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.

 

2nd plane hits south tower.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Hold on a second mate, your the one who mentioned the passengers in the first place. Don't accuse me of de-facing their name. I knew 2 people on the "plane" that flew into the Pentagon.

Also i believe i told you i neither believed or had proof of there where-abouts of the people on board, it was another forum not post.

Where the hell are you getting sonic deception tecnology from? What i'm trying to say is, if you stick a bigger engine on the back, its gonna fly faster and be louder. Duh!

Still haven't answered me, US Government or Al'queda, you seam to be avoiding my question...
And where i work is irrealivant.




posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   
thanks charlie sheen..
at last someone famous with nothing to gain except ridicule,invasion into his private life.being labelled a 'conspiracy nut'.with what cost..possibly his succesful hollywood career
why do it??
because has the courage to come forward and actually voice his opinion...supposed to be the right of every red blooden american citizen. which by the way i am not.i,m not a anti/pro american/islamic or any other man made or politically/geographically motivated means to label or class every human being on the planet for convenience.i,m just human..
but also with fairly good judgment ..and the same gut feeling when i saw the buildings come down..it was artificially enduced and 'perfectly executed' with the least damage to surrounding builings i,ve ever seen in destruction of that scale
i,ve been searching for holes in this story basically since 911.but one of the'conspiracy theories' discussed here will actually harm attempts to push for serious independent investigation
holographic projecters..???
not feasible or even necessary
they are expensive.unreliable and easy to see through filtered lens if .why take the risk to use projections to disguise a uav armoured fuel bomb when it can simply be done by mechanical means and built to look like a boeing jet....isnt that just sooo much easier??.
never wondered how an aluminium based craft could slice through solid concrete and solid steel at only 500mph.ok they,re large.. but the reason there are so many fatalities in your 'average' jet crash is simple because your lcommon garden airliners are 'pressurised' cola cans with fuel bombs for wings.what would happen if you projected a cola can at a steel and concrete wall at 500mph ?yeah it would leave a dent or maybe a hole but it would crush itself 'buckle' as soon as it hit the first obstacle..
the nose of an aircraft is made of fibreglass with carbon matting weaved into it..did u ever see a surfboard take a steel/concrete impact and emerge from the other side?you can clearly see an unbuckled,undamaged nose cone emerging from a lot of the videos of the 2nd 'plane',how would this be possible without re-inforcement?
armour plating is the only way you can explain why the airplane did not so much as bend as it entered the building, like a cheese cutter through melted cheese.
i sent this just in the hope some people will realise that it is .. just not necessary ...to use top secret ..still developing ..equipment for such a task

concentrate on the realities that have been employed for this atrocity.it will be faster to expose the real terrorists behind the attack

ps.. the debris on the street like the pentagon didnt match up and didnt u wonder how a huge titanium engine could shoot 5 blocks through the air from 100 floors up and not even scratch the ground where it landed?it would be embedded it the concrete street.half buried with impact damage for metres around
wtcdebris.0catch.com...



it was planted after..!!
stay vigilant,trust no-one



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marquall
Hold on a second mate, your the one who mentioned the passengers in the first place. Don't accuse me of de-facing their name. I knew 2 people on the "plane" that flew into the Pentagon.

Also i believe i told you i neither believed or had proof of there where-abouts of the people on board, it was another forum not post.

Where the hell are you getting sonic deception tecnology from? What i'm trying to say is, if you stick a bigger engine on the back, its gonna fly faster and be louder. Duh!

Still haven't answered me, US Government or Al'queda, you seam to be avoiding my question...
And where i work is irrealivant.


It's not a case of simply "sticking a bigger engine" on a UAV. They are designed to be balanced to fly with the engine they have. If you want to put a bigger engine you have to totally redesign them. Bigger engine means more weight, which means more reinforcement to support it, which means more weight, which means a totally different center of gravity, etc.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   
I understand the principles of getting a plane in the air. I used the term "sticking" lightly.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Yes but once again it gets so complicated it's just more simple to simply use the airliner. With the majority of these theories you have to ask yourself why go to so much trouble and risk being exposed when the specified aircraft is available?



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Al-Qeada planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. There is no conspiracy.
Your engineering and physics knowledge also is astounding. I am sure skunkworks would love to talk to you about your ideas.

You cannot 'stick' an engine on another plane, and again, where are the passengers? Where are the planes that took off from Logan?

[edit on 29-3-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Dude, this is a conspiricy forum. If you think theres no conspiricy, what the hell are you doing here? I'm not wasting my time with you anymore. I answered as simply as i possibly could to you. I reckon it perfectly possible.

The US military is at least a decade ahead of the civilian world tecnology wise. And with the aid of the "Black Buget" they don't arouse the suspicion of the public.
Fact : The US Government keeps cutting edge tecnology from its citizens For National Security

Fact : The US Government has pulled invention patents of anyone with a successfull free energy invention. The inventors usually end up imprisoned.

Fact : If you thought Wireless technology was new, in the early 1900's Nickolia Tesla revolutionized the electric industry by inventing a working WIRELESS POWER PLANT, but after government intervention the public model never materialized.

Information provided from this link

Your Al'queda couldn't buy a bloody cheeseburger from Macdonals, never mind a plane ticket on a America Airlines jet.

I've explained already that i used the term "stick" lightly, do you even read the post before hand fully before replying? I'm assuming yes,
then you'd want to get your head checked because you clearly can't remember anything. Further proof that you brain cell count is that of the average cabbage, is that you believe Al'queda did this... Do you even remember how to tie your own shoe??? Click here


[edit on 30-3-2006 by Marquall]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marquall
Dude, this is a conspiricy forum. If you think theres no conspiricy, what the hell are you doing here?


