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 Truth: Hollywood Speaks Out (Full Lenght Film) - New documentary!

page: 13
126
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

You mad? lol



No. Not mad. Curious. Again, how old are you? You might gain some credibility by answering this simple question.

But to go "Whaa! Mommy! I don't like his argument. It's outrages (sic). He disagrees with me. I'm gonna shut him down!" is telling.
edit on 6/17/2011 by dubiousone because: Clarification and to be a bit nicer.



I'm 24 years old, I looked into these conspiracies during 2004 and found out they got debunked by many experts while only a few outcast experts disagreed. The events on 911 were very strange but the whole point is there is no evidence to conclude that it was an inside job, that explosives brought the towers down, or that a missile hit the Pentagon. How am I a troll? I have posted and sited many credible sources proving my claims, like how the one poster said no debris damaged other buildings when that is a flat out lie. I just get carried away because I found out a long time ago that they were just fun conspiracies, but people seem to take it serious like the world's going to end for real or something (like the poster who said I was a disinformation agent because I work for the government LOL). I work for the municipal government (mayor) of my town and make a measly 16 bucks an hour, you think they would pay me to go on a site and spread "lies" about 911? This is why people like me have to laugh at these wild theories, it makes us seem like we're brushing it off (obviously inducing more paranoia like we're hiding something) but really it's that some of these theories are so out there and far fetched there is no other option imo.




posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


umm...yes. the physics doesn't change. each engine weighs 6 tons, at 530 mph, that is 1244294.59 newtons of force! just for one engine alone! it would not "bend". as we see with the twin towers, such force plows through.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


umm...yes. the physics doesn't change. each engine weighs 6 tons, at 530 mph, that is 1244294.59 newtons of force! just for one engine alone! it would not "bend". as we see with the twin towers, such force plows through.




Come on now, the WTC buildings are NOT the pentagon (which is a reinforced concrete building). A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building like it did with the WTC buildings. Now I did some more research and found out I may have been wrong about the wings folding back. Mete Sozen (He specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings) said in this case though, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building, it didn't happen."


edit on 17-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


umm...yes. the physics doesn't change. each engine weighs 6 tons, at 530 mph, that is 1244294.59 newtons of force! just for one engine alone! it would not "bend". as we see with the twin towers, such force plows through.




Come on now, the WTC buildings are NOT the pentagon (which is a reinforced concrete building). A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building like it did with the WTC buildings. Now I did some more research and found out I may have been wrong about the wings folding back. Mete Sozen (He specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings) said in this case though, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building, it didn't happen."


edit on 17-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


What happened to the wing that your source says hit the ground? What happened to the engine on that wing? You're apparently saying that this engine did not magically enter through the center hole. So where did it go? Why aren't there any gouge marks where that wing hit the ground? The engine is the lowest part of the wing and would have hit the ground first. Why isn't there a hole where that engine hit the pentagon wall? That wing would have been ripped off the plane and its parts scatteered all over the lawn. But they weren't there.

What happened to the wing that your source says was "sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns"? Why wasn't there any evidence of where that wing impacted the wall before it entered deep enough to be sheared off by the load-bearing columns? What happened to the engine on that wing. Since that engine did not enter the small center hole, it would have created its own massive 2nd or 3rd hole in the Pentagon wall. But there was no 2nd or 3rd massive hole to be seen!

To understand what really happened and, as important, what did not happen, you must evaluate what others are telling you. Don't just accept their statements at face value. Ask the questions that elicit the information that is needed in order to flesh out the unstated assumptions which have to be true in order for their assertions to be true. When you do that you'll discover that the underlying unstated assumptions are improbable and often impossible based upon accepted principles of physics and natural law.
edit on 6/17/2011 by dubiousone because: Spelling.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


umm...yes. the physics doesn't change. each engine weighs 6 tons, at 530 mph, that is 1244294.59 newtons of force! just for one engine alone! it would not "bend". as we see with the twin towers, such force plows through.




Come on now, the WTC buildings are NOT the pentagon (which is a reinforced concrete building). A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building like it did with the WTC buildings. Now I did some more research and found out I may have been wrong about the wings folding back. Mete Sozen (He specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings) said in this case though, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building, it didn't happen."


edit on 17-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


What happened to the wing that your source says hit the ground? What happened to the engine on that wing? You're apparently saying that this engine did not magically enter through the center hole. So where did it go? Why aren't there any gouge marks where that wing hit the ground? The engine is the lowest part of the wing and would have hit the ground first. Why isn't there a hole where that engine hit the pentagon wall? That wing would have been ripped off the plane and its parts scatteered all over the lawn. But they weren't there.

