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.

 

Plane shredded to pieces

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: badgerprints




There were plane parts found on 911 that did not belong on the planes that crashed.

That is a 'truther' myth.
Please show us where anyone with firsthand knowledge says that.




posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: badgerprints
There were plane parts found on 911 that did not belong on the planes that crashed.


Care to provide some proof of that silly claim?


Not confused.


You are very confused if you think that "There were plane parts found on 911 that did not belong on the planes that crashed"


Just adding a bit of the logic


So "adding a bit of the logic" is making false claims about 9/11....



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Now here's another solid chance for you.
You have a "silly" claim which is the only comeback you have for anything. You also used your only other line of "you seem to be confused." Instead, why don't you enlighten this person? You obviously have thoroughly researched this topic so you should be able to point this person and others to your own truth. No I don't agree there were plane parts found that are proven to be not from be flights, but this rumor persists. Here's how to dispel it: Show photos of plane parts that have been identified by serial numbers matching the records of the four flights. Find the serial numbers for the black boxes and show how they were matched to the four flights. It's not that hard, is it?



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt




but this rumor persists. Here's how to dispel it: Show photos of plane parts that have been identified by serial numbers

This has been done time after time.
Most of the conspiracy believers don't look beyond conspiracy websites for any information.
If you think about it most of the websites about 911 are conspiracy sites.

It's kind of like the thinking process of gang infested inner city people.
They think stupid ways because every one else thinks stupid ways.
Self reinforcing ignorance.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
You have a "silly" claim


Wrong again, I am not the one making a silly claim here....


why don't you enlighten this person?


I will as soon as they show their "truther evidence", until then I do not know exactly which silly claim they are making. There are several claims by truthers about being the wrong wheels, or wrong engines - but they were shown to just be a truther silly story - they have even been posted here several times, you could try doing a search!


You obviously have thoroughly researched this topic so you should be able to point this person and others to your own truth.


Wrong again, it is not my own truth, it is the truth.... which has been posted here several times before, try doing a search!


[Here's how to dispel it:


Posting facts will not dispel a truther lie, as truthers are actually not interested in the truth, as has been shown with the evidence and pictures posted here many times previously, try doing a search!
edit on 21-4-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

a reply to: TheBolt but this rumor persists. Here's how to dispel it: Show photos of plane parts that have been identified by serial numbers This has been done time after time. Most of the conspiracy believers don't look beyond conspiracy websites for any information. If you think about it most of the websites about 911 are conspiracy sites. It's kind of like the thinking process of gang infested inner city people. They think stupid ways because every one else thinks stupid ways. Self reinforcing ignorance.



I'm sorry. Yes I know that, but never by Bruce. He has two quotes he recycles on every thread. "Silly truthers get sillier" and "you seem confused". He never backs
any of his own claims up but continually demands that of others.

Now as for plane parts and for the purposes of information exposure, this was an interesting link. Lots of information. I realize this focuses on the world trade centre site and not what some might refer to as the more mysterious pentagon or shanksville sites, but it shows that if it exists, this stuff is out there for those who really want to find it as samkent so rightly pointed out.
Plane parts and eyewitness accounts WTC



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
a reply to: samkent

a reply to: TheBolt but this rumor persists. Here's how to dispel it: Show photos of plane parts that have been identified by serial numbers This has been done time after time. Most of the conspiracy believers don't look beyond conspiracy websites for any information. If you think about it most of the websites about 911 are conspiracy sites. It's kind of like the thinking process of gang infested inner city people. They think stupid ways because every one else thinks stupid ways. Self reinforcing ignorance.



I'm sorry. Yes I know that, but never by Bruce. He has two quotes he recycles on every thread. "Silly truthers get sillier" and "you seem confused". He never backs
any of his own claims up but continually demands that of others.

