Boeing 767 + WTC North Tower vs "Little Boy"

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by OratoryHeist
 


Why do people do this when it comes to 9/11, they look at what happened in the past and refuse to recognise the events of 9/11 as unique. Sure Murrah building stayed standing after a bomb blast big deal, it was not a exact replica of WTC 7 that had another building essentially collapse onto it, it was not subject to the exact same forces as WTC 7.


Why do people do this when it comes to 9/11, they look at what happened in the past and reject it because they think 9/11 is unique? See how that works both ways.

WTC7 got a slight hit from above, Murrah took a bomb blast at its base resulting in half the building coming down. Which event is likely to affect the structural integrity of a building more, slight damage from above, or a bomb blast at its base/foundations? What would weaken a building more?

Answer me this, are you mentally prepared to accept that a government would/could create such an event?

I don't think you are. I think your 'world' might collapse if it was made true that those who you look to for protection may have lied to you and caused the event.

Let's go along with what you said, 9/11 was unique. That is reason enough to start asking questions. The event was too big. Why those buildings, why not more prominent buildings? For both towers to collapse within such a short space of time. For wtc7 to collapse with 'minimal' damage. All three buildings collapsed into their footprints, pretty much. For the BBC to announce wtc7 had collapsed 20 mins before it actually did collapse.

Maybe instead of wondering why other people do this/that/whatever, maybe you should ask yourself if mentally you are refusing to see the obvious. I used to accept the official story, then I took a step back and asked myself 'what if?'.



People talk about WTC 7 all the time what about WTC 4, 5, 6 and the Marriott that all had to be demolished, heck there wasn’t much left of them to demolish. WTC 7 is treated like it’s the “smoking gun” it’s not, I mean if they demolished the other buildings within a few days/ weeks then why would it matter about WTC 7. I ask this question all the time and never get a reasonable answer. Why bother demolishing WTC 7?

Who says wtc7 is not the smoking gun? You?

Why bother demolishing wtc7? So that there is a blatant 'error' for those who pay attention. To tell those who are awake enough that 'hey guys, this is faked up event, find the reason'.

And once you find the reason, you realise why it had to be done the way it did. Had they done things differently, it would have been a whole lot worse for us. If you want the reason, then dont ask for it, go look for it. Contemplate it, give it some solid thought.




posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by OratoryHeist
And once you find the reason, you realize why it had to be done the way it did. Had they done things differently, it would have been a whole lot worse for us. If you want the reason, then don't ask for it, go look for it. Contemplate it, give it some solid thought.


Some of these people can't even begin to think about the idea of 9/11 being something other than what we were told. Whether it was an inside job or not there are many inconsistencies it just doesn't add up. Most of these people who fight the idea of a conspiracy just look at everything as one BIG coincidence.

I personally feel that these "al-qaeda hijackers" had very much assistance from foreign intelligence agencies. You have the strange coincidence of MOSSAD pretty much monitoring these hijackers around the US including the famous dancing Israelis who were "documenting" the event and cheering. Their FBI file has been classified until the year 2035. (Not shady at all) Then you have elements of the Pakistani ISI wire transferring $100,000 to Mohammed Atta right before 9/11. Let's not forget that it is widely known and accepted that the ISI are the ones who created the Taliban, the same people who would not "give up" bin Laden even though they offered to exchange him for proof of his guilt. (the US happily denied their offer and decided to invade Afghanistan anyways) (Also explains why bin Laden was allegedly living in Pakistan though locals of the town where he was living greatly dispute this claim)



Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker.


And on top of that you have Saudi Arabian government officials funding these hijackers as well.



"I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia," said former Senator Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat, in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Graham led a 2002 Congressional probe of the attacks.


So you have all these different people linked to these 9/11 hijackers yet the Bush administration manages to tell the infamous 935 lies leading up to the Iraq war. (which most definitely includes the falsified link between Al-Qaeda, Iraq and their involvement in 9/11) None of these people who fight the idea of a conspiracy can address the issues or event attempt to.

These coincidences just don't add up to being just coincidences. Especially the attacks taking place at the same exact moment of the 9/11 War Games (how did these al-qaeda terrorists know this?) and the radar gaps in which the planes passed through.

edit on 12-11-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by OratoryHeist
 


It’s interesting how when I start a debate about 9/11 with the conspiracy theorists that there is this strange mentality that they all take one that they somehow “know” something I don’t or that I am mentally weaker than them in some way, “I don’t understand” or as you put it “not mentally prepared”. Funny thing is I used to be just like you, in my early 20’s I held this unwavering believe that 9/11 was an inside job, I read the books and watched the documentaries not long after the attacks.

