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

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


President Bush mentioning on Camera in front of the School Children he was Reading a Book to that he had seen the WTC Collapse on TV when at that particular moment in Time , it was not Aired on TV .



That's not what he said....

Even in the video supposedly " Exposing the Truth " They obviously make it seem as if it's a conspiracy. He said he was standing outside waiting to go into the classroom when he saw the FIRST plane hit on TV {Just like Millions of other people} watching the TV news replay and he thought it was an accident then later after the SECOND plane hit {obviously not an accident} the SS guy comes in and informs him of the SECOND plane hitting.

Now Where is the conspiracy?
edit on 14-11-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


That's weird isn't it?
To my knowledge, the first plane wasn't recorded by any news agency at the time of the initial impact. (It wasn't released to the public) until days later by an independent film crew filming a documentary that pointed the camera up at WTC to the sound of an airplane flying too low, which happened to be the first impact of the morning. The first news footage wasn't until after the first plane hit, Dubya sat there like a bump on a log, (after learning the second plane was no accident?) for far too long, IMO.
So that's my first question, why was the commander-in-chief after learning of the second impact not commanding his chief responsibilities?

2-Why would the owner of WTC7 have the authority to "Pull-it?" Should it not be the battalion chief's?

I'll be searching for the video footage I spoke of in my first Query.
The answer to my second query relies on common sense, doesn't it?

@ 36 seconds is the film crew's footage...Not msm footage.

edit on (11/14/1010 by loveguy because: embed a video




posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Building 7.

The scenario played out in a movie plot 6 months prior.
The over looked intelligence.

How many more American have to die to avenge the lives of these 3000 Americans?

Safer now?


It seems we are being played.

The whole darn thing is awful hard to swallow
but then I am not trusting...not even the moon, these days!



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Israeli's arrested on 911 and set free.



The head of the nist investigation denying molten metal. Says there have been no eyewitness reports of it.




posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
1. The passport of Satam Al Suqami, one of the alleged highjackers, found in New York City in tact but not Black Boxes.


2. The Bush-Bin Laden Connection.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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)


BUT BUT BUT the fires were so hot! ?
Hot enough to deform and melt steel and create puddles of steel weeks later in the rubble but NOT hot enough to harm flesh?
I worked in a melt shop for 17 years, teach me about molten metal , please teach me because obviously I've got it all wrong.
I'll say one thing, you dont give up, good for you.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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)


'The Truthers' - come on Dave, you know that's a gross over generalisation. You pick up other people on their lack of accuracy - yet you don't apply the same exacting standards to yourself. SOME truthers would be more honest and accurate.

MOST truthers, in MY experience, have no problem with the fact that there were fires. It's just the temperature and the effect of the fires which are in dispute.

Wow. "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," = Appeal to emotions, and intimidate people into silence.

And then we have this: "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." = Pure and simple disinfo tactic. Intention: Make them look stupid, that will stop people from giving their argument an honest, unbiased appraisal.

Wrap it all up in a VERY CONFIDENT, ASSERTIVE approach.

NICE set of disinfo tactics here - but NO facts.

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



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
 


That kind of made me facepalm. After all, NOT A SINGLE official story engineering paper/article has ever said that steel was melting in the towers.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

'The Truthers' - come on Dave, you know that's a gross over generalisation. You pick up other people on their lack of accuracy - yet you don't apply the same exacting standards to yourself. SOME truthers would be more honest and accurate.

MOST truthers, in MY experience, have no problem with the fact that there were fires. It's just the temperature and the effect of the fires which are in dispute.


Ahem. I am quoting the OP's original post:

"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. "

Every information source on Edna Cintron reports she had to jump to her death to escape the fires, which makes it blatantly obvious the OP did zero actual research into the material being posted. The way these damned fool conspiracy web sites are making it out, Edna Cintron was relaxing with a cup of coffee and waving hello to the TV helicopters, and this in turn is used to drop innuendo that "the south tower collapse was very suspicious".

