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

Originally posted by ashamedamerican
1. If all it takes is a little jetfuel randomly poured near the top of a steel frame skyscraper to drop that building into it's own footprint, why are millions spent for demolition companies to professionally do this?
And keep in mind a perfect demolition of a building into it's own footprint requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Main reason is they DONT want the possibility of damage to other buildings for a start. Also most buildings stripped of supporting walls etc to ensure a clean collapse. Wasn't in its OWN FOOTPRINT misquote by you guys. Didn't fall at freefall speed another BS quote!

Also re first steel buildings to collapse due to fire WRONG!!!!! see here

forthardknox.com...

reply to post by CameronFox

Please show your source on this information? As I have said to you in the past you imply your own authority and expertise, however you fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources.

Please read up on the 19 hijackers. They were all trained in Afghanistan. If I went to Russia and was trained as a terrorist then flew to Japan and killed a thousand people, should Japan attack the United States?

Please show your source where you obtained your information on (19 hijackers. They were all trained in Afghanistan.) Thank you


.

17. How could the steel in the towers be weakened to the point of collapse from a fire that NIST says never exceeded 1000 degrees, when the steel used for the buildings was certified by underwriters laboratories for temperatures of 2000 degrees for 6 hours

UL certifies steel?

Really! Please show your source where you make this claim? I like to know what underwriters laboratories job was, can you please enlighten us on this little problem.
You are claiming that UL certifies the steel for the WTC, can you please show your sources to this information, thank you.





[edit on 12/1/2008 by cashlink]

So-called debunkers can argue the toss over every single point raised but the case against the myths propounded by the 9/11 Commission, NIST and the mainstream media is a cumulative evidentiary one.

Why did lead NIST engineer John Gross pretend there was no evidence of molten metal beneath the WTC?

Why give credence to NIST's report on WTC7 when they state that "no steel was recovered from WTC 7"?

Why was James Quintiere's call for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses ignored?

(Professor James Quintiere, Ph.D., University of Maryland, former Chief of the Fire Science Division of NIST, over 35 years of fire research, including 19 at NIST, founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science, the principal world forum for fire research.)

reply to post by cashlink


Since my sources are many. I will post the sources for Mohammad Atta. In the past kind sir, you have ignored my posts that offer the evidence you ask for. If I think you are sincere this time, I will be more than happy to show more sources for the other 18 hijackers.

You have a lot of reading to do my friend.

New York Times Articles Pertaining to Atta:

NY TIMES

Atta School Life

Four Corners follows the life of Mohamed Atta, from the beginning in Egypt to the end in New York, seeking out from those who knew him best what lay behind his deliberate decision to embark on a mission to die for.
A Mission to Die For Transcript

Hamburg's Cauldron of Terror
Within Cell of 7, Hatred Toward U.S. Grew and Sept. 11 Plot Evolved
Cauldron Of Terror

From kind teacher to murderous zealot: Acquaintances saw hijacker transform
www.twincities.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">KRT WIRE


Atta's Will
Here

Inside the Terrorist Network
PBS

I have about 100 more links and many books I can refer you to. Please let me know if you require anything further or if you would like information on each hijacker. If so, I would suggest you open another thread.

reply to post by SPreston


hey genius. help us out here. Whats that charcoal colored building directly under this shower of debris?



Mod edit: Added Reply To link and removed large quote.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/6/2008 by Hal9000]

Why did the president claim (twice) to have watched on TV the first plane strike the WTC (when no such footage had aired)?

Why did he lie in his address to the nation later that day "Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans" when immediately following the first and second attack he remained seated in front of the classroom neither requesting information nor giving orders?

[edit on 1-12-2008 by EvilAxis]

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by CameronFox

 

Please show your source on this information? As I have said to you in the past you imply your own authority and expertise, however you fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources.

I just have to laugh , CameronFox, this is the exact same text word for word that cashlink posted to me just before he put me on ignore yesterday after I proved that Steven Jones was a liar and charlatan for using edited images and changing their captions. Empty your clipboard once in awhile cashlink.


to answer cashlinks question, UL certifies assemblies for fire rating. they DO NOT certify steel.

database.ul.com...

[edit on 1-12-2008 by A W Smith]

Originally posted by EvilAxis
Why did the president claim (twice) to have watched on TV the first plane strike the WTC (when no such footage had aired)?

Why did he lie in his address to the nation later that day "Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans" when immediately following the first and second attack he remained seated in front of the classroom neither requesting information nor giving orders?

[edit on 1-12-2008 by EvilAxis]

uhhh. because Bush is an idiot? fog of war? you should grease those evil axels once in awhile.

reply to post by ashamedamerican


LOL 10,000 gallons a little buy some for me then.

4. Where did the "red chips" of a compound that behaves like unreacted thermite come from if no thermite was used?

Is it unreacted thermite?

