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: 8
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: kurthall

There are videos from all sides of the buildings from after the first impact. Just because we don't see the impact in a few videos doesn't prove that there wasn't a plane. Not all the videos were shot from the same side of the building, which was my point.


Nothing proves there was a plane using the same logic.

The point is who cares...your government and many others are covering things up.




posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

Seeing a plane proves there was a plane. Not seeing a plane doesn't prove there was not a plane. I don't see anything wrong with the logic.

But no one can force you to care.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: auroraaus
a reply to: prevenge

Despite the tech available back in 2001... at least publicly available.

But if you are correct, then how to you explain to the thousands of eyewitnesses on the ground and in the surrounding buildings?


Pics or it didn't happen



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
The 9/11 conspiracies are utter crap nonsense.Maybe take a look at U.S.policies with the CIA gun running operations which should be illegal and the deep state or military industrial complex is out of control in the U.S.
Also look at the leakers and media becoming a total freak show mess and how dangerous the NSA is becoming with spying.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Cutepants

Seeing a plane does not mean it was AA77, and important detail when analyzing a story.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Thanks. A video for the ages!
Should be required viewing, in ATS 101.


edit on 27-7-2017 by Nothin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 01:41 AM
link   
The frame jitter in the versions with and without the plane do not match.
Appears to be manipulation by showing the building before hit, and then patching in the video immediately after the plane completely disappeared into the building. IMHO.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: sg1642
All I can say is how can it be fair to champion the opinions of eye witnesses who saw, heard, felt or experienced explosions but not those who saw airliners hit the towers?



Not as many people saw airliners as you think. I'm a lifelong NYer and know a few people that were at ground zero.

Real life testimony > the illusions you see on TV

Because most people don't walk around looking up at the sky to happen to catch the few seconds, were only alerted by the sound of the jet and the impact , to then look up.

I take footage over eyewitness (no plane) testimony anyway.
Theres plenty of that,



The sound on the last two is compelling... if anyone has a problem with the planes 'disappearing' upon impact, planes aren't explosive warheads , the thin skin on the buildings gave way, the planes wings folded, and the body penetrated fully before the gas tanks began to ignite, blowing a fireball out both sides of the buildings after the initial conflagration.

edit on 27-7-2017 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: sg1642
All I can say is how can it be fair to champion the opinions of eye witnesses who saw, heard, felt or experienced explosions but not those who saw airliners hit the towers?



Not as many people saw airliners as you think. I'm a lifelong NYer and know a few people that were at ground zero.

Real life testimony > the illusions you see on TV


And can you or anyone you know say they saw what is displayed in the video? i.e. the effect on the building (explosion) without the cause? (Aircraft flying into it).

I don't doubt for a second the official story is a cover up at best but the idea that no aircraft hit the towers just seems nonsensical to me.

WW2 aircraft with nowhere near the structural strength or speed of modern aircraft could punch straight through the side plate of warships. Inches upon inches of armoured hull plate. The face of the tower was made of steel columns. It was also made of office windows 18 to 21 inches wide depending on what you read. Plenty of space for 500mph chunks of metal to squeeze through.
** Yes except the 757 can not fly anywhere near 500mph at 1000ft altitude its max speed is around 420 mph at 30k ft it becomes uncontrollable at lower altitudes.(wings fall off) How does an aluminum wing tip penetrate steel? "beep beep" there goes the road runner.



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 02:37 AM
link   


** Yes except the 757 can not fly anywhere near 500mph at 1000ft altitude its max speed is around 420 mph at 30k ft it becomes uncontrollable at lower altitudes.(wings fall off) How does an aluminum wing tip penetrate steel? "beep beep" there goes the road runner.
a reply to: PsychicCroMag

maximum speed of 757 is listed at Mach .86 or 571 mph

Also did you miss part that WTC exterior wall is made of a lattice work of columns held together by welded spandrel plates and bolted together is 30 foot sections

Plane impact sheared off bolts and welds



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: PsychicCroMag




it becomes uncontrollable at lower altitudes.(wings fall off)

You keep believing that.

I'll bet you believe in bigfoot too.



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: PsychicCroMag

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: sg1642
All I can say is how can it be fair to champion the opinions of eye witnesses who saw, heard, felt or experienced explosions but not those who saw airliners hit the towers?



