It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trillion Dollar Conspiracy... 9/11 Mounting Evidence...

page: 34
64
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jchristopher5

The wings are hollow. Other than the spars there's nothing in there that will go through concrete. Hitting at that speed the impact would leave the wings in tiny pieces.

As for the windows they were replaced with impact resistant glass when the wall was rebuilt. A bomb wouldn't shatter them.


Yet presumably the same aircraft type left wing marks at the steel WTC buildings.

You're on real thin ice, and I think you know that.




posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Because it was a completely different building. The last time I checked, kevlar reinforced concrete was just slightly harder than steel and glass.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

Because it was a completely different building. The last time I checked, kevlar reinforced concrete was just slightly harder than steel and glass.

It's hard to argue with the grand wizard, who is also a moderator with impressive credentials.

I suppose we can agree to disagree.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
So just so we are clear. There is NO video or photographic evidence that a plane ever came near the pentagon on sept. 11 2001. The only proof is eyewitness accounts who claimed the plane was so close they could see people in the window when it flew a few feet over their head and hundreds of kilometres per hour.

Why does the movie 'Tin Cup" come to mind?

These eyewitnesses should be famous and have book deals. Without them....



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA


Have you ever watched an auto race in person? Maybe been at an airshow watching the jets fly? If you keep a fixed point of reference you see a blur. If you move your head in relation to the object, you can pick out details....like a head in a cockpit/canopy/window.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA



The only proof is eyewitness accounts who claimed the plane was so close they could see people in the window when it flew a few feet over their head and hundreds of kilometres per hour.

That's good enough for me.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
So just so we are clear. There is NO video or photographic evidence that a plane ever came near the pentagon on sept. 11 2001.


Why ignore the video that showed a 757 sized aircraft? Because it destroys your silly conspiracy!



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
You guys need to relax. Did I say anything wrong?

Actually I did say something wrong. 'Tin Cup' was actually supposed to be 'Pushing Tin'.

I know you guys are going to have a field day with this but I can't resist...




posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

We can, but physics won't. The impacts at the WTC broke the joins between beams, their weakest point, and bent them inward into the building, as the steel destroyed the aircraft.

The walls at the Pentagon were one solid piece, with no weak point to break like at the WTC, in addition to being concrete designed to withstand a close proximity bomb blast.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jchristopher5

We can, but physics won't. The impacts at the WTC broke the joins between beams, their weakest point, and bent them inward into the building, as the steel destroyed the aircraft.

The walls at the Pentagon were one solid piece, with no weak point to break like at the WTC, in addition to being concrete designed to withstand a close proximity bomb blast.


Yeah, as long as you mentioned physics, you're right. I don't, for a second, believe that a plane traveling at 500 MPH, hollow wings are not, would fold in, wouldn't break any window, and not leave more wreckage. I don't believe that a 757 would travel through three walls, in this building. I also believe the wreck of a plane, and 190 passengers, would have left a lot more physical evidence. I believe the lack of clear video proof is further indication of a cover job, covering the fact that it wasn't a 757. It was something else.

Speaking of physics, and back to NY, building 7 free fell for 2.25 seconds. It is rediculous to believe that all the approximately 50 columns failed at the same time.

Too many laws of physics violated for me to believe the official story. Couple that with the documentable history of governement lies, the neocons desire for military build up, and the official report is best used as kindling for a roaring fire, on a cold January 1st day.

I am happy for you that the official sorry makes sense for you. It doesn't for me. IMO it is a series of lies, some of them well orchestrated, some of them not so much.

Cheers.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Don't worry, you didn't say anything wrong. I believe the official story is a load of crap too. It makes me angry and I get even angrier arguing with people about it, people who presumably have looked deeply into this mystery. I don't buy the official conspiracy theory for a second.