Everyone makes simple mistakes, but this isn't a simple mistake. This is a deliberate attempt at using the tragedy of Edna Cintron as an opportunity to pass off misinformation to get people to believe something they normally wouldn't believe. This IS disgusting and self serving, regardless of whatever other pretty word you want to use to describe what's going on.


And then we have this: "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." = Pure and simple disinfo tactic. Intention: Make them look stupid, that will stop people from giving their argument an honest, unbiased appraisal.


I have yet to meet any truther who does not accuse someone or another of being some secret gov't agent based upon nothing but their own blind zealotry. Accusing the NIST and FEMA engineers of being actively involved in some form of coverup is the entire cornerstone of your whole movement, and slandering even more people becomes more and more easy for you, the more you do it.

Let's prove the statement right nere and now. Deputy NYFD fire chief Peter Hayden was at the WTC 7 site and he reported the fires were burning out of control in WTC 7 and were causing a three story tall bulge in the side of the structure, proving the fires were doing at least something detrimental to the building. Will you accept his eyewitness account and therefore accept there's at least some credibility to the possibility the towers really were brought down by the fires, or are you going to accuse Deputy fire chief Hayden of lying and covering up the murder of 343 of his brother firefighters?

You can't have it both ways..



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
A glaring point that always leaves me puzzled:

A few people (here on ATS) have admitted that we have not been told the 100% truth about 9/11. They admit that governments have lied and will lie to suit their agenda.

Yet - these very same people are seen here, day after day, ritualistically 'debunking' and attempting to quash the truth about 9/11 from being discovered.

Contradiction much?

The government told us so... move along... nothing to see here. Believe the obfuscation brigade at your own peril.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
This is just an observation I'd like to make about this thread...

The OP was asking members to "Pick Your 2 Most Glaring Points of Questions For 9/11?"

We find some individuals (the usual "on the spot Johnny's") not participating according to the original topic. Instead, participating in arguing about matters devoted to other threads...

A few pages into it and the thread dies down because who wants to sit here and argue with people who are not participating in the thread according to the OP?

I find that this thread is a good example of forum infiltration, and the leniency given to those who aim to knock it off course.

This isn't my first time in this forum that I have encountered this. It's really a shame.

To re-address the OP;

1-The Pentagon footage showing an actual material body making physical contact, not just the blast as it happens...Where's that footage, and why is it not viewable?

2-How can B. Jennings and his companion be admitted to go inside WTC7 after it was evacuated? If it was evacuated while the two were inside, how can it be that the entire building was indeed evacuated, and they not know about it?






posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
1. Why was there no street level coverage of the events in NY right off the bat, we only had news chopper coverage for a couple of hours, it wasn't until later in the day that we had ground crews streaming live. Makes me wonder if there had been from the moment it happened what would we have heard? Explosions maybe?

2. Good video of the plane hitting the Pentagon.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by nite owl
Ok, my second glaring point. Why is it that noone could hear any charge explosion noises?


I'm not sure of your question. Nearly every day that goes by, I don't hear any charge explosion noises where I am because no charge explosions occur.

I'm pretty sure I've misunderstood your question, though.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
1. The Pentagon wall didn't collapse for 20 minutes after the explosion, and there was no airplane wreckage, or hole large enough to fit an airplane - my question is: WHAT hit the Pentagon?

2. molten metal that stayed hot for weeks - you just don't see that in fires that reach 1,200 F such as a jet fuel and office materials fire. What else besides a nanothermite/nanothermate incendiary could produce large quantities of molten iron or other metal in this situation?


It's funny to notice so many people pointing out their two questions... while the same 3-4 "Original Story" people from every other 9/11 thread adamantly fighting for the OS

edit on 15-11-2010 by Thermo Klein because: added the word "airplane" before wreckage to save the OS disinformation people a few paragraphs ; )



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   
...1... all my life (thats nearly 60yrs) i heard that NOTHING gets into our airspace without NORAD knowing about it - and - we've got those giant reconnaisance planes that do nothing but monitor our air space - and - on 09.11.01, it turned out that NONE of that was true or there was a glitch or "something" - but - we're still supposed to believe we've got the greatest defense system on Earth...

