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

Originally posted by JohnnyR
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

And how did Mr. Bush "see" the FIRST plane hit the building?

My question is:

Why didn't Cheney have the Pentagon evacuated?

[edit on 12/2/2008 by JohnnyR]

Why was there an extra piece of equipment or POD attatched to the bottom of SUPPOSED flight 175 that crashed into the 2nd tower? And since commercial aircraft do not have ANYTHING attached to the bottom HOW could it have been a commercial aircraft?

AND

Why did we see DISTINCT FLASHES just before both planes entered the buildings, what caused those flashes?

[edit on 2-12-2008 by checkitb4uwreckit]

I dont as a rule post on threads that concern 9/11 because i havnt researched it personally, but, without a doubt this thread has opened my eyes to the energy that the debunkers have used in challenging without reason the facts displayed by the truthers.

All I can say is those that debunk realy need to look at what they are saying as at times to a laymen it looks quite pathetic and very amateurish.

If the debunkers are gov dissinfo agents they need sacked and replaced with those that can debate by answering a question. Im sure this thread in itself and the debunkers contribution has increased the number of truthers if only by what they are seeing written in response to facts.

If this was a debate you lost debunkers, you lost !

respects

Question to 9/11 believers:
Why was the government so incompitent with handling the attacks?

But also, I love how it seems that everybody just seems to be an expert on all forms of technology and architecture here. Yes there are facts that people can research but where are all of the eye witnesses that have made these claims that back your evidence? Unless you actually know one of the eye witnesses who SAW FIRST HAND what happened in New York when the towers fell, you cant really sit here and claim that there were explosions at the base of the towers and their were setup explosions and the towers fell on their design.

What benefit is it to you to "know" that the government you live under was involved with one of the most tragic events in our history? Would you like to say all this conspiracy preaching to the families of those who died? I doubt any of those families would agree with you.

Yes Im taking the emotional approach of I dont think our government would have the ability to kill off thousands of our own people for money and a platform to go to war with another country. George Bush does not seem like the type of person who would be capable of knowing he's rsponsible for thousands of deaths in our own country and just live life carefree as can be.

Also, why is it that in this ONE event, everybody has doubts?

Maybe its just that our generation of internet users is so stuck up they think they know everything and NOTHING is as it seems to be. People were sure as hell not going to question conspiracy theories back when PEARL HARBOR was bombed. The biggest reason why people want to disprove the way 9/11 really went down is because they all are just really, really arrogant.

(random question, whats ATS and BTS, Im new here.)

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Someguy134]

Originally posted by wmd_2008
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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm hereby instituting a new personal rule, and hope others will follow this example.
If a post has more than 99 exclamation marks I will not be replying to it.
Even if the individual posting is following 'construction industry' standards.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]

reply to post by ashamedamerican


Oh my, what’s wrong with this person?

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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who lets the kids out!

I'm hereby instituting a new personal rule, and hope others will follow this example.
Even if the individual posting is following 'construction industry'If a post has more than 99 exclamation marks I will not be replying to it. :lol

I total agree with you.





[edit on 12/2/2008 by cashlink]

reply to post by checkitb4uwreckit


The pod is yet another myth!with the flashes most likely a reflection of the aircraft! clutching at straws yet again!


reply to post by cashlink


Well you insist that the steel has to melt SO for the hard of learning I will once again say THE steel does not have to melt as it heats up its strength lowers it starts to yield which again for people who dont know what that means it can altershape due the the loads imposed so when those floors above the impact point which can be CLEARLY SEEN dropping as ONE mass
hit with their 40,500 + tons there was NO WAY the structure below could take the impact it is that SIMPLE.

ALSO TO CLEAR UP THIS FREEFALL speed BS!
a) You cannot see when the last part of the building hits the ground for the DUST! accurate time given by conspiracy sites DONT THINK SO!
b) Debris ejected to the side of the building FALLS faster than the floor collapsing so if the BUILDING is supposed to be falling as fast as possible
how can other debris be FALLING QUICKER.

THE aluminium plane cant pentrate the towers BS! it could, it did, you saw it all down to the speed and mass of the plane.
Re the Empire State building people mention that crash BUT YOU guys DONT MENTION its a fraction of the size,speed and weight of the WTC crashes or the FACT!! that the Empire State building HAS MASONRY on the OUTSIDE funny that. Comparing those two is like saying I could win NASCAR in my road car after all a car is just a car!

Planes are constucted to be very strong think about it two sometimes four engines on wings that can weigh between 3-8 tons plus thousands of gallons of fuel in tanks in the wings and they have to take all the stresses of flying at hundreds of miles an hour with all that load on the wings!

Explosion at base of building have heard stories from people in the buildIng at the time ,shown on tv, of fuel pouring down lift shafts lifts crashing people badly burned etc like I have said before lots of items can sound like they are exploding in a situation like that.
So humans being humans when they know what has happened the mind takes over, every loud noise is an explosion maybe BUT it doesn't mean explosives!

