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.

 

So where did 77's tail section go?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
If you scrape a piece of aluminum against a masonry wall it will leave a mark that is real hard to erase. I work with aluminum frequently in my profession as a metal smith and am fairly familiar with its properties.

I'm with diggs on this one. There should be at least some kind of mark if not an actual imprint.

If the FBI would just show us the videos, it would clear this all up. Until then, the official version stinks. And there is nothing about the hole, wreckage, or weak, transparent story that says 757, to me.



[edit on 15-6-2006 by whaaa]




posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
If you scrape a piece of aluminum against a masonry wall it will leave a mark that is real hard to erase. I work with aluminum frequently in my profession as a metal smith and am fairly familiar with its properties.

I'm with diggs on this one. There should be at least some kind of mark if not an actual imprint.

If the FBI would just show us the videos, it would clear this all up. Until then, the official version stinks. And there is nothing about the hole, wreckage, or weak, transparent story that says 757, to me.

Cool, I'm glad someone has some common sense around here!

Cheers mate!



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
If you scrape a piece of aluminum against a masonry wall it will leave a mark that is real hard to erase. I work with aluminum frequently in my profession as a metal smith and am fairly familiar with its properties.


Have you ever tried shaping it into a vertical stabilizer and rudder, then slamming it against four feet of concrete, steel, kevlar cloth, masonry and limestone at hundreds of miles an hour?
If so, what was the result?


I'm with diggs on this one. There should be at least some kind of mark if not an actual imprint.


There were marks on the wall, cracks in the limestone, and broken blastproof windows above the main entry hole.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Do you think that it's possible that what ever it was that hit the pentagon was no aircraft?



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
In case it would be able to look like a big two-engined jet to witnesses, mow dowm lamp poles, strike the generator, make a hole into the Pentagon, carry a 757 engine and wheels (as well as paintjob) plus passengers... Why not?
But then it would need explanation what was it and how were the passangers of Flt77 transferred into that thing



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by spihnx
Do you think that it's possible that what ever it was that hit the pentagon was no aircraft?


Anything's possible.
Do you think it's possible that what hit the Pentagon was an aircraft?



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
In case it would be able to look like a big two-engined jet to witnesses, mow dowm lamp poles, strike the generator, make a hole into the Pentagon, carry a 757 engine and wheels (as well as paintjob) plus passengers... Why not?
But then it would need explanation what was it and how were the passangers of Flt77 transferred into that thing


Where is your proof there were two engines from a 757 found?
Where is your proof there were 9 wheels from a 757 found?
Paintjob? Why would that be a problem?


An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area.
At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers.


(check out the passenger list, mostly gov workers and family members)


take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger carrying aircraft will decend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary filed at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to it's original status.


(From 'Operation Northwoods')

9-11 obviously didn't go down exactly like this, but I'll leave it to your imagination to fill in the changes. Shouldn't be too hard for you....

[edit on 18/6/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Oops hit quote instead of edit, sry...

[edit on 18/6/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   
So IOW you are suggesting the passengers are alive and that the body remains weren't there?



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Well it's just another possiblity that can't be ignored imo. The gov/military have infinite resources available to them.

What bodies are you talking about? I haven't seen any pics of bodies that can be proved they were on the plane that crashed. And don't tell me they found DNA, I don't buy that for a minute. A crash so intense it left no evidence of a plane would not have bodies and DNA survive.

You can't ignore Operation Northwoods. It was a real plan and only didn't happen because the president at the time wouldn't sign it. There are too many similarities between it and 9-11 to pretend it's not possible a very similar plan was used.
I believe they put in a pres (Bush) who was more than willing to go with the plan because he directly benefited from it being an oil man. (and btw, oil isn't the only reason for the attack, just one of many).

Check out the passngers on flight 77...
thewebfairy.com...

Also don't you think it's odd that the planes used on 9-11 were only 20% loaded when ALL other planes that day were at least 90% loaded. If AA were to do that on a daily basis they would go broke pretty darn fast. At 20% load they barely cover fuel and airport costs etc...


Flight 77..was unusually light on passengers this day." -Washington Post


Edit: BTW what does IOW mean? Isle of White?


[edit on 19/6/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dansker
There were marks on the wall, cracks in the limestone, and broken blastproof windows above the main entry hole.

Those marks are not consistent with a tail obliterating against it, but only consistent with some type of blast near the wall.

