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.
Originally posted by Misfit
Originally posted by realanswers
The radar had clearly shown that there was only one plane under radar in that area at that specific time.
So, if you are saying there IS one aircraft in that area, how does that attribute to the explosion being a bomb and not the aircraft in question?
Originally posted by realanswers
The actual footage shows a plane just above the water that you seemed to avoid in explaining.
Scratch this 2nd part of the reply, thought it was referring to the radar ani.
Misfit
[edit on 23/10/06 by Misfit]
Originally posted by realanswers
There you go again. Thinking like a robot
I have already corrected the wording in the post that it came from so you all would definitely know what I was trying to convey and you know that.
You still have not explained what the **** a plane is doing flying just above the water coming from the direction of the buildings.
Originally posted by realanswers
The footage doesn't show a plane in the air.
A whole 10 seconds of no plane in the air before the crash!
Witnesses heard a BOOM, but did not "see" a plane!
The plane flew under radar until it had to fake a dive into the building, then it dove down as it turned into the opposite direction. It had to cruise just above the water and then land some where close to the beach. And there you have it.
Originally posted by Misfit
Originally posted by realanswers
I have already stated some motives that the shadow government may have had: ........... (snip)..........
So in other words .......... you have nothing outside of wasting my time waiting to see a conspiracy.
Could have does'nt count. Anyone could have done something, does'nt mean they did or that something ever was.
Damn three pages and ....................... nothing.
Misfit
Originally posted by realanswers
I have explained where the plane from radar went
Originally posted by Misfit
Originally posted by realanswers
There you go again. Thinking like a robot
Not hardly. When attempting to prove a conspiracy - attention to detail is everything. I asked you those questions relevant to what do know in fact. When you know nil of aspects of functions, you can not begin tograsp all the possible scenarios.
I have already corrected the wording in the post that it came from so you all would definitely know what I was trying to convey and you know that.
Done deal. Apologies.
You still have not explained what the **** a plane is doing flying just above the water coming from the direction of the buildings.
Now, here is where I get confused, considering your opening statement, andstatements since:
Originally posted by realanswers
The footage doesn't show a plane in the air.
A whole 10 seconds of no plane in the air before the crash!
Witnesses heard a BOOM, but did not "see" a plane!
Plane? No plane? You seem to be syaing it both ways.
The plane flew under radar until it had to fake a dive into the building, then it dove down as it turned into the opposite direction. It had to cruise just above the water and then land some where close to the beach. And there you have it.
(1) That is to say the ATC is also in on this conspiracy, no?
(2) Where then, is the ball player?
(3) All those NY'ers didn't see a plane land on the beach?
Misfit
[edit on 23/10/06 by Misfit]
Originally posted by spanishcaravan
Originally posted by realanswers
This is footage of a Cessna 172 crash in Orlando:
www.youtube.com...
I know that Cory Lidle's plane was a Cessna 172N. I don't know if a Cessna 172 is the same as a Cessna 172N, but to me it is close enough.
THE PLANE DIDN'T EVEN EXPLODE and this huge explosion: www.youtube.com...
is supposed to be from a small Cessna 172N?!?
He wasnt flying a cessna. He was a flying a cirrus sr20. The plane made famous for its safety record and parachute deployment.
Cirrus
If you happened to catch the news footage just after the accident happened,you would see that it was a dark,rainy/foggy afternoon. Even the news cameras were getting as good a picture as usual. You could also see the actual plane wreckage on the street below from some news chopper camera angles.
I remember hearing that the parachute did get a chance to deploy.
Originally posted by spanishcaravan
Originally posted by spanishcaravan
Originally posted by realanswers
This is footage of a Cessna 172 crash in Orlando:
www.youtube.com...
I know that Cory Lidle's plane was a Cessna 172N. I don't know if a Cessna 172 is the same as a Cessna 172N, but to me it is close enough.
THE PLANE DIDN'T EVEN EXPLODE and this huge explosion: www.youtube.com...
is supposed to be from a small Cessna 172N?!?
He wasnt flying a cessna. He was a flying a cirrus sr20. The plane made famous for its safety record and parachute deployment.
Cirrus
If you happened to catch the news footage just after the accident happened,you would see that it was a dark,rainy/foggy afternoon. Even the news cameras were getting as good a picture as usual. You could also see the actual plane wreckage on the street below from some news chopper camera angles.
I remember hearing that the parachute did get a chance to deploy.
Wow,please read again..........
Originally posted by realanswers
The footage doesn't show a plane in the air.
Watch this link:
www.youtube.com...
A whole 10 seconds of no plane in the air before the crash!
Witnesses heard a BOOM, but did not "see" a plane!
Originally posted by shots
Originally posted by realanswers
The footage doesn't show a plane in the air.
Watch this link:
www.youtube.com...
A whole 10 seconds of no plane in the air before the crash!
Witnesses heard a BOOM, but did not "see" a plane!
Of course it does not show a plane. Whoever did the video might have taken the original and changed the frame rate, then posted his version of the video.
If you compare the orginial to the youtube it appears the clouds moved much faster after the explosion.
Originally posted by justme1640
realanswers - here is the thing -- you are sure it is a conspiracy and we are sure it was a tragic accident -- you can keep posting the links and saying it is a conspiracy but it isn't going to change what we feel - just like what we say won't change what you feel.
Please don't take this as harsh because I am not saying it in that tone - I think it is a case of we have to agree to disagree on this one ok?
Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
The thing is realanswers, you have provided close to horrible evidence of a conspiracy and done nothing, but repeat the same thing over and over again avoiding other people's input.
Shattered OUT...
Originally posted by realanswers
People actually believe in fabricated events despite the proof otherwise.
Originally posted by justme1640
realanswers - here is the thing -- you are sure it is a conspiracy and we are sure it was a tragic accident -- you can keep posting the links and saying it is a conspiracy but it isn't going to change what we feel - just like what we say won't change what you feel.
Please don't take this as harsh because I am not saying it in that tone - I think it is a case of we have to agree to disagree on this one ok?
When you speak for yourself, then that is when that would be an accurate statement, but even then that would still be something better left unsaid because it just makes you look like a debunker who plays down the truth with nothing/non-topic comments that don't really contribute to my thread as they could be posted on just about any thread.