10 Questions for 9/11 Truthers

reeply to post by psikeyhackr


Please explain social reality in more detail!!!
I don't understand what 9/11 was about, but one thing I know it wasn"t the horse # we were feed.I said this before and I'll say it again, you have to be a idiot to believe the official story.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

This is about PHYSICS. If airliners with 34 tons of jet fuel could destroy building 2000 times their mass in two hours while almost totally obliterating the buildings then the physics profession should be able to explain it on the basis of complete and accurate and detailed information on the buildings and planes and at least 75% of all physicists should be willing to publicly go along with the explanation. It would have to be explainable within Newtonian Physics so actually more like 95% of them should agree.

Actually, the NIST wrote the report, you should give a read some time. Very interesting, but maybe a little above your grade level. All the physicists agree. End of story. Really.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

This is about PHYSICS. If airliners with 34 tons of jet fuel could destroy building 2000 times their mass in two hours while almost totally obliterating the buildings then the physics profession should be able to explain it on the basis of complete and accurate and detailed information on the buildings and planes and at least 75% of all physicists should be willing to publicly go along with the explanation. It would have to be explainable within Newtonian Physics so actually more like 95% of them should agree.

Here is a link to a tanker truck carrying fuel that crashed under an overpass. The fire heated the steel to the point of failure in just 15 minutes. Tanker trucks carry 9000 gallons max. That's 24 tons of fuel.
There's your physics. No structual calculations needed.

2) Some Truthers believe a car bomb or a missile hit the Pentagon instead of a plane. So how do they explain the witnesses, like James Robbins, who saw a plane hit the Pentagon?

The witnesses mentioned here that saw a plane also have very different versions of what kind of plane they saw. some saw small airplane, some saw commercial airliner and even claimed to see the 'faces in the windows.' sure thats possible with the plane supposedly coming in as fast as it was, makes complete sense.


4) Osama Bin Laden publicly admitted that Al-Qaeda was behind the attacks. How do you explain that if our own government is really behind the attacks?

Ummm no, no he didn't. All we had was a video put all over the news that was supposed to be Bin Laden, and subtitles. The subtitles literally could have said 'im going to disneyland tomorrow and it will be amazing,' and everyone would be like 'oh yeah he totally said that.' Point being nobody knows what hes saying in that video, what we know is what a government translator supposedly came up with.

5) “The 9/11 attacks, or at least parts of those attacks, have been investigated by the 9/11 commission, .

An investigation so great and detailed it left out a complete building that fell, sure, seems legit.

9) What exactly is the Bush Administration’s motive for engineering an attack on Afghanistan supposed to be? Militarily, that was considered to be a high risk, low reward country to invade. If it were just about “popularity” (and historically, that’s a very iffy proposition), why not claim that a closer, easier target like Cuba was responsible?

I was actually IN Afghanistan when a report came on the news in the eating facility(believe it was CNN). A civilian geologist found minerals, trillions of dollars worth, in the mountains of Afghanistan. Weird how we sent American geologists over there to 'find' this during a war, and these little outings were probably guarded by Blackwater or something similar...sure they wouldnt have been out there alone. Anyway, yes there was reasons for going there, trillions of dollars...

1) If the United States government was actually behind 9/11, hundreds, thousands, and maybe even ten thousands of people would have to be involved. Do you really believe that many Americans would stay quiet about the murder of 3,000 citizens by our own government?

total BHull Sh*t and you know it.

As for the news, they only read from scripts prepared by those in charge.

No it has been proven it would only take a hundred or so people to carry out such an act.

So your belief is totally floored from the first question. Thousands you say? What planet are you living on?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by thedman

 

Actually it's usually the smoke that gets people, long before the flames do.

Fires don't have to be huge to create smoke.

Smoke and toxic gases kill more people than flames do.

www.usfa.fema.gov...

That is why people were hanging and falling out of windows, trying to get fresh air.

dude, this lady is standing where an apparent inferno is taking place. Isn't the impact zone where these fires were burning the hottest? No need to call me a whackjob either, I'm not trying to get hostile here

reply to post by samkent


So you don't think there would be some type of toppling over? Any kind of 'bend' at the point of impact when the building started to fall? Just straight down...makes no sense

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

This is about PHYSICS. If airliners with 34 tons of jet fuel could destroy building 2000 times their mass in two hours while almost totally obliterating the buildings then the physics profession should be able to explain it on the basis of complete and accurate and detailed information on the buildings and planes and at least 75% of all physicists should be willing to publicly go along with the explanation. It would have to be explainable within Newtonian Physics so actually more like 95% of them should agree.

Here is a link to a tanker truck carrying fuel that crashed under an overpass. The fire heated the steel to the point of failure in just 15 minutes. Tanker trucks carry 9000 gallons max. That's 24 tons of fuel.
There's your physics. No structual calculations needed.

This tanker was carrying the same fuel that a jet airplane uses?

reply to post by TheMindWar

As for the news, they only read from scripts prepared by those in charge.

So that means that all "those in charge" are therefore "in on it". Which makes it hundreds, if not 1000's of folks are "in on it" and thats just in the electronic media.

look...there have been numerous people that have tried to get another investigation...it's not going to happen, this is a dead issue, it doesn't matter if over 3 thousand people died, 9/11 is a closed case. it has been over 10 years now, and does anyone here on ATS think this is going to change??? let me ask you this....if Obama's justice department doesn't want to touch it, who else in our government is ever going to revisit it?

why do i say this? dozens of people back in 1963 heard gunshot sounds come from the grassy knoll in the assasination of kennedy, that information was never fully considered or investigated in the warren report.

to me...sorry to say this, but i have become jaded...this is a now turned into a (yawn) story.

reply to post by homervb

This tanker was carrying the same fuel that a jet airplane uses?