...2... you know that video of rumsfeld at the pentagon, where he's helping to tote off a piece of the "plane"?... he's LAUGHING, having himself a good ol' time... besides the obvious (that he shouldnt have been part of the clean up crew at all cuz there was certainly more important biz that he should have been taking care of), wouldnt that "plane" part be too hot to handle?... wouldn't it be scorched?...



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
1. What about the "power downs"(supposedly coordinated by Marvin Bush, GW's brother, who was the head of security) a week prior to 9 11 when the bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the building, and all the power was out, and so was the all the camera systems, so it could have been wired up then

2. Larry Silverstein, 1 billion dollars to remove the asbestos in the 2 towers, spend that, or find a way to start over and not pay out anything? He admitted to "Pulling It" when talking about WTC 7.

prolly my top 2, but i could think of 75 questions easily
edit on 15-11-2010 by morder1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by aviatrix
My question is -- why did each plane have two pilots and one "extra" pilot. Why did Ogonowski insist on flying that particular flight when he actually had an important meeting scheduled for that particular date, but insisted that he take that flight (who told him he HAD to fly)?

It occurs to me that you would not insist a certain person be the pilot and even add extra pilots -- unless -- you needed those pilots for a specific reason. In other words, I believe some of these people were selected. If certain pilots were selected AND an extra pilot was put on each plane?....

Dear Aviatrix,

Is it true that there was an extra pilot on each plane?
Can you give me a link to some information?
Very curious.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
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.


Good point. I made this argument to a friend during a debate.

I asked him if he would stay in my garage with the car exhaust pouring out for 10 minutes.

Then I asked him to try the same experiment with his hand in 100'C water (boiling). Hot yes, but nowhere
near the temps to melt steel.

Funny, he never took me up on either challenge.

To answer your original post:

1. Building #7

2. Shanksville (757 digging itself into the Earth
)
edit on 15-11-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
North Tower Exploding



Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Sure, they exist at the Journal of 911 Studies, although they might just look at the onset of "collapse" for the north tower, showing an acceleration curve, without any "jolt" but they're out there.

But here's the thing, and please keep an open mind here. As the buildings "erupted", jettisoning building materials and steel beams, laterally, at very very high speed, and with enough explosive energy to HURL them so far that they crashed at least half way through the Winter Garden Atrium, a full block and a half away, along with tiny piece of human bone fragments, leaving them on TOP of adjacent buildings - and as the entire contents of the buildings and all building material, including all the steel and the cement, literally poured out, while the decending debris wave continued to descend, without any appreciable loss of momentum, and to within a few seconds of absolute free fall (amortise that over the remaining length of structure in the case of the north tower, and what you're left with is hardly distinguishable from FREE FALL) - little was LEFT in the wake of the occurence of destruction, than mere ATMOSPHERE, above the remaining structure, YET - the exploding debris wave continued, unabated, at near free fall speed, all the way to the GROUND. The buildings exploded and BLEW UP, from around the area of impact yes, but then, in almost precisely the same manner, what they did thereafter, absent the use of explosives, is utterly impossible, and asurd, for any astute observer with so much as a meager appreciation for the three laws of motion.

The upper CHUNK could not have crushed the remaining structure, to within a few seconds of free fall, I'm sorry, but you cannot ask me to accept something that is IMPOSSIBLE, to protect a comfy cozy worldview, wherein such a thing can't happen (mass murder with Gov't complicity and cover-up).

And again, I would like, as much as I don't ENJOY holding Bush's feet to the fire on this, bring to attention a video of him arriving out of a limo, in a hanger in NYC, surrounded by concerned firemen and the like, looking around and simply commenting, without any concern, that there was "lots of destruction" with "MASSIVE steel, twisting and bending", already telling the script (can't locate it at the moment), and then later he stands there, on the pile, his arm around that fireman, and declared retribution and VENGEANCE, to plumb the depths of the American psyche and heart, as per the "vision" of people like Philip D. Zelikow, and Robert Gates, who "imagined" the whole thing, in advance, just a little over a year prior, like prophets or psychics of some kind. Sickening! Talk about the very height of hypocrisy!

