Pick Your 2 Most Glaring Points of Questions For 9/11?

page: 1
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I was thinking about this the other day there are so many but for me these are the two.

1) The South Tower collapsing first and so early after being hit.

After burning for 56 minutes, the South Tower (2) collapsed, followed a half-hour later by the North Tower (1)


Firemen get up there and say they can knock down minimal fires with two lines. There is woman standing in the spot where the plane crashed, if the fire was so bad she could not be there and live. The South tower early collapse is very suspicious.


2) WTC7 collapse even though it was never hit by a plane and fell the exact same way the other two building did.
Building What?

What are your two top points for suspicious of the the event of 9/11?
edit on 14-11-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
There were scores of people reporting that the lobby of WTC has been bombed. Sometime before the first plane hit. What genius discounted this from the possible reason for collapse of the structure ?

Flight 77, the one which went down in Pennsylvania was reported on air, where the passengers were calling their family. Next thing you hear, it's down.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


1) The Pentagon, where did the 6ish ton engines go

2) Building Codes.

#2 may not seem relevent, but we are being told that fire brought those buildings down. If that is true then does this not point to a glaring weakness in the construction techniques of every skyscrapper that has been built? Think about it, although there was large amounts of jet fuel to start/kickstart the blazes, the events of that day show that something as simple as a fire can demolish any building built out of steel.

Personally I think this is a back door to showing that the OS is false. No attempt has been made to ensure that the public is safe in these buildings in the event of a catastrophic fire, even though we have such a blatant example of how frail these structures supposedly are.

No engineering studies, no retro fits, nothing.

Not even a review of how effective sprinkler systems are.

Mundane? Un-inflammatory? Sure, but Al Capone was brought down due to tax evasion, not for being a mobster.

You would think that even without a government mandate insurance companies would want this done.

Just another one-of-a-kind 9/11 occurance.
edit on 14-11-2010 by {davinci} because: Content



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
1-bbc reporting the wts-7 collapse before it did in fact collapse
2-molten metal beneath wreckage from buildings that were unaffected by planes/fire


and i want some extra credit =)

3-ppl freeeeaked out about watergate bc a few offices were tapped and it became a terrible scandal, but almost immediately after 9/11 the country is wired with millions of bugs, and nobody does a double take (rlly?)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
1) The numerous security cameras focused on the pentagon and the government has never released a clear photo of the plane that struck the Pentagon.

2). The governments refusal to answer legitimate questions from engineers, architects, the relatives of victims of 9/11 and 9/11 for truth. What are they hiding?

I have a lot more, but you only asked for (2).



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
I was thinking about this the other day there are so many but for me these are the two.

1) The South Tower collapsing first and so early after being hit.

After burning for 56 minutes, the South Tower (2) collapsed, followed a half-hour later by the North Tower (1)


Firemen get up there and say they can knock down minimal fires with two lines. There is woman standing in the spot where the plane crashed, if the fire was so bad she could not be there and live. The South tower early collapse is very suspicious.


2) WTC7 collapse even though it was never hit by a plane and fell the exact same way the other two building did.
Building What?

What are your two top points for suspicious of the the event of 9/11?
edit on 14-11-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


I have lots of questions like everyone else, but I really only have one for this moment in time. What woman standing where the plane crashed? I have never heard nor seen that. Can you point me in a direction for that?



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Pity it`s just two but:

1) Why did NORAD pilots ( those who were not on the war game exercise) sit back and watch the events in New York ?
RAF pilots in WW2 jumped in their planes and chased the Germans.

2) How did the towers collapse at the rate of 10 floors per second ?
It`s like watching a 20 storie building collapse in 2 seconds !



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
building 7! early reports and collapse

and
countless symbolic/ numerical anomalies just to much hear oh and the friodien*** slips from sliverstien and gulliany and bush
please forgive my spelling



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
1. WTC7 is my biggest question - how/why. Heard an interesting theory that Flight 93 was headed there.

