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

reply to post by CameronFox

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.

If you can please be so kind to please answer my question, that I ask you, here is my question again.

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

You still have not answered my question. None of your sources are conclusive.

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.

, you have ignored my posts that offer the evidence you ask for.

Please provide proof of this where I have ignored your evidences, where I have told you that I ignored your evidence If you can not show proof of this You have no right making such statements. So far, if “you” think this is debating, it is not, had you tried doing this in a collage setting in a debate forum they would have thrown you out!

Debating dose require proof of your sources it also means GET TO THE POINT! People don’t have time to read frivolous garbage that dose not get straight to the answer.

I am not going to play your game here I did not ask you about Mohammad Atta!
I simply ask you to supply me or us the proof! Just one source that verifies all 19 highjackers were all trained in Afghanistan.

You make erroneous statements and you can “not” back them up
You keep impling your own authority and expertise; however you fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources.

If I think you are sincere this time,

I am always sincere when it comes to 911. I have taken all this time to respond to your post how you can say I am not been sincere.

I will be more than happy to show more sources for the other 18 hijackers

Please answer the original question please using one sources thank you.

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.

No thank you, and I did not ask to be lead on one of your wild goose chases that dose not answer any of my questions. In addition, I am not interested in opening another thread however; I am only interesting in you answering my questions.







[edit on 12/2/2008 by cashlink]

What's up with these pictures?

WTC 7 Photo Controversy
www.youtube.com...


Did he know what he was talking about?
Frank A. De Martini
Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management

video.google.com...

I did my best on this a while back. Please check it out. I think most of the questions I posed are still relevant today.

My ATS Post

Please let me know what you think.

[edit on 2/12/08 by MajesticJax]

reply to post by jthomas


You are absolutely wrong about there being no official story. The Kean Commission report IS the "Official Story" and it's full of it.

reply to post by jthomas


You are absolutely wrong about there being no official story. The Kean Commission report IS the "Official Story" and it's full of it.

reply to post by jthomas


You are absolutely wrong about there being no official story. The Kean Commission report IS the "Official Story" and it's full of it.

i think im rite saying that pilots have a flight path to stick to to reach there destination, now 4 some terrorists to take charge of a plane turn it round fly back with no flight paths and hit the exact towers they wanted is believable then i will plat p*ss. (or did they have flight paths to the twin towers??????)

Originally posted 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?

uhhh. because Bush is an idiot?

The corollary to that would be - Why didn't a single politician or journalist interrogate the president about these serious failures? Are they all idiots too or was the general consensus after 9/11 that it was fine to have a lying, idiot Commander in Chief?

The problem is actually more stark - it is inconceivable that the president did not know about the multiple hijackings long before the first plane strike (unless normal protocol had already been suspended). So why did he continue to his photo op. at the school? He knew about the first strike before he entered the school but continued with his schedule as if unaware that a national emergency was already well under way. Then during his sojourn at the school when he was informed of the second strike he continued to sit like a lemon doing and saying absolutely nothing for another 7 minutes or more.

I can't imagine how anyone could regard such behaviour from the Commander in Chief as anything but treacherous or grossly negligent. Either way, impeachment would be inevitable.

Originally posted by diehl123
steel loses half its strength when subjected to the heat generated by the fires of the combined jet fuel and flammables within the buildings. not to mention the fact that the structural integrity of the building was compromised due to the impact of the commercial jets. i've been licensed for demolition for decades so that argument is moot. i'm a materials scientist. i did not see the first impact live but did the second. as soon as i saw the plane crash into the tower i said to the person who called me to alert me, "Those buildings are going to fall." the only official line is the truth. find another conspiracy to cling to. this one is burned beyond recognition.

Never have I heard such nonsense. Steel doesn't lose half it's strength when subjected to fire, especially the steel they used in the twin towers. Not once has a steel framed tower or block collapsed due to fire. As for the jet fuel in the building! Remember that big orange ball of flame that erupted up the side of the tower when the plane hit? That was your jet fuel going up in an instant. Even firemen who reached the scene say they could have knocked down the fires in minutes. Also there were survivors clearly visible looking out from the hole made by the collision, something that would be impossible if there had been crematorium like temperatures in that location.
You say you're a materials scientist (whatever that is?). Have a look at the material string vests are made out of. You might find it interesting as it is as full of holes as your bizarre argument!!!

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


Amen and hallelujah! The jet fuel, or most of it by far, went POOF on impact. What kind of super-tremendous force are we looking at that can bend a huge, solid steel beam into a U shape without any stress fractures? (See the film 911 Mysteries). That's just not possible in known physics or by a mere kerosene fire. Puh-LEEEZE!

reply to post by jthomas

There are dozens of discrepancies and omissions in the government's official
report on 9/11. The report never mentioned the collapse of building 7, which is one
of the big stories of our time, since it was obviously brought down by explosives.
But let me point out two very clear and verifiable reasons that WTC buildings 1 and 2
didn't implode because of the supposedly intense (3000 degrees) heat from burning aircraft fuel. The smoke from both buildings was black, a clear symptom of a starved fire with little intensity. Also there is a very famous vivid photo of building one about 14 minutes before its collapse. Dozens of distressed people can be seen at the windows
of the upper floors where fires rage. They are terrified and obviously conscious. Please
tell me how any living creature could withstand the temperatures needed to bring down
the buildings? Impossible.