Check this out - must see (Zelikow's Prophecy)
www.hks.harvard.edu...

Zelikow


here's that video with Bush arriving at the scene


They're CAUGHT. Plain and simple, and the physical occurance of the destruction of those buildings PROVES it well beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever.

And who would PROTECT or stand guard over such a thing, and try to uphold the Big Lie, who would DO THAT, knowingly..?!!!

That's my big question, for something this serious.. think about it. Set aside your "anti-truther" hatred and disgust for a moment and think it through, from the perspective of a grade 10 physics student.

What I find most disturbing here, or almost as disturbing, given the mass murder there, is that there are a LOT of people now who cannot even evaluate and think for themselves, any more. They simply MUST be told or informed by "experts", when all the while the truth of things is right before their very eyes, in plain sight.

it's a hard thing to look at I realize, and the big lie isn't easy to swallow, or I should say it goes down easy, but aint so easy to throw back up again, once you've already swallowed it. No one wants to be fooled to such a degree over something so heinous. Join the club. Most if not all of us were once in that boat. What you think we WANT this to be true?

Me I just simply cannot divorse myself from my own rational faculties in the process. It is what it is. A terrible murderious HOAX which they KNEW was being perpetrated, and they rolled with it, and for a while they thought that it would provide them with ABSOLUTE POWER.

But it was too bold, too outrageous, too big of a gambit and in the end they fell on their faces, their entire socio-political structure as well, crumbling to DUST, at near free fall speed.

People are NOT stupid.

You may be able to fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Doesn't work that way.

They F'd up, not us.

This little chapter of historic insaniry, and mass murder, is on THEM. On Bush, Cheney, and Neocon Cabal mixed with Israel.
edit on 13-11-2010 by NewAgeMan because: video added


Near FREE FALL destruction (not collapse)

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
It doesn't matter if the trusses at that level turned to butter, what ensued thereafter, was utterly impossible, absent the use of explosives. The Zelikow authored official conspiracy theory myth, in terms of the assumption as to the causal mechanism of the destruction of the twin towers of the WTC on 9/11, absent the use of explosives is what I jokingly refer to as "The Foot of God Hypothesis".

Anyone who observes the videos the destruction of the twin towers, without assuming that the plane strikes alone must have been the cause, will note - that it is ONLY in the available DIFFERENCE of time between absolute free fall from the height of the twin towers, and the actual time of destruction, within which every single weld and bolt and core column breakage could have occured, or in about THREE SECONDS, where absolute free fall in air would be just over 10 seconds (with air resistence), and the recorded time for destruction from top to bottom, is about 13, maybe 14 seconds max.

One
Two
Three

What, did all the breakage of the progressive, gravity driven collapse, occur at about the SPEED OF SOUND?

We cannot violate the laws of motion to make the official story work. Sorry.

Absent the use of explosives, and there's plenty of evidence for them being present, what the official story defenders would ask us to believe, is utterly IMPOSSIBLE.



Watch the videos, bring a stopwatch.

Case closed.

It was an elaborate murderous HOAX of the farthest reaching historical proportions and significance, and Bush and Cheney, and many others, they knew the score.

There's even a video of Bush arriving there in NYC at a hanger, without a care, and somewhat pleased, parroting something about twisting and bending steel..

It makes me sick.

There were many innocent people in those buildings, and in Iraq who's death was completely unneccesary, and now we see the US practically brought to its knees economically as a result of all this mayham, this Satanic doctrine for bending history to the will of the USA in cahoots with Israel.

It's a digrace! How DARE people who've looked into this thing closely DEFEND it?! It's indefensible, and a very very serious issue..
edit on 12-11-2010 by NewAgeMan because: pic added to illustrate and clarify


And the near perfectly uniform free fall descent of building 7

The extremely high temperatures present ie: microspherules in the dust

Oh gee I could go on and on and on.

