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 Zaphod58
And they show the same things that are shown in the "pod" pictures. You can see everything they show in those pictures on the bottom of a "normal" 767, because they ARE normal 767s.
Originally posted by Boone 870
Selfless
Click the link that Zaphod58 posted last. Go all the way to the bottom of the page and click the link that says questions questions.net. It may not change your mind, but there is a lot of information explaining the pods on the bottom of the plane and the fireball at the point of impact.
Originally posted by selfless
Before you can make this claim you have to prove the photo is not a doctorate work or a planted evidence photo...
It would be much better to find footage of the planes in mid air that shows windows or no windows instead of trusting a possible fake photo evidence.
To say that it's stupid to try to find video or photo evidence that demonstrates if there are windows or no windows on the planes is insulting to the whole human race.
"Sweetie... you see that car at the bottom of the hill. Can you see if it has windows or not?"
"No Daddy.. it's too far away to see if it has windows..."
"So does that mean that the car DOESN'T have windows?!"
"(Laughing) No Daddy... don't be silly... it's too far away to see. If we walked down the hill closer we'd be able to see the windows!"
Is this really that complicated? It's probably not the most solid theory if it can be debunked by a 2nd grader.
How on earth is that not intended as an insulting or condescending arrogant statement?
Originally posted by nick7261
So how are you going to know that a photo or video of a plane in mid air showing the windows was real or faked? This is seriously some of the most circular convoluted reasoning I've seen here. Sometimes I wonder if this whole topic isn't a big put on.
Originally posted by nick7261
To say that it's stupid to try to find video or photo evidence that demonstrates if there are windows or no windows on the planes is insulting to the whole human race.
Wow.... I was able to insult the whole human race before lunch time. Just think what I can do on a full stomach.
Originally posted by nick7261
"Sweetie... you see that car at the bottom of the hill. Can you see if it has windows or not?"
"No Daddy.. it's too far away to see if it has windows..."
"So does that mean that the car DOESN'T have windows?!"
"(Laughing) No Daddy... don't be silly... it's too far away to see. If we walked down the hill closer we'd be able to see the windows!"
Originally posted by nick7261
Is this really that complicated? It's probably not the most solid theory if it can be debunked by a 2nd grader.
Originally posted by nick7261
I stand by my story about my 2nd grader. If a theory can be debunked in 20 seconds by a 9-year old, it's not a solid theory.
Originally posted by nick7261
If you feel insulted by my story about my 2nd grader maybe what you're really feeling is a slap in the face by reality.
Originally posted by nick7261
A 9-year old child spontanously laughed at the premise that just because you can't see something from far away doesn't mean it's really not there.
Originally posted by selfless
It's very much possible to see a window of a car from quite far away. Your point is completely irrelevant.
You debunked absolutely nothing...
There is no theory here, it's either the plane had windows or it had no windows, there is no absolute here until proven otherwise by either possibilities.
Originally posted by nick7261
Actually, no. The story I described happened today. It was quite IMPOSSIBLE to see the windows on the car we were looking at. Why would you presume to tell me that it was possible to see the windows when it clearly wasn't? You weren't there. My daughter and I were too far away to see the windows. She figured out that if we moved closer we could see them.
Originally posted by nick7261
Then why are you even spending one millisecond bringing up this topic? No kidding, the plane either had windows or no windows. Is this really that profound of a concept to start a thread over?
Originally posted by nick7261
Maybe all the posts on ATS (except yours) were generated by peopel thought controlled by government conspirators running the MK Ultra program. Nobody's able to prove they weren't, so we need to leave this possibility open too according to your illogic.
Originally posted by nick7261
Maybe you're entire life is just a dream and you're going to wake up soon.
Originally posted by nick7261
This is why scientific method avoids theories that by necessity require the proof of a negative. Just because I can make up a theory that you can't prove false doesn't mean the theory has any validity.
Originally posted by gen.disaray
This thread has turned into one person fighting with himself .
Selfless will never see the truth because he is blinded by hate
"quote"REPLY
Military 767 tanker without windows:
www.airforce-technology.com...
killtown.911review.org...
Toggle the last image with the third one I listed. Is it the same? The fuselage in front of the wing looks slightly longer relative to the remainder in the Scott Meyers frames compared with the actual photo of Flight 175. More like a 767-300 than a 767-222.
Originally posted by PisTonZOR
"quote"REPLY
Military 767 tanker without windows:
www.airforce-technology.com...
First of all the KC-767 did NOT exist back in 2001, the first one flew in May 21, 2005. Second of all, even if it did, the plane that hit the WTC did NOT have a refueling boom attached the the tail.
You missed the point of my comment. I was not claiming that this plane might be Flight 175. It merely demonstrated that 767 tankers exist that don't have windows. Your point about the refueling boom is irrelevant.
killtown.911review.org...
Toggle the last image with the third one I listed. Is it the same? The fuselage in front of the wing looks slightly longer relative to the remainder in the Scott Meyers frames compared with the actual photo of Flight 175. More like a 767-300 than a 767-222.
Any aviation fan will tell you the exact opposite.
Well, he would be wrong. Here's the proof:
www.amics21.com...
Oh, and by the way. The KC-767 was based on the 767-200ER NOT the 767-300.
Who said it was based upon the 767-300? I didn't. Again, you missed my point.
It merely demonstrated that 767 tankers exist that don't have windows. Your point about the refueling boom is irrelevant.
Well, he would be wrong. Here's the proof:
www.amics21.com...
Who said it was based upon the 767-300? I didn't. Again, you missed my point.