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: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
On the flip side, why would anyone knock the light poles over to make it look like the plane did? Anyone?


So now invisible ninjas climbed poles and knocked them down, without anyone seeing them.... truthers and their conspiracy theories get sillier every day!




posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

I think there was more than one second but even if there wasn't it matters bemused of the physical evidence on the scene. No fuel on the ground, a very localized fireball and therefore there was no fuel trail to follow back. No wing pieces strewn from pole impacts. It narrows the official story into a tight hole with very little leeway or margin of error.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

Fuel evaporates extremely quickly. I've had to pick up a few spills while refueling S-3 Vikings, and within a hour or two it was dry. If you dump fuel at 10,000 feet it won't touch the ground.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's interesting information really, but any fuel that was left in a small trail leading up to impact would have most likely ignited and we would have seen this. Speculation obviously. And this fuel would have been dumped at 100 feet, but 10,000.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce


So now invisible ninjas climbed poles and knocked them down, without anyone seeing them.... truthers and their conspiracy theories get sillier every day!


I agree they have some silly theories, such as ninjas climbing poles. I do wonder then if you find that theory so silly why did you make it up?



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 05:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
I agree they have some silly theories, such as ninjas climbing poles. I do wonder then if you find that theory so silly why did you make it up?


That would be you making it up, actually!

"why would anyone knock the light poles over to make it look like the plane did? Anyone?"



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

That was another gloriously eloquent cut and paste response. I keep bringing up examples of how you don't read anything before you respond to it and you just keep them coming. I said "why would anyone knock down the poles" yes. Several things to consider:
- if you HAD read my post you'd have seen that I was using that as an example of why this particular aspect makes little sense if one was going to create a conspiracy theory. It would be high risk little reward for someone staging the event to knock these poles over.
- Instead of seeing an opportunity to respectfully reinforce a point in your favor you again, as always, ridicule the person making it. Not a good way to gain allies.
- I didn't make it up. You did. It was already suggested almost immediately after the event that physical evidence was staged on site so you saying "so now..." would indicate this is the first you've heard of it so clearly you haven't done even the most basic research into the matter. However no one has ever proposed the invisible ninja theory. Hard to debunk though I suppose. They were invisible right? Prove they weren't there then.
- invisible ninjas isn't even a shred of what I said. This is a lot of time to waste responding to you and your pre-determined responses but I'm curious to see what one little point you'll pick out of this to focus on.


edit on 17-4-2015 by TheBolt because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Not to be too contrarian to the original focus of this thread,

BUT

I would like to know if the searchers in the Alps found any engines that didn't belong on the crashed plane.

Just wondering.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

And what would have been the ignition source?



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

In this speculation, which again I freely is admit is all just a scenario I'm playing out with no real basis, the presumption is that if fuel was leaking from the engine after pole impact there would have been a line leading from the start of the leak to the impact point in the wall, after which there was a rather large fireball. That fireball which was seen clearly outside of the wall would have ignited the fuel trail and followed it back like a wick causing damage to the lawn.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: badgerprints
I would like to know if the searchers in the Alps found any engines that didn't belong on the crashed plane.

Just wondering.


What are you babbling about now? What engines that did not belong? You seem very confused.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

Except that it wouldn't have been in enough of a concentration to burn. At that speed, with that damage, it wouldn't have had time to leave a thick trail that would have caught fire. Jet fuel doesn't burn easily ironically.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Jet fuel doesn't burn easily ironically.


Hahaha. I appreciate that statement.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
a reply to: Zaphod58

In this speculation, which again I freely is admit is all just a scenario I'm playing out with no real basis, the presumption is that if fuel was leaking from the engine after pole impact there would have been a line leading from the start of the leak to the impact point in the wall, after which there was a rather large fireball. That fireball which was seen clearly outside of the wall would have ignited the fuel trail and followed it back like a wick causing damage to the lawn.


Some people seem to think this is a documentary! Starting 1min 20 sec!


edit on 17-4-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

Completely unrelated note, an SR-71 crew chief put out a fire using JP-7 fuel that had leaked out of the plane while it was in the hangar.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

Wrong. There is a piece of the tip of Flight 77's wing on display in the American History Museum. It ended up in lady's car after it came off the wing.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

What? We used to have guys put their cigarettes out by throwing them into the buckets we collected JP-4/5 samples in.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
The whole reason I brought up debris, or fuel leak was to speculate what sort of damage could be done due to the light pole strikes. In the scheme of things, its not "that" relevant. It's a pretty small piece of the puzzle.

What confuses me more is the LACK of debris, or larger portions of the airplane being found or even SEEN anywhere. I've seen many many many plane crashes, small and large. There is almost always some recognizable part of the plane left somewhere. I'm writing off the small piece of aluminum they found (curiously enough with the tell-tale red and blue stripe to identify it). Where was the tail? Wings? Etc?

There is video of just after the strike, prior to the section collapsing. None of it is really good. But you don't see a wing. Or the tail section, or even a tail strike. It seems the plane neatly entered the first section and vaporized. Yes.. I know there are pictures of an engine, and landing gear.. but who knows. Some have said that engine couldn't have come from that particular 757. I don't know enough to differentiate between a Rolls Royce and a Pratt & Whitney engine.

It just confuses me how on two separate occasions (Pentagon and Shanksville), a huge jetliner managed to completely disappear. To add to that fact, I've seen photos of the bodies recovered (if they were Pentagon personnel or airline passengers, I do not know). They were pretty bad, yet still recognizable as people. I guess the situation wouldn't be so "controversial" if they had released more pictures of the wreckage. Then none of these "theories" would be going around.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
Pentagon debris

Shank sville debris

Germanwings debris

All consistent with each other.
High speed impacts tear planes into very small pieces.
Hopefully this will quash the belief that no planes were used.


We all know that some of those that try to push the 9/11 OS swindle use tactics like theorising stupid things like mini nukes and holograms etc. to try and make all the theories look bad. We know this.

But you Samkent, I am starting to believe, are actually a member of the truth movement. You see, you put out an OP and assessed something that is so weak and unbelievable that what it really does is make people question the OS!

Welcome to team truth and thank you for your contribution.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: TheBolt

Wrong. There is a piece of the tip of Flight 77's wing on display in the American History Museum. It ended up in lady's car after it came off the wing.



So NOT found at the scene? Basically just anecdotal blah blah?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join