What would prove to you that 9/11 was not a conspiracy?

Originally posted by billybob
some witnesses said it was a military plane with no windows.

that is evidence.

Evidence of what.
I saw Santa Clause last night. Do you believe me?

in all the videos and photos, you cannot see any markings on the plane. in fact, the plane looks like a grey blob.

You can see the color scheme.
(sorry, you get the idea, but I had clearer photos which I can't find. Stills are poor quality however that videos)


Even in the link you provided you can clearly see it was not just some gray blob

so, where's your alleged 'proof'? you have no evidence that the planes that hit are the planes that they say hit.

Again, we were tracking the planes the WHOLE way. We also had constant visual and audio confirmation that these were indeed the planes. Do you have any proof whatsoever that the planes we were tracking were not the planes that crashed?
What is so f'ing difficult to understand?
And again, anyone who takes this seriously is not claiming the planes disappeared into thin air and was replaced with magical planes without anyone noticing, as you guys are claiming.

I ask for one spec of evidence to even hint that other planes were used and you guy continue to ignore that request. Why?

The fact that flight 175, and 11 crashed into the buildings is not disputed. So, since you guys are making that ridiculous claim it is up to YOU to prove that indeed other planes crashed instead.

Originally posted by Whodunnit
The FDR from 77 doesn't question anything. It's the interpretation of it by some dubious characters over at P4T that made the mistake of 1- correcting the heading IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, and 2-not admitting that the last few seconds aren't ON the FDR.

Yes it does, if you have the actual data.

I am not talking about the interpretation by the P4T. I have the actual FDR data from the NTSB becasue i did a FOIA request.

The NTSB evidence and data also states the plane was in a different flight path and the FDR data shows the plane to be higher then the Pentagon at the time of the crash. Also the data shows the altimeters were reset.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Also, if they cut the beams after the towers fell then, there is no issue what they used. But we're talking about being used in a CD. Have you ever heard of thermite being used in CD?

I can't recall anyone stating the fires alone caused the buildings to collapse (and they did collapse, not implode).

Here you can see it collapsing from the angle and side of which it was hit
And in the last few seconds of this you can see that it did not just fall straight down or turn to dust

1. Thats why they have thermite beam cutters, for demo.

2. Many reports state the buildings withstood the planes impacts so that only leaves the fires as the cause of the collapse. But many reports alos state that the fires di dnot burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the collapse.

3. What law of physics allows a building to start to collaspe from the side and then just stop and collapse straight down.

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

Basically, I saw the video before and the video I posted pretty much explains a lot of that.

The video you posted was good, I have to admit. But it is certainly biased as well.

Because of the massive amount of debris and rubble produced by the fall of two 1000+ foot tall skyscrapers in those conditions, the fact that it burned for weeks...months is hardly surprising.

Three months and eight days.

But the duration of the fire is not what concerns me so much as the temperature. The firestorms of Hamburg and Dresden burned hot enough to set pavement on fire, but still did not burn hot enough to melt steel, even though the allies were using phosphorus incindiary bombs.

What you want is proof the fires burned that hot BEFORE the collapse. That would show something.

Is it your argument then, that the collapse itself created an oxygen-starved fire that burned at 2750 degrees, without any ignition source of a higher temperature?

EDIT to add: You also have to explain how the Towers could have collapsed if the fires did not get hot enough to melt the steel. After all, why didn't this building collapse?

WTC-3




[edit on 3/20/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by billybob
some witnesses said it was a military plane with no windows.

that is evidence.

Evidence of what.
I saw Santa Clause last night. Do you believe me?

in all the videos and photos, you cannot see any markings on the plane. in fact, the plane looks like a grey blob.

You can see the color scheme.
(sorry, you get the idea, but I had clearer photos which I can't find. Stills are poor quality however that videos)


Even in the link you provided you can clearly see it was not just some gray blob

so, where's your alleged 'proof'? you have no evidence that the planes that hit are the planes that they say hit.

