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.

 

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 26
10
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


He has implied no planes hit the towers a few different times. Here are just some examples


If there were planes that struck the towers, then those planes should have been identified.

IF...notice he said IF they struck.

Here's another example

How do you know that planes hit the towers if you do not know the identity of the planes?


here's yet another example

How do you know that planes were involved if you can't identify them?


[edit on 23-3-2008 by jfj123]




posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
ok so i see people posting saying that 9/11 was an inside job. i see people posting saying that the government had no involvement in 9/11. ok so let's assume that the government is squeaky clean and had NOTHING to do with 9/11. i know this is irrelevant to this topic but how can ANYONE agree with what the government is doing. they are committing atrocious inhumane crimes to innocent people, believe it or not. how can anyone support this kind of selfish, greedy behavior ?!?!?!? its sad how people are thrown into jail and accused of treason because they won't trade humanity for patriotism.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
You're just not getting this. I never said I could. Look back at my posts and carefully re-read them and you'll notice I've only claimed planes hit. That's it. Nothing more. Do you understand that??

So you can't positively identify the planes that you claim were involved.

For what is it now...the 8th time??? I've never said I could identify the planes with 100 % certainty. I have never said I could. Let me say that again, I have never said I could. So when I say I never said I could, I meant I never said I could. Do you now understand that I never said I could or should I say that I never said I could one more time? Your tunnel vision is bordering on the absurd.


How do you know that planes were involved if you can't identify them?

Please read this really slow....
Because I know what a plane looks like. It's a tube shaped thing and has projections on each side which are called wings. If you need me to show you what a plane looks like, just ask, I'll post a photo for you to review.

So are YOU saying planes did NOT hit the buildings? YES or NO? This is a really simple question.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jawaadr12
ok so i see people posting saying that 9/11 was an inside job. i see people posting saying that the government had no involvement in 9/11. ok so let's assume that the government is squeaky clean and had NOTHING to do with 9/11. i know this is irrelevant to this topic but how can ANYONE agree with what the government is doing. they are committing atrocious inhumane crimes to innocent people, believe it or not. how can anyone support this kind of selfish, greedy behavior ?!?!?!?

I agree with you and I don't support it. As far as I'm concerned the entire administration should be impeached and charged.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


You're assuming too much.

I feel the same way. IF planes did hit the towers, what proof do we have they were Flight 11 and 175?

What IF it was a hologram? We don't know.

What IF multiple guided missiles hit the towers? (this is probably what happened at the pentagon but that's a whole different story)

When someone says IF that does not mean they believe what they're saying.

I would have said the same exact thing.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
reply to post by jfj123
 


You're assuming too much.

I feel the same way. IF planes did hit the towers, what proof do we have they were Flight 11 and 175?

What IF it was a hologram? We don't know.

Actually we do know it was not a hologram for sure as this is not possible. There are quite a few reasons for this and this has been addressed to death on another thread. We even had one ATS member perform experiments with lasers to prove or disprove the possibility and it is conclusive that holograms of that type under those conditions are simply not possible.
Here's the thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...
If you like, I can post several reasons why this is not possible.



What IF multiple guided missiles hit the towers? (this is probably what happened at the pentagon but that's a whole different story)

But planes were seen.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
For what is it now...the 8th time??? I've never said I could identify the planes with 100 % certainty.

Why is that so?

Don't you think that any competent, thorough investigation would have identified the planes that were allegedly involved?

The fact that none of the investigations were able to positively identify the planes allegedly involved is evidence for a conspiracy to obfuscate the truth.

What evidence are you seeking that will convince you that a conspiracy took place? You believe that two planes hit the towers, yet you are not positively able to identify them - don't you think that's strange?



So are YOU saying planes did NOT hit the buildings? YES or NO? This is a really simple question.

I don't know what allegedly hit the towers, or if they were even hit by anything.

I find it highly suspect that there has not been a positive identification made for the planes that were alleged to have hit the towers.

I find it even more suspect that a passport can survive the fireball and a thousand foot fall through rubble, yet remain intact enough to read and be identified as one of the highjackers...



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


IF a hologram was used, it would have been "above top secret" technology.

Here's a few threads mentioning the hologram technology. Remember the black budgeted government (CIA, NSA, etc) are years ahead of mainstream military and civilian technology.

MOD invisible tank

Prince Charles to appear as a hologram

3d Imagery


I'm not suggesting that holograms were used on the WTC. I'm saying we just can't prove it without verifiable evidence.

As for the Pentagon...

[edit on 3/23/2008 by biggie smalls]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
For what is it now...the 8th time??? I've never said I could identify the planes with 100 % certainty.

Why is that so?

Don't you think that any competent, thorough investigation would have identified the planes that were allegedly involved?

And the investigatory bodies may have done this and forgot to let me know about it.


The fact that none of the investigations were able to positively identify the planes allegedly involved is evidence for a conspiracy to obfuscate the truth.

As far as you know.


What evidence are you seeking that will convince you that a conspiracy took place?

