 happened, I CARE about WHO did it!!!

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by MightyAl





What occurred on September 11th, 2001 is a matter of facts, physics and unprecedented violations of national protocol by American officials themselves. Here are 10 points to consider. There are hundreds more.


6. Office fires burn at low temperatures of 600-800 dF. Steel melts at 2750 dF. Jet fuel is an ordinary hydrocarbon; its maximal burning temperature is 1200 dF in open air. Neither jet fuel nor the burning contents of the buildings could have caused the towers’ steel structure to buckle or fail.


[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]


www.youtube.com...

Airplane fuel burns hot enough to weaken steel.




posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by MightyAl
The POINT is NOT HOW it happened, but rather WHO was involved with the attacks.


I clicked on this thread when I saw the title because I have been very concerned that the 9/11 truth movement is embroiling itself in an impossible scientific debate about technologies.





7. Tests have shown that cell-phone calls cannot be made at altitudes over 4000 to 8000 feet, as cell towers are located on the ground. Commercial airplanes fly at 30,000 feet and above. No passenger could have successfully placed a call for help by cell phone from an airborne plane on 9/11, as reported.




[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]

Wow. I had a lady threaten to start yelling because I was talking on my cell phone mid flight. We were at an altitude of just over 5k feet.




"Canadian writer A.K. Dewdney built his reputation as a 9/11 researcher on the idea that the cell-phone calls from aircraft above a few thousand feet aren't generally possible, and therefore the calls attributed to Flight 93 passengers were faked. In an article entitled Ghost Riders in the Sky, Dewdney gives expert-sounding explanations of reasons cell phone calls from jetliners wouldn't work. At altitude, he states, the signal would be too weak, and below 10,000 feet, calls made from a jet would cause problematic "cascades" in networks of cellsites on the ground. (Dewdney cites "Frazer 2002" for this.)

Contrary to Dewdney's findings, we have received reports that cell phones do work from aircraft. Other evidence that cell phone calls are possible from jetliners in flight comes from a study by Carnegie Mellon researchers that monitored spectrum frequencies generated by cell phone transmissions during commercial passenger flights. They found that an average of one to four cell phone calls are made during a typical flight."

Source: 911research.wtc7.net...

A truther website none the less.

I'm not going to spend the time to present a non truther non debunker website becuase of my personaly experience with my cell phone working on an airplane.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by MightyAl


8. 9/11 was immediately declared an “act of war” by President Bush.



[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]


en.wikipedia.org...

12:39: On CNN, Senator John McCain characterizes attack as an "act of war."



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The reason these conspiracy people are so adamant about finding out the HOW, is because they think it'll help them find a way to blame the particular WHO they have an agenda to blame this on, be it the Jews, the military industrial complex, the CIA, a secret cult of Satan worshipping numerologists, or whatever.


Who even needs a how or who anyhow? This is the USA! We had a story summing up EVERYTHING minutes after the attack from news reporters and eyewitnesses. I'm sure this had no effect what so ever on our loyal politicians and the genuises who created the 911 Commission and NIST reports.

Hell, 19 people with boxcutters orginating from a cave was enough for the invasion of 2 countries for me. Not an overreaction at all! Three steel structures over 15 stories suffering total collapse due to fire for the first time, completely normal, just go ask anyone besides NIST.

Way to go you nonconspiratory, level headed patriots. I don't know what we all would have done without you! On your behalf i'm throwing away all my guns and i'm never going to consider joining a militia. Too many terrorists and conspiracy theorists out there to begin with.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by MightyAl
The POINT is NOT HOW it happened, but rather WHO was involved with the attacks.


I clicked on this thread when I saw the title because I have been very concerned that the 9/11 truth movement is embroiling itself in an impossible scientific debate about technologies.





7. Tests have shown that cell-phone calls cannot be made at altitudes over 4000 to 8000 feet, as cell towers are located on the ground. Commercial airplanes fly at 30,000 feet and above. No passenger could have successfully placed a call for help by cell phone from an airborne plane on 9/11, as reported.




[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]


Wow. I had a lady threaten to start yelling because I was talking on my cell phone mid flight. We were at an altitude of just over 5k feet.

