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.

 

This is an obvious Missile!!!! watch!

page: 11
7
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
wowwwwwwww


that's the most impressive evidence i've ever seen!




posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 


This guy is an idiot. How slanted can he be? He has no questions? A FEW (of many) problems with his "FACTS".

The J4 used in this test was powered by rockets much faster than the plane that hit the pentagon was said to be going, and this frame did not contain the engine (the heaviest and most dense part of a plane ALWAYS found at a crash site).

There were "pieces of the plane" found away from the site that day, and LUCKILY (thank god!) this piece was of the red "A" that clearly identified it as the American Airlines Boeing.



So, the J4 was confetti, yet this identifying piece of the plane was found, so which is it? Was it disintegrated or not?

Quote from 911research.wtc7.net...:

"The C-Ring Punch-Out Hole
CLAIM: C-Ring punch-out required penetrating 6 reinforced concrete walls.
FACT: C-Ring hole was only 2nd of 2 masonry walls encountered"

Ya, I look at the picture of the Pentagon (outside wall is E, then D, and then C (went through both walls of C alone). So I guess he is trying to be slick by only counting "masonry" walls, but umm ya, there were 6 walls (that held up this building and the cold weather out) that this "confetti" cockpit went through?

You decide.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   
this may have been mentioned already, but if you keep watching that video, there are clips in there showing the same plane hitting the same tower, and you can clearly see that it's a plane, so your own evidence works against you here.

I hate to say this but I think clutching at straws like this is such a big waste of time when there are REAL smoking guns that need to be given some attention.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by MouseOnMars
 


Read a few more pages if you have time, there are other factors that play into this theory. Obviously we see the other airplanes.

Short summary:

Blur looks like missile kind of right? Other pictures no blur looks like plane, right? Well those clear pics of it was the hologram of the plane over top the missile.

Again, read a few other pages and at least the theory will make more sense, even if you don't subscribe.

AAC



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
ANY images if missiles will not change what I saw. A bi-engine high speed plane. And I'm not sure if you realize, but that pic with the missile and jet are so small compared to the object in question, it's like saying an elephant can fly if it had eagle wings. Not going to happen. No matter what you show, unless you can show a 747 sized missile with wings, you're wrong. And even then, it doesn't change what I saw.

It's like a person who heard the news telling you that you saw a meteor fall, when you were there and saw a UFO.


[edit on 18-9-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   
My guess is that video has been tampered with. It was a plane. Thousands of eye witnesses saw a plane. Crazy theory eh? A plane hit the wtc? No way sounds far fetched to me. Could'nt have happened.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
And I'm not sure if you realize, but that pic with the missile and jet are so small compared to the object in question, it's like saying an elephant can fly if it had eagle wings.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Gorman91]


What you can use the "blur" excuse but I can't?


btw, take a good look at that initial hole (before explosions) no commercial airliner would fit there IMHO. But at least I can admit that I could be wrong.


AAC



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Well those clear pics of it was the hologram of the plane over top the missile.


I asked you a question about this but perhaps you didn't see it. It's at the end of page 10 if you want to read the whole post. But to sum it up, how do you prove it was a hologram rather than a real plane? What you're basically saying is this hologram technology is so good that it can cast 3D, completely realistic looking images on other objects, but they're just holograms.

So how do you prove it's a hologram and not the real thing?

I mean, as an example, lets say a UFO flies to your house and hovers outside your window. You say it's a real UFO, I say it's a hologram and there's nothing actually there. Prove me wrong.

Do you see my point on that? I'm not trying to sound argumentative or anything. I just hope I'm wording this right.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

What you can use the "blur" excuse but I can't?


btw, take a good look at that initial hole (before explosions) no commercial airliner would fit there IMHO. But at least I can admit that I could be wrong.


AAC


Nope, there is not blur enough to shrink something that small to that big. you can still see the body, not see through.

Motion Blur means you can see through it, not just have blur.

Guess what I just realized:
The frekin thing is as long, or longer then the towers, meaning it is probably tampered with.




posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Okay so lets go with this theory, holographic missles that look like planes crashed into the WTC and Pentagon. The actual planes what? were rerouted and the passengers are being held hostage forever, because no one can know they are alive? The government then went in and littered large plane wreckage into the debris with no one noticing. Meanwhile, on board the 4'th "missle" apparently several passengers confused the hologram for an actual plane, because they got on board. They called from cell phones to people about brining the 4'th "missle" down because apparently they thought the "missle" was being hijacked by holographic terrorists... which they did. The government then ran in and crashed a real plane so there would be actual wreckage and bodies from that. We then paid Osama to take the blame, because that is working out oh so well for Al-Quieda...Okay got it...







