911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions

reply to post by apathylost


I am not sure which part of "FACTS" people are so confused over but nothing in your post to me is on topic. This thread is about FACTS. There is no shortage of 9/11 space on ATS in which to discuss another aspect. This thread is for FACTS. I hope you can read it now.

reply to post by Lillydale


Well, its kinda hard for people to use facts when the OS isn't one of them! So they get a little grouchy trying to speak on the subject when their side has already been debunked, buried, toosed out, slammed, shot to hell, called a lie by those who wrote it.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Well, its kinda hard for people to use facts when the OS isn't one of them!

The "OS," as you call it, is the result of examining the facts. It is not a singular fact, but the best explanation based on facts at hand. While you may disagree on the level of uncertainty in some of the explanation and point out the absence of public evidence available, it still seems like the best working explanation of events until contradictory evidence is brought forward.
The thread topic is about bringing "sources and not opinions." Note that many sources are opinions of others, and repeating them on ATS does not make them any more valid for it.
It has also been pointed out that the OP has a penchant for determining what "sources" are legitimate and what are "lies," a favorite word of the OP. Often, what the OP quotes is a "source" and whatever anyone in opposition to the OP quotes is a "lie."

Originally posted by pteridine
While you may disagree on the level of uncertainty in some of the explanation and point out the absence of public evidence available, it still seems like the best working explanation of events until contradictory evidence is brought forward.

Problem is thier has been tons of contridictory evidnece shown but people like you will not accept or admit to it.

The films 911 IN PLAIN SIGHT and LOOSE CHANGE state as fact the eye witness accounts of a handfull of people who said : -

IT LOOKED LIKE A MILITARY PLANE.....

IT SOUNDED LIKE A MISSILE.....

I DIDN'T SEE ANY WINDOWS......


They ignored hundreds, maybe thousands of eye witnesses who said : -

THEY SAW THE LOGO OF AMERICAN AIRLINES.........

THEY SAW THE WINDOWS.......

The FACTS are that large parts of the fussilage fell onto the streets, parts of the engines also.

...................................................


The films state as fact that ....

THE TWIN TOWERS FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED.....


Completely false....

YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT THE BUILDINGS STARTED TO COLLAPSE FROMTHE TOP ( not like a controlled demo,) THAT THE DEBRIS FROM THE TOP THAT FELL OUTWARD "DID" FALL AT FREE FALL , BUT THE CENTRAL STRUCTURE OF THE TOWERS TOOK MUCH LONGER THAN 10 SECONDS TO FALL.

Originally posted by george dorn
They ignored hundreds, maybe thousands of eye witnesses who said : -

THEY SAW THE LOGO OF AMERICAN AIRLINES.........

THEY SAW THE WINDOWS.......

Too bad they also had an eye witnesses who stated "we did not know what hit the Pentagon, we were told later it was a 757".

Originally posted by george dorn



THE TWIN TOWERS FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED.....


Completely false....

YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT THE BUILDINGS STARTED TO COLLAPSE FROMTHE TOP ( not like a controlled demo,) THAT THE DEBRIS FROM THE TOP THAT FELL OUTWARD "DID" FALL AT FREE FALL , BUT THE CENTRAL STRUCTURE OF THE TOWERS TOOK MUCH LONGER THAN 10 SECONDS TO FALL.

You can type in Caps all you want, it wont change the facts.

NIST says the buildings fell in 8 and 10 secs.

NIST is the Official Story.

If you don't agree with that , Welcome to the Truther Side.

I hate the 9/11 debate.

for one thing no matter how much documentary evidence in support of the OS is brought forward, and no matter how many different, CONFUSING, theories oF conspiracy are postulated, it seems to me that there are two items that cannot be quoted as 'facts', and yet they give the lie to the whole episode.

Flight 93 crashes INTACT and buries itself COMPLETELY into the ground.

Flight 77 crashes into the pentagon and disappears COMPLETELY into a 16 foot hole

In both cases there is no sign of wings, major body parts, tailplanes etc.

Now, having read the reasons given for this, I would like, just once, for someone to show photographs of other air disasters thats have taken place with the same outcome.
Ive seen plenty of aircrashes over the years, including Lockerbie, I don't recall ever seeing any where the plane just 'dissapears'.

Its not a lot to ask, so please, OS proponants, show me!

Otherwise the debate should not be about which theory is correct, but about WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT!

Originally posted by REMISNE

Too bad they also had an eye witnesses who stated "we did not know what hit the Pentagon, we were told later it was a 757".

