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.


Why it necessarily was holograms that hit the WTC

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 01:59 AM
How can the alleged Flight UA175 glide into the tower when it wasn't captured doing so on the live NBC broadcast from Chopper 4?

Planes don't glide into buildings without ANY stress buckling of their airframe. Those alleged planes showed no signs of meeting any resistive force from the towers, which is utter crap.

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 02:04 AM
Wow, you guys are nuts. The terrorists admittidly attacked us, and you're still thinking it's a conspiracy?!? You're all nuckin futs. straws can embed in an oak tree in a tornado. You're whole "steel beam" bullspit arguement is wrong. The plane blasted through the building like a bomb, I saw it. Don't you dare tell me what I saw was fake. What happened, happened, and it's exactly like the government said it happened. There's no conspiracy and you're all ignorant for believing otherwise. Besides, even if it was, what difference does it make? People are still dead. But it's been 7 years. Get a new topic already. Damn....

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 02:16 AM

Originally posted by m4j35t1c12
The terrorists admittidly attacked us, and you're still thinking it's a conspiracy?!?

Which alleged terrorists admitted to the attacks?

So you saw it, huh? What exactly did you see? I don't suppose you caught a glimpse of the registration numbers that were involved, or that you were able to forensically identify any of the alleged wreckage?

I guess then you would like to explain why we can't see UA175 on the NBC Chopper 4 camera, yet we can see it on the NBC nightly news bulletin - with altered scenery and backdrops from the same angle?

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 02:21 AM

Mod Edit: Civility and Decorum are Required

[edit on 14-8-2008 by Gemwolf]

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 02:22 AM
Let's clear up a few things.

First, it wasn't a B-52. It was a B-25. Second, I could be confused, but I don't think you're reading my post correctly(see below). I know the videos are fake. I know planes didn't crash into the WTCs. We may not be on the same page(as I believe missiles were used), but we're in the same book.

Originally posted by plasmacutter
but yes it did do damge but most of the b 52 was still hagging out the building wasnt it? we can see most the whole plane in that crash.

I don't see any part of a B-25 hanging out of that hole. Could you please point out what you see? From the link I posted, it said:

Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor.

I have not been able to find any pictures of the debris, but I'm sure there was plenty.

Originally posted by plasmacutter
so in comparison there should have been plenty of both WTC planes to be examined shouldnt there be if we use ur comparison im just asking ?? or no ??

This is where I became confused, but I completely agree. There should have been many parts of the 767 falling to the ground. Instead all we seen was glass and pieces of steel being ejected from the impact.

We must recognize those facts about a B-25 engine and landing gear going all the way through the Empire State Building. 767 engines are partly made of titanium, so if we slammed one into the side of the WTC at 500+mph, most likely it would penetrate and go inside.

Just trying to be fair. Because your comment above about the stronger aluminum and landing gear bouncing off is not entirely fact.

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 02:36 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 08:38 AM
reply to post by Niobis

my bad i meant b 25 my grave yard pics where b 52 sorry but what ever .

and yes if the engine or landing where to have hit the same resistence in the state building as the aledged WTC planes they would have bounced off unless like i said befor it saild threw a window first .

and yes i agreed with your statement on the b 25 engine sailing , but like i said u cant compare the two buildings one was a lattace frame structure (state building) with lots of room between beams with less resistence , and the WTC buildings outer collums where closely spaced compared to state building .

if that same b 25 engine hit the wtc it would not have been able to sail threw.

so in beeing fair we agree ur comparison cant be made, it would have been easier for the state building crash b 25 engine to sail threw when it dosnt encounter the same resistence . it had far less beams per linear foot on its outter walls then did WTC. And its facade was weaker and the beams where thinner. , And i didnt see any engine trajectory for the state building being explaind , so none of us can truely be fair in the comparison .

we both have no clue if state building b 25 engine even encounterd any beams in its travels , we cant be for sure . but on the WTC plane we had a trajectory

and no matter what hit the WTC it had no option but to hit the 1 inch alluminum facade that was shoulder with appart and the 4 inch beams which where much much tighter in thier linear spaceing.

but like i said i never disagreed with ur statement on the b 25 engine i just stated we cant compare the two building which are being compared ,

but i never disagreed with that fact so lets be fair ,

and even at 500 miles per hour i dought any engine parts or landing gear could generate 90,000 psi to sever 4 inch thick steel beams , but the alluminum, facade yeas forsure, but 4 inch and 6 inch steel beams, not gona happen , and for argument sake ,if it went threw the first side it never would have made threw to the other side .

but like i said i never disputed what u said about the state building crash ,

all i said was is u cant compare the two engine trajectories at all as far as resistence . state build was built differant and its structure was weaker in comparison to WTC , and the state building even being weaker in design didnt fall. but that is off topic .

BUT like i said i DIDnt disagree with what u said did i ? yes the engine did zing threw but we have no clue if it encounterd any beams , which would have been easily done with its linear beam spacing (very far apart in comparison) compared to WTC linear beam spacing is all i was saying.

so very sorry if it was confusing in what i was saying.

O and ill look for better picks of the b 25 ive seen a pick back in the day when i was researching stuff the ass end hanging out but i could be wrong but ill look

[edit on 14-8-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 14-8-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 14-8-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 14-8-2008 by plasmacutter]

<< 1   >>

log in