Then when I was at university I took a few modules in the history of terrorism, started to understand that academically the claims about Al-Qa’ida made by the revisionist history crowd made no sense and where factually incorrect. This in turn led me to start to investigate the events for myself. Now I look back and think of myself as a idiotic, WTC 7 for me was always the smoking gun.

When you actually look at it through a objective eye and question the conspiracies they make no sense, you don’t even need to have any knowledge of 9/11 conspiracies to do it. I mean why WTC7, other world trade centre buildings where eventually destroyed so why bother with a very suspicious and complex control demolition. Why not instead just say “ok look that building is unsafe, nobody go inside” then a couple of days later bring it down the same way as the other buildings in the complex. Why not smash another plane into WTC 7, the excuses I usually get form conspiracy theorists is that this would have been very difficult. In that case then why not arrange a car bomb or even a missile. One question I have never been given any real answer to is why bother with a controlled demolition of WTC7, it doesn’t add up if there is not clear motive.

The NIST report provides an explanation for the destruction of WTC7 that in the face of any other evidence to prove otherwise is for me enough to conclude that is how the buildings collapsed. I have read the criticism of the official reports of 9/11 but they don’t provide a feasible alternative view that could lead one to say “they made it happen on purpose”.




I think your 'world' might collapse if it was made true that those who you look to for protection may have lied to you and caused the event.



This point is made often to me by “truthers” on these forums, like I said at the start of this thread, I used to believe 9/11 was an inside job. Furthermore I am not American, I don’t see myself as having any reliance on the American state I do my best to take a very objective view of 9/11. If there is something that contradicts the official story I will quite happily accept it such as what many believe to be the conspiracy after the event on behalf of the American military to lie about the actions they took that day.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


If you're still enrolled in the university take a few critical thinking and common sense modules. It might help.
edit on 12-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
One question I have never been given any real answer to is why bother with a controlled demolition of WTC7, it doesn’t add up if there is not clear motive.


The motive may be unclear but the tenants inside WTC 7 at the time were ones responsible for combating terrorism. (CIA, FBI, DoD, the secret CIA office that put up a false front) It's just straight up weird how the offices of elements of the government (which were dedicated to combating terrorism) were indirectly destroyed by a terrorist attack. I'm not saying it was an inside job, but yet another BIG coincidence.


The NIST report provides an explanation for the destruction of WTC7 that in the face of any other evidence to prove otherwise is for me enough to conclude that is how the buildings collapsed. I have read the criticism of the official reports of 9/11 but they don’t provide a feasible alternative view that could lead one to say “they made it happen on purpose”.


Well the NIST isn't really one to rely on for an investigation. They can't even offer a hypothesis for a full collapse of the Twin Towers. They only investigated the initiation of the collapse. If you can't offer at least one theory then it remains a mystery, a debatable one at that.




This point is made often to me by “truthers” on these forums, like I said at the start of this thread, I used to believe 9/11 was an inside job. Furthermore I am not American, I don’t see myself as having any reliance on the American state I do my best to take a very objective view of 9/11. If there is something that contradicts the official story I will quite happily accept it such as what many believe to be the conspiracy after the event on behalf of the American military to lie about the actions they took that day.


Here is things were considering:



Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker.




"I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia," said former Senator Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat, in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Graham led a 2002 Congressional probe of the attacks.


9/11 didn't follow your pattern of terrorist activity. If the official story is true than Al-qaeda was nothing more than a group of lone wolves with box cutters. However, there's connections to foreign governments that have come to light. Funding and assistance came from Saudi Arabia and elements of the Pakistani intelligence, yet we managed to goto Iraq. Can you honestly say this doesn't make you curious as to what really happened?



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by OratoryHeist
 


It’s interesting how when I start a debate about 9/11 with the conspiracy theorists that there is this strange mentality that they all take one that they somehow “know” something I don’t or that I am mentally weaker than them in some way, “I don’t understand” or as you put it “not mentally prepared”. Funny thing is I used to be just like you, in my early 20’s I held this unwavering believe that 9/11 was an inside job, I read the books and watched the documentaries not long after the attacks.

Maybe they do know something you don't. Has being to university deluded your mind into thinking you know more than others? Given you a God complex perhaps? You claim you were just like me, yet you know absolutely nothing about me. You dont know who I am, what my job is, what my education is, whether I am connected or not, nothing. You jump to conclusions, you make a generalisation.



Then when I was at university I took a few modules in the history of terrorism, started to understand that academically the claims about Al-Qa’ida made by the revisionist history crowd made no sense and where factually incorrect. This in turn led me to start to investigate the events for myself. Now I look back and think of myself as a idiotic, WTC 7 for me was always the smoking gun.

