Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

One million New Yorkers to see Building 7 fall (AE911truth)

page: 2
41
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

LOL! I agree with you, and that is why the real conspiracies are so effective. Without evidence of the truth, we just have a million theories and sometimes they are conflicting theories and we spend all of our time debunking one another while the guilty slip away.


So you're saying that when it's not a conspiracy, it only means it really IS a conspiracy?


As for the Pentagon, I have never heard of a witness that saw it hit? I have seen many witnesses that saw a low plane flyover, but never one that actually saw it hit.


Here's a quote from the link I posted:

"Steve Anderson: I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke. "

So why can't we accept Steve Anderson's eyewitness account? Do you believe he's a disinformation agent, like the no-planers and the AE911TRUTH people say you are?




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





I'm asking that if you're going to do that, then why not educate them on the other material the 9/11 truthers subscribe to, like "no planes", "lasers from outer space", and "secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists".


Yes, and I wonder where the path leading to the source of these fringe theories would lead? My guess is right to the front doors of one of our U.S. government agencies. Then they have people like you out there to create the illusion that the these theories are widely believed among the majority of those involved in the "truth movement."

Wow, This is like a playing a worn out old record.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Unscathed Lawn in front of Pentagon

I won't dispute his account, but I will let the photos do it. Where did the wing dig in?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Really, a handfull of mercenaries led by Dick Cheyney? How well do you think that is going to sell? A handfull of guys manged to shoot down a passenger plane, plant and initiate explosives in two of the worlds largest buildings, hijack a plane and dispose of all of its occupants, launch a missile at the Pentagon and also plant tons of ariplane parts and bodies all at the same time? Even Superman had his limits. If I can see that so is everyone else that is the target of the subject campaign.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 



quote 'billions of people have seen all the video there is to see of the collapse' end quote. www.internetworldstats.com... number of people globally with access to the internet 1,966,514,816


Uh, I think a few people may have seen it on TV too. Just sayin'.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



How is this not on topic? You're goign to start a poster campaign to "educate" New Yorkers on material they dont know about I.E. the WTC 7 collapse. I'm asking that if you're going to do that, then why not educate them on the other material the 9/11 truthers subscribe to, like "no planes", "lasers from outer space", and "secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists".

In short, who gets to decide what information you're going to use to "educate" New Yorkers with? You want to tell them about the collapse of WTC 7 but you don't want to tell them it was after it had been smashed up from tons of falling WTC 1 debris, so it's blatantly obvious you're consciously picking and choosing what information you're releasing.


IMO, the bolded sentence is incredibly out of line.


Slippery Slope

This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not consistent or tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted. But moderate positions do not necessarily lead down the slippery slope to the extreme.



Straw Man

Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.



The Moving Goalpost

A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists.



Ad hominem

An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.


Lumping 'truthers' into one big pile saying we 'all subscribe' to crazy things... you make the truth movement sound like a cult.(which is probably exactly in line with your opinion of the TM)

If you got challenged in public to a debate on this issue by an engineer or an architect or a physicist... what would you do?

Think about it.

fallacies



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
its just to bad a bunch of nut jobs flew planes into buildings and you guys cant accept the fact and must make a conspiracie out of it. whats the motive for the goverment to take the buildings down? to go to war? whats the motive to go to war? whats in it for us? oil? notice how oil prices have not been going down if that was the case. get over it. tehy prob took building 7 down because it was not safe. Ever think of that.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


A handful are responsible for it.

"If" they shot down the Shanksville plane, it could have been our own airforce, but it wouldn't have been a conspiracy, it would have been a direct order according to the circumstances at the time.

"If" a missile hit the Pentagon, it could have been from an enemy ship or sub, it could have been from a friendly ship or sub with wrong coordinates, or it could have been from a shoulder fired individual rocket. Still, it would not have taken 100's of people to accomplish.

"If" they preplanted explosives in the WTC, it would have been a small team of experts, and many have reported just such a team in the building weeks before the attack.

