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

The buildings could not collapse into thier own footprints through all that resistance at free fall speed without explosives to clear the way below. This trumps all other arguments. It defies the law of physics and cannot be explained any other way proving the buildings were purposely demoed.

1. WTC 7
a. Not hit by a plane
b. BBC reported it's demise a priori (a la LHO arrest in JFK case reported overseas before the fact)
c. WTC 7 in conjunction with towers 1 & 2 fits the footprint of the 3 pyramids of Giza - hmmmm.
2. Pentagon
a. Cheney in Charge ("yes the orders still stand.....!")
b. No sign of plane hitting bldg just small hole in bldg.
c. Lots of questions re "flight path" and no "unaltered" release of video coverage.

i have two questions that seriously puzzle me, and i do not usually touch this subject, because i find it to be a mixture of repeated errors, and just believers and non believers battling it out and trying to win an argument regardless of the facts or truth.

but my two questions that make me think hmmm...

1) just how the hell did that bandana that was inside the plane that crashed in shanksville survive intact and with no marks on it but the plane was destroyed into little pieces? and how did they link it to a terrorist to use it as evidence?

and my second question is.

2) why did nobody fight before they hijacked the plane if all they had were box cutters? we may never know, but it does puzzle me, humans are able to work out which is a greater danger, attacking somebody with a knife or letting terrorist take you hostage, and gain control of the plane. i just do not understand why no fight was put up before they took control of any plane, are there really no weapons on a plane that can be used in self defense?

no fire axe? no fire extinguishers? nothing at all?

Originally posted by hawkiye
The buildings could not collapse into thier own footprints

None of the buildings collapsed into their own footprint, we have

truther lie 1

through all that resistance at free fall speed

WTC 1 & 2 did not fall at free fall speed, and WTC 7 only for a short time, so we get

Truther lie 2

without explosives

There is zero evidence explosives were used, so

Truther lie 3

It defies the law of physics

No it does not, so

Truther lie 4

and cannot be explained any other way

Yes it can, and has been so again

Truther lie 5

proving the buildings were purposely demoed.

not proven at all, so we have

Truther lie 6

Originally posted by lifeform11
i have two questions that seriously puzzle me, and i do not usually touch this subject, because i find it to be a mixture of repeated errors, and just believers and non believers battling it out and trying to win an argument regardless of the facts or truth.

but my two questions that make me think hmmm...

1) just how the hell did that bandana that was inside the plane that crashed in shanksville survive intact and with no marks on it but the plane was destroyed into little pieces? and how did they link it to a terrorist to use it as evidence?

and my second question is.

2) why did nobody fight before they hijacked the plane if all they had were box cutters? we may never know, but it does puzzle me, humans are able to work out which is a greater danger, attacking somebody with a knife or letting terrorist take you hostage, and gain control of the plane. i just do not understand why no fight was put up before they took control of any plane, are there really no weapons on a plane that can be used in self defense?

no fire axe? no fire extinguishers? nothing at all?

edit on 7-12-2010 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)

I don't know about you, but the majority of people are not like action movie heroes. When someone gets killed in front of them (as I remember reading from a transcript of one of the calls out from one of the planes on 9/11), people panic and cower in fear, hoping someone else will step up and risk their life. Over time, no one steps up to fight, or if someone does and dies, then more fear is struck into the passengers to do nothing. A box-cutter is still a deadly weapon, like many other things. When threatening with it, it can be very frightening.

As for the bandanna, I have no idea about that one. Never heard of the bandanna, and as it is, anything can survive a plane crash at random. I mean, imagine, if you will, a plane crashing into the ground. You see its metal impact the ground and encounter resistance. Then, as the mechanical stuff in the cockpit is crushed, something sparks, and possibly explodes, then the rest of the plane, which is hitting the ground and impacting is tearing apart. Some stuff hypothetically is ejected and blown away by the shock-wave of the ensuing explosion. Depending on where the pockets of air and fire were, something could survive by chance. I'm just speculating though, don't take this paragraph as researched science.

reply to post by Varemia

I don't know about you, but the majority of people are not like action movie heroes. When someone gets killed in front of them (as I remember reading from a transcript of one of the calls out from one of the planes on 9/11), people panic and cower in fear, hoping someone else will step up and risk their life. Over time, no one steps up to fight, or if someone does and dies, then more fear is struck into the passengers to do nothing. A box-cutter is still a deadly weapon, like many other things. When threatening with it, it can be very frightening.

your could be right, but like you say anything can be used as a weapon, and it was 70ish people against 3 in some cases (rough estimate), so it is still baffling, especially the last two planes, surely the pilots had been radioed and warned about a potential terror attack in action, so they could of prepared themselves just in case.

i do not know if that happened but it would of been the first thing i would do once it was obvious, i would of radioed every plane in the air to tell them to be ready, surely there is a channel covering all planes? (maybe not), they would of known it was a fight to the death because they would of been made aware of the first two planes being used as weapons into buildings.

the bandanna can be found here, the link is purely so you know what bandanna i was talking about.