2. How the novice hijackers who could barely fly Cessna's were able to do things with planes that experienced airplane pilots in simulators can't do.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
The sad thing is, the answer to the majority of those questions are indeed out there, if people could be bothered to look for them


Personally, I'd love to see the answer to these two questions:
1) After the 9/11 attacks, was it legal for Donald Rumsfeld to tell his aides to look for an Iraqi connection which could be used to hit Saddam Hussein?

2) Was Dick Cheney on legal safe ground when he gave clearance to shoot down any potential hostile civilian aircraft?



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Pentagon

&

WTC 7

edit on 14-11-2010 by Black_Fox because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
WTC 7 was collateral damage along with WTC's 3, 4, 5, & 6.

For the North Tower to have hit it with debris, starting fires and cutting off the water supply, could not have been factored in as part of a plan.

The idea that the perps just planned to cd it without any disguise is simply insane.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


This happened in another thread, defenders of the OS have terrible comprehension skills to the point where ATS should question their input
Just some areas, the spiral attack of the Pentagon with the 270 degree turn dropping many thousand feet in 3 minutes, plus lightpoles and planted evidence on the lawn, speed and the way the towers collapsed, anthrax, Enron, stocks and shares on companies and Bush gave evidence in secret without oath, but the two for me is,

1 what should have happened in a fire/plane induced collapse, 2 what did happen.

The two things are very different, good idea for a thread

Peace



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by onehuman
 





I have lots of questions like everyone else, but I really only have one for this moment in time. What woman standing where the plane crashed? I have never heard nor seen that. Can you point me in a direction for that?


Edna Cintron

WOW in researching this picture I found something I had never seen before another person, a man this time.

Check it out in the top left corner he has no shirt on. Edna is in the bottom right corner.
Anybody know the name of the man?

edit on 14-11-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


The reason they have sought out the openings is for the fresh air!! YES, the fires were hot...INSIDE, hence they fled as far as they could.

This is yet another of those false premises that are so easy to understand, once you actually research.

Someone, one of you "truthers" be bold and examine the side of the Tower where that image is represented, and the direction of the wind that morning. Answers are there.....OR, just remain a self-licking ice cream cone.
edit on 14 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


+5 more 
posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


And heat burns human flesh at what temperature? Humans don't do well near very high heat.
If you have ever been close to an industrial fire you would know that even a basic fire can incapacitate a human with no protective gear. I was 500 feet from industrial fire once, the heat was insane.

The heat we are talking about to soften steel girders is hundreds of degrees higher than any human could handle in any proximity for any length of time without the proper protective gear.

If it was so hot from fire as to soften massive steel girders those people would never even be around.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by necromanser
 



Flight 77, the one which went down in Pennsylvania


Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon . Flight 93 crashed in Pa.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by onehuman
I have lots of questions like everyone else, but I really only have one for this moment in time. What woman standing where the plane crashed? I have never heard nor seen that. Can you point me in a direction for that?


Her name was Edna Cintron, a billing administrator's assistant at Marsh McClennan in WTC 1, and she was identified as the woman shown trapped in the impact area of AA11. The truthers are attempting to misrepresent this into appearing as if there were few if any fires in the towers.

What I find absolutely disgusting is that the truthers always push the STOP button at the part of her history where she had to jump to her death to get away from those very fires. No rational person would willingly jump to their deaths unless it was the less of the two evils- jump and hope for a miracle from god that they'll survive, or burn alive and in horrible agony. It's a situation I wouldn't wish on anyone.

The way the truthers are raping the tragedy of Edna Cintron is literally dancing in the blood of a victim of 9/11 for their sick conspiracy claims and I find this offensive and self serving, not to mention ghoulish. It's one thing to think it's funny to accuse everyone and their hampster of being secret gov't agents, but THIS is crossing the line IMHO.
edit on 14-11-2010 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I agree, when truthers get so fervent about victims being " in on it ", victims being " non-existent ", their families being " paid off " it is utterly sickening.

Get some evidence if you are so hell-bent on a conspiracy but leave the victims alone.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Sure.

1 - Collapse of WTC 7.

2 - Collapse of WTC 7.


If you asked for 10 glaring points, #'s 3 - 10 would be the same.

I am not a "truther", but only an idiot would believe this building collapsed on it's own.

I am not an idiot and refuse to be treated as one.





top topics
 
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join