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.

 

Study concludes explosives used on 911

page: 26
135
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

good point, but seems like a small problem compared to letting thousands be burned at the stake ,sacrificed .they could have gave crossbows to the flight attendants, that would have stopped all of this.




posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: wmd_2008
we would not even have to argue over none of this if the government had put an air marshal on every plane when they got the MEMORANDUM "ben laden determined to take over airliners" . The government knows isreal has had almost no hijackings since they started using air marshals. it would have saved thousands of lives and money.They sat on there hands and allowed this to happen to put fear in the people and allow them to make money on weaponry ,take away constitutional rights,and start new wars.



Air marshal more like limited number of flights and MORE INTENSIVE security checks in all areas



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

There was way more missing than an engine, if one is saying an airliner crashed there. Way more.

Huge landing gear and related assemblies. Passengers, baggage, airliner seats. April Gallop said she saw none of that when she walked out of that building that morning, carrying her young son.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




April Gallop said she saw none of that when she walked out of that building that morning, carrying her young son.

Do you think she was looking for such items ?
Most moms are only concerned with getting their children out.

Was she exiting over top the plane debris or heading away from the fire area to a safer exit ?

You pick one or two points and try to build a multi city grand conspiracy out of it.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

One or two points, Mandala effect?


“I’ve never seen what the pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film.”

September 21, 2001: Report Suggests There Are Confiscated Videos of Pentagon Crash

Who tried to build a multi city consparacy now? Frame them for that one.

 


This is a thoroughly derailed thread, well done my dear helicopter poster pilots in uniform!

Hilarious read nonetheless, I like the amount of sheer panic involved in constantly avoiding the topic at hand. 9/11 threads turn out to be very interesting objects for various social studies.
Thank you all for making this happen and keep them coming! Purest comedy gold.











posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Do you think she could have missed such things? How could she NOT have seen huge engines and landing gear struts 8 feet tall or more? How could she NOT have seen airline seats, baggage and human bodies?



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: samkent

Do you think she could have missed such things? How could she NOT have seen huge engines and landing gear struts 8 feet tall or more? How could she NOT have seen airline seats, baggage and human bodies?


April Gallop is nothing more than a gold digger who tried to cash in on disaster. willyloman.wordpress.com...
How could she have missed such things? Maybe because the people in the area of the impact weren't investigating but were escaping or dying. How would anyone see anything at the time of the impact? Do you think that with all the smoke and fire and confusion that April was hanging around measuring turbine blades or checking air pressure in landing gear tires? The airline seats with bodies in them were in places where no one survived, so April would not have seen them, either.

April, reliable witness for the conspiracy theorists.


edit on 9/26/2016 by pteridine because: ETA



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




Do you think she could have missed such things? How could she NOT have seen huge engines and landing gear struts 8 feet tall or more?

Because they went completely through the building to the next ring or two.
Seat? Seats are covered in foam. You know foam burns quickly. All that would be left were thin metal frames by the time she crossed over them.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Ah, the ignorance astounds.

FAA rules require that the materials used in airline seats, foam and upholstery, be fire-blocked. Yes, it is expensive, but it doesn't burn. People in the aviation industry know that, but self-appointed experts on the internet have not a clue.

April Gallop's case was thrown out of the court system because it made it very clear that the Emperor was completely naked.
Even though she worked in the Pentagon and walked right through all the damage, she was denied standing because she dared to point out the Emperor was naked.

Huge landing gear and engine assemblies were nowhere to be found for the simple reason that there was no airliner that struck the building.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
Ah, the ignorance astounds.

FAA rules require that the materials used in airline seats, foam and upholstery, be fire-blocked. Yes, it is expensive, but it doesn't burn. People in the aviation industry know that, but self-appointed experts on the internet have not a clue.

April Gallop's case was thrown out of the court system because it made it very clear that the Emperor was completely naked.
Even though she worked in the Pentagon and walked right through all the damage, she was denied standing because she dared to point out the Emperor was naked.

Huge landing gear and engine assemblies were nowhere to be found for the simple reason that there was no airliner that struck the building.


When did April walk "right through all the damage?" Do you think April walked around on the day of the attack through flames and smoke carrying a clipboard and checking off airplane parts?
She was denied standing because her lawsuit was frivolous and was lacking in evidence. April is a gold digger wanting to cash in on her fellow military who died in the attack. She is a scoundrel.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




April Gallop's case was thrown out of the court system because it made it very clear that the Emperor was completely naked.

So now the courts are in on the conspiracy too ?
The circle of conspirators continues to grow.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
Huge landing gear and engine assemblies were nowhere to be found


Landing gear was found, including wheel rims.

The engine assemblies most likely disintegrated on impact, because that's what happens with a jet plane hits solid concrete:




for the simple reason that there was no airliner that struck the building.


Wrong.


Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response.

