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.

 

Confiscated Hotel Video Released...No Plane

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Yes,
but a plane FAR ABOVE landing FAR OVER THERE
makes a remarkably DIFFERENT SOUND to a plane a few meteres ABOVE head height landing OVER THERE!



Look we can debate all this but we weren't there and we cannot hear anything that the man heard. Whether it was over his head, or on the other side of the Pentagon.


I agree DBoy.

Im not arguing where the plane was...

Im saying a plane 5m's high... a km to the left would sound very, very different, to a plane 100-200m's up, a km to the left.

WE had an airshow here in Perth a few wknds ago.. the redbull air race..

A Qantas passenger airliner came in low over the river..

it was still bloody high, but i tell you what it was mighty loud and impressive.




posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   


More over, the person in the video does not react at all like a person who just witnessed a 757 flying full speed a few feet off the ground and slamming into a building. The sound of the plane flying full speed that low would be enough to make one soil themselves.



Could not agree more with all you say. And on the above paragraph, it reminds me of the taxi driver outside the Pentagon. A streetlight falls on his car after the plane hits it. He gets out the taxi, tries to move it and THEN hears the explosion.

Some of the witness stories do not ring true to me.

Like the Bush connected woman who had a bit of plane just fall through her sunroof of her car. Did she give it to the authorities? No she made a "patriotic box" for it.

I struggle to believe some of these stories.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dunkindonuts
are you an ATS editor, then i can conclude ats is a government tool because sept11 was a inside job.


If ever there was floored logic, then that would be it.

Firstly he is not an ATS editor and secondly how can you conclude that ATS is a cointelpro even if he was based on what he said.

Just facts, nothing bizarre, just facts.

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dunkindonuts

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
911 was not an inside job.
It didnt need to be.
There were arabs with a plan, and the means.
The government mearly sat back, and waited.

Bush clearly stated he wanted to enter Iraq LONG BEFORE sept11 occured.
Foreign intellegence told bush, arabs were preparing to use airliners as missles in a terrorist event.

What bush and Co heard, made them realise, if it happened the public would have no choice but to follow.

And like mere sheep... we did!



are you an ATS editor, then i can conclude ats is a government tool because sept11 was a inside job. The freefall of the towers and the way they exploded proves explosives were set in the building. Days before 9/11 people heard drilling and sorts also backs up the truth. You're an idiot. They let it happen because they planned it. Do you really think they would let important people in the pentagon die. I dont think so. They even restructured the part of the pentagon to be hit so that it could withstand the impact of whatever missile they hit the pentagon with.



1. I am not an idiot

If they planned it, why were the trucks of gold not removed earlier?
If they planned it, why did they even bother hitting the pentagon?

Why plan it, when a dozen arabs wanted to hit you anways?

Did they planet evidence for the Russians, Germans, Israeli's and Iranians to find, just so they would alert the US governemnt.. who ... as you say.. were the ones behind it?

If they planned this...


I think you would of found the hijackers to of been Iraqi's, not saudi's.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Here's a question for you:

Why the Pentagon?

Why would the attackers choose such a symbolic target as the World Trade Center and then choose the Pentagon as their other target?

How many of us knew what part of the Pentagon housed the army?

How many average Americans really even knew what went on in the Pentagon?

If the attackers knew so much about what went on in the Pentagon then how come they didn't know that section was prety much empty that day?

I've always thought the Pentagon was an odd choice for a target and I could never shake the feeling that it was more than just a terrorist attack. It just doesn't follow the terrorist MO, they would've hit somthing with more emotional impact and there was no shortage of choices in Washington DC.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Exactly,
The whitehouse is just up the road...


and why bring it in so low, into one wall?

Id be bringing it down, ontop...



If there are any aviation pilots out there..

just how long would it take to get a boeing airliner of such specs, goin that fast...

down to that level?

how much distance would you need to get it that low, that even... aiming at such small target?



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

If they planned it, why were the trucks of gold not removed earlier?
If they planned it, why did they even bother hitting the pentagon?

Why plan it, when a dozen arabs wanted to hit you anways?

Did they planet evidence for the Russians, Germans, Israeli's and Iranians to find, just so they would alert the US governemnt.. who ... as you say.. were the ones behind it?