If they stated they did not know, and were told later, then they were not eye witnesses, they are repeating what they were told.

Thats just hear-say.


Sean48.... I NEVER SAID THAT I BELIEVED THE OS.

The OS with-holds the truth.

The films "in plain sight" and "loose change" LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH.

Do not patronize, or condescend people by talking like a Christian who just woke someone up , or like an ex- smoker......

Originally posted by george dorn
If they stated they did not know, and were told later, then they were not eye witnesses, they are repeating what they were told.

Thats just hear-say.

Thats right, i wonder how many other supposed eye witnesses were also told later it was a 757?

Yes, and how many eye witnesses saw a 757 but were ignored in the films " 911 IN PLAIN SIGHT" and " LOOSE CHANGE"

Why not stick to the facts instead of taking suppositions as fact.

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by george dorn



THE TWIN TOWERS FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED.....


Completely false....

YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT THE BUILDINGS STARTED TO COLLAPSE FROMTHE TOP ( not like a controlled demo,) THAT THE DEBRIS FROM THE TOP THAT FELL OUTWARD "DID" FALL AT FREE FALL , BUT THE CENTRAL STRUCTURE OF THE TOWERS TOOK MUCH LONGER THAN 10 SECONDS TO FALL.

You can type in Caps all you want, it wont change the facts.

NIST says the buildings fell in 8 and 10 secs.

NIST is the Official Story.

If you don't agree with that , Welcome to the Truther Side.

Sorry Sean, but you guys are about 4 years behind the times with that nonsense.

From NIST FAQ:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
.............
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

wtc.nist.gov...

Hmmm nope, nothing about the building collapsing in 9 or 11 seconds, but the first exterior panels to strike the ground. But I thought people that claim to have "extensively studied" 9/11would have discovered this fact easily by now. So now, you can stop spreading and parroting that disinfo about the collapse times.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.


You cannot reverse engineer suppositions.

Originally posted by Icerider
I hate the 9/11 debate.

for one thing no matter how much documentary evidence in support of the OS is brought forward, and no matter how many different, CONFUSING, theories oF conspiracy are postulated, it seems to me that there are two items that cannot be quoted as 'facts', and yet they give the lie to the whole episode.

Flight 93 crashes INTACT and buries itself COMPLETELY into the ground.

Flight 77 crashes into the pentagon and disappears COMPLETELY into a 16 foot hole

In both cases there is no sign of wings, major body parts, tailplanes etc.

Now, having read the reasons given for this, I would like, just once, for someone to show photographs of other air disasters thats have taken place with the same outcome.
Ive seen plenty of aircrashes over the years, including Lockerbie, I don't recall ever seeing any where the plane just 'dissapears'.

Its not a lot to ask, so please, OS proponants, show me!

Otherwise the debate should not be about which theory is correct, but about WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT!

This is the scene of a plane crash in Iran last summer. A Tupolev, pretty much the same size as a Boeing 757, went down with 168 passengers and crew :-

news.bbc.co.uk...

You could just as easily say "where is the plane ?", " where are the wings ?", " where are the passengers ?"

An inside job ? !

reply to post by Alfie1

Thanks - what I see is a massive crater and some large pieces of aircraft, and please note it is a MASSIVE crater.

'Wreckage was spread over a large area in a field in Jannatabad village, Qazvin province, about 75 miles (120km) north-west of Tehran, state TV said'


.







Good video, I think it supports my argument well.

Originally posted by george dorn


Yes, and how many eye witnesses saw a 757 but were ignored in the films " 911 IN PLAIN SIGHT" and " LOOSE CHANGE"

Why not stick to the facts instead of taking suppositions as fact.

Don't you mean how many eye witnesses supossidly saw a 757. How many were told it was a 757?

So we're 7 pages in. I read the first page and already the responses were just argumentative and just bickering, absolutely no sources provided to establish anything. Not even the 9/11 Commission report, NIST, nothing.


So what have the OS believers proved so far and with what sources/evidence have they proven it?


My guess would be they have provided absolutely nothing substantial to back their case so far. Am I close?

reply to post by REMISNE


What you call evidence others call speculation.

Originally posted by pteridine
What you call evidence others call speculation.

Kind of like when there is evidence of numerous separate explosions through the morning, and you SPECULATE that it was all number of things other than actual explosives, right?

Or can you actually prove what was causing those explosions?


Nope, you are just speculating.

Originally posted by pteridine
What you call evidence others call speculation.

But i can show my evidence, others have a problem showing thiers.

I mean evidence that would hold up in court.