"It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building.

Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"


(Source).

See also here.

If you don't believe an airliner hit the Pentagon, how do you explain the deaths of all the passengers? Where did all these people go? They were real people, with airline paper trails showing that they bought their tickets and boarded Flight 77. How do you address these facts?
edit on 28/9/2016 by MongolianPaellaFish because: added some other stuffs...

edit on 28/9/2016 by MongolianPaellaFish because: added some other stuffs...



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish




how do you explain the deaths of all the passengers?

That's the problem with their conspiracy theory.
They have to make up many points to cover all the loopholes in their theory.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01
The big thing about the truth is that it does not change. The truth does not change to fit some theory but some theories that are bounded in the truth are only altered whenthe truth is not known and new scientifically provable information come to light where as lies are continually based on speculation and not scientifically provable information and are inconsistant and changing. How many times has the offical story on 911 changed and each time holes are found in it the story changes yet again with yet more inconsistant information and probabilities of being true less than winning the lottery several times in a row. Linking certain people with 911 however is much more difficult than proving explosives were used. Many people would be surprised to learn how few people it would take to carry out such an operation and the rest of players (usually compromised individuals) just to go along with it and play their part with out knowning many if any details of the actual operation. EG Mr president here are the laws we want you to pass if you do not want these events to continue to happen. It is your job to get this legislation passed



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Qspeedyrock

Do tell us just how many people it took to pull off 911.
Then tell us how many more it is taking to hide the conspiracy from prying eyes.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Qspeedyrock

You are confusing the 'truth' movement with the "official" story. That has never changed. Nineteen men hijacked four airliners and flew them into three buildings causing death and destruction.



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish

I don't post this out of disrespect or in the context of questioning a jet hit the Pentagon.

I think this is an account of one of the strangest Pentagon / flight 77 artifacts from 9/11.



From: amhistory.si.edu...

Context: Driving on a highway adjacent to the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, Penny Elgas stopped as she saw a passenger jet descend, clip a light pole near her, and then crash into the Pentagon. Arriving home, Elgas found this plane fragment in the back seat of her car (she theorizes that it dropped through the open sunroof). Feeling that it was her patriotic duty to preserve the fragment as a relic, she crafted a special box and lined it with red, white, and blue material.



I do have an observation. People question flight 77 hitting the Pentagon on the claims a jet that size could not fly that low. If a jet that size cannot fly that low, how does a jet safely land. Or abandon a landing attempt and take to the skies in an emergency. Not everything is common sense, but the movement could use some.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


An aviator you are not. Nobody is claiming a 757 could not fly that low. As you point out, it flies that low every time it lands.


People are saying that a 757, or any transport category aircraft, could not perform the maneuver required for the official story to be true. The official "data" has it flying like 100 knots over its redline, and under the control of a rookie pilot in an airliner for the first time in his life.

It is an absurd story meant only for the completely gullible.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


An aviator you are not. Nobody is claiming a 757 could not fly that low. As you point out, it flies that low every time it lands.


People are saying that a 757, or any transport category aircraft, could not perform the maneuver required for the official story to be true. The official "data" has it flying like 100 knots over its redline, and under the control of a rookie pilot in an airliner for the first time in his life.

It is an absurd story meant only for the completely gullible.



Redline? Like in tachometer for engine RPMs....... Didn't know tachometers measure airspeed?

Nobody said a jetliner could fly that low?



By : NILA SAGADEVAN
from: www.veteranstoday.com...

I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH.


How are we to know when you guys are knowledgeable, transparent, and not pushing a narrative for publicity, book sales, or likes on YouTube?



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: imjack


Yes I am on board with the planes not being able to take down the buildings.

My question is if the purpose is to kill people, why use the planes at all?


Why not especially if the Powers That Be want to hide demolition and also using the airplanes for SHOCK and AWE to enrage the American people.

The fact is the WTC had to come down, they were built with asbestos that cause cancer, the EPA had order the Port Authority who owns the WTC that they had to do an abatement program floor by floor to remove the asbestos.

This alone would cost the Port Authority millions of dollars to scaffold the WTC, they were considered the White Elephants, an eyesore to NYC skyline.

Many 911 news and information has been scrub off the internet from google searches, I know this for a fact, in 2004 I found News articles from the NYT that Port Authority had submitted controlled demolition to take down the WTC to the City Council of NY in 1998 and in 1999, the City Council voted no to this plan and stated it was far to dangerous.

However when 911 happened the Port Authority was very pleased with what happened and never paid a dime for the clean up process either. They got their buildings removed without paying for it, how convenient for them.


I've registered just to question this. I've seen you said this many times in the past, and are the only relevant result in my searches. It seems more likely this is made up than it was scrubbed. News articles containing all sorts of other WTC details were not scrubbed. Please stop posting this if you have no proof.



new topics




 
135
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join