If they planned this...


I think you would of found the hijackers to of been Iraqi's, not saudi's.



So are you saying they didn't plan it, but they let it happen?

If so they must have planned FOR it, and would they have tried to influence how and when it happened?

Would they have planned where Bush would be that day, in the paternal role at a school?

Would they have planned to fly out the Bin Ladens?

Would they have made a few suggestions to make it easier, like stand down orders, like facilitating the training of the terrorists?



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Exactly,
The whitehouse is just up the road...


and why bring it in so low, into one wall?

Id be bringing it down, ontop...
It would be very tough to hit it at a steep angle, its much easier to come in on a shallow path where you have lots of time for corrections. Also, there's a possibility the plane could break up in mid air if it exceeds its designed speed.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Agit8ed,

I feel the same way. Now, I know that John Leer is a bit controversial but he knows airplanes and he brought somthing up that I hadn't throught about.

An aircraft's wings are designed to cut through the air and redirect it underneath the wings creating a cushion which keeps the plain aloft. The air flowing underneath the wing creates a kind of cushion that the plane floats on. It's impossible for a plane that size to fly full speed that close to the ground due to this air cushion. More over it would be impossible to maneuver.

You also have to take into account the wingspan, how far would one wing have to dip to touch the ground?

Just the force of the engine alone would be blowing cars and people everywhere, haven't you guys seen that video of the jetliner blowing a taxi into the ocean? It's a major problem at some airports.

Also the amount of debris that would be sucked up by the engines. Think about it, airports hire people to shoot the seagulls and pigeons because they'll get sucked in and crash a plane.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux

An aircraft's wings are designed to cut through the air and redirect it underneath the wings creating a cushion which keeps the plain aloft. The air flowing underneath the wing creates a kind of cushion that the plane floats on. It's impossible for a plane that size to fly full speed that close to the ground due to this air cushion. More over it would be impossible to maneuver.


do you know the speed of the plane?
imagine a plane landing... he can be close to the ground for some time untill touching down. could be the case here.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I don't know the exact speed of the plane but as I said before, and as anyone who's played a flight sim can tell you, you have to throttle down to land. There's a big difference between flight speeds and landing speeds.

I seem to remember hearing that the Pentagon plane throttled up.

But you really really MUST, it's imperative to, do your own research. There are many people who will proclaim somthing as fact simply because it fits what they believe.

I won't mention names but there are even people here on ATS who will out right lie and make things up for whatever reason. If you ask them to prove themselves they will simply disappear from the convorsation.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
I don't know the exact speed of the plane but as I said before, and as anyone who's played a flight sim can tell you, you have to throttle down to land. There's a big difference between flight speeds and landing speeds.

I seem to remember hearing that the Pentagon plane throttled up.

But you really really MUST, it's imperative to, do your own research. There are many people who will proclaim somthing as fact simply because it fits what they believe.

I won't mention names but there are even people here on ATS who will out right lie and make things up for whatever reason. If you ask them to prove themselves they will simply disappear from the convorsation.



The plane could have been going the speed of a car. We don't know how fast it was. But if it was, surely we would expect even more to see it on CCTV. Where are the images?




[edit on 4-12-2006 by Clipper]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
I don't know the exact speed of the plane but as I said before, and as anyone who's played a flight sim can tell you, you have to throttle down to land. There's a big difference between flight speeds and landing speeds.


well i also dont know the speed of the plane but i think its crucial for you argument. so if you can find it that would serve a good point for you.
maybe some of the 911 wizards here can help on this.


Originally posted by Shadowflux
But you really really MUST, it's imperative to, do your own research. There are many people who will proclaim somthing as fact simply because it fits what they believe.


sounds familiar.



Originally posted by Shadowflux
I won't mention names but there are even people here on ATS who will out right lie and make things up for whatever reason. If you ask them to prove themselves they will simply disappear from the convorsation.


who are you referring to? i can point out people from both sides of the 911 controversy so whats your point?



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clipper

The plane could have been going the speed of a car. We don't know how fast it was. But if it was, surely we would expect even more to see it on CCTV. Where are the images?