I've already answered that at the very beginning of the thread. It's the very first post so it will be easy to find.


You believe that two planes hit the towers, yet you are not positively able to identify them - don't you think that's strange?

Yes I'm surprised and disappointed the NIST, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. have never contacted me to tell me what is going on. They're just selfish and I'm not playing at their houses any more. Further more, I'm telling my mom on them.



So are YOU saying planes did NOT hit the buildings? YES or NO? This is a really simple question.

I don't know what allegedly hit the towers, or if they were even hit by anything.
So you are saying the eyewitnesses, photos, and videos have all been faked?


I find it highly suspect that there has not been a positive identification made for the planes that were alleged to have hit the towers.

Please show me the report that says this.


I find it even more suspect that a passport can survive the fireball and a thousand foot fall through rubble, yet remain intact enough to read and be identified as one of the highjackers...

Weird things happen all the time. People have jumped out of a plane to skydive, their shoots have failed to open, they hit the ground and lived. That's weird too but it happened.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
reply to post by jfj123
 


IF a hologram was used, it would have been "above top secret" technology.

No it wouldn't. If you were familiar with lasers, holographic technology and optics, you wouldn't make that comment. There are some real world restrictions that prevent a hologram like that from existing and stamping TOP SECRET on it doesn't change that fact.


Here's a few threads mentioning the hologram technology. Remember the black budgeted government (CIA, NSA, etc) are years ahead of mainstream military and civilian technology.

It doesn't matter, they can't change physics.


I'm not suggesting that holograms were used on the WTC. I'm saying we just can't prove it without verifiable evidence.

Well I can post evidence showing the impossibility.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Please show me the report that says this.

Please show me any report that has identified the alleged wreckage to the planes that were allegedly involved.

That's right, you stated that you couldn't. You have already stated that you can't identify the planes that were allegedly involved.

I have read your original post. You want evidence that shows a government conspiracy. The fact that the alleged planes were not positively identified is evidence of a government conspiracy to obfuscate the truth.


biggie smalls - I love your signature. There's a few disinfo agents on this website and we know why they hang around and troll some threads to create smokescreens. G-Men suck.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Here's one example of why holograms didn't hit the towers

Please watch this short video and notice the dark plane hitting the building.

www.youtube.com...

Notice the dark colored plane (in shadow) hitting the building?

Lasers are used to create holograms. What are lasers made of? LIGHT.

There is no such thing as anti-light lasers so there is no way to create darkness as seen in this and many other videos, photos, etc...

That's just one reason why holograms were not involved.


By the way, calling me a government disinfo agent is beyond absurd. I would consider it troll logic.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
By the way, here's info about the prince charles hologram

A video projector will beam an image of the Prince on to the floor.

It is then reflected up on to a paper-thin sheet of foil to create an optical illusion that makes him appear as a 3-D image on stage.

It's actually not a real hologram but a version of the peppers ghost trick. It's also not 3d. Notice the image was also projected onto a thin foil sheet? The sheet would be considered a medium and these "holograms" require a medium for projection.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to jfj123post by jfj123
 


Exactly!!!!!! no one can change physics , or thermo dynamics



[edit on 23-3-2008 by plasmacutter]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to jfj123
post by jfj123

 



Looks like you need to reread your OP



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
My evidence is as follows:
Hundreds of photos
Videos
Eyewitness accounts
wreckage
physical damage on the buildings
plane fuel
etc..



1. Where are the photos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? Do those hundreds of photos show what planes hit the towers?

2. Where are the videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? Do those videos show what planes hit the towers?

3. The eyewitness accounts would not hold up in court, specially those at the Pentagon.

4. Please show me the FBI or NTSB reports that match the parts or wreckage found to any of the 9/11 planes.

5. Plane fuel is not evidence of a particular plane.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You're just not getting this. I never said I could.


If you believe the official story then you believe that Flight 11 and 175 hit the towers and Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

So if you believe the official story then you should be able to provide evidence to support your claims and the official story.

If not then you have to concede that you dod not know what really happened and have no evidence to support your opinions.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
For what is it now...the 8th time??? I've never said I could identify the planes with 100 % certainty.

Why is that so?

Don't you think that any competent, thorough investigation would have identified the planes that were allegedly involved?

The fact that none of the investigations were able to positively identify the planes allegedly involved is evidence for a conspiracy to obfuscate the truth.

What evidence are you seeking that will convince you that a conspiracy took place? You believe that two planes hit the towers, yet you are not positively able to identify them - don't you think that's strange?



So are YOU saying planes did NOT hit the buildings? YES or NO? This is a really simple question.

I don't know what allegedly hit the towers, or if they were even hit by anything.

I find it highly suspect that there has not been a positive identification made for the planes that were alleged to have hit the towers.

I find it even more suspect that a passport can survive the fireball and a thousand foot fall through rubble, yet remain intact enough to read and be identified as one of the highjackers...



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
For what is it now...the 8th time??? I've never said I could identify the planes with 100 % certainty.

Why is that so?

Don't you think that any competent, thorough investigation would have identified the planes that were allegedly involved?

