The Best 11 9/11 Questions to 'throw back' at 'Official Believers....!

15 pages and not much opposition coming by to argue. It would be nice at some point to take all the best questions and put them in one long list. Then, offer a challenge to the debunkers to debunk every item on it.

I CAME HERE TO LEARN, AND NOT ARGUE. ALL IVE LEARNED SO FAR IS HOW TO ARGUE. SO FAR IVE SEEN SCIENCE REBUT ITSELF AND LOTS OF NAME CALLING. ALTHOUGH I MAY NOT BE AS SMART AS THAT DUDES MONKEY, WHAT IVE GATHERED IS WE ARE ALL BEING LIED TO. EVERY DAY. BY WHO, AND WHY IS WHAT ID LIKE TD OUT.

JT, I am going to assume that you have NO answers for the real history here....do you? Or perhaps, you find it irrelevant....not hardly, my friend, when one seeks the TRUTH one always follows the money in our civilization....at least....This is very important stuff and you need to start looking in the right places.....HINT!HINT!





reply to post by Anonymous ATS

follow the money, and who will benefit most.

reply to post by infinityoreilly


Yeah, you know, I always wondered how people could admit that Dubya & Co. lied about the WMD's and the reasons for the war, "But there's no way they lied to us about 9/11." I have a question for ya's:

Why doesn't W look suprised when he is in that classroom and he learns of the attacks?

Simple: Cause he already knew they were going to happen. It's human reaction at it's finest, when you think about it. I saw that video for the first time and went "HUH?" What would be the reaction you would have if one of your SS agents leaned over and said "Mr. President, an airplane just hit the world trade center." I tell you what the pronounced reaction would have been:

"WHAT?"

"WHEN?"

"HOW?"

I don't see suprise in his face, I see nervousness. He isn't worried about the planes hitting the buildings (if there were any), he is nervous because he knows that if even one thing goes wrong, they could find evidence and hang him and his whole crew on the white house lawn. Enough to make anyone nervous. Before anyone spouts off about how "he is the President and he would never react that way," let me say that he has repeatedly shown that he lacks the control to maintain a straight face in a sitation beyond his realm. Don't believe me? Look at how he reacts when people ask him questions he is unprepared for. I would love to play poker with that guy, he's about as easy to read as a kidnergarden picture book. Not to mention the fact that he just SITS there.... Where's the "I'm sorry kids but something's come up and I have to go." WTH man!

Chrono

Science, look to the science to set you free. It is the physics that will lead to the truth. You cannot argue with the numbers, the physics are now opening some doors that may lead to the truth. It has now been admitted, by the governments panel that building 7 was in free fall. that would not admit that for a long time but there were just too many cameras on when it went down. The government experts tried to lie, but you cannot lie about the physics so they got caught by the outside experts on the numbers, math does not lie.

If the building was in free fall, the only want that could be was if the building had been taken down with explosives. And you cannot set up the required explosives in one day, so who set the building up to be dropped, or "pulled" days in advance of 9-11?

No fired department or any government agency is trained to collapse a high rise building in on itself so perfectly.

Damn, there I go posting before proof reading, sorry guys, you know what I was saying. : )

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by lmbbsc

 

Now lets see I post a link THAT shows a graph of how the STRENGTH of steel changes due to temperature CAN YOU PROVE THE GRAPH is wrong?
Well can you!

Hi,

I agree with you that the steel would have been weakened (although I believe NIST said it "expanded" and refute the pancake theory) and so the floors came loose and pancaked down on top of eachother until they hit the ground.

However, if that did happen, then why did the pillars not stay upright? The ones that felt the direct heat of the fire would have been weakened, and possibly bended but the ones near the bottom that did not feel fire should have been strong enough to stay up (if the floors had simply pancaked "around" the core).

May some truthers have an answer to this?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Now lets see I post a link THAT shows a graph of how the STRENGTH of steel changes due to temperature CAN YOU PROVE THE GRAPH is wrong?

No one is saying that the steel lost so much strength from heating that the columns failed. Not even the federal reports are trying to say that. There was nowhere near enough heat energy to heat enough steel, in that short amount of time, for the towers to have failed because of that. Instead, NIST's hypothesis is that the trusses in the floors expanded and caused deformations, stress, buckling, etc. in that way. That's what their hypothesis was anyway, but they never bothered to test or validate it at all, so it's really still up the air unless you don't mind sticking with theories.

reply to post by Marlborough Red


It's going to be very hard. My friend is a hard core 911 conspiracist, but he can never convince me otherwise. Everything can be explained and there are a lot of false info from the truthers that really discredit whatever they say.

Oh yea, and the steel were only cut after the callaspe of the twin towers, so they can look for survivors more easily, but of course u didn't know that because the truthers twist the story to help their agenda.

