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.

 

New video of explosion at the Twin Towers without a plane

page: 11
40
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

The truth movement has made a mockery of a tragic event by dismissing the scores of civilian accounts of a large jet hitting the pentagon, enabling a hack conspiracy industry to exploit 9/11 for personal gain, and push impossible scenarios over reality. Example, a salt water damaged missile who knows how it was effected by an explosion and sinking of a sub was stolen by an overseas team, repaired by technicians, and retro fitted to strike the pentagon was used because using a bought missile would create too much of a paper trail. The truth movement is a joke...


Soooo you're equating one absurd speculation with anyone that doesn't agree with the official narrative? And this adds credence to your position?

Just checking. Carry on.




posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

The truth movement has made a mockery of a tragic event by dismissing the scores of civilian accounts of a large jet hitting the pentagon, enabling a hack conspiracy industry to exploit 9/11 for personal gain, and push impossible scenarios over reality. Example, a salt water damaged missile who knows how it was effected by an explosion and sinking of a sub was stolen by an overseas team, repaired by technicians, and retro fitted to strike the pentagon was used because using a bought missile would create too much of a paper trail. The truth movement is a joke...


Soooo you're equating one absurd speculation with anyone that doesn't agree with the official narrative? And this adds credence to your position?

Just checking. Carry on.


And what have you done to police and call out those that run with "absurd speculation" that killed the credibility of the truth movement?

Keep enabling



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

The truth movement has made a mockery of a tragic event by dismissing the scores of civilian accounts of a large jet hitting the pentagon, enabling a hack conspiracy industry to exploit 9/11 for personal gain, and push impossible scenarios over reality. Example, a salt water damaged missile who knows how it was effected by an explosion and sinking of a sub was stolen by an overseas team, repaired by technicians, and retro fitted to strike the pentagon was used because using a bought missile would create too much of a paper trail. The truth movement is a joke...


Soooo you're equating one absurd speculation with anyone that doesn't agree with the official narrative? And this adds credence to your position?

Just checking. Carry on.


And what have you done to police and call out those that run with "absurd speculation" that killed the credibility of the truth movement?

Keep enabling


I never said I was part of the "truth movement." I simply don't believe the OS and believe it was an inside job.

Do your beliefs automatically assign you to a movement? Didn't think so. Smell that strawman burning?



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed




I simply don't believe the OS and believe it was an inside job.

Which parts were the inside job(s)?

Why would crashing a plane in Shanksville further the secret cause more than the first three planes?

Remember for a conspiracy to be 'plausible' each aspect of the events must be explained in terms of the grand conspiracy.
Meaning if the beams were precut who would do such a thing and still remain silent.
If the planes were really missiles all the witnesses must have been in on it too.

You can't conclude all the aspects of 911 were faked or planned just because you thing buildings should topple over.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

The truth movement has made a mockery of a tragic event by dismissing the scores of civilian accounts of a large jet hitting the pentagon, enabling a hack conspiracy industry to exploit 9/11 for personal gain, and push impossible scenarios over reality. Example, a salt water damaged missile who knows how it was effected by an explosion and sinking of a sub was stolen by an overseas team, repaired by technicians, and retro fitted to strike the pentagon was used because using a bought missile would create too much of a paper trail. The truth movement is a joke...


Soooo you're equating one absurd speculation with anyone that doesn't agree with the official narrative? And this adds credence to your position?

Just checking. Carry on.


And what have you done to police and call out those that run with "absurd speculation" that killed the credibility of the truth movement?

Keep enabling


I never said I was part of the "truth movement." I simply don't believe the OS and believe it was an inside job.

Do your beliefs automatically assign you to a movement? Didn't think so. Smell that strawman burning?


Funny the people that quote and use truth movement material are never part of the truth movement. (And some how the people that point out the falsehoods and lies of the truth movement using logic and science are stereotyped as believing the official account? When debunkers simply don't put up with truth movement BS?).

The same people not of the truth movement do not check truth movement material against debunking sites, applied science, or just plain and normal research. And the same people never cry foul over absurd truth movement speculation and innuendo based on ignorance.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: AgarthaSeed




I simply don't believe the OS and believe it was an inside job.

Which parts were the inside job(s)?

Why would crashing a plane in Shanksville further the secret cause more than the first three planes?