What happened to the wing that your source says was "sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns"? Why wasn't there any evidence of where that wing impacted the wall before it entered deep enough to be sheared off by the load-bearing columns? What happened to the engine on that wing. Since that engine did not enter the small center hole, it would have created its own massive 2nd or 3rd hole in the Pentagon wall. But there was no 2nd or 3rd massive hole to be seen!

To understand what really happened and, as important, what did not happen, you must evaluate what others are telling you. Don't just accept their statements at face value. Ask the questions that elicit the information that is needed in order to flesh out the unstated assumptions which have to be true in order for their assertions to be true. When you do that you'll discover that the underlying unstated assumptions are improbable and often impossible based upon accepted principles of physics and natural law.
edit on 6/17/2011 by dubiousone because: Spelling.



The only one making assumptions is you by saying time and time again what the wing "would" do or what "would" happen therefore making any other possibility impossible. I already answered your question...."What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass". I know it's a simple unsatisfying answer but it's been proven to happen many times with reinforced concrete. "The Simplest Answer is Usually Correct" - Occam's Razor
edit on 17-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by dubiousone

* * * *

What happened to the wing that your source says hit the ground? What happened to the engine on that wing? You're apparently saying that this engine did not magically enter through the center hole. So where did it go? Why aren't there any gouge marks where that wing hit the ground? The engine is the lowest part of the wing and would have hit the ground first. Why isn't there a hole where that engine hit the pentagon wall? That wing would have been ripped off the plane and its parts scatteered all over the lawn. But they weren't there.

What happened to the wing that your source says was "sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns"? Why wasn't there any evidence of where that wing impacted the wall before it entered deep enough to be sheared off by the load-bearing columns? What happened to the engine on that wing. Since that engine did not enter the small center hole, it would have created its own massive 2nd or 3rd hole in the Pentagon wall. But there was no 2nd or 3rd massive hole to be seen!

To understand what really happened and, as important, what did not happen, you must evaluate what others are telling you. Don't just accept their statements at face value. Ask the questions that elicit the information that is needed in order to flesh out the unstated assumptions which have to be true in order for their assertions to be true. When you do that you'll discover that the underlying unstated assumptions are improbable and often impossible based upon accepted principles of physics and natural law.
edit on 6/17/2011 by dubiousone because: Spelling.



The only one making assumptions is you by saying time and time again what the wing "would" do or what "would" happen therefore making any other possibility impossible. I already answered your question...."What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass". I know it's a simple unsatisfying answer but it's been proven to happen many times with reinforced concrete. "The Simplest Answer is Usually Correct" - Occam's Razor
edit on 17-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


That's utter nonsense. So, since you can't articulate a reasonable explanation and response to my comment, you ignore the points that you can't answer and resort to an absurdity hoping it will be accepted without question. I have come to the conclusion that I have to agree with those who have said multiple times that it's pointless to discuss this with you.
edit on 6/17/2011 by dubiousone because: Clarification.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by dubiousone

* * * *

What happened to the wing that your source says hit the ground? What happened to the engine on that wing? You're apparently saying that this engine did not magically enter through the center hole. So where did it go? Why aren't there any gouge marks where that wing hit the ground? The engine is the lowest part of the wing and would have hit the ground first. Why isn't there a hole where that engine hit the pentagon wall? That wing would have been ripped off the plane and its parts scatteered all over the lawn. But they weren't there.

What happened to the wing that your source says was "sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns"? Why wasn't there any evidence of where that wing impacted the wall before it entered deep enough to be sheared off by the load-bearing columns? What happened to the engine on that wing. Since that engine did not enter the small center hole, it would have created its own massive 2nd or 3rd hole in the Pentagon wall. But there was no 2nd or 3rd massive hole to be seen!

To understand what really happened and, as important, what did not happen, you must evaluate what others are telling you. Don't just accept their statements at face value. Ask the questions that elicit the information that is needed in order to flesh out the unstated assumptions which have to be true in order for their assertions to be true. When you do that you'll discover that the underlying unstated assumptions are improbable and often impossible based upon accepted principles of physics and natural law.
edit on 6/17/2011 by dubiousone because: Spelling.



