37 FACTS that contradict the "official" BS story

http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/#Phone1

The link above give the proof that 9//1 was one big farce, and highlights 37 facts that contradict the OCT. Some of you keep asking for facts, or proof well, here they are. Pick any ONE from the list of 37 that you think is invalid, and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. If you don't care to discuss any of the point and simply throw out the usual insults instead, well, I understand.

Everything is sourced, so, we can do away with that excuse. For you folks that insist I won't ever post proof, now you have it. Discuss it, or go away.

 

From the link:

From Techbriefs:

Their own research shows the fires reached temperatures three times greater than required to reduce the load bearing capacity of the WTC by 75%

They just confirmed that NIST was correct in their assessment.

 

From your article:

This is factually wrong, and has been disproven via the Millette study. Which showed kaolin, which is not present in any thermite and\or any of it's super\nano aliases.

That's two, this list is falling apart rapidly.

ETA: The Bentham Paper is not a "peer-reviewed" journal either. It's a "pay-to-publish" journal, they are two completely different things.

EETTAA (second edit): If anyone else is bored and wants to get in on this, I can see at least 3 more on the list that are easily\self-debunking.

 

All of this stuff has been discussed and soundly debunked. The poor horse has nothing left to kick...I have comne to the conclusion that the OP is nothing more than a troll, and has serious issues dealing with reality. Used to be that truthers did this out of some need to feel important, now it has crossed into be just plain stupid.

 

Lets see.....one point was that the mayor and residents reported 'No airliner was visible at the designated crash site'

I guess NOT,since it nosed into the field at 580 miles an hour..they were lucky to find anything resembling an airliner

As for the reports of the engine and debris,the accounts are incomplete,because they were published 2-5 DAYS after the crash,before a proper investigation could be completed

 

Two SPECIFIC points of contention that have been addressed. 35 more to go. Meanwhile,I'll further research on the two points raised and respond appropriately after I do.

 

One felt swoop, all dismissed, and throw in an insult for good measure. Got it. Now we're getting the expected responses. Thanks!

 

No one is going to waste their time going through a 37 point, bull(*)(*)(*)(*) list. Just the fact that those 2 points are debunked means the whole thing is a house of cards.

Also, you said:

 

I picked one Fraud....Will you address the fact that they are basing many of their assumptions about UA-93 on two articles written only days after the crash?

 

I'll engage in some sort of honest discussion, just as soon as you do, rather than focus on where it is you want to drift off to.

 

I picked ONE from the list of 37 like you asked Fraud.I was direct with my questions and didn't 'drift' anywhere.


Now man up and do your part

 

From the link above:

The Official Account

The 9/11 Commission reported that United Flight 93, having been taken over by an al-Qaeda pilot, was flown at a high speed and steep angle into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.1

In response to claims that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, the US military and the FBI said that United 93 was not shot down.


The Best Evidence

Residents, the mayor, and journalists near Shanksville reported that no airliner was visible at the designated crash site; that contents were found as far as eight miles from the designated crash site; and that parts – including a thousand-pound engine piece – were found over a mile away.


The underground plane lie as described. Who'll be first to defend it?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm doing some research lonely. I'll post when ample responses are given. So far though, it's nit picking.

 

If 93 was shot down it would be obvious.

F-15's or F-16's in the air flying CAP missions would use Heat Seekers that would have directly impacted and detonated in that aircrafts engines.

We would KNOW.

AboveAlpha

 

I seldom, if ever, visit these threads as the truthers are wasting everyone's time. But if I had been a regular denizen of these 9/11 conspiracy threads and knew you were among that ilk I never would have bothered trying to talk sense to you in those other non-9/11 threads.

 

From the OP link:

... and the rest of the quote that the OP cut off:

Putting the entire quote up destroys the premise of the 'no plane at Shanksville' theory.

 

Your 'best evidence' is from incomplete stories written only DAYS after the crash,and the engine piece was found 300 yards away,NOT 'over a mile',and light sheet metal and papers were found 1.5 miles away,NOT '8 miles'

And the jet buried itself in the coal mining spoil that made up the field

Your 'research' has been found wanting,fraud

 

A commercial jet liner that has at the very least two very large jet engines cannot be brought down with a single air to air missile strike to it's engine.

Both engines would have to be hit and this is something that could not be hidden.

AboveAlpha

 

They use that idiot MacQueen's blather to "prove" that there were unusual or inexplicable explosions in the towers. They have dribbled weak sauce all over the net.
That drooling moron MacQueen tries to use Karen Deshore's oral history statement as proof that there were bombs going off in the street. What a freaking illiterate sack of crap. That boy does not know how to read for comprehension.

Deshore mentions explosions in the street, then states that they were cars cooking off in the fires. Idiot boy MacQueeen needs to learn to read the ENTIRE passages that he cites.

Time for him to go find a temple where he can spend the rest of his miserable, pointless existence contemplating the harm that maya has done to his pea brain.

About half, if not more, of the whackadoodles in that group have no credentials relevant to the subject at had.

Sundjata should just go back to Central Casting and see if there is anybody looking for a Village Idiot.

 

So? The ground was soft. The plane hit like a bullet, largely burying itself. This is not the first time that an aircraft has done so. When Paul Klipsch was shot down over Normandy, his entire Spitfire was buried 5 feet deep in hard but wet clay soil, far harder than what 93 hit at Shanksville. The entire aircraft was later excavated, compressed into a pile not more than 5 feet tall. Nothing remained on the surface.

Compared to the Klipsch site, there was a tremendous amount of wreckage at Shanksville. The rear fuselage probably burst open from the over-pressurization on impact. Little pieces of aluminum are shown everywhere in what few close-up pictures exist.

All the solid metal pieces were found DOWN-RANGE of the impact site. This is as it is supposed to be in a controlled flight into terrain. A shoot-down would have left metal debris up-range of the impact site.

The debris field eight miles away consisted almost entirely of fabdic and paper, which would have been lofted well into the air in the bursting of the rear fuselage and subsequent fireball.

You got BOO.

 

Nothing was found eight miles away. Show your evidence.

 

HAHA

now here is a poster that thinks that every load bearing structure in the WTC reached temperatures that would weaken steel despite the fact firefighters had not reported excessive heat while on the 76th floor, no one was cooked alive, people were standing in windows, walking down stairs while fire extinguishers were working.

OMG this is nobel prize work!

Thanks, I needed a good laugh!

 

red herrings and unproven assumptions does not debunk anything despite your desperate desire to convince anyone it does.

 

well instead of trying to talk sense why not stick to facts instead?

- - - Updated - - -

yeh 5th hand hearsay, that proof right? LMAO

this is comical

 

pictures?

 

That was below the impacted zone. Heat RISES and the core created a chimney effect which directed a good deal of the heat directly to core columns that had been stripped of insulation and misaligned by impact..

Speculative. Nobody came down from above the hottest areas to confirm that. Did you notice that it got hot enough that people jumped out of windows rather than be roasted?

On the up-wind side, where cooler air was entering the building. This does not take a lot of thought to understand.

I have seen accounts of water running down the stairs, but no descriptions of how well the sprinklers were working above the impact zone. Even if any of them worked, there is only a limited amount of water in the system and there was no source of resupply. Do learn how these things work before you comment on them.