Remember for a conspiracy to be 'plausible' each aspect of the events must be explained in terms of the grand conspiracy.
Meaning if the beams were precut who would do such a thing and still remain silent.
If the planes were really missiles all the witnesses must have been in on it too.

You can't conclude all the aspects of 911 were faked or planned just because you thing buildings should topple over.


Why was the pentagon hit again? Hitting a small section of a building the size of 24 football fields was going to destroy all financial records for ever other military base, ship, treasury records, money transfer records, banking records, and outside departmental audits that were already conducted?



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




destroy all financial records for ever other military base, ship, treasury records, money transfer records, banking records, and outside departmental audits that were already conducted?

Conspiracist's overlook the fact that the contractors have copies of the same records.

No different than you having a copy of your purchase receipt as well as the store.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: AgarthaSeed




I simply don't believe the OS and believe it was an inside job.

Which parts were the inside job(s)?

Why would crashing a plane in Shanksville further the secret cause more than the first three planes?

Remember for a conspiracy to be 'plausible' each aspect of the events must be explained in terms of the grand conspiracy.
Meaning if the beams were precut who would do such a thing and still remain silent.
If the planes were really missiles all the witnesses must have been in on it too.

You can't conclude all the aspects of 911 were faked or planned just because you thing buildings should topple over.


Why was the pentagon hit again? Hitting a small section of a building the size of 24 football fields was going to destroy all financial records for ever other military base, ship, treasury records, money transfer records, banking records, and outside departmental audits that were already conducted?


You bring up a good point. If you were a terrorist trying to cause as much damage as possible, why in the hell wouldn't you attempt to plop a plane on top of a 24-football-field-length building rather than aim your 55' high airplane into an impossibly tight 77' high wall without hitting the ground?

Simple. You wouldn't. And you physically couldn't.




posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: AgarthaSeed




I simply don't believe the OS and believe it was an inside job.

Which parts were the inside job(s)?

Why would crashing a plane in Shanksville further the secret cause more than the first three planes?

Remember for a conspiracy to be 'plausible' each aspect of the events must be explained in terms of the grand conspiracy.
Meaning if the beams were precut who would do such a thing and still remain silent.
If the planes were really missiles all the witnesses must have been in on it too.

You can't conclude all the aspects of 911 were faked or planned just because you thing buildings should topple over.


Why was the pentagon hit again? Hitting a small section of a building the size of 24 football fields was going to destroy all financial records for ever other military base, ship, treasury records, money transfer records, banking records, and outside departmental audits that were already conducted?


You bring up a good point. If you were a terrorist trying to cause as much damage as possible, why in the hell wouldn't you attempt to plop a plane on top of a 24-football-field-length building rather than aim your 55' high airplane into an impossibly tight 77' high wall without hitting the ground?

Simple. You wouldn't. And you physically couldn't.



One, the concentric rings of the pentagon are separate by space. What if the jet hit between one of the ring gaps, or crashed into the courtyard the size of four football fields.

Two, the energy of the crash would go from the roof, threw a few floors, and mostly be spent into the ground. Once the wreckage hits the ground, the ground will capture the remaining energy.

Hitting the pentagon broadside took out all the floors of a section of the outer ring when the outer ring segment collapsed, and caused extensive roof fires. And then caused damage to two other sections.

Hitting the pentagon broadside put all the energy into the building.

Because of the empty spaces between the rings of the pentagon that would minimize damage, it didn't matter how it was hit.
edit on 2-8-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording and context



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Can you cite from eyewitnesses, radar data, and the flight recorder data where flight 77 conducted any 280 degree turn while it descended the 7000 feet into the pentagon?

Can you cite were there was any turning of flight 77 while the throttles were worked to wide open for the descent into the pentagon?
edit on 2-8-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

www.internationalskeptics.com...
Thread: Truther-string of quotes, appeal for authority?
Comment by: beachnut


I am upset that someone who was in the Air Force is now nuts or just too old to think. Russ? Rusty, nut case guy? I was wondering what speeds he was talking about for 77. 77 flew a 300KIAS turn with a 13000 foot radius turn at 30-35 degrees of bank. Standard stuff, but he was speeding in a 250KIAS zone, but below the airframe limit of 350KCAS. Wonder if Russ was ever right about much?

Russ should have waited to see the FDR. The highest g reading was 1.7g. Kind of high for passengers but it was not because the terrorist pilot was trying to be a great pilot, he was just over controlling at the end.