Also, the building never fell at a free fall rate, the truthers lied a cut out the begining part of the callaspes, they forgot to included the portion where the building was buckling, which would have taken the time of the callaspe up to 14 secs. After the buckling the structure was compromise, so it doesn't really matter how fast it fell, it had no more support. The idea of a building callaspe from floor to floor is comical. It is physically possible with enough force to cause a complete callaspe at once. This was already debunk, but no one care to do their own research.



[edit on 4-1-2009 by amfirst]

I have one simple question to ask the "truthers"...and it doesn't even require an answer, just think about it HONESTLY.

1. If the "official story" was eventually proven to be 100% TRUE, would you be disappointed, even on the slightest level?

Originally posted by amfirst
Also, the building never fell at a free fall rate, the truthers lied a cut out the begining part of the callaspes, they forgot to included the portion where the building was buckling

What a bunch of nonsense. You're confusing "collapse acceleration" with "collapse time." Simple correction here: instead of just measuring an amount of time, and then averaging the acceleration (which is what you're suggesting), do an actual instantaneous acceleration measurement. It's been done, NIST has even done it (and agree that it free-fell), and the thing's roof accelerated at free-fall. Not that that should mean anything to you, just like all the "debunkers" that realize the building totally free-fell but still won't roll anything over in their brains.

reply to post by jthomas


Why do you insist that there's no official story when Bush went on TV the same day and told everyone who was behind the attack? How much more Official can you get than that?

I'm a 9/11 truther but I didn't start out that way. For the first couple of years afterwards, any time someone mentioned an inside job conspiracy my reaction was disbelief. Then I saw Loose Change and I was shocked to say the least. What really clinched it for me was the explanation by experts in physics that a steel reinforced building could NOT possibly collapse AND have all of it's concrete(not to mention just about everything else) pulverized into dust at the same time. These guys know what they are talking about. When a concrete building collapses, you get a pile of rubble that has distinct layers of concrete. If the official hypothesis that that the buildings started a pancake type of collapse was true, then the central core containing the 47 huge steel support beams should still have been standing. In other words, what we should have seen is the steel skeleton of the building still poking up into the sky with the bottom third or quarter of the building consisting of pancaked concrete floors. Falling concrete doesn't pulverize into dust. That requires the kind of shockwave that only explosives can produce. One physicist said that the actual collapse of the twin towers was like a tree turning into sawdust from the top down.

Now what the debunkers and 9/11 truth skeptics fail to realize or refuse to admit, is that the entire official explanation (by Bush himself) is an all or nothing kind of proposal. Bush has said that everthing that happened on 9/11 as all the result of Bin Laden's 19 hijackers PERIOD END OF STORY. That means that if even one part of what happened that day, can be proved to be something other than what the Official explanation says it is, then the whole thing is suspect. You can't have the Pentagon explosion be something other than the crash of a commercial airliner (for example) and still claim that Flight 93, the twin towers and WTC7 were still the work of Bin Laden. Either Bin laden caused it all or he didn't cause any of it. My personal theory is that Bin Laden is a scapegoat, that Atta and his boys(if they were actually on those planes at all) were patsies duped into carrying out simple hijackings, that the planes were flown into the buildings by remote control and that rogue elements within the CIA and Pentagon aided or maybe even controlled by the Mossad(who by their own admission knew about the event in advance) made sure that NORAD jets would not be able to intercept the planes that hit the twin towers. I also think it's highly likely that Henry Silverstein, who has close ties to Israel, was tipped off by the Mossad ahead of time so that he could lease the buildings and rake in a huge windfall from the insurance. I don't believe Bush knew. When he was told in the school, he looks to me like a dear caught in the headlights. I'm sure Cheney knew. Webster Tarpley makes a very convincing case that 9/11 was not only a false flag attack to justify attacking Afganistan but also a failed coup attempt by Cheney and his co-conspirators to assassinate Bush at his hotel early on 9/11 before he even got to the school. If you follow the money trail, it becomes even more absurd that Bin laden organized this attack all on his own. The profits made from the purchase of put options just prior to 9/11 worldwide has been estimated to exceed $15 BILLION and a lot of the puts were purchased thru a couple of financial institutions that have a long history of involvement with the CIA and the German intelligence agency the DVD. The notion that there's a couple of million dollars in profits sitting in an account that no one has claimed yet is absurd. I've bought and sold options in the past and I can tell you that financial insitutions won't set up an account unless they know EXACTLY who they are dealing with, ESPECIALLY if millions of $ of option purchase orders go thru that account.

