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.

 

Easy Question: Who's Responsible for the 9/11 Plot?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Originally posted by LeftBehind



www.911myths.com...

I suppose all that wreckage came from a predator?



All that wreckage? I beg your pardon? You mean those little scraps in the photos? From a Boeing 757? A little scrap of aluminum with red,white and blue on it? Surely you jest?


There is plenty of evidence indicating a 757, including the remains of passengers whose DNA just happened to match the DNA of their relatives.


DNA from passengers killed in an airplane crash resulting in the little scraps of metal in the photos you posted? Surely you jest?


Who's ideas are based on hope again?


Apparently yours. But thanks anyway for the post.




posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Are you saying that you don't believe that they ID'd the victims?

What, are all the investigators and family members in on it?

Please refute the idea that victims remains were found in the pentagon, and that the DNA from the people on that flight was not present.

I suppose you would only believe it if I showed you an entire wing from the plane? How much of a plane did you expect to survive that crash?

I guess parts and scraps from a commercial airliner proves that it was a predator?


Please provide something other than unfounded speculation, thanks.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
What, are all the investigators and family members in on it?


find a family member for one of the people on the Pentagon flight. You assume WAY too much. All you have seen is a list of people that you do not know if they even exist...

I also like how DISRESPECTFUL you are to john Lear... Have you read this man's QUALIFICATIONS?

Try googling him.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Well, he basically said I was living in a fantasy world since I didn't agree with him. Sorry buddy, I don't care who you are, or who you say you are, but I will treat him like any other member.

I don't agree with him on the subject of what hit the pentagon, that's not gonna change just by googling his qualifications.

To me there is ample evidence that a boing jet hit the pentagon. I am curious to know where the small peices of the plane came from if it was hit by a predator.

Wouldn't any peices of a commercial airliner mean that a commercial airliner crashed?

I know that when cars crash they don't say, "Well this looks like peices of a honda, but it must have been a Ducati motorcycle."


BTW, how is disagreeing equal disrespectful. Please if I have violated the T & C's alert the mods to give me a warn. If anything he is out of line by labeling everyone who thinks a plane hit the pentagon as living in a fantasy world.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Well, he basically said I was living in a fantasy world since I didn't agree with him. Sorry buddy, I don't care who you are, or who you say you are, but I will treat him like any other member.


He is the only man to ever obtain EVERY FAA flight cert. 19,000 flight hours on something like 100 different airframes.

If you were his flight student and said you could land a 767 on a 100' runway, he woulod rightfully say that you are living in a fantasy world... this situation is analogus.

I think he is qualified to speak on the issues of flying and crashing planes and deserving of at least a little respect from someone who has presented NO qualifications to speak on any of this.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Wouldn't any peices of a commercial airliner mean that a commercial airliner crashed?


No, and you would be very bad as a detective. Look at the famous picture of the metal with the windows on the lawn... it is unburned, unscorched and unscratched... Funny how the rest of the plane EVAPORATED but this one scrap was unscathed... I will locate the photo.



So everything else VAPORIZED, melted away, but this piece... not even a scorch mark?

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Okay, so how exactly did a peice of an airliner get there?

Are you proposing that all the peices, even the ones found inside the building after the fire and collapse, were planted?

You get all of that from one peice of aluminum without scorch marks, that is truly amazing.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Okay, so how exactly did a peice of an airliner get there?


Certainly not from the magical impact that VAPORIZED the rest of the aluminum EXCEPT for this convenient piece.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Are you proposing that all the peices, even the ones found inside the building after the fire and collapse, were planted?


I am proposing that the offical story does not match up with the evidence.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
You get all of that from one peice of aluminum without scorch marks, that is truly amazing.


One clue is all it takes sometimes.... but there are many more.

Ask yourself: How did EVERYTHING else "vaporize" according to the story... wings and all, except for this piece of the fuselage?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
And all of these peices.

www.911myths.com...

And all the remains of the victims.

Looks like more than just that peice was found, nice try though.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
And all of these peices.

www.911myths.com...

And all the remains of the victims.

Looks like more than just that peice was found, nice try though.


One piece of fuselage, a part of an engine and a single part of landing gear...



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

One piece of fuselage, a part of an engine and a single part of landing gear...



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
In all the conspiracys surrounding 9-11, I have to say, the pentagon jet one is the most disinfo sounding...
it basically defies common logic... (even conspiracy logic)

If i were going to pull a false flag op, I would want to reduce the chance of discovery as much as possible (becuase these are hangable treasonous offenses).

The way to do that would be "keep it as real as possible"

why would they use anything other than an actual jet to hit the pentagon, and take the chance that the veritable mountain of evidence that was left wouldn't hold one clue?

answer, only an idiot would take such a chance...