The post did say impossible from 4,000 to 8,000 feet so your 5000 feet story doesn't really change anything as you are well within the leeway of cell phone usage while in the air.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miracle Man

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by MightyAl
The POINT is NOT HOW it happened, but rather WHO was involved with the attacks.


I clicked on this thread when I saw the title because I have been very concerned that the 9/11 truth movement is embroiling itself in an impossible scientific debate about technologies.





7. Tests have shown that cell-phone calls cannot be made at altitudes over 4000 to 8000 feet, as cell towers are located on the ground. Commercial airplanes fly at 30,000 feet and above. No passenger could have successfully placed a call for help by cell phone from an airborne plane on 9/11, as reported.




[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 5/17/2010 by Mary Rose]


Wow. I had a lady threaten to start yelling because I was talking on my cell phone mid flight. We were at an altitude of just over 5k feet.


The post did say impossible from 4,000 to 8,000 feet so your 5000 feet story doesn't really change anything as you are well within the leeway of cell phone usage while in the air.

Good thing I included a source! You also bring up a good point. I've used my cell phone on flights more than once. I remember a flight from Atlanta to LA. I know I used my phone but I didn't remember the altitude.

SOURCE:
atcmonitor.com...

Here we will discuss an example flight profile of an aircraft traveling from Atlanta, GA (ATL) to Los Angeles, CA (LAX).
2) En route cruising altitude (e.g. 38,000 feet)

I was making calls on that flight too! Two seperate sources debunking the claims " cell-phone calls cannot be made at altitudes over 4000 to 8000 feet"



[edit on 17-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Miracle Man
 


Most calls from 9/11 aircraft were made via back of seat airfones.

Do you subsribe to the view that all the closest relatives called were totally fooled by agents voice morphing ? Even the woman who told her sister the combination to her safe and those who only booked on their flights last-minute ?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Miracle Man
 


Most calls from 9/11 aircraft were made via back of seat airfones.

Do you subsribe to the view that all the closest relatives called were totally fooled by agents voice morphing ? Even the woman who told her sister the combination to her safe and those who only booked on their flights last-minute ?


You read that website as previously listed and then blindly believe whatever information is told to you.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


What does it matter what I believe. I only stated what has been said. One poster said between 4 or 8 thousand and another poster was confused by it.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Miracle Man
 


Most calls from 9/11 aircraft were made via back of seat airfones.

Do you subsribe to the view that all the closest relatives called were totally fooled by agents voice morphing ? Even the woman who told her sister the combination to her safe and those who only booked on their flights last-minute ?


You read that website as previously listed and then blindly believe whatever information is told to you.


That is an arrogant and ignorant observation. The alleged fake calls have been debated to death on here. Why don't you have a read and my posts therein ?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

www.youtube.com...

Airplane fuel burns hot enough to weaken steel.


Iamcpc,

What happened to your advice in your thread "Researching advice"?

From the thread:


When researching the 9/11 WTC collapse I have some advice.

Don't use youtube as a source.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
In the youtube video where they are testing if jet-fuel can get hot enough to weaken steal I heard them say that first the fuel has to vaporise or it won't burn. I think the planes that struck the towers did not give the fuel allot of time to vaporise at all.. so what does this test show? (@ 3:18)


[edit on 17-5-2010 by AquaTim84]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


iamcpc, i wouldn't list them examples of steel structures as unbiased examples. Many of them examples, if any, represent the the kind of steel structures or the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

NIST even states that these towers were the first steel structures over 15 floors that suffered a total collapse due to fire. That list you have is something that copy/pasted from an other website and many of them are from a wiki page.

Just as an example, the one that mentions the toy factory doesn't include the part about saying that it was poorly designed and built.(in all fairness, it doesn't show how it was poorly designed or built either) Also, this was a manufacturing plant that had a total different make-up of materials on the inside. I also bevlieve it wasn't a full collapse. Two of these examples were also theaters.