Whats really sad is even the fact you saw this happen and BECAUSE of lack of knowledge of the construction of buildings or aircraft or any appreciation of the forces involved people can be lead to the wrong conclusion by the first IDIOTS to post wako ideas on the net but what is even more sad is YOU LOT can even think that it was an inside job! If you are that unhappy with your country leave ITS a bigger world outside the states than in.

I am quite sure a lot of Americans would help you PACK!

[edit on 2-12-2008 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 2-12-2008 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by wmd_2008

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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just because you work in the construction industry does not in any way indicate how competent or knowledgeable you are. I know many licensed automotive technicians who have worked in the industry for many many years yet I still wouldn't let them anywhere near my car.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

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]

Apparently you my friend have absolutely no knowledge about chemistry or physics. Are you saying that carpets, paper, plastic, wood etc. burns HOTTER then jet fuel because if not then you have just proven that you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. You do not take something that burns at 1000 deg F and add something that burns at 500 deg F and end up with a temp of 1500 deg F. The highest temp that would be reached would be the highest burning point of the 2 or 3 or whatever number of materials. Don't believe me? Try a simple experiment. Boil a liter of water (which boils at 100 deg C.) and boil a liter of Alcohol (which boils at 78 deg C.) then mix the two together and check with a thermometer.

reply to post by SPreston


Wow you seem to have a fix on the whole realm of history and all in it, I guess I dreamt the entire historical event as did the other people there who witnessed it.
I think you should step back and take a breath, maybe consider that we may never know all the facts and or they may not come out for many years if at that.
Other than that please take a chill pill because actuation's like that are nothing more then flaming and make you look like a nut case.

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!

Lets see all my qualification from school engineering or science based
things like Engineering Science, Physics,Engineering Drawing, Maths etc
Worked for a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company YOU KNOW the people who manufacture the steelwork to build these things did civil engineering at college and I am now a manager of a company that provide assistance to architects, engineers etc by doing tests on site! sometimes to destruction I have been in the construction industry for about 30 yrs SO I THINK I DO KNOW MORE THAN MOST!

PLEASE POINT OUT IN MY POST EXACTLY where I say that carpets ,etc burn hotter than fuel! All I said is the fuel is not the only thing that was burning SO READ IT AGAIN!!

Here I will save you the trouble

Originally posted by wmd_2008

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!!!

Please show me

I am not some spotty little prepubescent owk mate !

[edit on 2-12-2008 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by lmbbsc

The highest temp that would be reached would be the highest burning point of the 2 or 3 or whatever number of materials.

Absolutely true. Good work.

And fire engineering tests show that a typical office content fire easily reach 1000C in 10 minutes due to the hydrocarbons present in carpeting, plastics, etc.

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Some interesting observations from them that may be of interest to those that are incredulous about thermal expansion/WTC 7:

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

"The nominal or standard fire curves are the simplest way to represent a fire by pre-defining some arbitrary temperature-time relationships, which are independent on ventilation and boundary conditions. Historically, they were developed for fire resistance furnace tests of building materials and elements for their classification and verification."

"The standard fires do not always represent the most severe fire conditions. Structural members having been designed to standard fires may fail to survive in real fires. For example, the modern offices tend to contain large quantities of hydrocarbon fuels in decoration, furniture, computers and electric devices, in forms of polymers, plastics, artificial leathers and laminates etc. Consequently, the fire becomes more severe than the conventional standard fire."


So what do the above quotes mean?

That the standard tests used do not accurately reflect reality, IMHO.

Griff - what is your take on this? Are you of the opinion that the engineering factors that you currently use may be, in reality, of little use and need to be upgraded? Were these standards more useful when less plastic was typically found in offices, etc?

reply to post by wmd_2008

Well you insist that the steel has to melt SO for the hard of learning I will once again say THE steel does not have to melt as it heats up its strength lowers it starts to yield which again for people who dont know what that means it can altershape due the the loads imposed so when those floors above the impact point which can be CLEARLY SEEN dropping as ONE mass
hit with their 40,500 + tons there was NO WAY the structure below could take the impact it is that SIMPLE.

I have made no such claims! You show me where (Well you insist that the steel has to melt) I insist? Where have I made such a statement? You are barking up the wrong tree pale!

Whats really sad is even the fact you saw this happen and BECAUSE of lack of knowledge of the construction of buildings or aircraft or any appreciation of the forces involved people can be lead to the wrong conclusion by the first IDIOTS to post wako ideas on the net but what is even more sad is YOU LOT can even think that it was an inside job! If you are that unhappy with your country leave ITS a bigger world outside the states than in.

I am quite sure a lot of Americans would help you PACK!

You do not know where my lack of knowledge lies, however your rude comments and snide remarks have no place on ATS! Furthermore, “you” do not have any business telling anyone what country he or she needs to move to! Your comments and your opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism.

reply to post by checkitb4uwreckit

Why was there an extra piece of equipment or POD attatched to the bottom of SUPPOSED flight 175 that crashed into the 2nd tower? And since commercial aircraft do not have ANYTHING attached to the bottom HOW could it have been a commercial aircraft?