The only one making assumptions is you by saying time and time again what the wing "would" do or what "would" happen therefore making any other possibility impossible. I already answered your question...."What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass". I know it's a simple unsatisfying answer but it's been proven to happen many times with reinforced concrete. "The Simplest Answer is Usually Correct" - Occam's Razor
edit on 17-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


That's utter nonsense.


edit on 6/17/2011 by dubiousone because: (no reason given)



"That's utter nonsense" is such a cop out, I sourced Popular Mechanic's which has a way more respected opinion than yourself. You sound upset like you just found out Santa Clause isn't real, a plane isn't made of kryptonite so why is it so hard for you to grasp that fact that when it hits reinforced concrete that there won't be much left of it. If anything is utter nonsense, it's your assumptions.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by dubiousone

* * * *

What happened to the wing that your source says hit the ground? What happened to the engine on that wing? You're apparently saying that this engine did not magically enter through the center hole. So where did it go? Why aren't there any gouge marks where that wing hit the ground? The engine is the lowest part of the wing and would have hit the ground first. Why isn't there a hole where that engine hit the pentagon wall? That wing would have been ripped off the plane and its parts scatteered all over the lawn. But they weren't there.

What happened to the wing that your source says was "sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns"? Why wasn't there any evidence of where that wing impacted the wall before it entered deep enough to be sheared off by the load-bearing columns? What happened to the engine on that wing. Since that engine did not enter the small center hole, it would have created its own massive 2nd or 3rd hole in the Pentagon wall. But there was no 2nd or 3rd massive hole to be seen!

To understand what really happened and, as important, what did not happen, you must evaluate what others are telling you. Don't just accept their statements at face value. Ask the questions that elicit the information that is needed in order to flesh out the unstated assumptions which have to be true in order for their assertions to be true. When you do that you'll discover that the underlying unstated assumptions are improbable and often impossible based upon accepted principles of physics and natural law.
edit on 6/17/2011 by dubiousone because: Spelling.



The only one making assumptions is you by saying time and time again what the wing "would" do or what "would" happen therefore making any other possibility impossible. I already answered your question...."What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass". I know it's a simple unsatisfying answer but it's been proven to happen many times with reinforced concrete. "The Simplest Answer is Usually Correct" - Occam's Razor
edit on 17-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


That's utter nonsense.


edit on 6/17/2011 by dubiousone because: (no reason given)



"That's utter nonsense" is such a cop out, I sourced Popular Mechanic's which has a way more respected opinion than yourself. You sound upset like you just found out Santa Clause isn't real, a plane isn't made of kryptonite so why is it so hard for you to grasp that fact that when it hits reinforced concrete that there won't be much left of it. If anything is utter nonsense, it's your assumptions.


Popular Mechanics' publication on these issues has been thoroughly debunked. Do a little research on ATS and you'll find the threads where its debunking is discussed in detail.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


you're right, i'm not saying they would cut through like butter, but the walls wouldn't be unscathed. 1244294.59 newtons is a HUGE amount of force. do you know what reinforced concrete is? it is steel rebar inside a concrete matrix. you're saying a plane has a harder time going through that than a 6" thick I-beam like those in the wtc? the concrete would shatter where the engines, wings, and tail struck.
edit on 17-6-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)


o yeah...and if a wing hit the ground, there would be a huge scar, and the engine would have kept going.
edit on 17-6-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


you're right, i'm not saying they would cut through like butter, but the walls wouldn't be unscathed.


Poles wouldn't be knocked down EXACTLY where the wings would have hit them in the directed path of the Pentagon.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by dubiousone

* * * *

What happened to the wing that your source says hit the ground? What happened to the engine on that wing? You're apparently saying that this engine did not magically enter through the center hole. So where did it go? Why aren't there any gouge marks where that wing hit the ground? The engine is the lowest part of the wing and would have hit the ground first. Why isn't there a hole where that engine hit the pentagon wall? That wing would have been ripped off the plane and its parts scatteered all over the lawn. But they weren't there.

What happened to the wing that your source says was "sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns"? Why wasn't there any evidence of where that wing impacted the wall before it entered deep enough to be sheared off by the load-bearing columns? What happened to the engine on that wing. Since that engine did not enter the small center hole, it would have created its own massive 2nd or 3rd hole in the Pentagon wall. But there was no 2nd or 3rd massive hole to be seen!

To understand what really happened and, as important, what did not happen, you must evaluate what others are telling you. Don't just accept their statements at face value. Ask the questions that elicit the information that is needed in order to flesh out the unstated assumptions which have to be true in order for their assertions to be true. When you do that you'll discover that the underlying unstated assumptions are improbable and often impossible based upon accepted principles of physics and natural law.
edit on 6/17/2011 by dubiousone because: Spelling.