I don't want to offend anyone with this comment, but it reminds me of those who profess faith in God. They will point to the holy scriptures for evidence. It is a clear example of circular logic. They use the scriptures as evidence, of their beliefs, which are based on these same scriptures.

Likewise, those who profess faith in the official story use the 9/11 Report as proof. Another example of circular logic. We didn't see bodies in the pentagon, there are no clear pictures of this wreckage. Just some skin, which could have came from any craft or missile painted with an AA logo, a motor ( which may not have been from a 747) and little else. We are supposed to trust the same government who has lied and deceived us countless times? Not me. Not when they can't provide proof that I can see. A report doesn't do it.

Many of the commission members have called this for what it is. A cover up.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
We didn't see bodies in the pentagon,


That is because you apparently refused to look at them, as links to pictures of bodies have been posted here for many years....


there are no clear pictures of this wreckage.


Again you have apparently refused to look at them, as pictures of 757 parts have been posted here many many times over the years...


or missile painted with an AA logo,


You fell for a photoshopped missile!
www.metabunk.org...


a motor ( which may not have been from a 747)


It was not from a 747, but then nobody claimed it was - why are you babbling about a 747?


and little else.


Apart from the damage done by a 757 sized aircraft,, the DNA found inside the Pentagon from the passengers and crew on Flight 77, the personal effects found inside the Pentagon from the passengers and crew on Flight 77, the eyewitnesses that saw a 757 hit the Pentagon, then the engines, undercarriage and wheels from a 757....

But you ignore all these facts as they destroy your silly conspiracy theory!

edit on 1-1-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I mistyped a 747, stop being obtuse.

I have seen some wreckage. Very little of it. We have never seen much inside the building. What we did see could have been planted, it is, after all, a government building.

I don't trust the government is telling us the truth. You do, let it go.. Why do you have to be so nasty on every response. We disagree. I think its a lie. You think its all the holy truth.

So be it.
edit on 1-1-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
What we did see could have been planted, it is, after all, a government building.


Now you are being very silly - just how do you think you smuggle in and plant tonnes of wreckage, including 757 wheels, 757 undercarriage and 757 engines? How do you smuggle in bodies and body parts from everyone on board Flight 77?


I don't trust the government is telling us the truth.


Yet you apparently trust people flogging talks, books and DVD's on 9/11....



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Add cardinalfan0596 to the list of people who swallow everything the government and the MSM puts into his head. Add him to he list of people who never questions any official story.

He probably believes:

1. The Kuawaiti incubator scam was a real threat.
2. That the reason for the Iraq war really was "weapons of mass destruction".
3. That the CIA has never been involved in the drug trade.
4. That Bush really forgot where he was on the day JFK was shot.
5. That FDR had no foreknowledge of a pending Pearl Harbor attack.
6. That the funding behind 9/11 is really of "no practical significance".
7. That we really didn't "imagine terrorists flying planes into buildings".
8. That the CIA has never tried to control or influence the media.
9. That the CIA didn't work with Dean and the Washington Post to take down Nixon.
10. That Bush didn't pardon Weinberger and others, in part, save his own bacon.

Keep up the misplaced faith cardinalsfan0596. Your government is there to tell you the truth. They would never have any reason to lie to you. Yeah, right.

edit on 1-1-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

And there he goes assuming again. You do that a lot....and you have been wrong pretty much every time.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Well, if you believe all of the 9/11 story, as you appear to do, than I can assume you believe a lot of tales.

You might believe Mother Goose, if it was a section of the 9/11 report.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Wow, another personal attack. And, another yet again assumption (and again, wrong). I have a few issues with the "9/11 story" but, none of them change the fact that Al Qaeda members hijacked four airliners, crashed them into three buildings causing the total destruction of the World Trade Center.....without the assistance of the US or Israeli Government.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

No more of a personal attack than you and Bruce repeatedly launch on me.

Read the responses from you two. It's as if being rude and nasty covers major holes in the story. It doesn't.
edit on 1-1-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join