[edit on 20-9-2007 by b309302]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I see nothing that woiuld indicate this was a missle. Cool though.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by b309302
 


Your assessment is incorrect and I truly hope that's not what you think all 9/11 "truthers" believe happened on that day.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
The original explination fits 99% of the facts. This theory fits maybe 50% of the facts (stretching it), why would you replace a theory that can explain everything with a theory, that brings up more questions then answers? It has to sidestep 2 facts for every 1 fact it "proves". Thats some real backwards science. Everything in the original theory has an explination, if you want to believe it or not. This theory has a lot of gaping holes in it you can fly a plane through. Why should I believe a theory about a missle? It makes no sense. Even in the grand scheme of things... why would Osama take the fall for this? He lost Afghanistan, and we all but wiped out his Al-Quieda and Taliban supporters... missle theory aside...give me one reason he would go for this conspsiracy?

[edit on 20-9-2007 by b309302]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by b309302
 


You'll have to specify which theories you're talking about when you say "theory" because you use it in more than one context which seems to mean that you're referring to more than one theory.

If you read the thread, you'd see I've been attacking this missile theory the whole time. So I agree with you on that.

But what I'm still confused with is what your position is on 9/11.

Just because there are theories like missile theories and mini nuke theories out there doesn't mean that every "alternative theory" presented on 9/11 is just as 'crazy'. A lot have historic, symbolic, eye witness, data, scientific, and common sense backing.

Osama Bin Laden, just after the attacks, said that he had nothing to do with the attacks. It was reported on CNN's website. But since then, we've heard him admitting to it in poor quality videos in which the man who allegedly is Osama does not look like Osama, and in audio recordings which can easily be forged.

Why would he admit he wasn't responsible when he'd be praised in the "holy land", and then turn around and say he was responsible? You either are or you aren't. You're not innocent one day, and guilty the next.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


thank you for a very informative post. you explained the use of all 3 destruction methods to destroy the towers quite well.
I still have one question left.
Why is it not enough to simply crash a plane/missile into the towers to get a reaction from the citizens? why must it be complete and total pulverization of the building?, I believe the citizens would have been equally upset and it would have gotten the effect they wanted.

If what you say is true, they would have left more fingerprints by using planes/missiles, bombs (squibs are used to simulate gunshots and thereby not proper terminology for what you are suggesting) and directed force weapon systems. Why risk getting caught when it would have been easier and cleaner to just use mind control technology and have the pilots crash the planes themselves? Or use real terrorist?

Why smash the fly with the flyswatter, go back and hit it again with the sledgehammer and for good measure throw it in the microwave?????
Maybe the fly had something you wanted to completey erase from this world and the flyswatter alone didn't do a good eough job???

What was in te building that NEEDED to be destroyed completely
has anyone loked into this yet?



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I've read this thread over quickly and find it very interesting. I have a question for the experts on the DEW & Hologram theory.

On the day of 9/11 my husband and I were watching the television very closely. We seen a short video of a plane flying towards the Pentagon. It banked over a highway/freeway and was extremely low. It looked like a fairly good-size plane. I'm certainly no expert, but I thought at that time......How could something that big stay in the air, at that low altitude?
We seen that video clip maybe 2-3 times and Never seen it again. It was unreal. Now say the hologram theory is true. Do you think *they* were going to use this video and decided to deep-six it, because too many aviation experts would see it and could figure it out? Also, the no-experts tv watchers would say, "Yep, we seen a plane heading towards the Pentagon."

If that was a hologram was the Pentagon hit also by a DEW and not a missle, like many seem to think? Another question if you don't mind. Sorry, about being a P.I.A.


As you know the weather on that day was pretty much perfect ie- clear blue skies. Was that compulsory in order to have a well defined hologram?



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
"As you know the weather on that day was pretty much perfect ie- clear blue skies. Was that compulsory in order to have a well defined hologram?"