The only one making assumptions is you by saying time and time again what the wing "would" do or what "would" happen therefore making any other possibility impossible. I already answered your question...."What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass". I know it's a simple unsatisfying answer but it's been proven to happen many times with reinforced concrete. "The Simplest Answer is Usually Correct" - Occam's Razor
edit on 17-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


That's utter nonsense.


edit on 6/17/2011 by dubiousone because: (no reason given)



"That's utter nonsense" is such a cop out, I sourced Popular Mechanic's which has a way more respected opinion than yourself. You sound upset like you just found out Santa Clause isn't real, a plane isn't made of kryptonite so why is it so hard for you to grasp that fact that when it hits reinforced concrete that there won't be much left of it. If anything is utter nonsense, it's your assumptions.


Popular Mechanics' publication on these issues has been thoroughly debunked. Do a little research on ATS and you'll find the threads where its debunking is discussed in detail.



Debunked by who though? If they aren't as credible as PM then it doesn't matter.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


i don't understand what you're trying to get at with the "poles knocked down" argument. the PM article is a sad joke. it completely ignores the whole "molten steel" argument by never mentioning that molten steel was found. it also claims 800-1500 F for jet fuel temperatures, ignoring how the oxygen starved fires would be much cooler than optimum burning temperatures. i've seen nist report that from what they kept of the towers, very rarely was there evidence of heat over 650-750 F damaging i beams. too cold to compromise the strength of steel significantly.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


i don't understand what you're trying to get at with the "poles knocked down" argument. the PM article is a sad joke. it completely ignores the whole "molten steel" argument by never mentioning that molten steel was found. it also claims 800-1500 F for jet fuel temperatures, ignoring how the oxygen starved fires would be much cooler than optimum burning temperatures. i've seen nist report that from what they kept of the towers, very rarely was there evidence of heat over 650-750 F damaging i beams. too cold to compromise the strength of steel significantly.



Talk about ignoring, you're ignoring how the poles got knocked down. Did the missile zig zag and hit every pole? You are also ignoring all the eye witnesses that seen a plane hit the Pentagon, and all of the proof a plane hit the Pentagon.


edit on 17-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

then a saw * * * how the wings folded back into the hole I was satisfied because I'm not crazy.



How old are you? Have you made it past the 5th grade yet? That's not an insult. It's a serious question. I am seriously curious about your age because you post like someone with an extraordinarily limited amount of life experience.

If you believe that the massive wings of an airliner traveling at that speed could have folded back and neatly slid through the hole upon impact with the stationary Pentagon wall, then you have no common sense whatsoever, were likely born yesterday, and have no comprehension of basic Newtonian physics.

What kind of force would it take to cause the two massive jet engines, in the instant when the plane impacts the wall, to make two 90 degree changes of direction [traveling forward at 500 mph, then an instantaneous 90 degree change of direction sideways toward the center, and then another instantaneous 90 degree change of direction to continue traveling straight forward through the hole]. In order to acomplish that miracle, the two jet engines would have to accelerate at miraculous rates of speed toward the center, suddenly stop traveling sideways, and then suddenly start traveling forward again. Do you have any concept of the impossibility of that occurrence?
edit on 6/17/2011 by dubiousone because: Clarification.



You mad? lol



The last dude made a fool of himself by saying no other buildings were damaged, I never responded because it was so outrages then I finally shut him down. Right now you're in the outrages zone, keep going and I'll shut you down too.
edit on 17-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


Lmao at you "getting your ammo out & getting serious".

Funny how the other buildings took minimal damage, yet WTC7 crashed & burned?

Made a fool? The only person looking like a fool here is YOU. Damn pre-pubescent kid...I said how can WTC7 COLLAPSE like that, IN THAT FASHION, yet the others didn't? It would make more sense if WTC6 went down as much.

It's fhilarious to see you STILL posting & trolling here...We must be the stupid ones for feed the ugly troll.
edit on 17-6-2011 by SmoKeyHaZe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

then a saw * * * how the wings folded back into the hole I was satisfied because I'm not crazy.



How old are you? Have you made it past the 5th grade yet? That's not an insult. It's a serious question. I am seriously curious about your age because you post like someone with an extraordinarily limited amount of life experience.

If you believe that the massive wings of an airliner traveling at that speed could have folded back and neatly slid through the hole upon impact with the stationary Pentagon wall, then you have no common sense whatsoever, were likely born yesterday, and have no comprehension of basic Newtonian physics.

What kind of force would it take to cause the two massive jet engines, in the instant when the plane impacts the wall, to make two 90 degree changes of direction [traveling forward at 500 mph, then an instantaneous 90 degree change of direction sideways toward the center, and then another instantaneous 90 degree change of direction to continue traveling straight forward through the hole]. In order to acomplish that miracle, the two jet engines would have to accelerate at miraculous rates of speed toward the center, suddenly stop traveling sideways, and then suddenly start traveling forward again. Do you have any concept of the impossibility of that occurrence?
edit on 6/17/2011 by dubiousone because: Clarification.