8. Why has no steel structure building ever collapsed due to fire before or after 9/11, yet on 9/11 three buildings supposedly did just this? Buildings have had raging infernos for over 24 hours and not collapsed, a plane hit the empire state building and it did not collapse.

WRONG BUILDINGS have collapsed before 911
forthardknox.com...

Plane that hit Empire State Building was a fraction of the size a fraction of the weight travelling at a fraction of the speed AND hit a building built USING A DIFFERENT METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to building with raging infernos for 24hrs please!!!!!!

14. How did WTC 1, 2, and 7 all break the laws of physics?
Just one example: Laws of Conservation of Energy and Momentum.

Is it the real laws of physics or your version!!!!!

16. When NIST reconstructed floor sections of the towers, why couldn't they get them to collapse under laboratory conditions?

Did they have a 110 storey lab???????

17. How could the steel in the towers be weakened to the point of collapse from a fire that NIST says never exceeded 1000 degrees, when the steel used for the buildings was certified by underwriters laboratories for temperatures of 2000 degrees for 6 hours?

AT 60% OF MELTING TEMP STEEL HAS LOST 50% OF ITS STRENGTH
AT 2000C IT WOULD HAVE LOST 80-90% OF ITS STRENGTH AND WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CARRY ITS DESIGN LOAD!!!!!!!

Sections of steel weakend at impact area on the South Tower YOU SEE the collapse start at the area above impact ,the weakend steel could not carry the 40,500+ton load IF YOU LOOK YOU SEE IT HAPPEN!!!! Although it was struck second it collapsed first WHY the load above impact area was higher because the plane hit lower on the building!!!!! REAL PHYSICS!!!!


[edit on 1-12-2008 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by CameronFox
Why is your question not very truthful.

a little jet fuel?

10 thousand gallons is a little? An estimated 15% was ignited with the initial fireball.

in it's own footprint?

80% of the tower collapsed outside it's own footprint.

Considering that they were designed to withstand a direct impact by a 707-340 carrying 23,000 gallons of fuel, yes... a little.
All the fuel that went into those fireballs only leaves less fuel to perform NIST's fairytale magic trick they expect us to believe as well.

I don't know where you get your 80% statistic but if 80% of anything ended up outside the footprint it would have been the massive ammounts of debris ejected from the building as it exploded, but as for the towers they did not fall to the north, or south, or east, or west, they fell straight down into their footprint.

That building did not fall in any of the 360 degrees it should have, it fell directly into the path of most resistance which is why most people refer to that as falling into it's 'footprint.'

If you're going to attempt to call me on a technicality due to the fact that alot of the debris that was ejected from the building landed outside the perimeter of where the walls once stood, then you may want to go debate semantics with someone else, because those buildings dropped vertically into their footprint.

reply to post by Black_Fox

Why would anyone wanna get rid of all the beams from the WTC site?

They didnt. There is still a hanger at JFK that has quite a few beams from the WTC. And China didnt get all the steel to begin with re: USS New York.

It dosent happen naturally,and if a pancake or any other theory is to be believed,absolutly none of them would leave beams cut on a angle

Your right, however it does get cut at angles when clean-up workers start torching the wreckage into smaller pieces.

7.Why was more money spent to see if Bill Clinton got his Willy wet,than money spent to find the truth out about the loss of 3,000 lives?

Um actually more money was spent on the 9/11 Commission than investigating Clinton's willy. NOW if you want to include the entire Whitewater investigation (with its 40 convictions) THEN that cost more than the 9/11 Commission. As for why more money was not spent on the Commission...a lot of the Commission's work was done by federal agencies as part of their day-to-day investigations, no special appropriations needed.

8.Why little to no information is known about the israelis that were arrested that day filiming the event?

Really?

www.911myths.com...

10.Why does steel melt,and paper passports dont?

Because the few passports that survived did not stay in the buildings (exposed to the fire). How do notebooks, video tape and clothing survive a Mach 25 descent through the fiery hell of the atmosphere? (Space Shuttle Columbia)

1/Why did Dubbya refuse to testify at the 9/11 commission alone, insisting Cheney and he would only talk(they never legally "testified" because no public record was ever released..)together, and not seperately??

2/What were they hiding??

3/Why did they not 'talk'(as oppossed to testify, remember...)under oath??

4/Why did the administration fight against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a year?
Over 3,000 deaths not important enough??

5/Why did both the 9/11 Commission and NIST avoided addressing the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements before the plane crashed??

6/What did Norman Mineta mean when he asked Cheney "do the orders still stand?"at the Pentacon's command center ????

7/If the fire from the plane collision cause the Towers to collapse, why did Columbia University in New York register a 2.1 and 2.3 seismic shock moments before each Tower collapsed? and last but not least...

8/If my pet monkey, with an IQ of 32 can see the obvious properties of a controlled demo on the video of the collapsed towers,why cant the debunkers??

reply to post by truthwillneverberevealed

why did george bushs brother shut down all the electronic security and remove bomb sniffing dogs from the towers premises 2 weeks before 9/11?