The most reasonable alternative veiwpoint regarding the pentagon, is that perhaps an EMPTY REMOTE GUIDED plane hit... rather than the real flight.

and i am still leaning towards the GPS guided jet, since my research has revealed that there is such a system, and it has been used and tested publically for at least 8 years



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
No matter what wreckage is displayed we are still missing the center section and wing plank. This is the section where the wing is attached to the fuselage and in an airplane the size of the 757 is large solid aluminum beams traveling longitudinally and spanwise. To carry the load of the aircraft in flight which includes wing flexing in thunderstorms the structural beams of this part of the airplane are very thick, up to 20 inches or more and is probably 20 feet in either direction. There is no way that this center section is going to burn up completely even in a raging fire. It can't happen. The fuselage/wing center section I have described would be huge and noticeable and readily indentifiable. I don't see it anywhere in the pictures. A wheel rim? Could have been placed there prior to the attack. Turbine blade? Could have been placed there prior to the attack. A wheel well door? Could have been placed there prior to the attack. But the center section of the airplane where the wing attaches to the fuselage could not have been placed there before the attack because its to big and because the technology to make it look like it just crashed into the Pentagon was too time consuming. Attached to the center section are massive hydraulic landing gear struts, cylinders, actuators and large, cast hinges. And 2 massive jet engines burned to a crisp leaving only a turbine wheel? We lack some degree of critical thinking here. None of these huge parts are to be seen anywhere in the photos. So where is all this stuff?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
To carry the load of the aircraft in flight which includes wing flexing in thunderstorms the structural beams of this part of the airplane are very thick, up to 20 inches or more and is probably 20 feet in either direction. There is no way that this center section is going to burn up completely even in a raging fire. Attached to the center section are massive hydraulic landing gear struts, cylinders, actuators and large, cast hinges. And 2 massive jet engines burned to a crisp leaving only a turbine wheel? We lack some degree of critical thinking here. None of these huge parts are to be seen anywhere in the photos. So where is all this stuff?


I dunno john...
But i think that it is much easier to explain where pieces of an airplane go, after crashing, than how to explain that all the closest observers (best witnesses) saw a jet hit the pentagon, including a good friend of the administrator of this website...
is he in on the coverup also or just missidentified the plane from less than 500 feet away?

or is it also possible that a remote guided (or autopilot guided) plane hit the pentagon, and was destroyed by the impact, and larger pieces melted in the fire?

And before you answer, let me add one important bit that i AM sure of...
I have seen an entire LS1 engine block (over 20 inches thick) melted in just seconds from the heat of a basic propane smelter (this is a temperature just above what outdoor barbacues can attain.)

so melting aluminum shouldn't have been a problem with the fires I saw, and it isn't how thick it is, since aluminum conducts heat, it would be how much heat it had hitting the surface...
plane, in the middle of firey crash scene... plenty of heat all around.

I also have no idea if magnesium is used in cast parts for planes, but that can bring the heat up dramatically...



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Well, that is possible, but it seems a little convuluted to me.

As has been pointed out, it would be much easier to simply crash a plane into the pentagon.

However, since you require most of the peices to be recovered to believe it was hit by a Boeing jet, where are the peices of a predator? How can you believe it was hit by a predator, when there are no intact wings or even small debris of a predator recovered? According to this logic we should find huge peices of whatever else hit the pentagon as well right?

Where are these peices?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Originally posted by LeftBehind



However, since you require most of the peices to be recovered to believe it was hit by a Boeing jet, where are the peices of a predator? How can you believe it was hit by a predator, when there are no intact wings or even small debris of a predator recovered? According to this logic we should find huge peices of whatever else hit the pentagon as well right? Where are these peices?


Huge pieces?

Uhhh....do you know what a Predator is?



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Relatively huge peices.

How about any debris from a predator?

According to the logic that not enough debris means no boeing airliner, then how do you get from that to claiming that it was a predator?

Shouldn't we be able to find one peice identifiable as coming from a predator?

If not then why would you believe that's what hit?

I am merely pointing out the double standard of evidence.

[edit on 2-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Wouldn't any peices of a commercial airliner mean that a commercial airliner crashed?


No, and you would be very bad as a detective. Look at the famous picture of the metal with the windows on the lawn... it is unburned, unscorched and unscratched... Funny how the rest of the plane EVAPORATED but this one scrap was unscathed... I will locate the photo.



So everything else VAPORIZED, melted away, but this piece... not even a scorch mark?

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]


Erm, maybe you missed it, but yes, aluminium parts of the hull do often melt and cannot be found on plane crash sites involving major fire.
And the pieces of the hull on the lawn may well be thrown there as a result of the physical impact to the wall, ie even before the blast.
Seems you think the world is digital - either 100% is found or 0% is found, but that's not the case. There is a full spectrum and the fatster the impact and the more resistant the target, the less % of wreckage could be found and identified.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear


DNA from passengers killed in an airplane crash resulting in the little scraps of metal in the photos you posted? Surely you jest?


Maybe ayou've missed it but you can take DNA sample usually even if the body is shredded to bits and burned.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
To compare Kamikazis to a commercial jet airliner is just short of comparing a sports car to a 16 wheeler...

they handle just a bit different in tight corners...


Yup, Kamikaze pilots had no hydraulic assisted steering, so in the Ohka crafts they had to maneuver with the craft at comparable speeds purely with their muscles and nothing more, their targets were much smaller, they were under attacks of fighters and flying against target bristling with AA guns, most of times with another AA guns firing from nearby ships.
Really comparing incomparable to 0911.
The Kamikazes had it much, much harder and in the same time most of them received much less training.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join