You mad? lol



The last dude made a fool of himself by saying no other buildings were damaged, I never responded because it was so outrages then I finally shut him down. Right now you're in the outrages zone, keep going and I'll shut you down too.
edit on 17-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


Lmao at you "getting your ammo out & getting serious".

Funny how the other buildings took minimal damage, yet WTC7 crashed & burned?

Made a fool? The only person looking like a fool here is YOU. Damn pre-pubescent kid...I said how can WTC7 COLLAPSE like that, IN THAT FASHION, yet the others didn't? It would make more sense if WTC6 went down as much.

It's fhilarious to see you STILL posting & trolling here...We must be the stupid ones for feed the ugly troll.
edit on 17-6-2011 by SmoKeyHaZe because: (no reason given)



Ya everyone who doesn't agree with a conspiracy theorist is a either a troll or disinformation agent....lol

I posted pictures of plane debris proving a plane crash to another poster and showed how a plane smashing into concrete wouldn't leave much of the plane left, how is that trolling? I think it's pretty clear I believe in my views, just because I don't agree doesn't make me a "troll"...whatever helps conspiracy theorists sleep at night

edit on 17-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
it completely ignores the whole "molten steel" argument by never mentioning that molten steel was found.


Could you provide a valid source and pictures for molten steel being found.

How was this "molten steel" removed?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


the poles getting knocked down would be easy to do. as would distributing the pieces from the crash, all are very small. the government confiscated all the cameras that saw the event, even the nearby gas station.

"national security"? if the camera from the gas station is pointed in that direction the whole time, why not let americans see the footage?

the picture of the jet hitting the block of cement:

first off, the cement was movable to absorb energy, the pentagon walls are only 18" thick and stationary. the jet has a fraction of the kinetic energy of an airliner.

9eleven.info...

scroll down to the bottom to see the pictures. the metal dripping out the side? aluminum doesn't glow orange at those temperatures, its silver. notice the rebar sticking out of the rubble? glowing orange? jet fuel doesn't even get close to that hot.

add in all the fire fighter and cleanup crew testimony. case closed.
edit on 17-6-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


the poles getting knocked down would be easy to do. as would distributing the pieces from the crash, all are very small. the government confiscated all the cameras that saw the event, even the nearby gas station.

"national security"? if the camera from the gas station is pointed in that direction the whole time, why not let americans see the footage?

the picture of the jet hitting the block of cement:

first off, the cement was movable to absorb energy, the pentagon walls are only 18" thick and stationary. the jet has a fraction of the kinetic energy of an airliner.



Too bad no eye witness saw people coming to place parts of a plane around the area to make it look like a plane crash, or seen a bulldozer or some other type of tool knock down poles to make it look like wings hit it, but plenty of witnesses seen a plane hit the Pentagon...
edit on 17-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by General.Lee
I won't watch this for one reason; if Bush were a democrat, this jokeumentary wouldn't exist. Period. When people put away their partisan blinders and start acting as one, rather than the divisive US and THEM, then we can start to move forward.

I am a full-blown "truther". I believe 9/11 is not what they would like us to believe. I've looked at the evidence and it doesn't add up to me. I even voted for Bush. Without watching this video, I can surmise much of it is Bush hating. Those of you who have watched it, tell me I'm wrong.


Bush hardly gets a mention considering its over 2 hours long!...and I realise you are an OS question'er!
but!

If you had any interest in the 911 subject then you would watch the documentary out of respect to your fellow brothers and sisters that died that day and have continued dying since that day to the present!,,,,...That goes for all you skeptics, sit on the fencers and OS believers!!!

If there is any question against the OS that needs to be asked then you should be pushing for answers!!!....That goes for every human being who has an ounce of inclination!!

btw this vid touches some questions but there are many many more very important questions that need asking!
Any doubt whatsoever should make you want to research more!!...If not then there is something blocking your inclination!
edit on 17-6-2011 by zerozero00 because: just to add some more


edit on 17-6-2011 by zerozero00 because: grammer error, but i'm sure they will be more




posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


saying "no one saw it, therefore it didn't happen" is illogical. i love how the video released showing the "plane" hit is dated the 12th, not the 11th.

what about the eye witnesses who saw a plane fly over the pentagon?

the orange steel is what proves it though. NOTHING in the OS accounts for that heat. thats the end game.


edit on 17-6-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
126
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join