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.

 

A plane crashed into a bulding and guess what, there was wreckage!!!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
took me a while to read that first one.....he seemed to have a personal grudge against catherder......he also used witness acounts to disprove a 757...(not a plane just a 757)...and said that eye witness acounts are not completly accurate.....

you know there's more....because the fbi didnt even tell that they were involved in the 93 bombings untill their informant used tapings against them......i dont think any government official or office has ever admitted they were involved right away.....ever....




posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
took me a while to read that first one.....he seemed to have a personal grudge against catherder......he also used witness acounts to disprove a 757...(not a plane just a 757)...and said that eye witness acounts are not completly accurate.....



Took me awhile to read it also, but I don't see a grudge just someone taking on a challenge like all decent debaters.

Catherder makes some points but it's the debunker who shows how catherders opinion is disguised as "fact" a whole lot of times in the longest running thread on ATS's 911 site.

Infinityoreilly, over



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Where to start.....




You call that piece small and I ask again, where are the rest of the unburned, unscratched, unscorched, torn pieces of the skin like this one? Surely this cannot be the only unburned piece of the skin to survive. Don't try to tell me a light pole ripped it off either as it is from the TOP of the plane.


And all those pieces of metal that you see lying in the background.....



If you look hard you'll notice all the parts we get pics of are easily plantable.


And you figure this how? Because from the second of impact, there were witnesses either on the Pentagon grounds or close enough that they would have noticed someone "planting" wreckage. Wreckage wasnt confined to the Pentagon either, pieces of wreckage ended up on the grounds of Arlington National Cemetary as well. I suppose the Arlington workers were in on it too?

As for wreckage pictures....

www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...

www.911review.com...



The engine wreckage examined...
www.aerospaceweb.org...

More information...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

In other words, there are quite a few pictures of the wreckage if you just want to look for them. Of course, unlike the belief of many, not everything ends up on the Internet.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
As for wreckage pictures....


Sry but all of that wreckage doesn't add up to a 757.

Where are the rotor shafts? The other 20+ rotor discs? The other 11 wheels? Engine casings? Wing and fuselage spars? Counter weight?
If they were able to recover DNA then none of those things should have burned beyond recognition.
Where did all the luggage go? The seats? All that aluminum? Remember your physics? If the plane had the energy to go through the pentacon then there is nothing that should have disintegrated it. There was nothing left of any substance for the plane to hit beyond the first re-enforced wall. The same wall that was obviously pushed out, not in. Whatever went through the small hole exploded on the inside pushing the rest of the wall out. You can see the wall rubble IN FRONT of the pentagon. If an object going through the wall caused all the damage then the rubble would have been on the inside, not outside. Also you can clearly see columns that are pushed out, not in.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   


If you look hard you'll notice all the parts we get pics of are easily plantable.


Like the above poster, if this were the case, I have a feeling someone would have noticed this. After impact, there would have been many people looking at it, and before impact planted debris would look really suspicious.

And frankly using that argument, you could probably argue that most plane crashes were faked.

Actually, according to you, where exactly should the debris be if it was a 757?

And, look at how damaged this plane was from fire alone. How much wreckage do you really expect from one which was on fire, as well as hitting a building at high speed?

One other thing, if this was all faked, why did they pull it off so spectacularly well and yet make all these "obvious" mistakes?

[edit on 20-7-2007 by apex]



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Where to start.....
As for wreckage pictures....

www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...

In other words, there are quite a few pictures of the wreckage if you just want to look for them. Of course, unlike the belief of many, not everything ends up on the Internet



But where are the official FBI and NTSB reports that match the parts found to Fligth 77?

Where are all the other parts that should be there, and where were they taken ?



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Smaller building.
Bigger aircraft.
Lower speed.
Different building construction.
No comparison whatsoever….



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
One other thing, if this was all faked, why did they pull it off so spectacularly well and yet make all these "obvious" mistakes?


Ah! So you admit they made obvious mistakes...


How can you claim to know what went on the hours previous to the 'incident'?
How do you know someone in a white van didn't go unnoticed as they unloaded 'wreckage'? I'm not saying that's what happened, just that you can't claim it didn't happen any more than I can claim it did.

I still see no ENGINE PARTS, other than ONE rotor hub. Are you not also curious where they are, or are you just happy to except the official explanation without question?

What about the aircrafts tail that went over the top? Are you not curious as to why a pic of that was not released? (Or why no one wants to touch the question, like the south tower tilt?) I mean if they did then it would clear up all this suspicion, would it not? If it was the tail of a 757 that is...


You know its always better to question than just except, especially when so many question have been left unanswered. I might be wrong, but at least I'm asking the questions that need answering, and if the questions could be answered then why have they not? Doesn't that make you suspicious?

And remember we're just trying to find these answers cause we have a right to know. The gov should be working for us, but they've got you all on strings. Pull the right one and they get the predictable result, blind acceptance of authrority. Don't get mad at us, it's them you should be angry at. They are the ones not giving us the full story, and you should be wanting to know why if you really care about your country.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Like the above poster, if this were the case, I have a feeling someone would have noticed this. After impact, there would have been many people looking at it, and before impact planted debris would look really suspicious.

One other thing, if this was all faked, why did they pull it off so spectacularly well and yet make all these "obvious" mistakes?

[edit on 20-7-2007 by apex]


Consider this: Once the site had been secured you could control every aspect of the operation with special ops people, you know the kind that keep there mouths shut.

Were any of the pics of wreckage dated?

