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.

 

Top OS contradictions that silence it's proponents

page: 11
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Typically planting evidence would mean: Someone placing it there. But yeah, sure, cannons and cartoon physics.


But funny how it is almost as if you did not realise they worked out its trajectory from the plane hitting the building and exiting the WTC, hitting another building and damaging it, then landing and cracking the pavement where it finished up. You also seem to think someone can just dump a few hundred kilos of jet engine in New York during the day, and no one noticed.

They would have had to use a cannon to plant it, otherwise how do you explain its trajectory and damage.

But the no planes hit the WTC conspiracy theorists are way out there!

As to the term "truther"

9/11 conspiracy theorists (collectively referred to as "truthers")

rationalwiki.org...


You said "they worked out its trajectory" as if that's proof, but it's not. Hey I just worked out the trajectory of a dinosaur lol. Does that make you think it was there? Of course not.

How do I explain the engine's trajectory? Made-up.

How do I explain damages? Apparently a few exotic types of expensive explosives and / or exotic weapons used by our govt. on that day, sadly enough. The towers were apparently wired up with bombs / explosives ahead of time, probably bldg 7 too, if not the Pentagon too.

I don't think I know exactly what happened that day. It's still a mystery but I think pre-planted explosives are obvious regardless of the question of what plane or other object actually hit these buildings...

Calling other people "out there" is funny coming from the guy daydreaming about shooting engines out of cannons lol.

As for the engine being planted there, use your imagination. I did see a video that photographically identifies the NYC engine as being the same in a previous photo in a junkyard of NYC.

So, maybe a pickup truck was used to drive the engine there from the junkyard. If it couldn't be lifted on to the truck, maybe a crane was used at the junkyard. Even then I'd assume they could shove or drag the thing off the truck, when they got to where they wanted to plant it on the street.

It's really not so hard to imagine. It was heavy, but so what. Heaviness is not a reason for it not to be planted there.

As for the govt. agents having the privacy to plant it: Well, maybe they sectioned off the block for 30 minutes, to plant it. None of this is so very "out there."

edit on 22-3-2015 by peacefulpete because: Condensed the post a little.




posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   


Photographic and physical evidence that shows the NYC engine was wrong.


edit on 22-3-2015 by peacefulpete because: Condensed the post.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   
edit


edit on 22-3-2015 by peacefulpete because: double-post.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete


The towers really did seem to explode, vaporize, and float away in massive clouds. Very odd collapse, wasn't it?



Do you understand that a building is constructed of materials?

How much drywall, aka sheetrock, do you think was in those towers?

Do you know what drywall is made from? Do you know what happens to drywall when it is crushed/pulverized?

By the way the fireproofing used to coat the steel is also dusty. When broken up it is nothing but dust.
edit on 23-3-2015 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
I'm not moving the goal posts. This is exactly the kind of response a "Truther" would give. You don't even consider that they actually said "this building is going to come down" and the ever ignored "this building is gonna blow up". I'm not saying that means anything at all. If I said to you something like "wow did you see that car? It was all crushed up." That could mean anything from completely cubed and compacted to just having the hood crinkled up. You wouldn't know any more what I meant by "crushed up" than you do what the FDNY meant by "going to fall". I believe what you did was something you personally refer to as quote mining, another classic Truther move. a reply to: cardinalfan0596


edit on 23-3-2015 by TheBolt because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt


Smart phone error
edit on 23-3-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596 Nope, I've actually talked to a few of the firemen about what they said that day. Not a single one of them thinks there were bombs that day, despite what you think they meant based on quote mining video clips. But, please, if you go to New York, drop by a Firehouse and ask to talk to anyone on duty that day. Tell THEM what they meant.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete


Photographic and physical evidence that shows the NYC engine was wrong.



Thank you for providing us with your Youtube evidence, now here is the real evidence that shows what a load of crap that video is.

Your video claims that the JT9D-7A and the JT9-7R4D are a different engine type and size this is not true. The 7A does have a larger fan but it is the same type and size engine.