Unmnown.

I am seeing different burn temperatures on the web depending on whos site you go to.
But the point is that no one (engineers) suspected foul play. They accepted that the steel go hot enough to severly warp in only 15 minutes.

The only place where it is not accepted is on conspiracy sites.

Originally posted by homervb
dude, this lady is standing where an apparent inferno is taking place. Isn't the impact zone where these fires were burning the hottest? No need to call me a whackjob either, I'm not trying to get hostile here

All right, if there wasn't a clear and imminent danger from the fires in the interior then why was she even risking life and limb by hanging around so close to the outside edge like that? Sightseeing?

Just because you don't see the fires further in the interior it doesn't mean the superheated air where she was standing wasn't any less of a threat to her.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Hmedon

 

Was that supposed to be its own thread?
2nd line

Check his profile.
911 was inside

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by homervb
dude, this lady is standing where an apparent inferno is taking place. Isn't the impact zone where these fires were burning the hottest? No need to call me a whackjob either, I'm not trying to get hostile here

All right, if there wasn't a clear and imminent danger from the fires in the interior then why was she even risking life and limb by hanging around so close to the outside edge like that? Sightseeing?

Just because you don't see the fires further in the interior it doesn't mean the superheated air where she was standing wasn't any less of a threat to her.

Hi dave
do you have a head ache?
You know besides no flames the whole don't fit da plane, da plane BOSS.
hi dave ljb

Originally posted by jimmyx
look...there have been numerous people that have tried to get another investigation...it's not going to happen, this is a dead issue, it doesn't matter if over 3 thousand people died, 9/11 is a closed case. it has been over 10 years now, and does anyone here on ATS think this is going to change??? let me ask you this....if Obama's justice department doesn't want to touch it, who else in our government is ever going to revisit it?

why do i say this? dozens of people back in 1963 heard gunshot sounds come from the grassy knoll in the assasination of kennedy, that information was never fully considered or investigated in the warren report.

to me...sorry to say this, but i have become jaded...this is a now turned into a (yawn) story.

Hi jimmy
Let me see if I can cheer you up in one sentense.
There is no statute of limitation on MURDER.
the best ljb

reply to post by SGTSECRET

So you don't think there would be some type of toppling over? Any kind of 'bend' at the point of impact when the building started to fall? Just straight down...makes no sense

The videos show a tilt to the upper section. But at that point the supports at the hinge point also give way. From that time on it was just the upper and lower sections chewing each other up. Or should I say down.

Build a domino tower and then pull one of the center pieces out. Does the upper section of the tower fall off to the side. Or does it chew its self to the floor.

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

This is about PHYSICS. If airliners with 34 tons of jet fuel could destroy building 2000 times their mass in two hours while almost totally obliterating the buildings then the physics profession should be able to explain it on the basis of complete and accurate and detailed information on the buildings and planes and at least 75% of all physicists should be willing to publicly go along with the explanation. It would have to be explainable within Newtonian Physics so actually more like 95% of them should agree.

Here is a link to a tanker truck carrying fuel that crashed under an overpass. The fire heated the steel to the point of failure in just 15 minutes. Tanker trucks carry 9000 gallons max. That's 24 tons of fuel.
There's your physics. No structual calculations needed.

This tanker was carrying the same fuel that a jet airplane uses?

The vertical supports did not collapse. The roadbed fell off the supports.

The comparison is idiotic.

psik

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

This is about PHYSICS. If airliners with 34 tons of jet fuel could destroy building 2000 times their mass in two hours while almost totally obliterating the buildings then the physics profession should be able to explain it on the basis of complete and accurate and detailed information on the buildings and planes and at least 75% of all physicists should be willing to publicly go along with the explanation. It would have to be explainable within Newtonian Physics so actually more like 95% of them should agree.

Here is a link to a tanker truck carrying fuel that crashed under an overpass. The fire heated the steel to the point of failure in just 15 minutes. Tanker trucks carry 9000 gallons max. That's 24 tons of fuel.
There's your physics. No structual calculations needed.

The vertical supports did not collapse. The roadbed fell off the supports.

The comparison is idiotic.

psik

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

This is about PHYSICS. If airliners with 34 tons of jet fuel could destroy building 2000 times their mass in two hours while almost totally obliterating the buildings then the physics profession should be able to explain it on the basis of complete and accurate and detailed information on the buildings and planes and at least 75% of all physicists should be willing to publicly go along with the explanation. It would have to be explainable within Newtonian Physics so actually more like 95% of them should agree.

Actually, the NIST wrote the report, you should give a read some time. Very interesting, but maybe a little above your grade level. All the physicists agree. End of story. Really.

The vast majority of physicists are saying NOTHING.

How are physicists doing physics without data? The NCSTAR1 reports does not even specify the total for the concrete in the towers. Why can't you tell us how much and where it is in the report if you have read it?

10,000 pages and can't specify the concrete.

psik

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by SGTSECRET

 

So you don't think there would be some type of toppling over? Any kind of 'bend' at the point of impact when the building started to fall? Just straight down...makes no sense

The videos show a tilt to the upper section. But at that point the supports at the hinge point also give way. From that time on it was just the upper and lower sections chewing each other up. Or should I say down.

Build a domino tower and then pull one of the center pieces out. Does the upper section of the tower fall off to the side. Or does it chew its self to the floor.

Hi sam,
It is refreshing to see that you give no credance to the small hole in BLD 7 causing the demolition of the building.
Your post above sure does give the bomb explosion in the Barry Jennings video alot of weight. write on brother!!!