Again, we were tracking the planes the WHOLE way. We also had constant visual and audio confirmation that these were indeed the planes. Do you have any proof whatsoever that the planes we were tracking were not the planes that crashed?
What is so f'ing difficult to understand?
And again, anyone who takes this seriously is not claiming the planes disappeared into thin air and was replaced with magical planes without anyone noticing, as you guys are claiming.

I ask for one spec of evidence to even hint that other planes were used and you guy continue to ignore that request. Why?

The fact that flight 175, and 11 crashed into the buildings is not disputed. So, since you guys are making that ridiculous claim it is up to YOU to prove that indeed other planes crashed instead.

Em.. Could someone please go on google images and find a AA airlines that has the AA logo on the tailo with a circle around it...Maybe i missed it...

reply to post by gmac1000


Ya know, I never really thought about the plane markings. Are all AA planes painted the same, that silver with the red and blue stripes?

To me, this plane looks gray, with a dark blue underbelly and tail fin. I would even say that there is a reddish stripe seperating the two tones on the fuselage. The tail looks like it has a red and white circular marking over the dark blue.

EDIT to add: I've seen that color scheme on a plane too, I just can't remember what airline. Grrr.

It had white lettering too.



[edit on 3/20/0808 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 3/20/0808 by jackinthebox]

well it doesn't seem to match any AA comercial airliner i can find on the net...

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I ask for one spec of evidence to even hint that other planes were used and you guy continue to ignore that request. Why?

You're making the claim that AA11 and UA175 crashed into the buildings, but you can't support it. I'm waiting for you to show me forensic evidence that confirms the identity of the two alleged planes that allegedly hit the towers.

Showing a still frame from a video that appears to show a grey plane with a blue tail does not prove the plane was UA175 or AA11. I can't read the registration number on the fuselage, nor can I make out any other identifying features that the plane was UA175.

You showed what appears to be a grey plane.

The fact that flight 175, and 11 crashed into the buildings is not disputed. So, since you guys are making that ridiculous claim it is up to YOU to prove that indeed other planes crashed instead.

No. The fact that AA11 and UA175 crashed into the towers is disputed. There's no evidence to support it.

Seeing that you still have not managed to supply me with the evidence, I doubt that I'll get it from you. I've made my point and I'm not risking any undue attention from Moderators to keep on pressing you for evidence, when you have none.

EDIT: In some old posts by the member called weedwhacker, he explained that around the time of 911, AA were updating their colour schemes on their planes. So, the familiar colour scheme you are used to seeing today, may not have been on all of the planes back then. The plane's markings are useless, as all they show is a grey plane with a coloured tail. There is no hint as to what airline this alleged plane may have belonged to. It could be AA colours, even if it is, it still doesn't show that the plane was AA11. Any jet can be repainted, if required. Look at what Iron Maiden did with their 757 called Ed Force One!

[edit on 20-3-2008 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by gmac1000
well it doesn't seem to match any AA comercial airliner i can find on the net...

Isn't it a pic of UA175 IE United Airlines, not American Airlines?

The markings of a UA 767 shown here for comparison:

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. Thats why they have thermite beam cutters, for demo.

Link? Source?
And do you realize how much thermite would have been needed to bring down the buildings? There is no way you could hide that much thermite. Impossible.

2. Many reports state the buildings withstood the planes impacts so that only leaves the fires as the cause of the collapse. But many reports alos state that the fires di dnot burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the collapse.

What? Name one source that says the fires alone caused the buildings to collapse. It was a combination of many factors. Did you read the link I posted, it give great detail (backed by scientific data and equations) into the combinations working together to cause the collapse.

3. What law of physics allows a building to start to collaspe from the side and then just stop and collapse straight down.

Didn't we just go over this. In one of the videos I posted it showed this was not the case.
No video ANYWHERE ever shows any of the collapses stopping. Wasn't your argument that they fell at free fall speed? How could they stop if that was the case?


jack

Is it your argument then, that the collapse itself created an oxygen-starved fire that burned at 2750 degrees, without any ignition source of a higher temperature?

Who said they burned at 2750 degrees? There is no evidence there were any sustained periods of fires burning that hot for any sustained periods of time. If that was the case, workers wouldn't have been able to access the site for days. You also would have seen pools of melted steel which wasn't the case. You had reports of melted steel, but not much evidence it wasn't another type of metal they saw. Also, not all steel is the same and melting points vary. It also starts to lose it's integrity at much lower temps (which would allow for the bending).