They also claim that this part PN 769316 is not found on the JT9-7R4D



This document explains in great detail how to replace or modify PN 769316 on the JT9-7R4D

119.97.245.12:8080...技术部门/手册/维修及维护手册/Eagle%20Disc%20JT9D-7R4G2%20EM%20and%20EIPC/sb/72-512.pdf

Since most Truthers have a phobia of clicking links that destroy their claims, I took the liberty of Highlighting in green some of the parts of the document that debunk your video.



The engine found on Murray st. was the engine from UA 175. There is no evidence to the contrary.
I can provide other documents linking PN 769316 to the JT9-7R4D if you want.

And to top it off both the port and starboard landing gear from UA 175 were recovered.
The landing gear is defiantly from a Boeing 767 no doubt about it.
Therefore the engine also came from a boeing 767.





The flap actuator (yellow arrow) they found ....



also came from a B767.




This piece of debris can be directly identified as belonging to UA 175 (N612UA)











UA 175 / N612UA crashed into the south tower, the engine found on Murray st. came from UA 175 this is a fact.




edit on 23-3-2015 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-3-2015 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I didn't say I thought they meant there were bombs. I don't think the FDNY was in on anything. You believing that is what I said is another important example of how you take a quote and INFER it's meaning to suit your point. I've never said they thought there were bombs in any of my posts. reply to: cardinalfan0596



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Cant make the above link work.

To visit page hit quote and copy paste this into the address bar:

119.97.245.12:8080...技术部门/手册/维修及维护手册/Eagle%20Disc%20JT9D-7R4G2%20EM%20and%20EIPC/sb/72-512.pdf



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
These are incredible pictures of significant sections of plane parts in the debris. I appreciate you posting them. A few initial comments. One of the main arguments against some of the "truthers" is that if the information they provide is so glaringly obvious and certain then why isn't it being jumped on by the media? Well I have to say I'm at a severe loss to understand why these pictures of obvious large airplane pieces aren't world famous. These are the most definitive pictures from any 9/11 crash site of clear indisputable plane sections. What is the the story behind these photos? amazed as I am by them, they do beg a couple of questions. If the fires were so hot that they warped enough of the steel trusses to initiate a collapse, how do so many of these large sections of aluminum survive? How did the black boxes then not survive? (I realize that opens up a whole other debate but please just indulge me. If they did, why were we told for so long that they didn't?)Why are all these huge pieces laying on top of the rubble? Were they not on top and these taken after they dig down a bit? If that's the case it's remarkable they are in such pristine condition. If they were in fact laying near the top then why aren't there more statements from people saying they saw these? This is a potentially huge "in your face" package for the OS pushers to throw at the "truthers" so why aren't these pictures smeared everywhere???? a reply to: waypastvne



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

A large portion of them were ejected out the other side of the building. They were found on top of or near other buildings, which is why there isn't any kind of fire damage, and how they survived as well as they did.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt




Well I have to say I'm at a severe loss to understand why these pictures of obvious large airplane pieces aren't world famous. These are the most definitive pictures from any 9/11 crash site of clear indisputable plane sections.

They have been online like FOREVER.
It's just that conspiracy minded people want to ignore evidence that conflicts with their conspiracy.

Do a google image search for 911 body parts on the ground. After a few of them you can accept the 'passport' being found unburned.
Oops another conspiracy point busted.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
Well I have to say I'm at a severe loss to understand why these pictures of obvious large airplane pieces aren't world famous. These are the most definitive pictures from any 9/11 crash site of clear indisputable plane sections.


Remember, truthers are not interested in fact, nor the truth - so why would they visit websites or look at pictures that destroy their conspiracy theory? By looking at those sort of pictures it is obvious American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 hit the WTC buildings, so truthers ignore them.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 05:01 AM
link   
This is a blanket response to all of you....Lots of things have been "online like forever". Why aren't they headline news across the world? I said I was impressed with them. I said they are definitive. My question was how is there any debate left at all at least as far as the no planes theory because everyone should know about them. These aren't just post it online somehwere and attempt to spread the word material.
These are front page shut your mouth photos.
As far as these huge plane pieces being ejected, when were they ejected? Why wouldnt we see such large and clear wreckage chunks flying out the back of the impact points on any of the news videos or any videos of the impact? If we do, then again why hasn't anyone pointed them out?
Finally, if that much of the plane is left in tact then how does that affect the explanation that the molten metal pouring out of the impact holes prior to the collapses was all aluminum from the planes?