Are any of the pics used to make arguements verifiable?

Are any of the people in the pics identified so someone could ask them what they saw?



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Like the above poster, if this were the case, I have a feeling someone would have noticed this.


Notice the exploded trailer... Wouldn't be too hard to blow that up on impact and eject a bunch of random parts at least outside the Pentagon.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I love how you pick one obscure photo of a small piece of aluminum and then throw out a bold faced lie that your photo is the only wreckage.


1. That photo is NOT obscure and is the largest/only piece of fuselage skin I have ever found on the net or anywhere. You find me more... I will happily wait.

2. I never said it was the only wreckage.

3. You call that piece small and I ask again, where are the rest of the unburned, unscratched, unscorched, torn pieces of the skin like this one? Surely this cannot be the only unburned piece of the skin to survive. Don't try to tell me a light pole ripped it off either as it is from the TOP of the plane.

4. Calling me a liar is rude.


All of those pictures have huge piles of shrapnel and twisted metal. You're picking a few large parts that remained and asking where the rest is. It's all around on every picture.

The liar comment, I called it how I saw it. Sorry if I offended you. It's laughable that you people could even claim that these pieces were planted, seriously. There were hundreds of people on site and somehow they smuggled in pieces of an aircraft and not a single person came out and stated that they saw it happen. That's the major hole for me in all of the 911 conspiracy theories. There's an old statement that said something to the effect of the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them are dead. I've found that to be very accurate in my life experience.

Here's a few more pictures...even Rense agrees that a 747 hit the pentagon.
www.rense.com...

Popular Mechanics. I can almost guarantee you've seen this before and probably decided it was propoganda since it didn't prove your point. There are records of eyewitnesses seeing/touching large pieces of debris in this report.
www.popularmechanics.com... page=6

[edit on 20-7-2007 by BlueTriangle]

[edit on 20-7-2007 by BlueTriangle]



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
It's laughable that you people could even claim that these pieces were planted, seriously.


In the fireball a tractor trailer exploded and could have expelled virtually anything... especially small, light chunks of materials... Hurling large Items like ENGINES, WING SPARS, COUNTERWEIGHTS would be hard and is probably why we only see very small "shrapnel".

Anything found inside the Pentagon, which was very little, could have been easily placed after the fact.

Planting that small amount of evidence would not be difficult and a large enough storage area was available, in position and exploded.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Here's a few more pictures...even Rense agrees that a 747 hit the pentagon.
www.rense.com...


Now it is a 747? That is a totally new theory. I think you need to read a little more than "911myths.com".



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Good grief, I can't believe that are people who actually believe that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Eyewitnesses SAW the plane.

There WAS wreckage at the Pentagon, only that it was much more shredded and charred due to the tremendous speed.

The plane in Brazil was flying around takeoff speed, which is only around 130-150 mph and strikes a small gas station.

The plane that struck the Pentagon was flying around 400 MPH!! And it struck a very large, multi-storied reinforced building.

If you want believe in conspiracies, at least believe in something with a hint fo plausibility!



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by MachXX
Good grief, I can't believe that are people who actually believe that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Eyewitnesses SAW the plane.


Right the eyewitnesses... They don't even agree with eachother.

BUT, more importantly SOMETHING ELSE saw the pentagon strike... The massive arrays of DoD surveillance cameras mounted on and around the Pentagon. How come they have not come forward with their story?



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by MachXX
Good grief, I can't believe that are people who actually believe that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Eyewitnesses SAW the plane.


Good grief, I can't believe we still haven't seen one video showing a plane hitting the Pentagon!

Good grief, what's wrong with my fellow citizens!

Peace



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
Right the eyewitnesses... They don't even agree with eachother.


You know, that's actually quite common in a situation like this. When people experience a moment of life threatening terror...they tend to be concentrating more on running away so they can live rather than whether or not the approaching plane came from over this way or that way. The point to remember here is that they all saw a plane.


Originally posted by Pootie
BUT, more importantly SOMETHING ELSE saw the pentagon strike... The massive arrays of DoD surveillance cameras mounted on and around the Pentagon. How come they have not come forward with their story?


I don't know why they haven't been released. BUT, I don't see that as proof of anything either. You have a preformed opinion of what happened, so you're taking non-conclusive facts and using them to back your argument. The fact that the tapes were not released is not proof of anything other than the fact that for some reason the DOD decided to not release the tapes.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
Now it is a 747? That is a totally new theory. I think you need to read a little more than "911myths.com".


How about we argue the issue at hand instead of making an entire post berating a typo. k?



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
The massive arrays of DoD surveillance cameras mounted on and around the Pentagon. How come they have not come forward with their story?


Not to mention the videos taken by the FBI from the gas station, and hotel too? IF they have nothing to hide release the videos.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I don't know why they haven't been released. BUT, I don't see that as proof of anything either. You have a preformed opinion of what happened, so you're taking non-conclusive facts and using them to back your argument. The fact that the tapes were not released is not proof of anything other than the fact that for some reason the DOD decided to not release the tapes.


Talk about eyewitnesses all you want... then talk to some detectives, judges and plain old police officers about how horribly bad their stories are. Memory is fallible, witnesses can be told what they saw after the fact and honestly believe it is the truth (implantation) and the brain has a tendency to just "fill in the blanks". There is NO NEED to rely on them in this case...

The truth is, this whole event was caught on many cameras paid for by the American people. This is UNDENIABLE. It is the right of the American people to see these tapes NOW.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join