Interesting point! You all heard of green screens used in movie making.....(Thats how Peter Parker can fly over the scy scrapers shooting his web)

There is also BLUE Screen (blue skies)........Read up about the differences of green and blue screens....I believe Blue screens makes the edges less blurry and react different to lighting than green screens.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:45 AM
link   
The whole point is NO theory explains what happened any better then the original proposition. The evidence only supports one theory, the original one. That's a fact not an opinion. Unless any of you think you know better then a team of trained investigators who were actually there. To say the evidence supports the conclusions of an energy beam, missle, hologram, government conspiracy... doesn't add up without twisting or ignoring several key facts. For our government to carry out a plan as complex as 9/11... defies logic. The amount of people you need to be in on it to pull this off is incredible. Everyone from half the FAA to almost ALL of the investigators, many of which worked for private firms. Not one theory explains the 4'th plane that was downed by the passengers. It was not a hologram, missle, government controlled plane, or otherwise. It was a bunch of people like you and me on a plane fighting for their lives against terrorists. That's a fact. A fact many people convienently leave out. You think the government conspired with these terrorists to hijack a plane full of people? The goverment trusted the terrorists with this big coverup? To what end? To start a war? Apparently they came up with WMD for that. The government took more heat for this then Osama, was that the plan? To make themselves look like idiots? Do you all forget how much hotwater they were in for this? Directors and officials blaming each other. It made the administration look like a bunch of idiots, and still does to this day. Was that part of the conspiracy? Which is more probable... the government FLAWLESSLY carried out a top secret mission in broad daylight to kill 5000 of it's own citizens, or they screwed up, and let some terrorists get by them? Last time I checked there are plenty of people out there who would love to blow us up... why is it so far fetched to conspiracy folks that these people actually tried. Was Pearl Harbor a conspiracy too?



[edit on 21-9-2007 by b309302]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:45 AM
link   
[edit on 21-9-2007 by b309302]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by b309302
 


Your whole post shows how much you've truly studied these things.

What you say is not FACT. It's OPINION. You have no facts. You have no proof. All you have is what you think is proof and what you want to believe.

Why do these "trained investigators" work for our government? Why couldn't there be an independent team investigating, without interference or cover up, to examine ALL of the physical evidence, rather than just some of it? We can only have government employees looking at this stuff? That makes it sort of easy to cover things up, don't you think? I mean, if I committed a murder and had my own friends doing the investigating, I could probably get away with it.

For our own government to do it defies logic, but 19 guys from a cave in Afghanistan can do it, right? The most powerful government in the world who has one of the most well equipped and trained mercenary groups, Blackwater USA, at its disposal, couldn't pull this off, is that right?

The amount of people you would need to pull this off is incredible? Why? 19 arabs did it, right? Why do you need much more than that? Are you forgetting that there are people in this world who will do anything for money?

The Flight 93 fairy tale is a fact, huh? Show me the plane debris in Pennsylvania. Show me where all of that is.

What if they weren't really "terrorists"? It's common knowledge that these people received training at CIA controlled flight schools, and had training specifically with the CIA. Have you heard about the NORAD drills going on on that day? What if the "terrorists" were part of the drills, and it was an exercise which involved the hijacking of those planes, which the "terrorists" did a mock hijacking, and then our government took over and remote controlled the planes to their targets? That's speculation, of course. But every bit of it is possible.

It wasn't to just start a war. It was to set up a natural gas pipeline in the Middle East. Unocal was the company. Did you know Karzai, the Afghan President, used to work for Unocal? Coincidence, right? Then we went into Iraq. Now we're going to go into Iran. All because of 9/11. It wasn't just to start a war, it was to put us in the Middle East to seize resources and land.

And why would it matter if the government made themselves look like idiots? What has anyone in this country done to punish them for being "idiots" and "screwing up" everything? Nothing at all. So why should it matter if they APPEAR incompetent? What is the downside? Absolutely nothing. The upside is getting people to doubt they have the ability to pull off major events, when in fact, they do.

The correct death toll of 9/11 was less than 3000. So I'm not sure where you're getting this 5000.

Wanting to "blow us up" and actually being able to are two completely different things. If you would actually take the time to examine everything surrounding 9/11 rather than just blowing it off and hiding behind the excuse "THEY WANT TO KILL US SO OF COURSE THE ARABS DID IT!!!", then you would, hopefully, know the truth.

Yes Pearl Harbor was ignored by the Roosevelt administration. That's been admitted to and is accepted as fact. So please, research what you consider facts before pawning them off as facts.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join