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.

 

A Second plane didnt hit the south tower ?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
check out this website


911 tv fakery

is this disinfo ?


they seem to give sources to their claims...




posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
is this that bad ?

or you just lazy to see and reply ?



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Well, I just happened to be watching television live from New York when the second plane hit the WTC. I know, it could have been a tape or it could have been a hologram, or maybe a missile disguised as a plane, but I for one am not buying any of that.

Maybe people are just burned out on the subject.

[edit on 2006/8/14 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
www.theonion.com...


the onion posted it as a joke, did not take long to get used as a theory, strange people one meets in the internet.

[edit on 15-8-2006 by hoeon]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   
This maybe a dumb question but here it goes:

the information networks such as CNN have footage from the planes crashing in the towers. my question is: why were they filming the towers in the first place? or they just happen to "get lucky"?

The thing is that they got some pretty good shots from a impredictable event...

[edit on 16-8-2006 by DrExtravaganza]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrExtravaganza
my question is: why were they filming the towers in the first place? or they just happen to "get lucky"?


The best footage of the first strike was by two french brothers filming a documentary about the N.Y.F.D., who went on a call just a couple blocks away from the towers when it happened so they were already filming in the area and happened to catch it.

By the time the second plane hit many cameras were filming the burning tower from the first strike so there's alot more footage available.

[edit on 8/16/06 by redmage]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrExtravaganza
the information networks such as CNN have footage from the planes crashing in the towers. my question is: why were they filming the towers in the first place? or they just happen to "get lucky"?

The thing is that they got some pretty good shots from a impredictable event...

[edit on 16-8-2006 by DrExtravaganza]


Not a dumb question, but fairly easy to answer. CNN was filming it because the first plane hit (although at that time it wasn't confirmed that there was a crash, just a big fire in the first tower.) They were filming the first tower when the second plane hit, just like a news station's supposed to. Sorry, no conspiracy on that one.

For the blog that you posted, I got to the first quote from Jerry Springer and stopped:


...I'm trying to go on basic logic...
Let's say the government put all the explosives inside the building...
Why would they need the planes?
...Why did they have to add the airplanes to do that?...
That would make it a lot more complicated...
You can ground the planes...


To me it sounds like something that could too easily been taken out of context. Read it again, but think of it as him trying to debunk the bombs-in-the-buildings theory, and using the planes as "evidence" because (whether honest-to-god plane or not) people know something flew into those buildings, or at least was filmed flying into them. If the government were to put bombs into the buildings, why would they go through the trouble of using the planes?

That's the way I took it at least, and that's not how this particular site is using it. I could very well be wrong--I won't deny that at all--but that's enough to make me think it's just another crackpot on the web who thinks that since he's got a blog he can take down the government.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
the darkened plane in the videos hitting the second tower seems to not go with the natural lighting of the surrounding eviornment. i believe it was a missile using hologram tech or tv fakery like this post mentions.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
This is a preposterous notion and there are people who are posting to this thread who were in NYC at the time. I, myself, was watching live television and saw the plane fly into the tower.

This just isn't the time for fruitcake theories. Try again next month. Please.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I love how they expect to be able to see the plane crumpling and shredding in the miliseconds it took for it to enter the building.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Didn't you guys know that WTC didn't even exist, neither does NYC, it's all like the Truman Show.


Not really, but this 9-11 crap is getting awfully pathetic.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I love how they expect to be able to see the plane crumpling and shredding in the miliseconds it took for it to enter the building.


you 'love' that, huh?

i love how you will in the same breath say the wings folded forward and entered the same hole as the fuselage at the pentagon.

you've seen the footage of the fighter jet into massive concrete block footage, and you can see what happens to the plane in milliseconds.
i know that was high speed film, but there is more than one frame of the plane entering WTC2.
i have noticed that in MOST, if not all, videos, the wings literally disappear completely just before impact.

hologram technology is not science fiction.
and 'blue screen' is nearly as old as the wheel, now.

mock away, but i leave these possibilities in the 'open' file, along with the 'possibility' that some people have an awful lot of time on their hands to 'debunk' 911.

did you know that the government in britain(blair's) hired TEN TIMES as many propogandists, er, public relations people as their predecessors? from 300 to 3000!

and, in america, the bush admin has spent BILLIONS on propoganda. and that's what 'they' are telling us!
imagine the huge army of 'keyboard warriors' that have been hired by the globalist shadow government!!!