I am not purporting my theory as the truth, but I am saying that it did not take 100's of people in a giant conspiracy to pull it off. They only had to do the planning and get the ball rolling, everything else happened with slight influences here and there by Cheney. He was the main man that day. He was the guy in charge of Norad. He was the guy on the phone to W. He was the guy with the most to gain. He was the guy with the money and connections to merc groups.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


its hard for me to accept the fact that channy did this to make a buck. he's is already rich. why risk that and kill 3,000+ americans? If that was the case wouldent you think the Demecrate party would be looking into this to place there final blow to the republican party? there is just no motive for me to belive this.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
its just to bad a bunch of nut jobs flew planes into buildings and you guys cant accept the fact and must make a conspiracie out of it. whats the motive for the goverment to take the buildings down? to go to war? whats the motive to go to war? whats in it for us? oil? notice how oil prices have not been going down if that was the case. get over it. tehy prob took building 7 down because it was not safe. Ever think of that.


Really? Like I said before, I have more pilot training than any of the supposed pilots that day, and I can't fly that plane into those targets at those speeds.

The crash-resistant, engineered black boxes with homing beacons were not recovered, but the paper passports of the supposed hijackers were?

Entire engine assemblies were vaporized, but pot-metal box cutters were recovered?

The highest structural and fire-rated building in the nation was brought down in a few hours by a kerosene fire, but buildings all across the nation built to much lower standards and subjected to much hotter chemical fires for longer periods of time are still standing?

The experts on the scene, the firemen, deemed it safe, and rushed in headlong to go up the stairwells of the tallest building in the nation, but in many other instances they won't go into smaller buildings, because they think a building is too unstable?

The UK news reported that bldg 7 had fallen, even while it was still visible in the background? Where do you suppose they got that information?

The President gets word that his country is under attack, and he decides to finish reading the kids book that he is on before responding?

Congresspeople reporting phone calls from their wives, and the FBI proving that it was impossible? Why lie?

I don't know which nutty theory is the most accurate, but I know the Official Story is the nuttiest one of all!!



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


its hard for me to accept the fact that channy did this to make a buck. he's is already rich. why risk that and kill 3,000+ americans? If that was the case wouldent you think the Demecrate party would be looking into this to place there final blow to the republican party? there is just no motive for me to belive this.


Its hard for me to fathom a reason as well, but why does Warren Buffett still work as hard as he does? Why do musicians still travel and work hard and sacrifice their families when they are sitting on millions of dollars already? Why does anybody aspire to the upper levels of politics when we see how cruel a game that it is? Why does China worry about Taiwan so much? They don't need it, and it isn't a threat to them.

I doubt that there is a clear answer, and I also doubt that money is the motive. It could have been a message, it could have been a power struggle, it could have been a tit for tat compromise with some other entity. Maybe it was a political move that was owed to the struggling developer of that real estate? Maybe it really was a spark to get into Afghan, Iraq, and Iran? Maybe it was a favor for Israel?

If I had the answer to your question, I would have the answers to the whole thing and I could go through ATS closing down thread after thread!



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I think this is why the campaign will fail. If the laundry list of disparate facts and half truths you just posted is integrated into the campaign rational people are going to shrug it off and the only question is going to be "where the hell did they get $500,000"?

The stuff you just bulleted is the shaky foundation of the truth movement. No one believes that engines "vaporized", but aren't so paranoid that they need to see 8 1/2 x 11 glossy photos of the remains in order to believe that they did not, etc.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 



its just to bad a bunch of nut jobs flew planes into buildings and you guys cant accept the fact and must make a conspiracie out of it. whats the motive for the goverment to take the buildings down? to go to war? whats the motive to go to war? whats in it for us? oil? notice how oil prices have not been going down if that was the case. get over it. tehy prob took building 7 down because it was not safe. Ever think of that.


I accepted that fact until I saw WTC 7 come down. I did not know there was a third tower until fall of 2008 - yet I watched the first two towers come down in school as my teacher sobbed.