Underside of Boeing 767 -



Notice the so called pods - they are the landing gear bays to hold the
aircraft landing gear

Another shot of underside






Maybe should do some research first

hello im from NJ.. im so sick of whats going on in this county. first of all 9/11 was a inside job i know for a fact. And i know that the new world order wants one world government they are so close to getting it. all its going to take is one more terror attack (false flag operation) on america then they will inforce marshall law then nothen can be done they win.. we need to do something before its too late.. we all have to over throw the government even if it takes being violent or peacefull its the only way. we need a million man march right up to the white house in washington, DC to show them we are not playing now if we do this we will get media attention for the first time and people will start to realize what really going on in this country we have to do something NOW we cant wait. this evil empire will fall and we have to be the ones that make this evil callapse.

reply to post by cashlink


It was not aimed directly at YOU but it could be because you obviously are convinced that it was explosives having looked at previous posts of yours.
Even when you see what happens in the videos of the towers collapsing The South Tower HIT SECOND COLLAPSES FIRST why, hit lower so area above impact area GREATER so when that falls YOU CAN SEE IT in the video cant you 40,500+ tons drops at least one floor NO chance of resisting that.

Look at the graph steel would have been weakened PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

If you had any background in constructoin when you saw how the planes hit where they hit etc YOU WOULD NOT have been shocked at the result.
You would not jump to the conclusions THAT it could not happen like that or that its an inside job etc.
That is INDEED SAD!

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Griff - what is your take on this? Are you of the opinion that the engineering factors that you currently use may be, in reality, of little use and need to be upgraded? Were these standards more useful when less plastic was typically found in offices, etc?

Everything is fire rated I believe. Therefore, it should be included within the calcs. But, I really don't see people like Dr. Quintiere (for those that don't know who he is, he is a former lead fire engineer for NIST) talking about updating the fire codes. What I do hear him talking about is how NIST has failed in giving us a scientific evaluation. Conspiracy or not.

reply to post by mcguyvermanolo

4) If the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel, why are there photos of living people standing in the holes created by the impacts?

5) If the fires were so hot, why did a NYC Fire Battalion commander say that the fires could be contained with a single line?

Why people at the impact hole ? - plane was travelling 500 mph at impact -
anything in its path was bulldozed to opposite side of building. Momentum carried the jet fuel far into the building. Add to that the winds (which are
much stronger above ground) blowing. Most of the fire was on the opposite side of the building, away from the people. One thing the
tin foilers fail to mention - the people here jumped to their death shortly
after because of the heat/smoke....

Why did Chief Orio Palmer report only small fires on floor?

the 78th floor is a sky lobby - few offices with combustible materials
(furniture, carpets, paper, computers). Area was mostly elevators,
machinery with polished marble floors and walls - not much to burn

It was on the lowest point of the impact area and was hit by one of the
wingtips of Flight 175 . Most of the fire was on the floors abovewhich took the brunt of the impactt . Nobody reported on conditions of those floors.

reply to post by Marlborough Red


This is 10 ring, On the morning of the 911 attack, I was watching one of the interviews a news caster was having with a mother who's son was talking to her on his cell phone while she was talking to the news caster.
" This is what she told the news caster" My son is on an airplane and it has been taken over by hijackers.(this was the plane over Pennsylvania )the mother went on to say to the news caster that , my son said they were getting ready to attact the hijackers, then she told him her son said something just hit the plane, her son said he can see the wing on fire as they were heading toward the ground to crash. So.......what am I saying, I am telling you that our fighter jet shot down the hijacked plane that went down over penn. The movie was strictly to keep us happy that our people tried to do something to prevent the hijacked plane from going to it's destination. ALso, if you wil remeber that truck load oafter truck load of dirt was moved from a site not very far from the crash site, evidently one of the fighter jets missles missed the airline and hit the ground and all the residue had to be removed because anyone with a toy chemistry kit would be able to detect the explosive residue where the missle hit the ground. I know what I heard. This news caster has never repeated this story. Take or leave it but this is the truth.

Originally posted by thedman
Why people at the impact hole ? - plane was travelling 500 mph at impact -
anything in its path was bulldozed to opposite side of building. Momentum carried the jet fuel far into the building. Add to that the winds (which are
much stronger above ground) blowing. Most of the fire was on the opposite side of the building, away from the people. One thing the
tin foilers fail to mention - the people here jumped to their death shortly
after because of the heat/smoke....

So, you are saying that all the columns just decided to collapse at the same time? Even though "most of the fire was on the opposite side of the building"? How does this create symmetrical collapse?

reply to post by jthomas


jthomas, you either have no technical background or had it and forgot it. You're like all the gov't backers, heavy on rhetoric and devoid of any evidence to back up what you say. you're type of argument has been discounted so many times that once anyone realizes you'll state no fact they most likey just leave your post.