I can’t speak for esdad, but I personally am here to deny ignorance.


Originally posted by Marquall
Your Al'queda couldn't buy a bloody cheeseburger from Macdonals, never mind a plane ticket on a America Airlines jet.


But I bet they know how to spell McDonalds and that it is not "America Airlines," but "American Airlines."



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I can’t speak for esdad, but I personally am here to deny ignorance.




If you are so set on pulling up fellow members here on ATS for their use of the English language you should try to pay more attention to your own grasp of putting those words together.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Those who point out grammatical erros ar thos an do noot psot fax r fun. 2 taulk 2.

This is not a 'conspiracy only' forum bud, and you are talking nonsense, not conspiracy. The fact that you believe that the WTC was struck by a holographic-frakenstien drone.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I have kept my mouth shut over all the topics dealing with the WTC's and Pentagon strikes because I still cannot believe that after almost 5 years there are some people out the who can't grasp the idea that the US was attacked on its home turf. It seems you all believe we are all powerful and nothing can happen to us by another country; and because of that, it must be the federal government.

I offer this to suggestion to all those who say that it was a UAV or holographic image that hit the tower(s), go rent or download the 9/11 documentaries produced by various companies. There is one out the by the Discovery channel (not sure exactly because most of my stuff is still being shipped to me from Germany) that was produced following a fire house around for a while and one of the days they were their was 9/11. The show so great footage(sp??) that if I remember right has an underside shot of the 2nd plane hitting the WTC.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevinS
Because it shows the most Guarded Place on Earth was penetrated?

the pentagon isnt the most gaured place dulce probbably is is it even exits and the guard isnt lieing his ass off



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by usafairmen
I still cannot believe that after almost 5 years there are some people out the who can't grasp the idea that the US was attacked on its home turf.


Many that believe in our governments involvement in 9/11 aren't doing so because we think we are almighty. I'm one of them. Yes, I believe 100% that we are vulnerable to any country... even those as miniscule as Tonga. But I believe that the government did play a part in this somehow. Whether it was a big part, or a minimal part. But yes, those who are still in that denile phase need to snap out of it.


I offer this to suggestion to all those who say that it was a UAV or holographic image that hit the tower(s), go rent or download the 9/11 documentaries produced by various companies.


It is the theories such as this that make those of us who push for a reopening of the case to look bad. I think it is extremely obvious from many, many different place that actual planes hit the WTC. The best video I have seen regarding the "conspiracy" was the one made by the reopen911.com or whatever site it was. Maybe if we have less "crackpot" theories, and more realistic theories, maybe we could actually make some progress.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Ok, I found the exact title of the dvd I mentioned earlier, it is called: 9/11 - The Filmmakers' Commemorative Edition. It is ideal to watch for both those who believe the truth (what is been told to everyone by the govenment, IMO) and those who don't.

Also, those who are saying it was a 'super UAV' and/or holographic projection, I and many others I believe, would love to see something that supports that idea. You constantly ask for proff of the planes hitting, I would like proff that a UAV hit.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Whatever happened, it seems to me that something may be very wrong with what happened on that day.

Short and sweet, it looks like a planned demolition, made to look like airplanes took the buildings down. The buildings just fell too perfectly, all 3 of them. What are the chances of that happening?

Troy



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I can't quite believe i found this, they say these systems have been deployed by defense contractors and govemments, Look for yourself.
www.io2technology.com...


Saying "IO2 Technology develops commercial Heliodisplay (tm) systems, as well as does not advertise emerging technological solutions for mission-specific applications." whilst showing an image quite apt does fuel the holocon theory, again imo.

One other thing.
Did they spell government that way to stop certain searches, or did this private company just make a simple mistake with their Main Page.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Links

One other thing.
Did they spell government that way to stop certain searches, or did this private company just make a simple mistake with their Main Page.


Two versions: first 'rn' very much looks like 'm', especially to scanner software

OR

they paid monkeys and got them, one of them copied by slavishly re-typing the whole text, perhaps through faint grasp of the English language combined with a small font and a fuzzy video signal...



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by usafairmen

Also, those who are saying it was a 'super UAV' and/or holographic projection, I and many others I believe, would love to see something that supports that idea. You constantly ask for proff of the planes hitting, I would like proff that a UAV hit.


The only proof that it wasn't a 767 is that it would've gone straight through the building and desimated a good few blocks. Unfortunatly i don't have any evidence to prove it was a un-manned aerial veicle per say, but in saying that, if it wasn't a 767 what was it?



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marquall
are you going to tell me that 179,170 kg of weigh, excluding the turbofans still running, would be stopped be a bit of concrete and steel pipes?


No offense, but I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Not only were the Twin Towers both much bigger in every possible dimension than a 767, but they were also much denser than the jets, or any jet. Jets are designed to be light enough to fly. They aren't designed like tanks. And big numbers don't mean anything unless you're comparing them to other relevant numbers (ie, collective weights of the impacted thick columns, concrete slabs, trusses, etc.).

Impacting almost anything rigid at those speeds would rip a plane apart in no time, let alone something bigger and heavier than the plane itself.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   


I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

911research.wtc7.net...


There is something unusual about the impact, but not unlike 'a pencil puncturing that screen'.

One general thing you could say about conspiracies, is that anything is possible; but it can end up being a waste of time and energy if it turns out to be a false path of inquiry.
It is interesting to note that some responses to the holographic theory are used to dismiss the alternative theories surrounding the events of 9/11 as a whole, as if like WTC7 - one part of the 'story' is not true, then the whole story must be untrue.

There are truths and untruths to every story, though I admit I do need a lot more convincing on this elaboration.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join