It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Clear Image of Flight 175

page: 10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:35 PM
reply to post by SteveR

Which type is it? A CFM56 was found smoldering on the NY streets, that only pushed a 737 plane.

"" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at" />

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:47 PM
If anyone has the trajectory, which could have possibly caused that chunk of metal to tear off a Murray Street sign, and leave it crumpled so closely beside the chunk of metal, I would certainly appreciate proof of that. It has to be from the time it was alleged to exit a tower, until it hit the sign, and plopped the crumpled sign beside it.

I have a map available for comparison of trajectory. However, I wish to see the trajectory first to determine if that chunk of metal could have done what is shown in the photo.

The odds alone of that sign dropping down so close to the chunk of metal, asserted to be hitting it, are astronomical, particularly with that chunk of metal.

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 04:47 PM
reply to post by nablator

Thanks for the links nablator.

Mr. Lear do the engines in this picture look like the ones United 767s would have been using?

PS orionstars, I believe there have been diagrams posted here in other threads about the trajectory of the supposed right engine. Which one I'm not sure.

[edit on 12/30/2007 by infinityoreilly]

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:16 PM
reply to post by infinityoreilly

Thank you. I have seen some. However, they are not explicit in describing leaving Point A and arriving at Point B. Frankly, I seriously doubt any alleged engine, or that chunk part pictured, got as far as Murray Street, much less, crumpled a street sign and was still "smoltering".

From what I can see on the map, it would have had to "leap over" or bounce off the roof of what was WTC 7, and/or any other left standing tall buildings, to hit any minute street sign on any Murray Street intersection.

posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 07:06 PM
Dear Friends : As I am of the age where I still don't readily believe everything I'm told or half of what I see I can only tell you what I felt the very moment these aircraft met with the stationary objects they hit ! Now this is prior to the Bush B.S. and the Rudy crap in fact this is prior to the Pentagons Barbara Olson "Box Cutter" Theory ! Now because I have personally Re-Fueled and DE-Fueled countless numbers of commercial Jet aircraft as well as general Aviation aircraft and can tell you with 100% certainty that Jet-A is a Very very dry kerosene and NOT some highly unstable Super Oxygenated Explosive ready to Melt Hysteel in a moments notice ! SORRY MR POPULAR MECHANICS .... YOU LOOSE ! In fact because of your Obvious Relationship to the DHS CHERTOFF It would appear to the more intelligent people in America that they were attempting to lend credibility to what can only be desrcribed as One of the most disgraceful cases of Fraud in recent history but what is really sad is that they were able to pull 9/11 off as assbackwards and as haphazardly as anyone of the more than 200 episodes of gilligans Inland which then totally explained why Old G.W.Bush was so Blahsey about where Osama Bin laden was when He came out with a Flippin I don'r Care and don't really worry about him ... WHY come on America ! BECAUSE BIN LADEN HAD NOTHING WHATSO EVER TO DO WITH ANY PART OF 9/11 PERIOD ! Now you be a Nice Boy and put someone OR ANYONE IN MY FACE that REALLY THINKS THEM EVIL-DOERS "was involved in anything that day other than going to the Bathroom .

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 06:08 PM
First, a bit of hostility (but with humour at its heart, I'm not spewing hate at anyone, just having a quick laugh).

All those pictures of non 767 parts are only proof they used holograms to disguise the alien corpses!

Ok, joking aside, I don't "see" it, despite looking. I by no means side with any official story, my reference to the official way of things was only for the sake of arguing that wild theories will not draw non-believers. I personally prefer to just ask a few simple questions that point out some of the glaring inconsistencies and get them thinking first. I'll let them come to their own wild theories later.

As I stumbled onto this site from elsewhere, and having already known and read many of the theories here, I wasn't offput by it. I was merely commenting that it's hard to find "safe" information to pass on to people I care about, whom I would like to take a moment to read and understand and question things. When, mixed in the information are things that are speculative, and sometimes a bit hard to swallow for most, they immediately shut down, their programming is far too deep to handle these sorts of theories. And, despite not being a huge fan of it, I'll just tell you where _I_ stand. I believe 2 airliners roughly the size and appearance of 767's were remotely piloted into the WTC towers, and subsequent explosives leveled the towers, building 7 was also leveled via explosives. The Pentagon was likely struck by a much smaller plane, or possibly a missle, what little photographic evidence we are offered in completely useless, but the damage patterns are inconsistent with an airliner the size as given by the official story. I believe NORAD was on stand down, and I believe there are high up players in this conspiracy, not 19 average joe foreigners. My theory is a bit "tame" compared to some I've read over the last few years, namely the holograms and reptilian overloads (David Icke followers (and yes, i know David Icke didn't come up with the idea, but he's the guy everyone knows for it)). My BIGGEST problem with these theories, and pretty much ANY of our "wild" theories (I'll face facts, even my theory is a bit WILD for Joe 6Pack), is that they seperate us. They drive a wedge between us, and we all start focusing on proving wrong the other theorist, but rarely do we unite to uncover that final piece of the puzzle that "wins" any and all of our cases, that this whole thing was a charade. Everyone picks up a handful of evidence and runs wild in their prefered direction, applying what works, and ignoring what doesn't. We are ALL guilty of it. I wish we could all come to some common ground and work towards one goal, and worry about the speculations later. Speculation doesn't mean WRONG, it just means IDEA, inspired by evidence. It isn't persay BACKED by any evidence yet, that's what makes a theory. We have loads of speculations (as my own is just as much as anyone elses), but few of us embrace and reach for a solid theory. All I was really trying to get at was "Hey, lets all find a common ground to work from". Sorry for any confusion. My points get lost amidst my diaretic keyboarding.

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 02:22 PM

Originally posted by johnlear
Steve, we are about 500,000 pounds of airplane short here. Got any other parts?

We were about 102 stories short on 9/11 per tower John. The pile of 8 floors shows this phenomenon is not exclusive to the planes.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:58 PM
[edit on 14-1-2008 by hemingway]

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:17 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
So I will fall back to my initial points: B767 unmanned drones? Implausible.


Plausible in in the 80s.

top topics

<< 7  8  9   >>

log in