Maybe you need to go back to university. Now dont be offended. Studying terrorism is a waste of time, you should have picked an important topic, one of the sciences, or engineering. I dont think you have changed that much since being to university.




When you actually look at it through a objective eye and question the conspiracies they make no sense, you don’t even need to have any knowledge of 9/11 conspiracies to do it.

Do you really think you are being objective? Why bother with the conspiracy theories at all? You can find out the answer without following the conspiracy theories. Hasnt it occured to you that the conspiracy theories out there are wrong? Just because those theories are wrong, doesnt change the possibility of 9/11 being faked.




I mean why WTC7, other world trade centre buildings where eventually destroyed so why bother with a very suspicious and complex control demolition. Why not instead just say “ok look that building is unsafe, nobody go inside” then a couple of days later bring it down the same way as the other buildings in the complex. Why not smash another plane into WTC 7, the excuses I usually get form conspiracy theorists is that this would have been very difficult. In that case then why not arrange a car bomb or even a missile. One question I have never been given any real answer to is why bother with a controlled demolition of WTC7, it doesn’t add up if there is not clear motive.

I told you why wtc7, clearly you didnt bother reading what I wrote. Your mind is set in its ways, closed, no longer open for business.

It genuinely sounds like you are someone who needs to be told what to think. You dont, atleast you are not coming across as someone who can think freely. You require official reports, the conspiracy theories dont make sense. You require someone to tell you "Why wtc7?". Maybe you just cant find the answer, so you have chosen to believe the official lie.

Why not assume both sides are talking complete and utter cr@p. It's what I do. I'll even go as far as saying I think the truther movement was began by CIA, inorder to control the flow of information and to control the direction conspiracy theory thoughts flow.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
ROFLMAO

So why don't you explain why smaller buildings closer to the two towers were still standing.

The force of the atom bomb blast came almost straight down on the Hiroshima and building are designed to resist gravity in that direction. So the question is how could the top of the north tower force everything below it straight down?

psik



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


If you're still enrolled in the university take a few critical thinking and common sense modules. It might help.
edit on 12-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


Funny you say that, cause that is precisely what is needed in the "truther" camp. I've been saying it for years. The most serious infractions I see are by those that believe in the "inside job".



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


If you're still enrolled in the university take a few critical thinking and common sense modules. It might help.
edit on 12-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


Funny you say that, cause that is precisely what is needed in the "truther" camp. I've been saying it for years. The most serious infractions I see are by those that believe in the "inside job".


And for years you have been making a fool of yourself.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Seeing as you have just been removed, I cannot ask you to provide some evidence of your claims. Shame really, cause, as far as I could tell, I've only been telling the truth, and exposing the foolish nonsense of what is being put forward by the "truther" camp.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Its been along time since this devastation happened, why not leave it alone now and let people connected to this get some piece. The truth if there is any will never ever be told.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by OratoryHeist

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by OratoryHeist
 


Why do people do this when it comes to 9/11, they look at what happened in the past and refuse to recognise the events of 9/11 as unique. Sure Murrah building stayed standing after a bomb blast big deal, it was not a exact replica of WTC 7 that had another building essentially collapse onto it, it was not subject to the exact same forces as WTC 7.


Why do people do this when it comes to 9/11, they look at what happened in the past and reject it because they think 9/11 is unique? See how that works both ways.

WTC7 got a slight hit from above, Murrah took a bomb blast at its base resulting in half the building coming down. Which event is likely to affect the structural integrity of a building more, slight damage from above, or a bomb blast at its base/foundations? What would weaken a building more?

Answer me this, are you mentally prepared to accept that a government would/could create such an event?

I don't think you are. I think your 'world' might collapse if it was made true that those who you look to for protection may have lied to you and caused the event.

Let's go along with what you said, 9/11 was unique. That is reason enough to start asking questions. The event was too big. Why those buildings, why not more prominent buildings? For both towers to collapse within such a short space of time. For wtc7 to collapse with 'minimal' damage. All three buildings collapsed into their footprints, pretty much. For the BBC to announce wtc7 had collapsed 20 mins before it actually did collapse.

Maybe instead of wondering why other people do this/that/whatever, maybe you should ask yourself if mentally you are refusing to see the obvious. I used to accept the official story, then I took a step back and asked myself 'what if?'.



People talk about WTC 7 all the time what about WTC 4, 5, 6 and the Marriott that all had to be demolished, heck there wasn’t much left of them to demolish. WTC 7 is treated like it’s the “smoking gun” it’s not, I mean if they demolished the other buildings within a few days/ weeks then why would it matter about WTC 7. I ask this question all the time and never get a reasonable answer. Why bother demolishing WTC 7?

Who says wtc7 is not the smoking gun? You?