911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by lifeform11


And again, the plane (flight 93) was already in the hands of the hijackers when the passengers got the news about what all was happening that day. It was at that point they started planning to take on the hijackers.

As for the bandanna, why do you find it so hard to believe that a bandanna could survive? I mean, after all, we recovered NOTEBOOKS from space shuttle Columbia when it broke apart re-entering the atmosphere....hell, they found an experiment using earthworms in which the worms were still alive. Items can and do survive accidents that kill everyone on board aircraft, its not a new occurance.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by lifeform11

 

And again, the plane (flight 93) was already in the hands of the hijackers when the passengers got the news about what all was happening that day. It was at that point they started planning to take on the hijackers.

As for the bandanna, why do you find it so hard to believe that a bandanna could survive? I mean, after all, we recovered NOTEBOOKS from space shuttle Columbia when it broke apart re-entering the atmosphere....hell, they found an experiment using earthworms in which the worms were still alive. Items can and do survive accidents that kill everyone on board aircraft, its not a new occurance.

i do not find it puzzling that the bandanna survived as such, just puzzling it survived whilst looking as new as the day it was bought.

and i am aware about the passengers on flight 93, but what about the pilots? surely they would of been the first to know considering the second plane crashed at just after 9am. how can the passengers know but the pilots be totally oblivious. surely all planes were warned before any further take overs, and would of been aware that it was life or death. or was it already hijacked before the second plane crashed?

I have all kinds of questions, from the incinerated cars to the cell phones calls.

But right now my main question is...

Why did Obama say, "Don't question 9/11."

reply to post by dereks


You are wrong on all counts the buildings collapsed into thier footprint they did not tip over, and have been proven to have fallen at free fall even the Nist admitted it. no one has proven otherwise despite all the mental gymnastics and dis-info shills making unsubstantiated claims to the contrary...

Originally posted by hawkiye
You are wrong on all counts the buildings collapsed into thier footprint

Why do thruthers persist with this lie? Just look at the damage done to WTC 7, WTC 6 etc - in fact the debris from the WTC buildings severely damaged or destroyed more than a dozen other adjacent and nearby structures This would not happen if they fell in their own footprint - but why do truthers keep ignoring that fact?

and have been proven to have fallen at free fall even the Nist admitted it

Still telling lies - with WTC 1 & 2 it is obvious the debris coming from the buildings is falling faster than the biuldings collapse, so they were not falling at free fall speed, and all that NIST admitted that for a short time WTC 7 fell at free fall speed. But truthers ignore this fact also - why?

This is why the "truth movement" is getting nowhere - they keep making things up!

reply to post by dereks


No, you have to understand. For a truther/believer, footprint means debris falling ANYWHERE within the entire Trade Center Complex, and is apparently evidence for controlled demolition. You see, a building struck on the upper floors should collapse and fall over like a tree being cut down by a lumberjack. The idea that anything can collapse in on itself and hit other buildings is absolutely preposterous! [/sarcasm]

reply to post by sodakota

have all kinds of questions, from the incinerated cars to the cell phones calls.

But right now my main question is...

Why did Obama say, "Don't question 9/11."

Well, I really don't know that he said, but that aside, the reason not to "question" 9/11 as to the basic facts of the issue (19 men, motivated by religous zealotry hijacked 4 American planes and flew them into the World Trade Center, The Pentagon and the final crashed in Pennsylvania after a struggle with the passengers and with the murders) because the nature of these questions - thermite, missiles, controlled demolition - makes us all look like idiots.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by hawkiye
You are wrong on all counts the buildings collapsed into thier footprint

Why do thruthers persist with this lie? Just look at the damage done to WTC 7, WTC 6 etc - in fact the debris from the WTC buildings severely damaged or destroyed more than a dozen other adjacent and nearby structures This would not happen if they fell in their own footprint - but why do truthers keep ignoring that fact?

and have been proven to have fallen at free fall even the Nist admitted it

Still telling lies - with WTC 1 & 2 it is obvious the debris coming from the buildings is falling faster than the biuldings collapse, so they were not falling at free fall speed, and all that NIST admitted that for a short time WTC 7 fell at free fall speed. But truthers ignore this fact also - why?

This is why the "truth movement" is getting nowhere - they keep making things up!

It always makes me laugh when people say "Truthers" are lying. The media has succeeded in making "truth" a derogatory word for many weak minded individuals... I will wear the "Truther" moniker proudly because I seek the truth and know the truth concerning 9/11 having done the research!