Before you sound off on me, understand that the tone of these questions isn't attacking or defensive. They are inquisitive as I'm showing a clear attempt to hear calm and rational explanations. I can't believe how many times I have had to say this and this will be the last time. "I'M NOT A TRUTHER". Get it through your heads. Instead of looking at this as a real opportunity to provide excellent and well worded points to someone who's willing to listen, three out of four of you still only belittle and demean me instead of answering me. Not a good way to convince anybody.


a reply to: samkent




posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
Why aren't they headline news across the world?


Why should they be? Truthers would refuse to look at them anyway, as they destroy their conspiracy theory. Most people accept that American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 hit the WTC buildings.

Did you make any attempt to search for pictures of that wreckage?


As far as these huge plane pieces being ejected, when were they ejected? Why wouldnt we see such large and clear wreckage chunks flying out the back of the impact points on any of the news videos or any videos of the impact?


Watch the videos....


Finally, if that much of the plane is left in tact then how does that affect the explanation that the molten metal pouring out of the impact holes prior to the collapses was all aluminum from the planes?


It may not have been aluminium, and you have a plane with about 70-80 tonnes of aluminium, how much was flowing out? Say 5 tonnes, 1/14th of the planes weight.


edit on 24-3-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-3-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: TheBolt
Why aren't they headline news across the world?


Why should they be? Truthers would refuse to look at them anyway, as they destroy their conspiracy theory. Most people accept that American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 hit the WTC buildings.


(This is not a well constructed argument. No logic, no substance, just more ridicule. Then a general and easily reversible statement. Just as easy for me to say most people do not accept those flights hit the building. There, my argument is over according to you. Spoken like a true Truther.)

Did you make any attempt to search for pictures of that wreckage?

(Did you? Your gibberish attacks on other posters only seem to happen immediately after someone else posts a photo or link. You don't ever back yourself up because you never make any points, you just mock others.)


As far as these huge plane pieces being ejected, when were they ejected? Why wouldnt we see such large and clear wreckage chunks flying out the back of the impact points on any of the news videos or any videos of the impact?



Please show us where news crews were filming the back of the buildings...

(This is probably the most ridiculous thing you've ever said and I've had a lot to choose from. News crews, choppers, all the videos of the impact. If you really think that there isn't a chance one of these would show large plane hunks ejecting out the side of the building immediately after the impact then you're even more close minded than I thought.)



Finally, if that much of the plane is left in tact then how does that affect the explanation that the molten metal pouring out of the impact holes prior to the collapses was all aluminum from the planes?


It may not have been aluminium, and you have a plane with about 70-80 tonnes of aluminium, how much was flowing out? Say 5 tonnes, 1/14th of the planes weight.




(You're getting close to considering options here. It may not have been aluminum.)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt




As far as these huge plane pieces being ejected, when were they ejected? Why wouldnt we see such large and clear wreckage chunks flying out the back of the impact points on any of the news videos or any videos of the impact? If we do, then again why hasn't anyone pointed them out?

You can clearly see plane parts coming out the other side of the building in this video.

But then again conspiracy minded people say these plane parts were planted.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
You can clearly see plane parts coming out the other side of the building in this video.

But then again conspiracy minded people say these plane parts were planted.


They also refuse to search for pictures of them or even look at them. Also the 9/11 conspiracy sites they get their "facts" from do not show them!



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   
youtu.be...

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

For others that might care, here are just a small number of news clips that clearly show the back side of the impact as it happens. I I I studied these for a few minutes and my initial reaction is that debris certainly does eject from the crash but at first glance I see no large or discernible pieces of aircraft. This could be because of the huge fireball obviously and it could be that my sort of conceptual idea of what size those pieces are is skewed by comparing them to the very large building they come out of. I havent ruled anything out yet but see nothing definitive. If anyone who hasn't already announced they don't believe there are any videos showing the back side of the impact cares to comment please feel free.




top topics



 
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join