I went over most of these and the NIST Report the last time you posted these in another thread, but didn't reply back. I don't have links from the other day, but i'm sure if you look at these closer you will see where i'm coming from even if you don't agree. I did post a link from a survey that FPE did for NIST that showed 22, but only 2 came close to the critera of the WTC's and neither of these were over 15 floors and suffered a full collapse.(this is off the top of my head)

[edit on 17-5-2010 by curious_soul]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by curious_soul

NIST even states that these towers were the first steel structures over 15 floors that suffered a total collapse due to fire.


Why do we always see dishonest arguments like this posted everywhere? The buildings did not collapse "due to fire". It was also because of the planes crashing into them and flaming debris that tore off the face of bldg 7. Funny how the very people who claim we were lied to about 911 are spreading their own dishonest propaganda around.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by iamcpc

www.youtube.com...

Airplane fuel burns hot enough to weaken steel.


Iamcpc,

What happened to your advice in your thread "Researching advice"?

From the thread:


When researching the 9/11 WTC collapse I have some advice.

Don't use youtube as a source.


Well I was going to use the discovery channel as my source. Unfortunately I was not able to find the clip on the discovery channel website to link to.

I'm glad you read my post giving specific examples as to why you should not use 911conspiracytheories.com or debunking911.com sites as a source of information because often times they are outright untrue or are filled with unexpert opinion or quotes taken out of context. Hence you cite a 911conspiracytheory.com website as a source and it's debunked by neutral (non-truther/non-debunker) sources or websites. (Like my tivo box recording of the show on discovery channel)


Allow me to officially give another source for the evidence supporting the theory that fire can weaken steel:

Source: my tivo box/ The discovery channel.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

"Forging uses heat to bring the material to a malleable state. The material is then hammered to shape, typically using hammer and anvil together with specialized set and fuller tools depending on the particular technique."

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

"Heating steel to a "forging heat" allows bending as if was hard plasticine"





It's like people actually believe that fire does not weaken steel. How on earth did we ever make iron swords and armor in the middle ages? Thermite? Explosives? Oh yeah they had these things called forges and anvils and hammers. Oh yeah they had these magicians called blacksmiths who were able to, by some method of sorcery, use fire to weaken steel!



[edit on 17-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AquaTim84
In the youtube video where they are testing if jet-fuel can get hot enough to weaken steal I heard them say that first the fuel has to vaporise or it won't burn. I think the planes that struck the towers did not give the fuel allot of time to vaporise at all.. so what does this test show? (@ 3:18)


[edit on 17-5-2010 by AquaTim84]


2 things:

1- that truthers are dead wrong when they say that a jet fuel fire couldn't weaken steel

2- and that since they have repeatedly said that temps of a jet fuel fire would be less than an office fire, and that they were miserably wrong about the jet fuel fails steel belief, then their claims that an office fire couldn't weaken steel to fail is miserably wrong x 2.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

Allow me to officially give another source for the evidence supporting the theory that fire can weaken steel:



Why the all these Mickey Mouse sources?

Go to a fire engineering firm and get their free to download pdf's and learn something REAL, rather than a series of singular events.

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by iamcpc

Allow me to officially give another source for the evidence supporting the theory that fire can weaken steel:



Why the all these Mickey Mouse sources?

Go to a fire engineering firm and get their free to download pdf's and learn something REAL, rather than a series of singular events.

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...


1. those more advanced sources take longer to cite.
2. Those more advanced sources are less likely to be read.
3. Those more advanced sources are less likely to be understood.
4. Someone does not have to be able to read to be able to see that fire can weaken steel.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
The towers came down in free-fall.

They looked like they were coming down by controlled demolition.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by curious_soul

NIST even states that these towers were the first steel structures over 15 floors that suffered a total collapse due to fire.


Why do we always see dishonest arguments like this posted everywhere? The buildings did not collapse "due to fire". It was also because of the planes crashing into them and flaming debris that tore off the face of bldg 7. Funny how the very people who claim we were lied to about 911 are spreading their own dishonest propaganda around.


Please, this was a "notation" almost word for word when describing the word COLLAPSE in one of their reports. It was "notation 1 on the word collapse" and will find the exact statement if it makes you feel any better.

Spreading disinfo? Really, i was addressing iampc and the buildings he listed as comparisons to the WTC buildings and their collapses.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join