Still Think the World is Waking up to the Conspiracy?

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Is Nobody the name of the mouse in your pocket?

As for building codes, yes, the building codes for WERE and ARE being upgraded.

architecture.about.com...

Nice magazine. I was speaking about reality.

Architects & Engineers decide what YOU do not the other way round!

I was speaking about developers and you tool the opportunity to belittle me. Why am I not shocked?

a reply to: lambros56

Why didn't the planes engines going into the Pentagon leave an impression on the exterior of the building. Yet a hollow plane flew straight through ?
I don't get that.

That's an easy one to answer.
It's the same reason you can ram a PAPER straw through a raw potato.
Inertia.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, no doubt about that!

At Shanksville and the Pentagon there were not even Boeings to be seen or found. Definitely NOT accidents.

But I think you get the larger point, and you dodged it well.

There were no investigations in the proper sense of the word. In the case of WTC the bulk of the forensic evidence was removed IN VIOLATION OF proper forensic procedures. Fire Engineering Magazine complained about it from the get-go.

There were no investigations because a proper investigation would have exposed the deception, would have exposed the obvious fact that the official narrative was bogus.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

Of a 757, not handy. I might be able to find one but it'll take a couple days.

This one is from an A320 to give an idea of what it looks like though.

www.premium-aerotec.com...

Now, if you could only provide some technical drawings which describe the above piece as a "keel beam".

a reply to: Salander

There were clearly identifiable parts of aircraft removed from both locations.

Yes the investigation sucked but it was obvious from the start that planes were taken over as well as what happened to them.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: lambros56

Why didn't the planes engines going into the Pentagon leave an impression on the exterior of the building. Yet a hollow plane flew straight through ?
I don't get that.

That's an easy one to answer.
It's the same reason you can ram a PAPER straw through a raw potato.
Inertia.

Inertia is not the excuse for an Origami plane. Boeing aircraft don't have folding wings or tails. The Engines at least would have caused major damage to the walls and windows either side of the hole.

Hell, Inertia doesn't explain why the wings and tail section weren't sitting on the lawn in front of the hole!

a reply to: Salander

There are plenty of them out there for all types of aircraft, but most don't show the keel beam very well because of its placement. They rarely require access except to check attachment points.

a reply to: Tedgoat

The wings and tail are hollow shells. They shattered. The engines are right next to the fuselage. Any damage caused by them, which wouldn't be as much as you think, would have been in the collapsed section.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Tedgoat

The wings and tail are hollow shells. They shattered. The engines are right next to the fuselage. Any damage caused by them, which wouldn't be as much as you think, would have been in the collapsed section.

How could the engines be in the Collapsed section if the collapse didn't happen till 45 minutes after the impact? The engines would have been left in front of the hole as would the wings and tail. There would have been large identifiable sections of the fuselage scattered all over the ground in front of the hole.

But not so strangely enough there wasn't.

I have seen pictures of the Official story showing an engine well inside the building. How did they get there? Through a window? There was no major damage to the wall and or windows either side of that hole before the roof collapsed.

Reminds me of the Twin Tower news story of a hijackers passport found intact on Ground Zero after the towers had collapsed. That was an obvious plant my agents just like the little piece of unburned colour mismatched fuselage agents were seen picking up on the lawn.



Do you know why people like me question these things? Because they do NOT ADD UP!!! There are so many impossibilities and inconsistencies with 9/11 it screams False Flag. Just like 7/7 London Bombings.

Every time they conduct a Drill it turns real! And sometimes when they do a Drill they make it look like it's real!

Check out this video. Even for the Official Story believers it is very suspicious as to what went on with the Tower collapses!

a reply to: Tedgoat

Look at where the engines are. They're as close to the fuselage as they can be and still have smooth airflow. When the fuselage punched through the engines would have hit near the edge of the hole. The wall would have been weaker there, which could have easily shattered the fan and allowed the core to punch through.