You also have to explain how the Towers could have collapsed if the fires did not get hot enough to melt the steel.

It was a combination of many factors due to a large jet ramming into the Towers. This was no ordinary random fire. And again, the steel did not have to melt. There is no indication it did before the collapses.

After all, why didn't this building collapse?

Size, structure, distribution of the damage, etc.


gmac:
That's because that's NOT an AA airplane. That's United! (as Pil has shown)



You truely are a (nevermind) tezz...
Have you read anything I wrote? No you haven't.
Name one person who disputes that the planes crashed?
Just because you can't read the tail numbers doesn't mean the others who were watching, tracking, and dodging the planes couldn't.
Again, name ONE time when the planes were not being watched since takeoff. If you can do that, then you can begin your argument about the planes disappearing into thin air. Until then, you're useless.
If you want "forensic" evidence. Then SEARCH for it.
But you think forensic evidence is the only way to confirm something? Are you that dense? I just quoted your post. I didn't see you type it, so how do I know that post really exists?


They have other plane parts that could identify the planes. Is that forensic?

(I'll allow you to actually search for what this is, as I can tell you have done NO research whatsoever, yet you come here starting all this #. If the pic doesn't work let me know)
They have DNA that matches the bodies on the plane. Is that forensic evidence?
(and again, I'll allow you to do the research so you can prove the DNA was falsified or planted. I'll wait for your evidence)

Many of the personal effects of the people who boarded the planes are in the hands of their families. Why don't you go and ask them how those effects ended up 100s of miles away burned and charred.

The engine parts found, the parts of the fuselage found, the landing gear found, etc. all perfectly match 767s (if you have any spec of evidence showing otherwise, please present it). 767s are huge planes. They just don't go missing and they just don't appear out of no where.
So if other 767s were used, where did they come from? And why not just use the 767s you just hijacked?


Until you give reason for anyone to doubt that the planes crashed, you're a waste of space and contributing nothing to this thread. So please, again, show at least one thing that would cause doubt that the planes crashed.




[edit on 20-3-2008 by ThatsJustWeird]

Originally posted by gmac1000
Again, we were tracking the planes the WHOLE way.

NO, sorry but Flight 77 was off radar for a total of 36 minutes.

There are no official reports that match any of the parts found to any of the 9/11 aircraft.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Thanks "Pilgrum." That was driving me nuts. I knew I'd seen that paint scheme before.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
NO, sorry but Flight 77 was off radar for a total of 36 minutes.

There are no official reports that match any of the parts found to any of the 9/11 aircraft.

We were talking about the WTC planes....

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
What? Name one source that says the fires alone caused the buildings to collapse. It was a combination of many factors. Did you read the link I posted, it give great detail (backed by scientific data and equations) into the combinations working together to cause the collapse.

Didn't we just go over this. In one of the videos I posted it showed this was not the case.
No video ANYWHERE ever shows any of the collapses stopping. Wasn't your argument that they fell at free fall speed? How could they stop if that was the case?

1. Several sources state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing if not for the fire.

www.firehouse.com...

The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework.

jnocook.net...

The planes would have been shredded passing through the perimeter columns, possibly taking out a few, and the number of interior core columns destroyed would have been much less. When the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 the fire damaged several steel beams but the impact did not take out one steel column.

2. Most of the videos i have seen show the top of the buidling starting to lean over to the side AND THEN COLLAPSING STRAIGHT DOWN.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
We were talking about the WTC planes....

Well there are still no reports matching the parts found found the 9/11 planes.

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

Who said they burned at 2750 degrees? There is no evidence there were any sustained periods of fires burning that hot for any sustained periods of time...You also would have seen pools of melted steel which wasn't the case.

Steel is moltenized at that temperature. Here is the proof, once again, of molten steel at Ground Zero.



another lump of molten steel after it cooled...
and another...
and another yet again.

It was a combination of many factors due to a large jet ramming into the Towers...And again, the steel did not have to melt. There is no indication it did before the collapses.

