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.

 

9/11 OS Challenge..

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Segador

Where does it say that the steel melted in the NIST report?


It doesn't. Not anywhere. At all. Why then are people cricizing the NIST report over at "fires can't melt steel" when noone ever said the fires melted the steel to begin with?


Sorry, "Dave," I think Segador is referencing the well-established fact that WTC steel was melted. FEMA even reported it in appendix C of their report. So if it's not in the NIST report then that's about all you need to know about how thorough they actually were. We could take it further, and show that they never tested their main hypothesis, and all of that, but a whitewash is a whitewash and once you've established they weren't really investigating anything then there is little point rehashing the point over and over as has been done for years already.


I want evidence that the steel was melted then, show me the evidence.




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
It's a shame I'm in a different time zone than most of the posters here,
but then it wouldn't have made that much difference because 90% of the replies were back to the normal efforts of name calling etc that's prolific in 9/11 threads.

I know it will take time to put a good thread together but thats fine.
Its been 9 years so a few days/weeks doesn't matter.

Also a good idea from one poster to cut it into sections , starting with flight 93.

I was amazed to read one post stating "but you already have the reports"
Obviously that poster didn't bother to read the whole OP..

I dont really want to see replies. The idea is hopefully to see new threads from the OS side for a change.
Who knows, you may even convert some "truthers" to the OS version with a credible thread showing the facts backed up with credible evidence.
Isn't that the sole purpose of the "believers" ??


edit on 17-9-2010 by CynicalM because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
This will end up like all other threads. Truthers can not dispute any of the evidence I put forth on the previous page. It's a shame, really.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Thanks for that post Six Sigma..

Its the type of thing I was asking for but you should post it as a new thread.

It deserves its own replies. It will be lost in this thread..



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by CynicalM
 


It's been in many threads here. Truthers ignore it. Most shy away from flight 93 threads as soon as the phone calls are mentioned.

Good idea with the thread though.




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Segador
I want evidence that the steel was melted then, show me the evidence.


I just said FEMA, appendix C of their report. Did you not read my post?

I have posted it hundreds of times on these forums. I guess you want to be spoon-fed.

You know how to use Google, right?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by CynicalM
 

It's been in many threads here. Truthers ignore it. Most shy away from flight 93 threads as soon as the phone calls are mentioned.

Ever check what kind of cell phone signal you can get in a plane above 4-5,000 feet?

I have. Many times, from many cities. Even with the explosion in cell towers 9 years later, give it a try sometime.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
This will end up like all other threads. Truthers can not dispute any of the evidence I put forth on the previous page. It's a shame, really.



www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

www.AE911truth.org...

www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org...

firefightersfor911truth.org...

e-mail your evidence to them. I bet they all laugh.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Ever check what kind of cell phone signal you can get in a plane above 4-5,000 feet?

I have. Many times, from many cities. Even with the explosion in cell towers 9 years later, give it a try sometime.


Do you constantly skip facts? You claimed to exponent that you are one of the best? I read that...then read this post from you. Yes I have have made calls from my cell phones on a plane. Some went through...some did not. Some were dropped some were not.

That's not the issue. You have failed to realize that only two of the 30+ phone calls were called via cell phone. If you even dug a little deeper, you would realize that those two calls. (Cee Lyles and Edward Felt) both made their calls when the planes altitude was at 5K feet.

So, are you going to subscribe to David Ray Griffins "Fake Phone Call" rubbish? Voice Morphing?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53


www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

www.AE911truth.org...

www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org...

firefightersfor911truth.org...

e-mail your evidence to them. I bet they all laugh.



Been to all the sites. Can you please point out where they say that flight 93 didn't crash in shanksville along with evidence? I have yet to find anything.

Thank you!



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 




I say that is the biggest freudian slip I have ever witnessed.

You ever heard the definition of a freudian slip?

freudian slip: n.
A verbal mistake that is thought to reveal a repressed belief, thought, or emotion.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53


I say that is the biggest freudian slip I have ever witnessed.

You ever heard the definition of a freudian slip?

freudian slip: n.
A verbal mistake that is thought to reveal a repressed belief, thought, or emotion.


I am well aware of what a Freudian slip is. We have watched this video several times as it has been posted here several times.