You say people question because things don't add up, but then I hear things like, "there's no way a hollow airplane could have penetrated the building" and, "it should have crumpled onto the lawn". The questions being asked make less sense.

a reply to: Tedgoat

Do you know why people like me question these things? Because they do NOT ADD UP!!! There are so many impossibilities and inconsistencies with 9/11 it screams False Flag.

Physics as you understand it are just wrong.
Look at the pictures of the Reno air show crash. Nothing left but itsy bitsy pieces.
You are used to see pictures where the plane hits the ground flat at less than 200mph.

If your version of crash physics were correct then air crash investigators from all over the world would be up in arms.
Unless you believe the US bought off every single one of them?
On top of that the US would have to buy off every future investigator just to keep the lid on the coverup.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Typical OS'er tactic to attack and dehumanize people rather than address what they have to say.

What you had to say was in fact a strawman. As such, you deserve to be ridiculed for using a dishonest debating tactic.

What - about what I said - is your post referring to? Where did I lie?

You used a strawman debating tactic - that we are behind the notion that the planes vaporized. That is in fact, a lie.

Clear enough?

originally posted by: Tedgoat

We are not activists.

Skeptic Overlord seems to think so, and since he's seen this for years, and is an officer of ATS, I think I'll take his evaluation of the situation over your denial.

In fact let's turn this around a little bit. What if the information you have been fed and which you believe is false and the Official Story is a bunch of lies?

I've never seen any evidence that has made me question the OS. SO there's no reason to speculate.

Then you are an activist too for trying to promote the lies!

No, an activist either knowingly lies for the "cause", or is so caught up in the "cause" that they are not interested in the truth. This is why the term truther (which truthers in fact coined themselves to identify their insane group) is such an ironic use of the term. Cuz you are activists that are in no way interested in any truth. Only the "cause"

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

This started by me posting the claim that 2 planes were vaporized. Are you refuting that?

Yes. This is your claim, so a reverse burden of proof won't work, cuz that is in fact yet another dishonest debating technique.

You made the claim that the planes were vaporized.

Now prove it.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Don't worry about what I know or do not know,

Nobody is "worried" about it.

We are simply pointing out that you do not in fact, know what you're talking about regarding the purpose of airplane reconstruction.

We do this in the hope that you will actually do some real research and learn that a reconstruction was not necessary cuz the cause was known - they were hijacked and deliberately crashed.

originally posted by: InvisibleOwl
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I absolutely believe the official story is either a partial lie or incomplete. But your question is very easy to answer. The "narrative of a hijacking" was because flight attendants on Flight 11 called the airport to alert them the plane had been hijacked. Mohammed Atta accidentally transmitted his message intended for the passengers to the control tower. Granted, that only covers 2 planes, but it more than suffices to confirm the planes were hijacked.

Exactly.

There are multiple lines of evidence that say they were hijacked.

originally posted by: Tedgoat


So where did they get the bits from? Inside the 20 foot hole it apparently made?

An honest researcher, one actually interested in the truth, would know that the entrance hole was something like 90' wide and very plane shaped. An activist wouldn't care.

Where's the wings? Where's the tail section? [/quote[

The parts that made it inside are inside. The parts that didn't got shredded and are all over the place.

No plane hit the Pentagon.

LMAO. Only an activist would say this.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

Of a 757, not handy. I might be able to find one but it'll take a couple days.

This one is from an A320 to give an idea of what it looks like though.

www.premium-aerotec.com...

Thanks very much for the link to the picture much appreciated, I would really love to see a pic of a 757 and perhaps the specks on material used and the weight.

I tried doing the Google thing but no luck at all, I read lots of stuff about it but I could not find pictures or any data on the Keel Beam.
I learn something here on ATS every day that I log on and this was a new one.
Regards, Iwinder

a reply to: Tedgoat

And....once again the most idiotic illustration ever from the truth movement returns to ATS. The impact area at the Pentagon, was over 90 feet wide, while it was not the cartoon cutout you obviously expected, neither was it the little hole you think it was.