Why didn't the Towers collapse upon impact, or very shortly thereafter?

Why would the steel melt after the collapse. What would have been the ignition source which burned hot enough to melt steel?

[edit on 3/20/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by gmac1000
well it doesn't seem to match any AA comercial airliner i can find on the net...

Isn't it a pic of UA175 IE United Airlines, not American Airlines?

The markings of a UA 767 shown here for comparison:

Well one is clearly a circle and white and the other which you found was elonggated and red and blue,oh and of course letters...I agree it is closer than the ones i found but still Not an Exact match..

Photos of what American Airlines 767s looked like in 2001.

cdn-www.airliners.net...

Flight 175 as it looked in 2001.

cdn-www.airliners.net...

[edit on 20-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 20-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. Several sources state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing if not for the fire.

www.firehouse.com...

The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework.

jnocook.net...

The planes would have been shredded passing through the perimeter columns, possibly taking out a few, and the number of interior core columns destroyed would have been much less. When the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 the fire damaged several steel beams but the impact did not take out one steel column.

Yeah. Fire contributed to the collapse. That's not being argued.
I said name one source that states fire alone was the cause of the collapse. If this was some ordinary fire without the plane crash and all, there's no way the buildings would have fell.
Yes the buildings survived the impact. That's why they didn't fall immediately. No one is arguing that. But the impacts of those planes crashing into those buildings led to other things (including the fires) that would eventually lead to the collapse.

Also, if it was a CD, why didn't it fall immediately? Have you ever saw a CD that didn't collapse immediately?

2. Most of the videos i have seen show the top of the buidling starting to lean over to the side AND THEN COLLAPSING STRAIGHT DOWN.

No, most videos show it leaning then becoming engulfed in a cloud of dust and debris. But you can still tell the "lean" continued. No video (that was able to capture the full extent) shows it being a clean straight down fall at all.
This is the vid I posted I think and when it gives a wider angle starting at :45 you can follow the track of the part that leaned.
youtube.com...

Well there are still no reports matching the parts found found the 9/11 planes.

Sure there were. There are pieces of the fuselage, the engine, the wheels, the DNA matched bodies, etc.
Plus, again, the fact that we were tracking the planes all the way. So again, if you have proof the transponder which was not turned off was that of another plane, then please present that proof. Or that the visual confirmation from mulitple sources was false. Otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on. To ignore all that evidence, as you guys are doing, is beyond stupid, especially when you have given no reason whatsoever as to why you're ignoring it.


jack:
Did you not look at your own video?
They said those were a combination of metals fused together. Those things weren't pure steel. And also could you please present the chemical composition of those 'meteorites.'
You almost got away with the pools of molten steel which turned out to be nothing more than light, so this time hopefully you're more prepared

Why didn't the Towers collapse upon impact, or very shortly thereafter?

Because the combination of factors that lead to the collapse (including the weakening of the steel) didn't take full effect immediately.

Why would the steel melt after the collapse. What would have been the ignition source which burned hot enough to melt steel?

?
Before the collapse the fires were able to spread and were more exposed. With the collapse they become much more concentrated plus all the energy added during the collapse.


gmac:

Well one is clearly a circle and white and the other which you found was elonggated and red and blue,oh and of course letters...I agree it is closer than the ones i found but still Not an Exact match..

You don't get it.
There were 2 different companies. American Airlines and United. They are not the same thing. The pictures posted (of 175) are United, as it was a United airplane. It matches perfectly and that has never been in question (by any legit person).



[edit on 20-3-2008 by ThatsJustWeird]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
But the impacts of those planes crashing into those buildings led to other things (including the fires) that would eventually lead to the collapse.

Sure there were. There are pieces of the fuselage, the engine, the wheels, the bodies, etc.

1. Other steel buildings have had longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the WTC buidlings but did not collapse.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

2. None of the parts and pieces found have been matched to any of the 9/11 planes through part numbers.

The eywitnesses at the Pentagon could not agree on what type of plane it was. Also 1 witness stated that they did not know what hit the Pentagon he was told later it was a 757. None of these witness statements would hold up in court.