Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A boeing 757 did hit the two towers

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I don't really understand what the reports say but everyone says that a boeing 757 didn't hit the pentagon: what they really mean is that the 757 didn't cause the Two Towers to Collapse. I was in eighth grade at the time and by the time the first tower collapsed it was on national television they showed it to us on national TV and declared it to be the pearl harbor of the 21st century, however, I saw the plane hit the second tower with my own eyes and YES the two towers really did collapse by being hit by a boeing 757, I know of a documentary that was played not too long before the attacks of 9-11 on our home soil, and I have heard of it from many sources and I may have seen one on the history channel, can anyone link to it or tell me the name of the show-- because I'd be really interested if it ever came on again to watch it.

Back on topic, a 757 did hit the pentagon, but saying it didn't is just plain deception and disinfo. The plane went right through the building at about the middle of the building, some say that people were communicating with the hijackers about where to hit their target, but it went straight through the building and although I don't know much about physics I do believe that the plane going straight through the building and making a huge fiery explosion was enough to make it collapse.

The conspiracy is the defection.

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Maverickhunter]




posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   
A 757 never hit the Towers. It was a 767


Very few people contend that aircraft did not strike the tower. The crux of most of the debates is whether or not explosives were used after the impact to bring the towers down.

The pentagon is another story with one camp postualting that it was a drone or cruise missle and not an aircraft.

IMHO, the real conspiracy is not If the aircraft hit as intende, but rather who knew and who allowed it to happen

[edit on 2/7/07 by FredT]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
Back on topic, a 757 did hit the pentagon, but saying it didn't is just plain deception and disinfo.



I disagree Maverickhunter but I am not going to go over all the facts again. I would respectfully suggest you read all the evidence in all the threads concerning whether or not a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and when you post again instead of insulting those who believe no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon as "plain deception and disinfo", address their issues.

It would be more in line with the T&C here and it would make you look more like an adult. Thanks and you all come back when you something to say besides hurling insults.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   
John Lear I respect people that think that a 757 hit the pentagon, so I quickly changed my topic title to state that a 767 hit the two towers but I acidentially made a mistake in confusing the two conspiracies. Sorry mate. That's what I think and I am not making fun of the people that think that something other then a plane hit the pentagon, a plane probably did hit the pentagon, but never did I say in my topic that I was referring to the pentagon and when I did I changed the topic title, and also, so I also am referring to the planes hitting the twin towers and I was witnessing that on live television, so best regards, and it was my posting mistake that made this acidential bash on 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theorists. I ask of you to reread my post and see that it did not have to do with the pentagon, but of the twin towers. I have seen some evidence people posted that a plane did not hit the two towers, and I find that rather odd.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I have seen some evidence people posted that a plane did not hit the two towers, and I find that rather odd.


Thats probably because you don't understand how far the technology of holography has advanced in the past 30 years or how holography is produced. If you were highly informed on holography you would not find it odd that there are a few of us that consider the possibility that no plane hit the towers at all, that it may have been a holographic projection...to which the uninformed respond, "BUT I SAW IT WITH MY OWN EYES!"



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   
John then that hologram sure made one hell of a noise when I saw it fly over the river.

Wait a minute...holograms are made of light so how can they make noise ?

[edit on 8-2-2007 by RWPBR]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by RWPBR
John then that hologram sure made one hell of a noise when I saw it fly over the river.

Wait a minute...holograms are made of light so how can they make noise ?




Thanks RWPBR. What is your reference to how holographs are made? Let me respectfully suggest that If you were the least bit informed on the technological advancement of holography you wouldn't need to ask that question. But thanks for the post anyway.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
John... if holograms ar emade of light, I agree, how would it do any damage? MY dad has been to New York and he said that he saw the WTC himself and he said that they tower over up really high so you can't see them. Now, it doesn't make sense of you to say that the plane was a hologram, because people were on that plane. People paid money to go on that plane, and then they paid money to have a seat on that plane. Now, wouldn't it make sense if not everything was a conspiracy? Like the original moderator said, the conspiracy is not whether the two towers were hit by a plane or a missile but as it was for the pentagon.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
John... if holograms ar emade of light, I agree, how would it do any damage?


Explosives placed inside the WTC to make it look like an aircraft collided with the WTC.


Now, it doesn't make sense of you to say that the plane was a hologram, because people were on that plane. People paid money to go on that plane, and then they paid money to have a seat on that plane.