Computer hard drives recoved from the WTC wreckage were found to contain evidence of financial transactions that profited from the attacks. The pools of molten steel that were found at the bottom of the wreckage SEVEN weeks after the attack could NOT possibly have been caused by burning jet fuel and could only have been caused by thermite. A lot of the gold that was stored under the WTC was never found. Eyewitnesses reported seeing the gold removed by flatbed trucks guarded by soldiers the weekend before. The Pentagon and Flight 93 are less clear to me but there are plenty of questions that have NOT been answered there as well. Isn't it interesting that the civilian financial analysts, who were given the task by Congress to find out where the unaccounted for Trillions in Pentagon spending went to, just happened to be working (and therefore killed) in the section of the pentagon that was destroyed. Isn't it also interesting that the senior Financial person at the Pentagon, used to run a company that specialized in remote control of aircraft technology? There are a lot more questions that have been asked but not answered. Any reasonable person, with common sense, who actually does their homework will come to the conclusion that 9/11 didn't happen the way the government says it did. I don't know of anyone, who has done in depth research and then has concluded that the official explanation is correct.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


Well, if I have to put a grade on your post, it would be an "F". You have used several suppositions, that when compared to the facts are off the mark.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Since you haven't bothered to explain your allegation, your post isn't worth the paper it's (Not) written on.

reply to post by Studenofhistory

then the central core containing the 47 huge steel support beams should still have been standing

And we know from the video evidence that large pieces of the central core remained standing briefly as the rest of the tower collapsed.

Falling concrete doesn't pulverize into dust

Some will, some wont. There were plenty of concrete chunks left in the debris pile.

made sure that NORAD jets would not be able to intercept the planes that hit the twin towers

Prior to the first jet hitting, WHY would they have had tried to intercept? This subject has been discussed for years on ATS. Our continental air defense just wasnt prepared to intercept hostile airliners inside our own airspace. We had FOURTEEN fighter jets for the entire continental 48 states. As it was the jets that did get into the air would have had to ram the airliners to ensure that they were taken down.

I also think it's highly likely that Henry Silverstein, who has close ties to Israel, was tipped off by the Mossad ahead of time so that he could lease the buildings and rake in a huge windfall from the insurance

Really? I am going to guess that you didnt realize that he has been paying rent for the land ever since the buildings were destroyed. So renting land, knowing that you are going to have to pay rent on it, when it is not making you any money and still having to pay to rebuild the destroyed buildings.....yeah, that sure sounds like a windfall to me. Paying billions to earn billions....

The profits made from the purchase of put options just prior to 9/11 worldwide has been estimated to exceed $15 BILLION

And it has been shown time and again, that the put options placed on the airlines were not out of the ordinary, nor were they the largest amount of options placed on the airlines in 2001.

The pools of molten steel that were found at the bottom of the wreckage SEVEN weeks after the attack could NOT possibly have been caused by burning jet fuel and could only have been caused by thermite

I would suggest you do some research on the properties of thermite and underground fires. I would also point out that to date, no one has shown any proof of molten steel. Most accounts I have seen, report molten metal, and that was seen by a friend of a friend...Regardless of who saw it, it was most likely aluminum which has a much lower melting point than structural steel.

A lot of the gold that was stored under the WTC was never found.

No, actually the gold was recovered from the underground vaults and returned to its proper owners.

www.rediff.com...

So like I said, "F" for your post.

Originally posted by Chronogoblin

Why doesn't W look suprised when he is in that classroom and he learns of the attacks?

I don't see suprise in his face, I see nervousness.

Chrono

It's all speculation of corse, but I'll agree that it doesn't look like surprise. What it looks like, IMO, is someone who knew something was going on but wasn't "in the loop" if you will.

It's almost like anger, but at what? The "terrorists", or the people who are really in charge that played him like they played all the rest of us.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

I would suggest you do some research on the properties of thermite and underground fires. I would also point out that to date, no one has shown any proof of molten steel. Most accounts I have seen, report molten metal, and that was seen by a friend of a friend...Regardless of who saw it, it was most likely aluminum which has a much lower melting point than structural steel.

So your saying 4 weeks after 911 there might have been molten aluminum under all the debrie?

Can you explain how this could be possible?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I would also point out that to date, no one has shown any proof of molten steel.

Really?

Originally posted by Griff

It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occured in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel in the WTC 7.

www.fema.gov...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You might want to ask Bart Voorsinger, AIA just what he was describing in his videotaped interview about what he was talking about then. It's the infamous interview where he states the "meteorite" is "fused concrete and steel".

It's a different meteorite than what your knee-jerk reaction is gonna be. I'm sure you'll link me to the "meteorite" that was kept. The one that shows rusted steel fused with concrete from pressure. No. I'm speaking of another "meteorite" that looks totally different.

www.abovetopsecret.com...