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: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

No it wasn't the wrong engine. It was the core of a 767 engine.

Obviously you've never looked under the cowling of an engine. Behind the fan section the engine is tiny.
edit on 3/19/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Man what are you going on about. Yes the engine in NYC was the wrong engine.


What engine found in NYC? You really do not make much sense, and provide no csources for your claims.


I don't lie, there was almost no wreckage at all 4 sites of 9-11.


Still a lie....


And yeah I know about 9-11. I've been looking into it for 14 years.


Actually, from your posts here you do not know much about it at all!


Look, the engine in NYC was from the wrong plane. Will I look for sources? Well about as much as I'll look for sources that the Earth is round. The world knows the engine was wrong and it's not up to me, to look for "evidence" that the world knows already.

No lies. 9-11 crashes had almost no debris, which is inconsistent with crashes from all other days.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

No it wasn't. You can repeat it all you want, that doesn't make it true.

Of course there wasn't much debris at the WTC. Two 110 story buildings collapsed with the debris inside them. Go figure.
edit on 3/19/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Look, the engine in NYC was from the wrong plane. Will I look for sources? Well about as much as I'll look for sources that the Earth is round. The world knows the engine was wrong and it's not up to me, to look for "evidence" that the world knows already.


So you make a silly claim, refuse to back it up, and claim it is true...

This is how truthers "debate" things here!



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: peacefulpete

No it wasn't. You can repeat it all you want, that doesn't make it true.

Of course there wasn't much debris at the WTC. Two 110 story buildings collapsed with the debris inside them. Go figure.


I'm repeating things that the world has known to be true for over a decade already. It's a known fact that there was almost no debris on all 4 supposed crashes of 9-11, for example.

I'm not making things true, I'm repeating things that the world has known to be true for years now.

And the world saw the twin towers explode downwards, no matter how many of you guys say they "collapsed." Nope the world saw them explode.

And I'm not citing sources because it's a waste of time, for known facts. If you keep pestering me for sources, maybe I'll cite them, but it would be pointless. Just like it would be pointless for me to look for sources to cite that the Earth is round, or that grass is green. Do you want me to cite sources that the Earth is round?



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete
It's a known fact that there was almost no debris on all 4 supposed crashes of 9-11, for example.


In the fantasy world truthers live in that may be true, however in the real world tonnes of aircraft debris were removed from both Shanksville and the Pentagon


I'm not making things true,


That is a true statement, you are certainly not making things true by repeating silly made up stories....


I'm repeating things that the world has known to be true for years now.


Only know in the truther fantasy world, that is!


Nope the world saw them explode.


Still wrong, the world saw them collapse.


And I'm not citing sources because


You cannot, or your "sources" just made it up!


If you keep pestering me for sources, maybe I'll cite them, but it would be pointless


Because we know they will not be true!


Just like it would be pointless for me to look for sources to cite that the Earth is round,


It is a oblate spheroid actually...
edit on 20-3-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete

Look, the engine in NYC was from the wrong plane.


The JT9 engine found on Church & Murray is now hanging in a museum for all the world to see :



Some truthers over at pump it out took a much closer look at the engine than you ever will, and this is what they concluded.


Broken sticks
Ask yourselves: Why has Pilots for 9/11 Truth not got the engine front and centre in their presentations? Because it is not speculative. The engine is the correct engine. There are photos of this engine everywhere. There's no smoking gun here.


s1.zetaboards.com...

It is the correct engine whether you like it or not.
edit on 20-3-2015 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne
The JT9 engine found on Church & Murray is now hanging in a museum for all the world to see :



It is the correct engine whether you like it or not.


Funny how even with evidence like the above some truthers still claim "it is the wrong engine", without any proof at all!



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

Saying they exploded, or they collapsed doesn't change the fact that the debris from the aircraft was inside the towers at the time. There's no way that much wreckage is going to survive having a 110 story building come down on it.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete Man what are you going on about. Yes the engine in NYC was the wrong engine.


What engine found in NYC? You really do not make much sense, and provide no csources for your claims.