Have you ever taken a physics class? I recommend it.

Are you new to ATS? There is all kinds of info on your questions that just might change your mind in the future...


The Oil market is a little bit more complicated then that... Low prices do not necessarily benefit 'the elite'.

I also recommend:








posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Great posts.


Some very well formed questions and arguments. Starred.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I think this is why the campaign will fail. If the laundry list of disparate facts and half truths you just posted is integrated into the campaign rational people are going to shrug it off and the only question is going to be "where the hell did they get $500,000"?

The stuff you just bulleted is the shaky foundation of the truth movement. No one believes that engines "vaporized", but aren't so paranoid that they need to see 8 1/2 x 11 glossy photos of the remains in order to believe that they did not, etc.


What did I post that was "half-truth?"

THere are whole threads dedicated to the idea that a kerosene fire could not have "plasticized" that steel in that time. I have posted the ANSI fire ratings, the construction of the steel beams, and the conditions of the fire. It was impossible.

We've all seen the photos of the passport and box cutter. So why is it asking too much to expect the black boxes?

Please elaborate on where my paranoia and half-truths have said or asked for anything other than basic information.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Sorry Hooper, good point, I got that one wrong, I would still argue that not many people saw 7 on TV, I have never done so but this is just my logic and I'm always quick to point out where I am wrong,

Peace



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


" Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground , it only changes the relative amount of lift and drag that a wing will generate at a given speed and angle of attack ... this effect actually DECREASES with speed since induced drag has increasingly less influence on an aircraft the faster it flies ." (emphasis mine)

Don't shoot me , I'm only the messenger .

And before you ridicule and dismiss this as baloney , I would check out this guys credentials first .

www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


I've never been close to the ground at high speed, but I know at lower speeds it definitely creates "float." As you get closer to the ground your rate of descent arrests, and you never touchdown where you expect you will touchdown.

The amount of float is proportional to the wingspan of the aircraft, so I would expect a large airliner would feel it more significantly than a small plane.

Landing a plane is by far the hardest part of a flight. Doing it at low speed is difficult enough. Doing it at high speed with obstacles around you in an unfamiliar setting without the clear markings of a runway would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. M

aybe these guys were just prodigy pilots, but I can tell you for certain that no amount of Microsoft Flight Sim, and basic private pilot training in a little Cessna would prepare you for flying a passenger aircraft at high speed into a small target when you only get one shot at it! No way!



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Here is an explanation of the "float" that is experience by pilots. I know from experience that this effect can be dramatic and change your trajectory by 100's of feet even at a low speed. At a higher speed, you are covering more ground, so even a small effect would make a drastic impact on where you touchdown.


The most significant of these effects is known as the Wing In Ground (WIG) effect, which refers to the reduction in drag experienced by an aircraft as it approaches a height approximately equal to the aircraft's wingspan above ground or other level surface, such as the sea. The effect increases as the wing descends closer to the ground, with the most significant effects occurring at an altitude of one half the wingspan. It can present a hazard for inexperienced pilots who are not accustomed to correcting for it on their approach to landing,


This second quote goes against my own argument, but I thought I would include it anyway. It states that the effect is less dramatic in larger more complex aircraft. I think a passenger airliner would qualify as larger and more complex!


The Wing In Ground effect, often described as a 'cushion', is thought to be an increase in air pressure which occurs below a wing when it gets close to the ground. The effect begins to be noticeable when the aircraft's altitude is within 1–1.5 times the length of its own wingspan and, when the altitude is within about half the wing chord, the effect can increase lift by as much as 10%.[citation needed] Due to the effect of spoilers and high wing loading, this effect is only dramatically noticed in smaller, less complex aircraft, usually weighing less than 12,500 lbs (5,670 kg).[citation needed] Ground effect is a major factor in aircraft "floating" down the runway, and is the reason that low-wing aircraft have a tendency to float more than the high-wing varieties.[citation needed]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


" One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. "

www.aerospaceweb.org...

[edit on 12-8-2010 by okbmd]





new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join