Get over it, no tail struck there. Our gov't lied to us.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dansker

Originally posted by spihnx
Do you think that it's possible that what ever it was that hit the pentagon was no aircraft?


Anything's possible.
Do you think it's possible that what hit the Pentagon was an aircraft?


No, because there is no evidence of a tailsection. Look how big and tall that tail section is. Where did it go???



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
In the survailence video you can see the tail section of the plane hurdled over the top of the roof. And there is eyewitnesses who were cleaning up the debre who said they handled the tail section.

This notion that if there is a fire, then everything or nothing gets incinerated is absolutely silly. Not everything was incinerated as many personal belongings, plane parts, AND body parts were recovered. Plenty of DNA survived. There are documentaries on PBS or history channel that spend a good deal of time going over the 9/11 DNA investigations with them explaining everything they did.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The gov/military have infinite resources available to them.
[edit on 19/6/2006 by ANOK]


Hardly so. Not even in Clancy's novels
Resources are limited, and in case of covert op they are limited even more by the need of keeping it secret.

Oh and IOW means In Other Words as far as I can tell



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
The most simple thinking is all it takes. 3 Other airplanes have been hi-jacked that day. Why not have a forth also? instead its a missle or whatever else may cross your mind that it was. And than go through the hassle to plant evidence of airplane debris.

But of course it's fun to speculate how it "really" went down.

Believe what you wish.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by DoomX]

[edit on 21-6-2006 by DoomX]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomX
The most simple thinking is all it takes. 3 Other airplanes have been hi-jacked that day. Why not have a forth also? instead its a missle or whatever else may cross your mind that it was. And than go through the hassle to plant evidence of airplane debris.

But of course it's fun to speculate how it "really" went down.

Believe what you wish.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by DoomX]

[edit on 21-6-2006 by DoomX]


Seems kind of odd the extremes people will go to conclude some of these conspiracies. Basically they sent a missle into one building that somehow disguised itself as a comercial plane to all the witnesses. Meanwhile planting bombs and a commerical plane woth of parts and victoms bodies and belongings into the fire while no one was watching. And at the same time they used remove controlled planes that somehow were swapped with the orignal planes. These remote controlled planes had pods on them because they couldnt have penetrated the WTC at 500mph. But to be even sure they detonated bombs in the basement which did nothing. Then they detonated bombs periodically throughout the building for more useless fun until finally they detonated the bombs that took the buildings down. Then they shot down a real plane over penn. but they managed to completely replicate the voices of the victoms well enough to fool even their familly members. This of course required much research so as to know all the personal traits of the victoms to help fool their loved ones who have known them all their lives.

Because terrorists from the middle east could not possibly hijack planes as they have done many times in the past. That would be far fetched.

So why do people come to these conclusions? Because it's hard to face the fact that life can be somewhat boring and is never as exciting as all these action movies we see in the theaters. But 9/11 gives everyone an opertunity to live out their fantasies. Anyone can be the super hero who no one believes until it's too late. And then when the right time comes everyone will bow down before them for knowing what everyone else kept ignoring. And they will have saved the world and humanity forever. And most importantly their lives will have meaning and purpose.

There propoably are some conver ups involved in 9/11 but we all need to come back to earth sometimes. And more importantly ask yourself if it really IS the truth one is seeking, or something else inside. Are we really looking for answers or are we desperatly trying to build a case that will validate a pre conceived conclusion we want desperately to believe.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
In the survailence video you can see the tail section of the plane hurdled over the top of the roof.

Well witness reports say the tail was still sticking out of the building and other said it broke off to the ground and started burning. Who should we believe?



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

Originally posted by snoopy
In the survailence video you can see the tail section of the plane hurdled over the top of the roof.

Well witness reports say the tail was still sticking out of the building and other said it broke off to the ground and started burning. Who should we believe?


Who would I believe? The people working on it. There's no way in hell it could possibly have just stuck out of the building of fell off to the ground. And the video is pretty conclusive.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Okay I found this on another thread here.

Security camera footage... I don't see any airplane or debris from the plane after the explosion... I do see the tip of what looks like a low flying missle 1 frame before the explosion. But most important.... The size and the duration of the fireball!! A fully loaded with fuel jet liner would make a much bigger boom


External video

External video

Author's Thread

Someone wanna ex-plane this to me?

[edit on 26-6-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
Who would I believe? The people working on it. There's no way in hell it could possibly have just stuck out of the building of fell off to the ground. And the video is pretty conclusive.

I just watched the videos. Where's the tail traveling over the building???



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join