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.

 

Just Wondering...

page: 10
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Why do you seem so focused on the planes? Is that your only proof that the official story was true? Put on your wizard hat and come up with something else, nothing you say about those planes matters one bit.




posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: Zaphod58

And what about the fact none of these planes were designed to fly at that speed at that altitude. No amount of mass from a plane of any size including the space shuttle would be capable of causing any of these buildings to crash and burn into a giant ball of dust.


You clearly don't understand what happened that day. The planes caused fires. The fires caused structural failure. This caused the collapse.
Your understanding is incorrect.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

That doesn't mean that they're just going to fall apart if they do. EgyptAir had a 767 that reached almost mach one before coming apart in a dive.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Because I know planes. I'm not a structural engineer or into buildings. I prefer to stick to the aspects I know best. The aircraft were important to the event as they started things off. Remove them and it doesn't happen.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Which comes back to "they're fairly fragile". A piece of straw can be shoved through a telephone pole with enough speed, without doing a lot of damage to the rest of the pole around it, except where it goes through. A car can go through a concrete wall if it hits hard enough without destroying the rest of the wall.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree




Why do you seem so focused on the planes?


Did you seriously ask that? Without the planes, those buildings don't collapse. There is no event that causes two catastrophic wars in the ME.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596



No, they do not become invisible....however, they do become just another blip on a scope with no identifying information.


That's correct and during the course of an investigation, that blip (aircraft) can be traced back to its original point of embarkation.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You live out here in Cali don't ya Zaph?
Care to change your mind?



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Symbolic day numerically predicted and alluded to well before time.

Two hollow graphic planes strike two towers causing a synchronized explosion by thermite or even as much evidence suggests a nuclear device of sorts.

Much evidence as has been mentioned in this thread too much to comment on!

Pentagon hit by a cruise missile; it would be against the laws of physics to fly a plane into that area,especially since there was absolutely no disturbance on the lawn as there would have been in this hypothetical scenario (plus the entry hole size in the building is not consistent with a plane) no pilot is capable of achieving this and the plane would not be able to get that low with the supposed trajectory and held coarse without crashing...the engines would also not have melted at the temperature of plane fuel as they supposedly did? absolute nonsense!!

Interesting to see the usual folk jumping at this! Games up Guys and you know it,things are so transparent these days..



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

No I don't. I go out to Cali for work sometimes but I don't live there.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: EndOfDays77




Pentagon hit by a cruise missile; it would be against the laws of physics to fly a plane into that area,especially since there was absolutely no disturbance on the lawn as there would have been in this hypothetical scenario (plus the entry hole size in the building is not consistent with a plane) no pilot is capable of achieving this and the plane would not be able to get that low with the supposed trajectory and held coarse without crashing...the engines would also not have melted at the temperature of plane fuel as they supposedly did? absolute nonsense!!

Utter nonsense.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




but I don't live there.


Well, you're not wrong about that.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

And this has what to do with anything?



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree



After 14 years of information and disinformation about conspiracies concerning the events that transpired that day, how many of you have changed your mind?


I haven't changed my mind and I have become aware that there are people planting disinformation. Now, we have people claiming that mini-nukes and beamed weapons took out the WTC buildings. Here is another example in regard to WTC 7.



They Fell For My Hoax 9/11 Video

www.youtube.com...




Anyway, back to the original question....I used to buy into all the conspiracy stuff, but now I see it for the ignorant trash it is. It's amazing what an education can do to one's thoughts on the matter....


I was amazed myself. For an example, many Truthers actually fell for disinformation that the 9/11 airliners were either missiles, holograms, or military aircraft. They also fell for disinformation that no aircraft crashed at Shanksville despite the fact that over 90% of the wreckage from United 93 was recovered.


upload.wikimedia.org...

upload.wikimedia.org...

911research.wtc7.net...

www.declarepeace.org.uk...


Add to the fact that United 93 was tracked on radar to the Shankville area where radar contact was lost.

s3.amazonaws.com...

I was also amazed that there was a claim that United 93 did not crash at Shanksville, but landed in Cleveland. I checked and found that the aircraft they thought was United 93, was actually Delta 1989, which was a B-767, and United 93 was a B-757.

Next, they tried to debunk cell phone calls. Had they done their homework, they would have found that the majority of calls were made on Airfones.

sites.google.com...



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull




Isn't it a bit strange that the only recorded steel buildings that have ever collapsed in free fall, foot print without the use of "demolition", happened on the same day, not just one but 3? I find that to be extremely unlikely odds, astronomical even. The heat necessary to melt or even bend steel was not caused by jet fuel and office furnishings. One dissipates quickly and the other is fire retardant. Something else had to generate the extreme heat that resulted in fires for weeks after. Steel enforced buildings just do not fall that way without assistance.


Planes did not cause the buildings to fall. You are just wrong in your belief. Why is it so hard for you to admit it?



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'd just like to find someone from ATS to put a
hard hat on for just one hour. Just to give them some
idea of the iron structure, free floating aluminum would
be bouncing off of. Because it's perfectly clear to me
that's where the game changer be. Just a walk around
the first floor would give you a far different perspective.
The 46 reinforced core columns used in the WTC are
obviously far more than you imagine. The collapse is
the biggest reoccurring jobsite joke going.
edit on Rpm72515v40201500000003 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: Zaphod58

But a pristine passport was found? Amazing!


There's nothing amazing about the passport. It's easily explained.





posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

No, it really wouldn't. Objects cut through harder objects all the time, why would a plane be any different?



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: EndOfDays77



Pentagon hit by a cruise missile;...


You are incorrect because I've identified wreckage from a B-757 in the colors of American Airlines, not a cruise missile.

American 77 Video

B-757 Wing Flaps

RB211 Engine

American 77 Wreckage



it would be against the laws of physics to fly a plane into that area,especially since there was absolutely no disturbance on the lawn as there would have been in this hypothetical scenario (plus the entry hole size in the building is not consistent with a plane) no pilot is capable of achieving this and the plane would not be able to get that low with the supposed trajectory and held coarse without crashing..


Let's take a look at low-level flying to see if you are correct.

KC-135 Low Flyby

As the video proves, low-level flying is not difficult at all.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

For everyone of these links I can post another one to refute it. The fact remains the events of that day and the resulting changes in the infrastructure happened. There is no disputing that. If you want to believe the OS and how they decided to bring about all these changes with the use of a NEW Pearl Harbor that is up to you.

Try wrapping your head around the fact that you fell for a trick, you watched a magic show happen and left the show believing all of it? That is sad.







 
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join