As for your unsubstantiated claims it seems you and others think that by repeating them ad nausea they will somehow morph into the truth... Sigh! One only need do a search here and find the facts and truth concerning what I said and they will find your tired ridiculous claims so thoroughly debunked as to make them laughable, therefore there is not need for me to go into them further.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by dereks

 

No, you have to understand. For a truther/believer, footprint means debris falling ANYWHERE within the entire Trade Center Complex, and is apparently evidence for controlled demolition. You see, a building struck on the upper floors should collapse and fall over like a tree being cut down by a lumberjack. The idea that anything can collapse in on itself and hit other buildings is absolutely preposterous! [/sarcasm]

Well then maybe you could explain to us just how they all fell other then into thier foot print? Oh and for the mentally challenged falling into its foot print does not mean none of the building could possibly land outside of said foot print.

Also maybe you could explain how they fell through thousands of tons of steel and concrete below them in a matter of seconds with almost zero resistance without explosives clearing the path below? Since when one mass hits another mass there is immediate resistance... Oh and good luck since no one else can give an explanation...

reply to post by hawkiye


Because it's not a solid block landing on another solid block. The steel was connected by bolts and spaced with concrete and stuff. Truthers always use the term almost or near to describe their free-fall, because that way they can say anything means demolition. You see, there was resistance, and that's why it wasn't truly free-fall speed. It was several seconds slower, which is something that controlled demolitions do not exhibit, nearly always falling with no resistance. The towers looked like they tore themselves apart to me, save building 7. That one collapsed differently, considering that part of the inside collapsed thoroughly before the rest of the building fell. That adds a lot of unpredictable factors that controlled demolition does not cover, because in a controlled demo, one would have to predict every amount of debris damage as it collapsed. Really, a demolition should have everything happen at once so that nothing can hinder the collapse or cause other problems.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Because it's not a solid block landing on another solid block. The steel was connected by bolts and spaced with concrete and stuff. Truthers always use the term almost or near to describe their free-fall, because that way they can say anything means demolition. You see, there was resistance, and that's why it wasn't truly free-fall speed. It was several seconds slower, which is something that controlled demolitions do not exhibit, nearly always falling with no resistance. The towers looked like they tore themselves apart to me, save building 7. That one collapsed differently, considering that part of the inside collapsed thoroughly before the rest of the building fell. That adds a lot of unpredictable factors that controlled demolition does not cover, because in a controlled demo, one would have to predict every amount of debris damage as it collapsed. Really, a demolition should have everything happen at once so that nothing can hinder the collapse or cause other problems.

Dude give it up they did fall at free fall or near free fall you can count the seconds on video Even NIST admitted they did. There are a ton of threads here proving what I said there are tons of video on the net of other controlled demos doing the exact same thing at near free fall. It doesn't matter if it was a sold block hitting another solid block the buildings could never fall that fast through all that mass of steel and concrete all the floors etc THAT WAS DESIGNED TO SUPPORT ALL THAT MASS even if it was several seconds slower which it wasn't. IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! No High rise has ever collapsed from fire some fully engulfed for hours on end and the WTC's were no exception with their puny little fires

Further you admit they fell through their mass but tried to say earlier they did not fall into there foot print so which is it? Also how is it you know that building 7 collapsed from the inside first were you there inside the building? You people are a joke you have nothing all you try to do is obfuscate, we know the facts so give it up.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by nite owl
YEAH, one BIG one. Tell me, what are the odds that both buildings collapsed straight down? You would think that one buildings top would fall from one side or the other. The fact is, this did not happen.

:puz

Sir , This IS an explosion.

reply to post by hawkiye


You apparently didn't understand my post at all and took it as an attack on your intelligence, rebutting me with defensive comments. I'll start from ground 1. NIST never claimed that the buildings collapsed at free-fall. They said that Building 7 globally collapsed at free-fall for approximately 8 floors of its height. The rest didn't. Naturally, any building collapsing, will collapse at least partially in its footprint. No event like 9/11 has EVER happened in the history of skyscrapers. There is no precedent for the events, so that argument is irrelevant. The towers were also meant to hold up their weight while intact and damaged. According to the official story, it was the extent of the damage PLUS the fire that caused the collapse, not the damage or fire by themselves.

First get the official story right. THEN start asking questions about it.

Edit: Ah, remembered what I forgot to mention. I KNOW FOR A FACT that building 7 was collapsing internally because if you look for any youtube video of the penthouse collapse, you can SEE CLEAR AS DAY that the penthouse on top of the building collapsed inside the building and smashed out windows on its progressive collapse downward. A couple seconds later, the whole building globally collapsed.

bush sitting on his ass pretending nothings happening in that classroom while secret service stands down.

then the anthrax scare and nothing more said