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I have never said the wings "folded forward and went into the hole" at the Pentagon. I KNOW what happens to planes in plane crashes, and I know that a normal camera, no matter how hard you try won't pick up the initial crumpling of a plane at impact. It happens too fast for an off the shelf video camera to detect.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   
possible top 30 evidence for 9-11 tv fakery:

www.911blogger.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
And I suppose that all the eyewitnesses that were standing in the streets watching with their own eyes were all either told what they saw, threatened into saying it was a plane, wouldn't know a plane from a missile, or whatever other excuse you can come up with.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And I suppose that all the eyewitnesses that were standing in the streets watching with their own eyes were all either told what they saw, threatened into saying it was a plane, wouldn't know a plane from a missile, or whatever other excuse you can come up with.


some witnesses i've heard of never said it was a plane until they were told it was a plane.

'if' the conspiracy is real, then planted eyewitnesses are a given.

other eyewitnesses didn't see a plane, only an explosion.

eyewitnesses reported bombs going off at the towers. and 'flashes' and 'sparkles'. and a small commuter plane hitting the first tower.

you just wanna cherry pick which witness tesimony is 'credible', and which is not?
because, i know that a lampost cannot be knocked down by a plane going 500 miles an hour and only put a little hole in the windshield of a taxi. that pole would crush like a bug or cut in half a car unfortunate enough to be under it, AND it would probably rip the wing half off the plane.

five lamposts are impossible.

a fricking big bird is enough to severly damage a wing, and it is not moored into the ground, made of metal, and doesn't weigh between 250 and 450 lbs.

so, if the wings didn't fold forward at the pentagon, where did they go?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I'm not nitpicking which are credible and not. There WERE explosions at the WTC. Doesn't mean that they were bombs. As for the lightpoles, they wouldn't "rip half the wing off" if they were hit by the wing.
And what about the engines? they hang down below the wing, and if they hit the top of the lightpole it wouldn't seriously damage them.


I've said it probably a dozen times, the wings are the most fragile portion of the plane. They shatter when planes hit the ground. But just because we haven't seen pictures of large portions of wing doesn't mean that they weren't there. We haven't seen even 10% of the pictures from the Pentagon I'm sure.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i have noticed that in MOST, if not all, videos, the wings literally disappear completely just before impact.

hologram technology is not science fiction.
and 'blue screen' is nearly as old as the wheel, now.



So the pictures we all saw from International news medias were all planted by the U.S. government.....
I believe the second plane was a hologram
I believe were all holgrams
It's all the NWO s fault for owning the hologram firm and wanting some extra cash to fund there evil reptilian schemes.
Whatever.......



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
How do we even know New York exists?


It's pretty sad really that people are so determined not to believe anything that they'll make up this sort of rubbish. Best they watch out crossing the street: is that really a bus coming? Or is it a fluffy toy disguised as a bus using futuristic Star Trek holodeck technology, intended to fool you into not crossing the road for some nefarious reason known only to the lizard men of Altair-IX

(Annd am I really a disinformation agent, or do they just want you to think that? Or is this comment itself disinformation intended to confuse you? You may not be paranoid. But they are all out to get you.....................................)



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
For Christ's sake...I GIVE UP!!! Someone said that people are getting burned out on this subject...absolutely true!!!!!!

For the record..I'm not a CTer. But I will listen to someone who presents a debate based in logic of some sort. But this????? This doesn't even pass the "funny" test. It's not funny...it is indeed very sad...come on, holograms? Please.

I'm not sure....I was eating breakfast that morning and saw the second plan hit WTC. But of course, a chip could have been planted in my brain by the aliens that abducted me three years ago, and simply activated on 9/11/01 so that I thought I saw a plane hit a building. Me and about a trillion other people. Must have been a full flying saucer!!! GET REAL!!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join