If it was not a holograph and real planes hit the WTC, there were no people on any plane that hit the world trade center. There were no pilots, no passengers, no flight attendants, no terrorists, no arabs, no saudis.....nobody was in those airplanes.

If it wasn't a holograph then the planes were remote controlled. And I have covered this in several threads before: I don't know where the original airplanes went. I don't know where the passengers went or what they did with them.

The above is my opinion.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
John... if holograms ar emade of light, I agree, how would it do any damage?


Explosives placed inside the WTC to make it look like an aircraft collided with the WTC.


Now, it doesn't make sense of you to say that the plane was a hologram, because people were on that plane. People paid money to go on that plane, and then they paid money to have a seat on that plane.
If it was not a holograph and real planes hit the WTC, there were no people on any plane that hit the world trade center. There were no pilots, no passengers, no flight attendants, no terrorists, no arabs, no saudis.....nobody was in those airplanes.

Then obviously the Saudis were framed because they needed a scapegoat to take the blame for the attacks. Osama wasn't behind the attacks and it may have not been a government cover up or an inside job. How do you know that it didn't happen just because it happened?



If it wasn't a holograph then the planes were remote controlled. And I have covered this in several threads before: I don't know where the original airplanes went. I don't know where the passengers went or what they did with them.

The above is my opinion.

I agree. The planes were probably remote controlled. It is almost improbable to get a pin point attack directly in the center of the twin towers. That's hard for me to believe (A) and (B) it's almost impossible to get a direct hit and (3) the attack looked planned like only something our own government could pull off.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by RWPBR
John then that hologram sure made one hell of a noise when I saw it fly over the river.

Wait a minute...holograms are made of light so how can they make noise ?




Thanks RWPBR. What is your reference to how holographs are made? Let me respectfully suggest that If you were the least bit informed on the technological advancement of holography you wouldn't need to ask that question. But thanks for the post anyway.


John it takes Lasers, mirrors, beam splitters...anybody can do it in their basement. My son's 6th grade science class did it.

Wait....dont tell me.. you are talking about secret alien technology holograms that of course you cant talk about but KNOW exist...






[edit on 9-2-2007 by RWPBR]



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by RWPBR
My son's 6th grade science class did it.

Wait....dont tell me.. you are talking about secret alien technology holograms that of course you cant talk about but KNOW exist...



Thanks for the post RWPBR. No, I don't know if alien techonology was involved, might have had their help, I don't know. But I am positive that your sons 6th grade class couldn't have done it on that level of technology that was required. I am not privy to any secret alien technology but I do a lot of suspecting!
Thanks for your comment.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by RWPBR
My son's 6th grade science class did it.

Wait....dont tell me.. you are talking about secret alien technology holograms that of course you cant talk about but KNOW exist...



Thanks for the post RWPBR. No, I don't know if alien techonology was involved, might have had their help, I don't know. But I am positive that your sons 6th grade class couldn't have done it on that level of technology that was required. I am not privy to any secret alien technology but I do a lot of suspecting!
Thanks for your comment.






I actually have another theory. Like when the plane crashed, the twin towers really disappeared and then they are now hidden in an underground facility somewhere else and the event was staged by alien technology that caused this to happen. they could have warped it, you never know, they could have that technology.

PLUS: I CLAIM THAT PROJECT BLUE BEAM WAS IN FULL EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH 2001



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
How can some people say "Terrorists organized, and then hijacked planes, and used their piloting skills to fly the planes into targets, with mixed success" is completely beyond the realm of believability.

AND THEN, turn around and say that "alien holography projectors and planted explosives were used to simulate the destruction of the towers, after real planes were hidden and remote control versions replaced them" is not only reasonable, but obvious.

Occam's razor, folks. Are we that detached from reality these days, that we can't accept simple answers?



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
John... if holograms ar emade of light, I agree, how would it do any damage?


Explosives placed inside the WTC to make it look like an aircraft collided with the WTC.




JL -

If explosives were inside the building wouldn't they explode outward? The impact areas of both buildings looked as though something went in....


also, I do not know much about holograms... so my question is, would a holographic airplane show up on film?



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hobbes
How can some people say "Terrorists organized, and then hijacked planes, and used their piloting skills to fly the planes into targets, with mixed success" is completely beyond the realm of believability.


Who said this and what does 'mixed success' mean? And why is it beyond the realm of believability. Also, do you any directions to that 'realm'? I might be interested in taking a trip 'beyond', wherever that is.


AND THEN, turn around and say that "alien holography projectors and planted explosives were used to simulate the destruction of the towers, after real planes were hidden and remote control versions replaced them" is not only reasonable, but obvious.