[edit on 4-12-2006 by Clipper]


do you have some information on why we should've excepted more out of this tape? the camera was not fixed on the pentagon not to mention it was behind where the plane crushed.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Mitsuko,

I don't really have an "argument" per se, I don't have an agenda. I have a belief, and that is that the "official" story isn't quite right. I may not know the exact flight speed but I'm also not sure how I would find out due to the incredible lack of evidence coming from the government.

If you're suggesting that I've made things up in this thread then I'm not sure what to say, since that argument has no basis in reality.

And I'm really not sure what to say to your attempts to debate against the benefits of doing your own research, if you want to blindly believe what other people tell you then I guess thats your problem.

I didn't mention names because of the ATS rules on defamation, flame wars, and bating so please don't try and trick me into doing so. There're liers on both sides, and in the government, which is why I suggested doing your own research, but you apparently are against that.

We were led to expect more from this tape due to the fact that the article stating it would be released said it would prove an airplane hit the Pentagon. It showed almost nothing.

Clipper,

I'm pretty sure a plane that size going as fast as a car would not be able to stay off the ground



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeMitsuko

Originally posted by Clipper

The plane could have been going the speed of a car. We don't know how fast it was. But if it was, surely we would expect even more to see it on CCTV. Where are the images?

[edit on 4-12-2006 by Clipper]


do you have some information on why we should've excepted more out of this tape? the camera was not fixed on the pentagon not to mention it was behind where the plane crushed.



I'm talking about ALL CCTV footage that has been released. Half the world's defense budget is spent on defending America, are you telling me that they couldn't even stick up cameras all around the hub of America's defenses?

Give me the names of anyone that has been reprimanded or prosecuted for total failure to defend America and I might believe a little thing like that matters to those who resided over this catastrophe.






[edit on 4-12-2006 by Clipper]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
Mitsuko,

I don't really have an "argument" per se, I don't have an agenda. I have a belief, and that is that the "official" story isn't quite right. I may not know the exact flight speed but I'm also not sure how I would find out due to the incredible lack of evidence coming from the government.

If you're suggesting that I've made things up in this thread then I'm not sure what to say, since that argument has no basis in reality.


you are entitled for your own beliefs i cant deny you of this. but we are debating on a conspiracy discussion board and its only fair that i bring my arguments and it is only reasonable for you to try and stand up for your points... im not here to attack you im here to learn.


Originally posted by Shadowflux
And I'm really not sure what to say to your attempts to debate against the benefits of doing your own research, if you want to blindly believe what other people tell you then I guess thats your problem.


i already did my own research. some time ago i was an avid conspiracy theorist but i changed my mind. i dont blindly believe what other people tell me but maybe you should look onto yourself.


Originally posted by Shadowflux
I didn't mention names because of the ATS rules on defamation, flame wars, and bating so please don't try and trick me into doing so. There're liers on both sides, and in the government, which is why I suggested doing your own research, but you apparently are against that.


im not trying to trick you my friend. i only made the point that there are liers everywhere. also i want to encourage you into looking for the CT sites motives as i did. you will find that they are making nice sums of cash from people like you. that was one of the first things that made me think about this all conspiracies being wrong.


Originally posted by Shadowflux
We were led to expect more from this tape due to the fact that the article stating it would be released said it would prove an airplane hit the Pentagon. It showed almost nothing.


are you referring to the prisonplanet.com article? it just might be bias.

again i will recommend you to try and find an offical in the US goverment that states that this footage will be of some importance. im not attacking you but if you want to prove your point that would be the way to go.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clipper

I'm talking about ALL CCTV footage that has been released. Half the world's defense budget is spent on defending America, are you telling me that they couldn't even stick up cameras all around the hub of America's defenses?

Give me the names of anyone that has been reprimanded or prosecuted for total failure to defend America and I might believe a little thing like that matters to those who resided over this catastrophe.


all of this and more can be answered using the 911 Commision report. you can download it here:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf


The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.


if you really want to know the answers to your questions and to educate yourself on that matter you should read this.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Lear said lift is by the air undreneath?? I allways thought it was the vaccuum created above the wing that created the lift????

mikell



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Mikell,

I may have misqouted him but I figure it's a little of both. The low pressure on the top, coupled with the high pressure on the bottom, creates the lift. Basically the air being displaced by such a massive object moving so quickly would cause a lot of damage and make the plane uncontrolable.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join