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


Have a look here the graph shows the effect that temperature has on steel
SO YOU ARE WRONG!

www.m4040.com...

Now I stated earlier that 1000 f steel has only got 60% of its strength!

So can you all shut up about steel not being melted it doesn't need to be melted to loose enough strength that it could not support the weight above the impact point SO SIMPLE ISN'T IT!!!!!!when you actually work in the CONSTRUCTION industry !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 2-12-2008 by wmd_2008]



reply to post by Lightworth


So you are a physics expert are you,YOU could also tell how much fuel was burnt in the initial impact? so did you go into the towers and REMOVE EVERYTHING ELSE THAT COULD BURN such as carpets ,paperwork anything made of plastic or wood etc etc the answer to that will be NO!!!!
ITS NOT JUST THE FUEL THAT WAS BURNING!!!

[edit on 2-12-2008 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 2-12-2008 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by wmd_2008


Not a physics expert here, just not ignorant of real, basic physics. Reality dictates that if the twin towers fires were kerosene only, they wouldn't have come down in less than, say, an hour, and with a nuke-like force that pulverized most everything into powder.

It is so heartbreaking to read so many posts by so many ignorant brain dead people. I say brain dead because it is like they have no mind of their own. They chose to only believe what people with with some letters such as phd, have to say or if they are deemed "qualified" by "high level officials". Just because someone works in a field or went to school for a certain thing does not mean that they know what they are talking about or that they are any good at their work. Just because your doctor diagnosis you with cancer and tells you you only have 3 weeks to live, should you just take his word for it or would you get a second and third opinion on it? Or you take your car into the shop because it won't start and you're told it needs a new engine. You have friends who have similar cars which have had similar problems and theirs was fixed with a $20 part. Would you just say ok and put a $5000 engine in or would you take it somewhere else to get a second opinion first? Oh ya, and the shop you have gone to before, different managers but same shop and they've lied to you before.

Let's forget about 9/11 for just a second. If you were to stack a pile of logs on top of each other to form a tower, then you removed part of the base (not the whole base but just a section large enough to make it look as if some one went in with a large scoop and scooped a section out) and then watch and see how it falls over. Using your own mind and logic, what do you think would happen? Do you think that the stack would fall straight down or towards the side with the whole? Better yet, just watch someone cut down a tree.

Now, let's take a look at building #7. It was not hit by a plane, just debris. It had a section "scooped" out of it (whether it be large or small. Opinions very on the size.) Now compare how building 7 fell and the examples I gave. Are they even remotely similar? I think not. Therefore there is some other factor missing.

I know what's coming, no duh, building 7 was on fire. Agreed. Building 7 was on fire but in order for it to have had an impact, the remaining supports would have had to have been weekend (at least) in an even fashion. Plus not to mention that the fires would have had to have started away from the already compromised area so that the building will fall straight down. Now how do you think that would be possible?

I'm no expert, this is just what my common sense is telling me.

I just love this video



Here is the plane. Here is no plane. Abracadabra

I just love this video



Here is the plane. Here is no plane. Abracadabra

I really only have one question, and it involves the Mineta testimony to the 911 commission about Cheney being told about the "plane" approaching the Pentagon.

Norman Mineta (US Secretary of Transportation) testifies that Dick Cheney was operationally aware of flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon.

Norman Minetta tells 9/11 Commission that Dick Cheney knew ..

Google Video Link

My question is:

Why didn't Cheney have the Pentagon evacuated?

[edit on 12/2/2008 by JohnnyR]

reply to post by cashlink


Spot on mate..well done!

reply to post by Marlborough Red

We can all argue over the hundreds of questions, going round and round in circles. But I have ONE question that throws doubt on absolutely everything else.

Do you, after viewing pictures taken immediately after the impact at the Pentagon still believe a plane hit the building? Can you not see that a plane obviously did not hit the Pentagon? Can you see the hole in the wall, can you see the intact widow frames? Do you admit a massive jetliner did not make the hole that is mearly some 20 feet wide?

When you say I agree a plane did not hit. Then the entire 911 story has to be viewed with scepticism.
If they lied about that. Then what else. Simple.

reply to post by wmd_2008


"Have a look here the graph shows the effect that temperature has on steel
SO YOU ARE WRONG! "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I'm wrong name one steel framed tower which has collapsed due to fire? Sorry to say this "BUT YOU ARE WRONG!"