Who said this? Who said 'alien holographic projectors? Does that mean there was more than one projector? And what does 'simulate' the destruction of the towers mean? Weren't the towers actually destroyed? And also who said "reasonable, but obvious' for this scenario.


Occam's razor, folks. Are we that detached from reality these days, that we can't accept simple answers?



OK. I'm certainly willing to consider your point of view. What do you consider the simple answer? Thanks.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
This is my favorite subject on here...

Maverick, what you'll find here, is that you'll never convince anyone of anything that they aren't already firmly entrenched in. It's amazing really. The amount of knee slapping 'facts' that go across this place to perpetuate the idea that everyone is out to get everyone else, is simply stunning.

If you were in the building on 9/11, that still wouldn't stop anyone. They'd simply tell you that you were mind controlled, brainwashed and then programmed to say things. If that didn't work, you're a government agent of disinformation.

I'll say it.

Planes were hijacked by Islamic fundimentalists that have hated Eurpoe and the west since midevil times, and most recently starting from around 1776 on. They flew them into buildings, just like they had planned to do for year and we under-estmated their ability to do. Done and done.

I will not happily accept my flames.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Planes were hijacked by Islamic fundimentalists that have hated Eurpoe and the west since midevil times, and most recently starting from around 1776 on. They flew them into buildings, just like they had planned to do for year and we under-estmated their ability to do. Done and done.

I will not happily accept my flames.


Uh... huh. Are you saying that I ever said that Islamic Fundementalists did crash into the twin towers?! first of all, they said they were Iraqis first, then they said they were Islamic fundementalists, and they used that as their scapegoat to go to the war on Iraq, there was a really long 9-11 trial that was in the news a lot, and then, also, why do you assume they were Islamic? on Osama's FBI page they don't list him for being responsible for 9-11. He probably took the opportunity to claim that he was responsible.



Maverick, what you'll find here, is that you'll never convince anyone of anything that they aren't already firmly entrenched in. It's amazing really. The amount of knee slapping 'facts' that go across this place to perpetuate the idea that everyone is out to get everyone else, is simply stunning.

Lots of facts are wrong, plain, simple, and stupid. It's not really about why they were destroyed, it's about who or what let them happen, and it was Clintons fault, because he did absolutely nothing in regards to our national security because he was just sitting there wasting his time in some scandel of his.



AND THEN, turn around and say that "alien holography projectors and planted explosives were used to simulate the destruction of the towers, after real planes were hidden and remote control versions replaced them" is not only reasonable, but obvious.

Whoever said that? did I ever say this? No, I never said that, and I didn't say that planted explosives were used to simulate the destruction of the twin towers. The government has that technology most likely, and they could potentially be somewhere else. I am sure without a doubt that the government is all ready developing that technology as we speak.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00ner

Planes were hijacked by Islamic fundimentalists that have hated Eurpoe and the west since midevil times, and most recently starting from around 1776 on. They flew them into buildings, just like they had planned to do for year and we under-estmated their ability to do. Done and done.



SpOOner, I was wondering where these Islamic Fundalmentalists got their flight training. I was a pilot for 40 years and flew most types of airliners and based on over 19,000 hours of experience I doubt that I could have hit the WTC on the first pass. It was a very difficult and tricky maneuver particular because the aircraft were traveling at over 500 miles per hour about 800 feet from the ground.

Did they just just fly around in little airplanes until lthey got the hang of it, maybe aiming at the control tower a few times and then jumped in the big one? Or did they get some simulator time and if they did, whose simulator did they use? Or do you think they were all just gifted airmen and figured it out on 'the run'? Thanks.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   


I was a pilot for 40 years and flew most types of airliners and based on over 19,000 hours of experience I doubt that I could have hit the WTC on the first pass. It was a very difficult and tricky maneuver particular because the aircraft were traveling at over 500 miles per hour about 800 feet from the ground.


John, you know you could have done it.
It was training, and training and more training. The paper trail is there. I know the schools they went to in FL. They also attended other schools. The 9/11 commission report explains all of this yet somhow they are made to be camel jockeys who in know way could have learned how to fly a plane, and succeed in ONE mission only. Reminds me of the Progressive/caveman commercials when people say there is no way these men could have done it. Also, it was not men, but 4 pilots. 4 men trained to do ONE thing.

The biggest hole in the hologram story is the "noise generation". If it was a hologram, how did people know to look up? They heard it coming, and it was not the train.

John, what is your personal take on Flight 93?





new topics




 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join