The fact that none of the investigations were able to positively identify the planes allegedly involved is evidence for a conspiracy to obfuscate the truth.

What evidence are you seeking that will convince you that a conspiracy took place? You believe that two planes hit the towers, yet you are not positively able to identify them - don't you think that's strange?



So are YOU saying planes did NOT hit the buildings? YES or NO? This is a really simple question.

I don't know what allegedly hit the towers, or if they were even hit by anything.

I find it highly suspect that there has not been a positive identification made for the planes that were alleged to have hit the towers.

I find it even more suspect that a passport can survive the fireball and a thousand foot fall through rubble, yet remain intact enough to read and be identified as one of the highjackers...


Hi guys at 911 . My apologies for my previous attempt to post/quote. I stuffed up and left it all blank. With great respect to your research and eagerness of truth seeking in the obscure realms of 911, I hereby thank you for hundreds if not thousands of posts I have enjoyed to read at ATS in the past.

I is good to see and very comforting that every piece of evidence, however small, is painstakingly deciphered and analysed in an attempt to uncover the truth. Many observations made are misleading and erroneous, however, the truth is embedded in a nest of conflicting opinions, a conglomerate of research and educated inputs.

That is what I am thankful for at ATS. Thanks for the marvellous job the mods do here.

To the point. Tezza asked a question. A very good question. Here is my answer. Before you read it, I want to acknowledge that my analysis is only based on a photo of a highly banking 767 approaching the second tower.

I do not have any idea if that photo is genuine. However, here are my thoughts on what I see in the photo (frame). I don't know how to post an image yet, but some friendly helpers from ATS will hopefully guide me through the process tomorrow, so that all of you can see the picture in question.

The following is a compilation of the aerodynamic effects of the alleged plane hitting the second tower, the aircraft identification, the physical analysis of it's shape and size, and the capabilities of the onboard flight controls in respect to banking angle and speed. Included is a study of the vulnerability and risk/probability of reprogramming the on-board auto pilot. Enjoy.

Apparently the content does not fit into the body of this message, so I post it into a consecutive post. Many thanks



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Part One.........

The pitch of the vertical stabiliser including the rudder is far too low for the 737. The profound conical narrowing of the tail section to the point of a pin at the place where the swallow-wing-shaped horizontal stabilisers join the tail section is very typical for the 767.

The 'fighter' style extreme rate-of-wing-width-decrease is seen on 757 and 767 and 777, more profound on the 767. The wing footprint of a 737 is far narrower at the fuselage and the rate of decreasing of width is not so high in a 737 where the wing-width is more consistent and far narrower and subtle near the fuselage.

The fuselage length-to-diameter-ratio on a 757 is much higher, i.e the 757 is very long, thin and consistent in bulk. The 737 has a enormously plump and heavy tail section, which is totally missing above. The 737 has a very long fat and bulky vertical stabiliser at the rear, which stands nearly straight and vertical at the back edge, were the rudder is located. Unlike the highly angled tail fin above.

Another piece of evidence is the size. Geometry is easily applied since the view is nearly accurately 45 degrees on. The footprint of the tower is known and the wingspan can be measured and perspectively corrected (needs 3 dimensional calculation).

The plane has therefore a true minimum wingspan of 44.0 meters (no trigonometrical applied, so the true value has to be higher), and a maximum of 53.9 mtrs and the mean value [with the highest possibility] is 48.9 mtrs with a tolerance of plus minus 5 mtrs. Sounds reasonable?

The 737-400 has a wing span of 29 mtrs, and 737-600/700 around 34 mtrs and 737-800/900 35.8 mtrs.

A 767 however is just under 48 mtrs which fits both the shoe and the shape.

However. This plane above is NOT a commercial airliner. I can show it to you easily. I calculated the banking angle from the video and came up within a few degrees of what is stated on many sites. 38 degrees.

A 757 or 767 will not allow you in any auto pilot mode nor manual flying mode a banking angle of more than 20 degrees max. The stick-shaker speed is calculated at 15% maximum banking angle by the on-board computer and will allow for 15% overshoot , to maintain manoeuvrability.

The absolute maximum values for the plane before it hits a banking-stall are 20% with and 17% overshoot, this is the maximum margin the plane can handle. The board computer will compensate at 20% banking, allowing 17% emergency overshoot and cuts in with corrections. It does this by calculating the roll angle and the minimum speed, so you cannot achieve larger banking then 15%-20% on the controls as the pilot.

This is done by the limiter build into the "lateral control auto pilot module". The computer approximates the roll control, actuator, aileron system and integrates heading. Thus you are very limited now in respect to your flight path, i.e you cannot just go where you want, you are stuck with a minimum radius. A small turn at a high bank angle is a guarantee that the desired radius will never be met, i.e being overshot ( by higher speed compensation) or stalled. The lateral control, unlike the longitudinal autopilot controls, i.e speed, throttle, pitch, height and flight path ect, cannot be disabled or physically removed in a 767, it comes with the plane. That means you cannot steer the plane into a set target.

graviton



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join