Yes Russ the plane was going fast at the end, but there was no great maneuver to produce a high speed stall. Zip. It makes me wonder what makes Russ tell such big lies?



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

www.internationalskeptics.com...
Thread: Truther-string of quotes, appeal for authority?
Comment by: beachnut


I am upset that someone who was in the Air Force is now nuts or just too old to think. Russ? Rusty, nut case guy? I was wondering what speeds he was talking about for 77. 77 flew a 300KIAS turn with a 13000 foot radius turn at 30-35 degrees of bank. Standard stuff, but he was speeding in a 250KIAS zone, but below the airframe limit of 350KCAS. Wonder if Russ was ever right about much?

Russ should have waited to see the FDR. The highest g reading was 1.7g. Kind of high for passengers but it was not because the terrorist pilot was trying to be a great pilot, he was just over controlling at the end.

Yes Russ the plane was going fast at the end, but there was no great maneuver to produce a high speed stall. Zip. It makes me wonder what makes Russ tell such big lies?


What's the significance of this? You linked a post from a skeptic forum. We're supposed to discount the pilot's quote because of a stranger on the internet?



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Can you cite from eyewitnesses, radar data, and the flight recorder data where flight 77 conducted any 280 degree turn while it descended the 7000 feet into the pentagon?

Can you cite were there was any turning of flight 77 while the throttles were worked to wide open for the descent into the pentagon?


No I can't. Because Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon. Wikipedia has the "official story" version. Unless you disagree with that. In which case you'd have to enlighten me on what you believe the true flight pattern if it's different than the wiki page.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Can you cite how Mr. Wittenberg's quote is backed by the flight recorder data, the physical contact evidence on the flight path, radar data, and pentagon eyewitnesses accounts.

Funny, your only comment is to belittle a person that highlights Mr. Wittenberg's false assessments of flight 77's descent in to the pentagon, and has no chance for a rebuttal.

What does being on a debunking site have to do with anything? Can you use facts to discredit beachnut's assessment. Or you just going to throw a little tantrum?

You cannot cite from the evidence and pentagon accounts how Mr. Wittenberg's quote has any bases in fact? Seems you just provided another example why the truth movement cannot be trusted. And shown how people enabled others to exploit 9/11 for a little bit of notoriety.
edit on 2-8-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: AgarthaSeed




I simply don't believe the OS and believe it was an inside job.

Which parts were the inside job(s)?

Why would crashing a plane in Shanksville further the secret cause more than the first three planes?

Remember for a conspiracy to be 'plausible' each aspect of the events must be explained in terms of the grand conspiracy.
Meaning if the beams were precut who would do such a thing and still remain silent.
If the planes were really missiles all the witnesses must have been in on it too.

You can't conclude all the aspects of 911 were faked or planned just because you thing buildings should topple over.


Why was the pentagon hit again? Hitting a small section of a building the size of 24 football fields was going to destroy all financial records for ever other military base, ship, treasury records, money transfer records, banking records, and outside departmental audits that were already conducted?


You bring up a good point. If you were a terrorist trying to cause as much damage as possible, why in the hell wouldn't you attempt to plop a plane on top of a 24-football-field-length building rather than aim your 55' high airplane into an impossibly tight 77' high wall without hitting the ground?

Simple. You wouldn't. And you physically couldn't.



One, the concentric rings of the pentagon are separate by space. What if the jet hit between one of the ring gaps, or crashed into the courtyard the size of four football fields.

Two, the energy of the crash would go from the roof, threw a few floors, and mostly be spent into the ground. Once the wreckage hits the ground, the ground will capture the remaining energy.

Hitting the pentagon broadside took out all the floors of a section of the outer ring when the outer ring segment collapsed, and caused extensive roof fires. And then caused damage to two other sections.

Hitting the pentagon broadside put all the energy into the building.

Because of the empty spaces between the rings of the pentagon that would minimize damage, it didn't matter how it was hit.


Hahaha. This is truly absurd. You're giving an imaginary hijacker way too much credit here.

Any one of those scenarios you mentioned above would've undoubtedly caused plenty of deaths and destruction. Not to mention the fact that crashing a plane on top of the Pentagon is physically possible, unlike....



Which remarkably left the lawn looking like this afterwards...



But please, tell me more about the "eyewitnesses"



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Can you cite how Mr. Wittenberg's quote is backed by the flight recorder data, the physical contact evidence on the flight path, radar data, and pentagon eyewitnesses accounts.