While maybe I don't think Pete is going about it the right way by not sourcing things I would like to point out one more error as to research on your part. You are saying he's only looked at one or two Truther sites and based his research on that as if you've read every word on the subject yet based on your response to his claim of the wrong engine being found in NYC you say "what engine?" How can you argue against the wrong engine being found when you didn't even know there was an engine?
a reply to: hellobruce
edit on 20-3-2015 by TheBolt because: Forgot to say who this was for



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
How can you argue against the wrong engine being found when you didn't even know there was an engine?


Who says I did not know about a engine found in NYC? We were talking about the "wrong engine", but as we have seen there was no "wrong engine".... just a truthers lack of knowledge again....

Exactly the same as the 757 engines found in the Pentagon were the "wrong engine", yet again showing the truthers lack of knowledge!
edit on 20-3-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I just think it's unfair to accuse someone of something when you do it too. You asked "what engine in NYC?" in response to him saying it was the wrong engine. What engine did you think he meant? An engine from a city bus? Then you accuse him of not backing up his claims with sources when all you did was ask questions and then repost someone else's source immediately after they did.



a reply to: hellobruce



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
Then you accuse him of not backing up his claims with sources


Which he was unable to do, as it was just a silly made up claim....


then repost someone else's source immediately after they did.


Funny how truthers are unable to find any valid sources to back their claims up, then have a whine when a source they did not know about is posted!


edit on 20-3-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale

The really funny part is, the "Guardian" story he talks about that was several years after 9/11, was a 2001 story posted on a website that had "Guardian" in the name and was NOT the actual Guardian website. That was pointed out to him, and he acknowledged that......and yet, still uses his false claim.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Why do you think I don't know about that source? I didn't say "what source" like you did about the engine. Either way, I'm not getting sucked into getting personal, but far from "having a whine", I'm saying that that photo of an engine doesn't really prove anything but only infers it. All I'm asking you to do is understand. A piece of engine with no identifiable markings and no way to link it to any particular flight isnt concrete. Is it logical if the official story is true? Yes. It doesn't disprove anything. But it also isn't a big in your face to anyone. If someone were to plant evidence, that would also fit. If it was a different flight or a drone plane, it would also fit that. Are there other points that counter these theories? Absolutely, but it doesn't direct us to only one conclusion either. It doesnt even disprove controlled demolition. I can see how it was relevant to counter the claim of it being the wrong engine because a photo can show it at least resembles the inside of the engine it's supposed to don't get me wrong. That's about all it shows though. a reply to: hellobruce



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
I'm saying that that photo of an engine doesn't really prove anything but only infers it.


Wrong again, it proves what type of engine it was, and the range of planes it could have come from - you do not seem aware that jet engines are different....


A piece of engine with no identifiable markings and no way to link it to any particular flight isnt concrete.


More nonsense from you. So you think that there are stray jet engines just lying around New York....



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   
First, you seem to think there are stray engines around New York because you asked "what engine?"
Second, it's pretty clear you have your responses already a drawn up before anyone says anything. If you had actually read my post you would know that I actually said that all the photo proves is that it's a similar engine and at least could possibly have come from the right type of plane, but not necessarily because it shows a "range of planes it could have come from", your words not mine. Therefore your first point actually agrees with me and also proves that you infer more form the evidence than it definitively tells us. Second, I also said that the engine would be consistent with someone planting evidence. Someone could have put it there and not have it be a stray engine. You fail to address the most important piece as well which is that there are no identifiable markings. Nothing to link it to either flight 11 or 175. a reply to: hellobruce



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

To the specific aircraft involved no, but it narrows things way down. The JT-9D engine is only used on five types of aircraft. The A300, A319, 747, 767, and DC-10. Four of the five types can be immediately ruled out, meaning that it was a 767 that hit.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
it's pretty clear you have your responses already a drawn up before anyone says anything.


It is not very hard with truthers, they have been spouting the same lies here for years.


I also said that the engine would be consistent with someone planting evidence. Someone could have put it there


As it exited the WTC and bounced off and damaged 45 Park Place and cracked the pavement when it landed, it must have been fired out of a large cannon. Truthers really are getting sillier and sillier!



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
I really wish you'd stop calling me a truther, especially a "silly Truther". You have no idea what I believe because you only talk and never listen. a reply to: hellobruce




top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join