Very very little of the official story about 9/11 is true, and what is true is simply an account of the false flag aspect.

No on in their right mind who's examined the evidence can conclude that the official story as promulgated by the likes of Philip Zelikow, is true, nor actively work to support it or defend it. What a terrible thing to be engaged in. IMO.


The Alternative Possibility (if only we could reverse history)

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Had I been POTUS instead of Cheney/Bush, this would have been my thinking:

INSTEAD of making a run at the throne of the earth ie: global geostrategic hegemony, by authorizing the muder of 3000 of my own constituents, in order to wage resource and domination wars as per the PNAC (with a soft c) recommendations, and sacrificing another million innocent souls in the process to a Satanic doctrine..

..I would have looked into the future of the 21st century and noted that the whole world was on the very cusp of entering the technological age, and on the basis that we had a severe CRISIS on our hands, in education and technological innovation, and were about to lose our competitive edge in an increasingly competitive global marketplace, I would have spent that TWO TRILLION dollars on all manner of infrastructure, including a REAL information superhighway in the form of terrabit bandwidth fiber optic cabling to every school and home in the country, as well as various Civil Infrastructure initiatives, including high speed and light commutor rail corridors between all the major urban centers, improving dramatically the speed of exchange of people and goods and services, as well as the continued joy of community living, or a MAJOR national upgrade in other words, on par with JFK's landing on the moon initiative.
Then we could have turnedd our attention to the Education System, recognizing that our HUMAN INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL development, is indeed our greatest national asset and latant potentiality, for securing a vital edge within the larger context of an emerging global civilization / global village.

In other words, I would have tried to discern and do the will of God, instead of Satan, simple as that.

I honestly think there might have been GIVEN the wrong blueprint for success by the wrong people, people like Cheney, Bush Sr. and their ilk. &/or whoever they take their marching orders from..

May there be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth...
edit on 15-11-2010 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Only two???


Ok...

I decided pictures would help my first question....


How did this really big plane.....





....manage to "bury" itself in the ground, leaving the area to look like this...



....without so much as 1 % of the wreckage left at ground level and hardly a blade of grass singed by fuel fires which, at the WTC were sooooo fierce as to allegedly cause the collapse of 3 buildings, and the government and the nutty 'bunkers on ATS say that this is perfectly normal, and they have managed to get away with such a nonsensical lie that even my pet monkey knows its complete claptrap??

How have they been allowed to get away with such a stupid sorry tale???

And question two....

Why is it that not a single one of the million or so plane parts stamped with an individual identifying serial number has ever been produced - not even from the engine in the photograph....and yet they want me to believe that they found one of the *cough* hijackers passports within 24 hours?


As for the photos below, I was going to ask why there are sooo many photos that show debris ejecting horizontally during the explos.....*cough* collapse, when we are being told gravity brought the buildings down so i was wondering who it was that failed to tell this to those MASSIVE chunks of debris weighing godknows how many hundreds of tonnes that are not even travelling horizontally, but are ejecting upwards and outwards, not downwards??????

Who failed to get this message through to the actual building cos to me it seems like a RATHER LARGE CLUE that something is not quite right here!!






Then I decided not to.....
edit on 15-11-2010 by benoni because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2010 by benoni because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Why didnt all those "people" go to work in the WTC that day? why did building 6 fall?

btw.... why didnt Osama Bin Laden ever claim responsibility for the attacks? Obviously they cannot catch him..... why isnt there an international investigation into the 911 attacks?.... who were the five dudes filming the 911 attacks? where is the footage they recorded? .......... I was supposed to work in the wtc that day but, thankfully, I quit a few days before..... I would like to believe if I would have died in 911 that justice wouldve prevailed and I didnt die in vain..... sad all those people had to die to preserve "our freedoms".... preemptive strike my a$$-no homo-





top topics
 
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join