He didnt. Marvin Bush left Securacom (the company that installed, not operate, security systems at the WTC) in June of 2000.....LONG before 9/11/01.

2. why were several thousand pound steel beams launched up to 600 feet away from the two towers?

Let's see....1100 foot tall buildings with large sections (700+ feet high) falling like felled trees.......Im sorry....whats the question again?

reply to post by CameronFox


Cameron, dont forget that Marvin left the Board of Directors of Securacom in June of 2000. Kind of hard to do anything with a company you no longer work with.

reply to post by Sliick

He was in the company that secured the buildings, he may not have been involved in the day to day goings on with the WTC. however, he was supposed to be on the 105th floor that day in a conference. his group was moved with "our group is too large" cited as a reason. there was a power down for 36 hours from floor 50 up in WTC 2 (south)

Umm, nope. He no longer was associated with that company. As for the "power down" in WTC 2, the ONLY source for that is Scott Forbes and in further interviews he admits it was the 3 floors his company occupied and it was only for 15 or so hours. Not that it matters, it takes WEEKS to wire much smaller buildings for demolition. The idea that some superhumans managed to wire a 110 story building in 18 hours is ludicrous.

reply to post by CameronFox

Yet another false statement. The were allowed to leave the country on September 20th. Almost a week after the ban on flying was lifted.

What I asked was "Why were the Bin Laden family the only ones allowed to leave the U.S. after the attacks?"
How is this a " false statement" as you put it?
Richard Clarke, who ran the White House crisis team after the attacks said,

Top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded, a former White House adviser said today.

Source

Please read up on the 19 hijackers. They were all trained in Afghanistan. If I went to Russia and was trained as a terrorist then flew to Japan and killed a thousand people, should Japan attack the United States?

3 of the 11 alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.
One may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala.
Another may have received language instruction at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex.
Two of those five were former Saudi Air Force pilots who had come to the United States.
Should we have just attacked the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, or the Air War College in Montgomery, or maybe Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio?
O wait I'm getting off-track here, so here we were invading Afghanistan because the 19 hijackers were supposedly trained by Al Qaeda, who's leader Osama Bin Laden stated "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons"... Yes it all makes perfect sense now...

UL certifies steel?

The structural assemblies and components were certified by EHL, a division of UL.
"As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings." - Kevin Ryan
Kevin Ryan was Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories at South Bend, Indiana.
EHL is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

reply to post by benoni

7/If the fire from the plane collision cause the Towers to collapse, why did Columbia University in New York register a 2.1 and 2.3 seismic shock moments before each Tower collapsed?

Not so fast...

Geophysicists have already contributed critical data to terrorist investigations. It was geologists who determined there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers - but only the impact of the airplanes and subsequent fires - that contributed to the towers' collapse on Sept. 11.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Then there is a quote from Arthur Lener-Lam...

There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers,"

Why is that so significant? It was HIS lab and HIS instruments that recorded the seismic readings that day....

reply to post by ashamedamerican

Kevin Ryan was Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories at South Bend, Indiana.

Where he worked in water quality areas.....he has since been fired for basically LYING about what UL does, using his position as a way of trying to add respectability to his claims.

sooo.....
the debunkers in our midst have shown that they are able to cherrypick the odd Q and attempt to answer it....what are you proving??
Certainly nothing to me.....what about answering ALL the other questions, seeing you profess to have one or two answers....

Until all the Q's have been answered, leaving no grey areas inbetween, I shall remain convinced, as no doubt others will too,that this was an inside job...
Remember...
one swallow does not a Summer make....

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ashamedamerican
1. If all it takes is a little jetfuel randomly poured near the top of a steel frame skyscraper to drop that building into it's own footprint, why are millions spent for demolition companies to professionally do this?
And keep in mind a perfect demolition of a building into it's own footprint requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Main reason is they DONT want the possibility of damage to other buildings for a start. Also most buildings stripped of supporting walls etc to ensure a clean collapse. Wasn't in its OWN FOOTPRINT misquote by you guys. Didn't fall at freefall speed another BS quote!

Also re first steel buildings to collapse due to fire WRONG!!!!! see here

forthardknox.com...

No, the main reason is because it is not possible for a steel frame building to completely collapse due to a fire. It has never happened before 911, will not ever happen after 911, and did not happen on 911.

A partial collapse is not a complete structural collapse, and a reinforced concrete building is not a steel frame skyscraper.
So I think we can put the 'Kai-Bosch' on the following link.
Steel Buildings that collapsed due to fire before 9-11.
Because it is, how you say, 'bupkis'...

Also I don't believe I said it fell at 'freefall' speeds but as a matter of fact it did fall at near freefall speeds, which completely violates the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Momentum.

Next troll please, now serving number three.