Why bother demolishing wtc7? So that there is a blatant 'error' for those who pay attention. To tell those who are awake enough that 'hey guys, this is faked up event, find the reason'.

And once you find the reason, you realise why it had to be done the way it did. Had they done things differently, it would have been a whole lot worse for us. If you want the reason, then dont ask for it, go look for it. Contemplate it, give it some solid thought.


So it seems that you haven't done any real investigative work concerning the 9/11 attacks and are just parroting what others say.




WTC7 got a slight hit from above, Murrah took a bomb blast at its base resulting in half the building coming down. Which event is likely to affect the structural integrity of a building more, slight damage from above, or a bomb blast at its base/foundations? What would weaken a building more?


If wt7 was slightly hit from above how is it that on one of the corners at the base a whole section of the building was ripped away.




I used to accept the official story, then I took a step back and asked myself 'what if?'.


Keep asking yourself what if all you want, you accept the official story then changed your mind after asking yourself what if?

If thats all it takes to change your mind then you have worked out nothing other than being able to hear and read but not discern truth from fiction




Answer me this, are you mentally prepared to accept that a government would/could create such an event? I don't think you are. I think your 'world' might collapse if it was made true that those who you look to for protection may have lied to you and caused the event.


But a government did create such an event, whether it be the governing body of a terrorist org. or the governing body of a nation a government made the final call for a go ahead. I see you are trying to invoke some type of fear by implying that it was the US gov that caused the event and saying your world might collapse to another poster, stop imitating Alex jones because you allowed your world to collapse from stuff you never really verified for yourself. The Government did lie about foreknowledge as we all know.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


If you're still enrolled in the university take a few critical thinking and common sense modules. It might help.
edit on 12-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



Speaking of common sense are you going to address the fact that your OP has misleading info in it concerning building 7 being reinforced concrete



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by OratoryHeist
 



You have made statements such as BBC 20 min before it came down, falling into its own footprint etc.

Why is it that these 9/11 catch phrases keep get thrown around by people who claim to have investigated the events of the day.

If by investigation you mean you watched productions like "In Plane Sight" and other films that paint a similar picture then I understand where you are coming from.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
If there is anyone who says "we'll never know who did it", they are too afraid to do any research. The evidence speaks volumes. If you choose to belive the "official" story, that's you. And yes, red and black chips of nano-thermite was found in the dust samples taken from ground zero. Period.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Oannes
 


actually the "chips" were nothing more than paint and rust. this has been confirmed by a REAL independent investigation. you can find it on ATS as well.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
Keep asking yourself what if all you want, you accept the official story then changed your mind after asking yourself what if?

If thats all it takes to change your mind then you have worked out nothing other than being able to hear and read but not discern truth from fiction

No. I said 'what if', then done my own research without listening to 'truthers', or Alex Jones, or whoever, then changed my mind once I found what I did find.



But a government did create such an event, whether it be the governing body of a terrorist org. or the governing body of a nation a government made the final call for a go ahead. I see you are trying to invoke some type of fear by implying that it was the US gov that caused the event and saying your world might collapse to another poster, stop imitating Alex jones because you allowed your world to collapse from stuff you never really verified for yourself. The Government did lie about foreknowledge as we all know.

I'm not trying to invoke any fear, so do stop insinuating or twisting words. I am trying to get people to think for themselves. I've read through these forums for a few years now and my overall impression is that not many think for themselves. If they can't find the answer on a website, or a youtube video somewhere, then they are not interested.

As for suggesting I am imitating Alex Jones, don't insult my intellect. I don't pay attention to anything the guy says, for the sole reason it's blatantly obvious he is there to distract the easily distracted.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
reply to post by OratoryHeist
 

You have made statements such as BBC 20 min before it came down, falling into its own footprint etc.

Why is it that these 9/11 catch phrases keep get thrown around by people who claim to have investigated the events of the day.

If by investigation you mean you watched productions like "In Plane Sight" and other films that paint a similar picture then I understand where you are coming from.



Simply put, they are undisputable facts.

I've not watched any productions, dont need to, or want to, sorry.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OratoryHeist

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
reply to post by OratoryHeist
 

You have made statements such as BBC 20 min before it came down, falling into its own footprint etc.

Why is it that these 9/11 catch phrases keep get thrown around by people who claim to have investigated the events of the day.

If by investigation you mean you watched productions like "In Plane Sight" and other films that paint a similar picture then I understand where you are coming from.



Simply put, they are undisputable facts.

I've not watched any productions, dont need to, or want to, sorry.


Simple images of the aftermath show this indisputable fact of falling into its own footprint to be false.

I do not wish to sound like I am after a debate, however some statements you have made are the same as what you have called them "truthers" make which are false but get keep getting regurgitated in this forum.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join