Not as many people saw airliners as you think. I'm a lifelong NYer and know a few people that were at ground zero.

Real life testimony > the illusions you see on TV


And can you or anyone you know say they saw what is displayed in the video? i.e. the effect on the building (explosion) without the cause? (Aircraft flying into it).

I don't doubt for a second the official story is a cover up at best but the idea that no aircraft hit the towers just seems nonsensical to me.

WW2 aircraft with nowhere near the structural strength or speed of modern aircraft could punch straight through the side plate of warships. Inches upon inches of armoured hull plate. The face of the tower was made of steel columns. It was also made of office windows 18 to 21 inches wide depending on what you read. Plenty of space for 500mph chunks of metal to squeeze through.
** Yes except the 757 can not fly anywhere near 500mph at 1000ft altitude its max speed is around 420 mph at 30k ft it becomes uncontrollable at lower altitudes.(wings fall off) How does an aluminum wing tip penetrate steel? "beep beep" there goes the road runner.


There is a difference between what an aircraft can do before it falls apart and what its manufacturer deems safe. This is where people get mixed up. Also you just glossed over the fact I just pointed out 50% of the face of the tower was glass. Like I said, if a ww2 prop aircraft can punch through the side of a ship (you know..inches of steel armour designed to take hits from high calibre shells) what do you think a jet powered craft can do to bolts and glass?

Lastly, I don't believe the official story and It will take a lot to make me think otherwise but facts are facts.



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Brian4real
Lets not discount the scores of people who said it was a small Cessna-type plane that hit the towers, and not a commercial airliner. Lots and lots of people claimed to see it, and they were certain there were NO windows on the plane.
Anyone ever seen a Tomahawk Missle in flight?


I was there in person, 1.5Km away. This is what I remember seeing for the 2nd tower. A small plane and not an airliner.



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ziplock9000

originally posted by: Brian4real
Lets not discount the scores of people who said it was a small Cessna-type plane that hit the towers, and not a commercial airliner. Lots and lots of people claimed to see it, and they were certain there were NO windows on the plane.
Anyone ever seen a Tomahawk Missle in flight?


I was there in person, 1.5Km away. This is what I remember seeing for the 2nd tower. A small plane and not an airliner.


If only someone had thought to photograph or video this small plane instead of all those people focusing on the airliner!



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ziplock9000

So you remember seeing a Tomahawk cruise missile...not a small airplane?



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent



I'll bet you believe in bigfoot too.


Hey Bigfoot is real ......

Saw him in a TV commercial



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue



** Yes except the 757 can not fly anywhere near 500mph at 1000ft altitude its max speed is around 420 mph at 30k ft it becomes uncontrollable at lower altitudes.(wings fall off) How does an aluminum wing tip penetrate steel? "beep beep" there goes the road runner.
a reply to: PsychicCroMag

maximum speed of 757 is listed at Mach .86 or 571 mph

Also did you miss part that WTC exterior wall is made of a lattice work of columns held together by welded spandrel plates and bolted together is 30 foot sections

Plane impact sheared off bolts and welds





Stick to fires and rescue Chief. Your knowledge of airplanes is amateur at best.

The numbers from the boeing you cite are at altitude, like above 25000 feet.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

You are aware that civilian airliners have been known to exceed Mach 1 in a dive ......

Diving a plane from high altitude converts the potential energy to kinetic energy

Or did you miss that fact in high school physics...???

Maybe like to tell us how WTC buildings were destroyed by nuclear explosions ..... Come on we need a laugh .....



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Or we hear about the pseudoscience of NIST concerning the towers. After 15 years, nobody cites a specific example and page number from the NIST reports.

A certain individual's only comeback is,"but but but the reports of molten steel for three months." The individual offers no cited sources. And offers no explanation how nukes or thermite, that would be totally consumed on 9/11 do to its self sustaining reaction, would keep the pile hot enough for three months to facilitate molten steel. And there is no evidence or recorded data the pile was ever hot enough to support molten steel.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: ziplock9000

I was there in person, 1.5Km away. This is what I remember seeing for the 2nd tower. A small plane and not an airliner.


At the distance of a mile it's going to look small. It's called perspective.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join