Now as for plane parts and for the purposes of information exposure, this was an interesting link. Lots of information. I realize this focuses on the world trade centre site and not what some might refer to as the more mysterious pentagon or shanksville sites, but it shows that if it exists, this stuff is out there for those who really want to find it as samkent so rightly pointed out.
Plane parts and eyewitness accounts WTC

Wow powerful stuff. thanks.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: AgentSmith

and if I am to listen to expert pilots with 10's of thousands of hours of REAL flying (stating that the novices couldn't have pulled that off) vs. someone that did "passenger jet flying in the simulator (training simulator, not a game)", who should I believe?



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: 4moola

The FAA that certified them as commercial pilots, and the company that was training at least one of them to fly the 737.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: 4moola

Many commercial pilots (those without military experience ) are exclusively trained on simulators. Flying aircraft is very expensive in terms of fuel and maintenance. Also simulators are not affected by weather conditions

In a simulator can simply restart and try again if screw up. In a real aircraft would be scrapping whats left off the ground



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 02:24 AM
link   
I've been an electrician for over 34 years and have installed 100+ streetlights and 200+ parking lot lights of every size and type. I have never seen, read, or even heard of any made to break away at the base. That design would end lives, not save lives. Ridiculous. a reply to: Zaphod58



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrscary3721
I have never seen, read, or even heard of any made to break away at the base. That design would end lives, not save lives. Ridiculous.


onlinemanuals.txdot.gov...


Section 3: Breakaway Light Poles Frangibility Requirement The FHWA adopted Section 7 of the 1985 AASHTO publication entitled “Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals” for implementation beginning in July 1990. This section requires more stringent breakaway characteristics.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: mrscary3721



I've been an electrician for over 34 years and have installed 100+ streetlights and 200+ parking lot lights of every size and type. I have never seen, read, or even heard of any made to break away at the base. That design would end lives, not save lives. Ridiculous. a reply to: Zaphod58


Really , who do you work for bodgy electrical . So you are saying that something that gives when you hit it is not a good thing . Time to enter the 21st century methinks .



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: mrscary3721




I've been an electrician for over 34 years and have installed 100+ streetlights and 200+ parking lot lights of every size and type. I have never seen, read, or even heard of any made to break away at the base. That design would end lives, not save lives. Ridiculous.

Amazing! Simply amazing!
You can purchase some here.
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
Example 5
Example 6
Example 7
Alas I grow tired of copy and paste.
If you require more examples please use Google.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Why would whoever was piloting flight 77 over the pentagon to do a difficult corkscrew descent while skimming light posts when he/she could of controlled the craft to impact the roof of the Pentagon hitting numerous rings. Instead they hit the newly reinforced blast resistant walls and windows. Just that one wall was reinforced in 2001.

You want to talk light posts, sure, its proof that whatever hit the pentagon or whoever was controlling it did not have mass casualties and destruction in mind.
edit on 15-5-2015 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder

Go get a flight simulator and try diving straight down in any aircraft. It's not as easy as you think.

During WWII, to successfully dive bomb, they had to modify aircraft with much larger tails, and special flaps to slow them when they dove, and more often than not they still missed. A straight down dive is much harder to do than a level approach.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Shadow Herder

Go get a flight simulator and try diving straight down in any aircraft. It's not as easy as you think.

During WWII, to successfully dive bomb, they had to modify aircraft with much larger tails, and special flaps to slow them when they dove, and more often than not they still missed. A straight down dive is much harder to do than a level approach.
No one said dive straight down but crash it on the roof.

So what you're saying then is that the 911 plane that hit the pentagon did something even more ridiculous and difficult. So this aspect should be investigated.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder

To hit the roof they would have to dive down into it. Otherwise they would have just clipped the top, or hit the top floor. If they weren't careful they would have gone right over the top of the building. Hit low and guarantee that you hit the building.

No, hitting the roof like you're suggesting would have been harder.


edit on 5/15/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/15/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Looks similar - must be the same then!
Did you know that a basketball at 50 yards away looks the same as an orange at 10 feet?
Therefore basketballs are oranges.
I got this 9/11 science stuff down pat.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
ble

edit on 15-5-2015 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join