Funny, your only comment is to belittle a person that highlights Mr. Wittenberg's false assessments of flight 77's descent in to the pentagon, and has no chance for a rebuttal.

What does being on a debunking site have to do with anything? Can you use facts to discredit beachnut's assessment. Or you just going to throw a little tantrum?

You cannot cite from the evidence and pentagon accounts how Mr. Wittenberg's quote has any bases in fact? Seems you just provided another example why the truth movement cannot be trusted. And shown how people enabled others to exploit 9/11 for a little bit of notoriety.


Ok Neutron, you're realllllly stretching here. Telling me I'm belittling someone simply because I called them a stranger and accusing me of "throwing a fit."

A bit dramatic huh?



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Actually, the sizeable construction yard in front of the pentagon had trailers and items impacted by flight 77. Items damage and pushed towards the pentagon. How would a detonated missile or bomb produce the same results. A totally wrecked and breeched front wall without totally destroying items in the construction yard? Wrapped airframe around multiple columns? How did a bomb or missile push in a 90 foot wide section of the front wall? How did a missile or bomb not exploded the contents of the pentagon on to the lawn? If the momentum of the jet was in to the pentagon, why would there be much damage to the lawn behind the construction yard?

You didn't really say or prove anything, and you ignored a direct request to back the quote you provided by Mr. Wittenberg. What account did Mr. Wittenberg base his conclusions from. Was he there on 9/11? His assessment summed up in the quote you provided has no bases in reality. Can you back the quote you provided with any cited facts concerning the witnesseses accounts of the flight path, the contact damage on an antenna/clipped trees/light poles/construction yard damage, radar, or the flight recorder?

You got catch using a quote based on falsehoods. Now you are going to ignore direct and legitimate requests out of intellectual honesty to cite proof for the quote you provided to throw a little hissy fit.

All the while underlining why the truth movement lost credibility. A very sad display.
edit on 2-8-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Can you cite how Mr. Wittenberg's quote is backed by the flight recorder data, the physical contact evidence on the flight path, radar data, and pentagon eyewitnesses accounts.

Funny, your only comment is to belittle a person that highlights Mr. Wittenberg's false assessments of flight 77's descent in to the pentagon, and has no chance for a rebuttal.

What does being on a debunking site have to do with anything? Can you use facts to discredit beachnut's assessment. Or you just going to throw a little tantrum?

You cannot cite from the evidence and pentagon accounts how Mr. Wittenberg's quote has any bases in fact? Seems you just provided another example why the truth movement cannot be trusted. And shown how people enabled others to exploit 9/11 for a little bit of notoriety.


Ok Neutron, you're realllllly stretching here. Telling me I'm belittling someone simply because I called them a stranger and accusing me of "throwing a fit."

A bit dramatic huh?


You choose again for belittlement when you could take the time to cite what Mr Wittenberg used to determine the flight path of flight 77 for the quote you provided.

Please show how his account is backed by eyewitnesses at the pentagon, the damage to the antenna, the damage to light poles, damage to trees and vegetation, damage to the low concrete wall, damage to the construction yard, the radar data, and the flight recorder data?
edit on 2-8-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: AgarthaSeed




I simply don't believe the OS and believe it was an inside job.

Which parts were the inside job(s)?

Why would crashing a plane in Shanksville further the secret cause more than the first three planes?

Remember for a conspiracy to be 'plausible' each aspect of the events must be explained in terms of the grand conspiracy.
Meaning if the beams were precut who would do such a thing and still remain silent.
If the planes were really missiles all the witnesses must have been in on it too.

You can't conclude all the aspects of 911 were faked or planned just because you thing buildings should topple over.


Why was the pentagon hit again? Hitting a small section of a building the size of 24 football fields was going to destroy all financial records for ever other military base, ship, treasury records, money transfer records, banking records, and outside departmental audits that were already conducted?


And you forget not at the pentagon that is handled by treasury department. So I guess striking the pentagon to destroy financial records would be well stupid. Be like attacking dairy Queen to destroy t bone steaks.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

You provided a quote that made out flight 77 conducted a 280 degree turn while in the major and rapid 7,000 feet descent in to the pentagon. Was a 280 degree turn conducted during that time or not?

Or was a large radius turn made by flight 77 at or under 300 knots. The pilot of flight 77 lined up on the pentagon, started the descent while working throttles to full?



edit on 2-8-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join