Boeing 767 + WTC North Tower vs "Little Boy"

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
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.


Well, to be honest, you sound more like you are on a provocation hunt than a debate. I've seen a few people come into the 9/11 forum and start to twist words and make statements to try and garner a heated response. Its weak, a cheap trick, but sadly it usually succeeds. This I believe why these forums have become a wasteland. So many people being banned unfairly/unjustly/unnecessarily.

But I digress..

Due to the size of the building, it is inevitable that rubble will spill out beyond it's footprint, that goes without saying. The videos of the collapse show it falling straight down. So although you might claim the statement is false, it is not.

But if you want to believe it was a terrorist attack, then that is your choice. I'm not arguing the small details with you, I don't need to.




posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OratoryHeist
 


You state that you don’t refer to the likes of Alex Jones or the truther camps for your information regarding 9/11 and nor to you seek out their productions. You have also said that you believe “people need to think for themselves more on ATS” and have observed that for many if they can’t read about it online or watch a youtube clip they are uninterested. Interestingly you have also said that you have done your own research I commend you for this. However I do have one question could you please tell me what research you have done, at what level, and what sources you used.

Because it seems to me based on this and other threads that you repeated state that others much “think for themselves” and demand their “evidence” yet you are not quite so forthcoming when it comes to showing us your own evidence or demonstrating that you think for yourself as most of what you say does sound like truther rhetoric. Regardless of whether or not you intend to do so much of what you say lacks any evidence and sounds very much like conspiracy theorist conjecture. Your posts are filled with statements like “what if…” and “you don’t know that for sure” with plenty of claims that “you don’t think for yourself” with lots of other assumptions and in addition to this you seem bent on defending the idea that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack. Basically you are all talk with very little substance.

You can of course redeem this by actually telling us about your research and showing us your sources which you seem very reluctant to do.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by OratoryHeist
 


You state that you don’t refer to the likes of Alex Jones or the truther camps for your information regarding 9/11 and nor to you seek out their productions. You have also said that you believe “people need to think for themselves more on ATS” and have observed that for many if they can’t read about it online or watch a youtube clip they are uninterested. Interestingly you have also said that you have done your own research I commend you for this. However I do have one question could you please tell me what research you have done, at what level, and what sources you used.

I have visited a few places across the US, as well as got some friends to take pictures of some things for me.
I have looked at how the world works, whats important, what happens when 'this' or 'that' happens.
I have looked into what I believe would be a reason for a government to create an event like 9/11, to swindle a bit of cash, or build a pipeline in a foreign country is just silly, it would be bigger, way more important.
I have observed how the US government operates, its foreign policy, basically, what is most important to the US.
I looked back beyond 9/11, as there would have to be lead up to 9/11 if it was staged.
I 'listened' to what was being repeated most often.
I used my 'right-brain', not just my 'left-brain', this is very important.



Because it seems to me based on this and other threads that you repeated state that others much “think for themselves” and demand their “evidence” yet you are not quite so forthcoming when it comes to showing us your own evidence or demonstrating that you think for yourself as most of what you say does sound like truther rhetoric.

If I sound like a truther, its probably because I have one foot in the truther camp, in that I know 9/11 was staged. I don't believe it was staged for nefarious reasons, although I do know politicians are taking advantage of the situation.

What may be perceived as evidence to one person, is not readily perceived as evidence to others. Yet.



Regardless of whether or not you intend to do so much of what you say lacks any evidence and sounds very much like conspiracy theorist conjecture. Your posts are filled with statements like “what if…” and “you don’t know that for sure” with plenty of claims that “you don’t think for yourself” with lots of other assumptions and in addition to this you seem bent on defending the idea that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack. Basically you are all talk with very little substance.

It's about getting people thinking. As you have said, truther rhetoric can be identified easily, so you can tell which have simply watched a utube, or been listening to Jones. When you start asking people 'what if's..' and you guage their response, you can see who thinks for themself, you can see who has a free mind and who is currently still controlled by 'the sales pitch'.

I could tell you right now what 'New World Order' actually means, but the problem is is that it is so far away from what people have been deluded into thinking it means, that people won't believe it.



You can of course redeem this by actually telling us about your research and showing us your sources which you seem very reluctant to do.

There is nothing for me to redeem. You have shown that you are only interested in the official story, so whatever I say you would just try and shoot down, or ignore.

You want me to feed your brain, I want you to think for yourself. Will you be thinking for yourself if I feed your brain?

Show me you can think for yourself and then we can debate converse all you like.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





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.


Actually another building collapsed and only hit the south side of WTC 7, nothing collapsed onto it. But WTC 3, WCT 4 and WTC 6 had the towers collapse onto them but they didn't collapse like seven did. Strange isn't it?




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?


Yes these buildings make WTC 7 even more obvious. Check the tenants in WTC 7 and you'll see why? Well you won't but others will.
edit on 11-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


No I don't think that it's strange. You're assuming that 4,5,6,7 all we're constructed in the exact same way and had the exact same damage. There are millions of variables in each of these buildings that determined if the building stood or fell.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by OratoryHeist
 





But if you want to believe it was a terrorist attack, then that is your choice. I'm not arguing the small details with you, I don't need to.



Believe, no the events of 9/11 were a terrorist attack, whether Osama Obama George Dick or fanny are responsible it was a terrorist attack, it created terror and confusion that still is prevalent to this day.

As I said I do not wish to argue either whether it be small or big details I was just pointing out Building & had a lot more damage than you stated and that when the twins fell a number of surrounding building were heavily damaged so it did not fall into its own footprint.

If you for some reason think it was not a terrorist attack could you be kind enough to show how you came to this conclusion?

Cheers



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
If you for some reason think it was not a terrorist attack could you be kind enough to show how you came to this conclusion?

Cheers


Sure, by paying attention to what happened. Looking into what happened. All the answers are right infront of you for when you are willing to see them.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OratoryHeist

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
If you for some reason think it was not a terrorist attack could you be kind enough to show how you came to this conclusion?

Cheers


Sure, by paying attention to what happened. Looking into what happened. All the answers are right infront of you for when you are willing to see them.


So you payed attention to what happened, do you consider it as a terrorist attack or not, a simple yes or no,

I ask because of this




But if you want to believe it was a terrorist attack, then that is your choice.



Forget about the small details as you and I don't want to argue them, your words imply that you think it was not a terrorist attack.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


I think you should find out what can happen when an explosion takes place high above the target

You will have heard about the Tunguska event in Siberia in 1908 were a meteor/comet exploded above ground.

Well here is a description of the area below the blast!


The explosion's effect on the trees near the epicentre of the explosion was replicated during atmospheric nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s. These effects are caused by the shock wave produced by large explosions. The trees directly below the explosion are stripped as the blast wave moves vertically downward, while trees farther away are knocked over because the blast wave is travelling closer to the horizontal when it reaches them.



Soviet experiments performed in the mid-1960s, with model forests (made of matches on wire stakes) and small explosive charges slid downward on wires, produced butterfly shaped blast patterns strikingly similar to the pattern found at the Tunguska site. The experiments suggested that the object had approached at an angle of roughly 30 degrees from the ground and 115 degrees from north and had exploded in mid-air


That's why buildings BELOW the blast can survive to a point and others further out don't.

Go to 1:37 on this video and listen to the description!



See sometimes you can't assume what should happen.

Show me 2 other 110 floor buildings with a STRUCTURAL STEEL tube in tube design hit by large passenger aircraft ,that have fires and structural damage and don't fall down then you might have something!





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join