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: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22
I also don't see a large debris field around the Pentagon as I see in the Alps.


I never knew the plane that crashed into the Alps hit a heavily reinforced building, could you post a picture of this building in the Alps?

Unless......




posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

According to the FAA he did.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Bilk22
I also don't see a large debris field around the Pentagon as I see in the Alps.


I never knew the plane that crashed into the Alps hit a heavily reinforced building, could you post a picture of this building in the Alps?

Unless......
So what are you claiming? Are you claiming that the Pentagon is so heavily reinforced that anything that hits it will disintegrate? What ever hit the Pentagon, pierced thru the facade and many layers inside. So which is it here?

The recent crash hit a mountain. Is the Pentagon more heavily reinforced than a 9500' mountain? There's still tons of debris. Don't see that outside the Pentagon, as "heavily reinforced" as it may be.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

Because it was in the building. The only parts that would have stayed outside were the wings, which shattered.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Bilk22
I also don't see a large debris field around the Pentagon as I see in the Alps.


I never knew the plane that crashed into the Alps hit a heavily reinforced building, could you post a picture of this building in the Alps?

Unless......


reinforce any building however much you like, it's not as tough and solid as a mountain. yet we have lots MORE debris at the mountain crash site. because it WAS a crash site. shanksville and tthe pentagon were not. you fail.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: RoScoLaz4

Pentagon debris was found inside the building, as expected.

The debris in Pennsylvania was found several feet underground, again, as expected.

When a plane hits a mountain the only place for debris to go is around the impact site.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22
There's still tons of debris. Don't see that outside the Pentagon,


Many pictures have been posted of the tonnes of debris inside the Pentagon, which you keep ignoring as it spoils your silly conspiracy theory!
edit on 27-3-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Bilk22

Because it was in the building. The only parts that would have stayed outside were the wings, which shattered.


Hellobruce said it was a "heavily reinforced" building, suggesting that something else happened to the debris.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Bilk22
There's still tons of debris. Don't see that outside the Pentagon,


Many pictures have been posted of the tonnes of debris inside the Pentagon, which you keep ignoring as it spoils your silly conspiracy theory!
Post some pics to support your claim.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

It was a heavily reinforced building. But barring about 6 feet of concrete no building in the world will stop a 757 at high speed.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Actually, I would point out that a lot of these incidents involving planes (9/11 included) are anything from vaguely suspicious smelling to very suspicious (in the case of 9/11).

All of them can be used for just about any kind of propaganda/agenda a government/world power player would care to use it for. All of them involve an industry that is highly regulated and controlled by very few people. All of them involve machines that are manufactured by just a few companies. And so forth.
edit on 28-3-2015 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
They're saying the treatment was for vision problems now on the news. And they're also talking about setting up the remote takeover system... ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

You are being obtuse.
This is why the 'truth' movement has gained zero ground in 15 years.

Try looking for them.
People are getting tired of re posting the same links month after month.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Bilk22

You are being obtuse.
This is why the 'truth' movement has gained zero ground in 15 years.

Try looking for them.
People are getting tired of re posting the same links month after month.


There are many reasons why the truth movement hasn't gained any real ground.

Here are a few I can think of off the top of my head....

1. IF (and notice I say "IF") 9/11 was a conspiracy, the conspiracy theories obviously would have been anticipated. No one commits a crime they expect to get away with without trying to anticipate what might expose them in the aftermath. The government obviously knows anything that big that happens is bound to generate conspiracy theories. Thus, the theories would have been seen as inevitable and planned for in some way. Obviously, if it was a conspiracy, they wouldn't have done it if they didn't have a plan to deal with the theories.

2. The 9/11 conspiracy theories have never been taken seriously by the MSM other than simply trying to debunk them. Other than that I don't think I've ever really seen much serious investigative journalism seriously questioning whether or not it might have actually been an inside job. This is just how it goes. If something doesn't get any traction in the MSM, it's not going to gain any ground because the vast majority of people will see it as illegitimate until it receives some kind of official endorsement from someone the public actually trusts. This has not happened with any of the 9/11 theories (except TOS) and very likely is not going to. Basically, the MSM has a monopoly on credibility. If they say "This is the truth" most people will believe them.

3. You do have a point. The truth movement generally keeps talking about the same old stuff. Much of which has been credibly debunked. Why this is, I don't know. I suspect a lot of truthers are just ordinary people who are suspicious of the whole thing and are just looking for any little thing that seems to confirm what they believe. They don't have an archive of every debate in their heads they can access anytime.

4. The most prominent theories tend to drown out the lesser known theories or any unusual theories that might barely be heard of.

5. I know it's a cliche but most people really are sheep. I don't care what they think privately in their own minds. If they believe they'll be ridiculed for it by anyone who matters (to them) they will never say a word about it and they'll join the crowd in trying to silence any dissent every time. Pure crowd psychology. No one wants to be ganged up on. Especially not by people they want to like and respect them. No one wants to look foolish. The safe place to be is always part of the biggest crowd.
edit on 28-3-2015 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Bilk22

You are being obtuse.
This is why the 'truth' movement has gained zero ground in 15 years.

Try looking for them.
People are getting tired of re posting the same links month after month.
I'm being obtuse? LOL Lucky for you and all the OSers that's all we are right now.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: samkent

A haphazardly thrown together thread, with very little detail and those first two links have some poor quality photos. How much thought and time did you put into this? Probably a lot less than my response...

Here's a serious question for you OP - how come the impact zone in the Pentag0n doesn't fit with the wingspan of the plane that allegedly crashed there?


Exactly.. This is the question everybody should ask themself.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: aboveTopGun15
how come the impact zone in the Pentag0n doesn't fit with the wingspan of the plane that allegedly crashed there?


It does, what makes you think it does not? The evidence has been posted here many times before.

How do you explain all the DNA found from the passengers inside the Pentagon? How do you explain the 757 engines found inside the Pentagon? etc etc.
edit on 29-3-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: aboveTopGun15
how come the impact zone in the Pentag0n doesn't fit with the wingspan of the plane that allegedly crashed there?


It does, what makes you think it does not? The evidence has been posted here many times before.

How do you explain all the DNA found from the passengers inside the Pentagon? How do you explain the 757 engines found inside the Pentagon? etc etc.


Well I explain those things as made-up. Without photos, I won't believe there were dead "passengers inside the Pentagon." And the Pentagon's plane engine is less-than-convincing, as are all the photos I've seen of tiny pieces of debris.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
This thread is a fail.
germanwings


Shanksville on 911


Apples and oranges.

Something did crash in Shanksville but it was not a large Boeing commercial airliner as eyewitnesses confirm.


Well these photos convince me that there was a plane crash in the first picture, and not in the bottom picture. It's obvious just by a quick glance at these two photos. Even if both locations were unknown, one clearly shows a crash and one does not lol.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join