Are you planning on answering the 10 facts I posted regarding flight 93? Are you planning on supplying any evidence fromthe several websites you posted?

Thank you!


edit on 18-9-2010 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Here are some examples of a true boeing crashes:

www.iasa.com.au...

www.aviationexplorer.com...

www.thefullwiki.org...

There will always be some part of the plane left behind.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


" Ever check what kind of cell phone signal you can get in a plane above 4-5,000 feet? "


Ever check out the information that has been posted in a thread , before just blindly defending your position ?

If so , you would have noticed from the call log , on the first page of this thread , that the two calls from cell phones were made from 5,000 feet or below . You would also have noticed that the overwhelming majority of the calls were made from the Airphones .



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Here are some examples of a true boeing crashes:

www.iasa.com.au...

www.aviationexplorer.com...

www.thefullwiki.org...

There will always be some part of the plane left behind.



You are dodging once again as you have failed to refute ANYTHING. You post links that offer nothing!

Did you actually READ any of the investigations?

The Gerona Crash - The plane was trying to LAND. Not a soul was lost. Flight 90 - hit a bridge on take off during a thunder storm.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Even if the Flight 93 story is as the trusters of the OS (in its entirety, with NO exceptions) claim, there's still more than plenty about 9/11 that stinks worse than a ton of rotten fish - enough to warrant a REAL, completely unassociated-with-government investigation. The trusters SHOULD be secure enough in their convictions to gladly support an unbiased enough INDEPENDENT investigation. What's their/your problem with that?

How is it that EVERY scientific conclusion in history requires duplication, repeatability, to be established as fact EXCEPT for flimsy, government-driven reports like the 9/11 Commision, NIST and, going way back, nonsense like the Warren Commission's "magic bullet" theory (authored by Arlen Specter)? It's because there's nothing TRULY scientific about such reports. There are PHYSICALLY unprecedented, never DUPLICATED events that happened on 9/11 (such as, probably most obviously, the nearly free fall demolition of WTC 7), and those events somehow don't strike the blind faithers as even slightly strange, suspicious.

Sometimes I think the world as we know it is more like a computer simulation than real life. The mental-emotional programming is exactly THAT hardcore robotic.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
Even if the Flight 93 story is as the trusters of the OS (in its entirety, with NO exceptions) claim


I don't think anyone claims to know the the entire story. What we do know is that the United States government was not the driving force! It was not "An Inside Job." If all the information about Flight 93 is accurate, then you have to concede that it was not an inside job. Unless, you want to believe that the terrorists on Flight 93 decided that they would work with the United States in attacking them? "Hey Bush, we are going to crash our plane into the Capitol Building... you can do what you want in New York and at the Pentagon! Deal?"



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalM
Obviously (by your posts) you have all researched extensively so I'd expect great detail and credible links to prove all points.

What you need to do is "prove" these highjackers boarded these planes and then crashed them in the 4 locations.

Then, if anyone accepts the challenge. the "truthers" can attempt to debunk...


Main problem is that the very concept of proof is really distorted on this board. Link to a video/website can be considered "proof". And those videos/websites could be created by anyone who *sounds credible* and the text *sounds scientific*. That goes to both "truthers" and debunkers. Link is considered credible way too easily.

You say "truthers can go and try to debunk", so to you it is not about finding what really happened, but a links/arguments battle "truthers vs official story". You won't change your mind no matter what the official story tells you. You will never support the official story. Can't debate with people like you. Almost the same as to say god doesnt exist to a believer.

Also fallacy reigns here. en.wikipedia.org...

So. I believe many people are not keen to go down this road. To actually start arguing what really happened 9/11. The culture of forum is so pro conspiracy. But some will try, again.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


In court burden of proof is on the "claimer" someone who "claimed" XXX happened. In this case the OS "claims" 19 hijackers flew airliners into buildings collapsing three of them in NYC and slightly damaging another in Washington.

Now THAT is a claim of epic proportions. What he is asking is for someone who knows their stuff to prove those claims.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one
What he is asking is for someone who knows their stuff to prove those claims.


You can start with my post on page one regarding flight 93. Please feel free to look at only a small portion of the evidence. Most of which was presented and accepted in a court of law.

Thank you!



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join