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.

 

Russian Pilot photos 9/11 as it happens

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dan Tanna
Can i just state that for the record i do NOT believe there was a missile used, but I have met a group of people who have a very plausable reason for a small missile being used.


OK, the work group did the deed and placed the shaped cutters over vital areas, and then fled. Now, they needed to detonate these explosives - how did they do that ?

Using a small version of the EMP missiles used over bosnia in the early 1990's.

The detonation was caused by a collapse in the circuit of the cutter charges.

i.e. an emp weapon went in, exploded and cut the power to the charges. This inititaed their count down timers to the very second needed to look like an aircraft collapsed the buildings.

I know, its a bit 'out there' but these emp weapons do exist for taking out towns and power plants, so why not a miniture version for use against tanks / buildings ?

Thats their take on it any how.



As you stated, an EMP is used to destroy exposed electronics. So if this "EMP missile" went in and disabled the power to the charges, then how would the timers work? The only way I can see this remotely working is if the timers were fully mechanical and were tripped by a lack of an electric current.



Originally posted by jmdewey60

The sneaky thing is hiding the exploding secondary missiles into flame that they could have predicted, ahead of time, would have been coming out of the building.
The reason for doing this is that a few flames from a missile exploding in the middle of the building, would not have looked convincing.
To make it look like a plane full of fuel had hit, they had to add more to the show.
So, they fired missiles into those pathetic flames, that were already starting to come outside.
Instead of a normal high explosive, like would have been used for the interior, they use a different type for the exterior, that would mimic a fuel explosion.
The whole idea is to not leave something so important, like taking down two towers, to something as chancy as a jehadist piloted plane.


Ahh, ok, so the theory of firing the missiles were only for extra show. That is at least somewhat believeable. It's still my opinion that there were no missiles. An airplane crashing make a big enough fireball on its own.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by HLR53K]




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Maybe it was a metor, that hit the buildings , maybe the trajectory of the metors were nudged by alien means to send them hurtling towards New York City.. The metor after entering earths atmosphere might have taken on the shape of an airplane by accident



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jalien
Maybe it was a metor, that hit the buildings , maybe the trajectory of the metors were nudged by alien means to send them hurtling towards New York City.. The metor after entering earths atmosphere might have taken on the shape of an airplane by accident


Come on man. Stop using this amazing imagination you obviously have and employ a bit of logic.

Peace.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by HLR53K
 



Yeah as I stated, collapsing circuit inititated by the lack of power caused by an EMP weapon.


HOWEVER I STATED THAT I DON'T BELIEVE A MISSILE WAS THERE !!!

I just think a plane, some cutting charges and some real bad people in power in the USA caused this event.

Hell, all the hijackers are still alive (just like the fire proof passport)



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Still not any information for the photo of the top of the woolworth building.


Again you have proven how immature you are that you cannot admit when i post the infomration asked for. I have posted a source for the photo from the MSNBC video.

I also will be posting a source for the Woolworth buidling roof. Because unlike you i am an adult and can do proper research.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
What is the basis of the missile theory anyway? I really fail to see the reason to fire a small warhead into the buidling when it wouldn't really do much.


I stated a fact that the Secret Service had stingers at WTC 7. But it could have been another missile that was fired at the building, as usual we do not know becasue we do not have all the information.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by scottie18
Funny how you ignore photos and videos that do get posted or you simply shoo them away with more of your conspiracy theories.


Funny how no one could post sources to those photos and videos when asked.

Pleas show me where any of the photo sources i have posted have been proven worng.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
So is blowing out all the windows was the sneaky thing for the missiles theory? I'm still completely baffled as to the whole point of it all.


Well i guess the same reason why radiation at the towers and Pentagon was blamed on Depleted Uranium from the planes when we both know the 757 and 767 do not carry DU as counterweights but Tungsten?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scottie18
Funny how you ignore photos and videos that do get posted or you simply shoo them away with more of your conspiracy theories.


Funny how no one could post sources to those photos and videos when asked.

Pleas show me where any of the photo sources i have posted have been proven worng.


There is a video proving your missile smoke theory wrong.

Well that was easy, but I am sure you will come up with a new excuse or some lies.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HLR53K
So is blowing out all the windows was the sneaky thing for the missiles theory? I'm still completely baffled as to the whole point of it all.


Well i guess the same reason why radiation at the towers and Pentagon was blamed on Depleted Uranium from the planes when we both know the 757 and 767 do not carry DU as counterweights but Tungsten?



That still leaves me at square one. DU can't undergo fission, so it's not good as an explosive. The only thing it's good for is penetration because it's so dense, which makes no sense. It would cause minimal overall damage and just fly in and straight out of the building.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by scottie18
There is a video proving your missile smoke theory wrong.


I see no information along with the video that states the missile smoke theory is wrong.

I still do not see any sources for the photos others have posted.


[edit on 3-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
That still leaves me at square one. DU can't undergo fission, so it's not good as an explosive.


Well if you read my post i was not talking about explosives but the claim of radiation from DU that the planes thet were suppoed to have hit the towers and Pentagon do not even carry.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well if you read my post i was not talking about explosives but the claim of radiation from DU that the planes thet were suppoed to have hit the towers and Pentagon do not even carry.



I absolutely did read your post and know you were talking about the radiation. Just because someone asks a few questions doesn't mean that they didn't read your post. You really get defensive don't you?

I was just thinking out loud and trying to figure out what the DU would have been for since you didn't make it clear. So you're implying that the airplanes had DU inside so that they could more easily penetrate the buildings' exteriors?

First time I've heard of this theory. Was there a sanctioned source/agency that recovered some DU or explicitely stated that the radiation was from DU? Or did you read somewhere that there was radiation and made the assumption that it was DU?

[edit on 3-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
www.reopen911.org...

A strange read indeed. Ultra toxic levels of strotium and barium in samples fro the WTC disaster.

WTF that is the first time I ever heard there was radiation present in toxic levels!

The chart from the link.



[edit on 3-6-2008 by Dan Tanna]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Dan Tanna
 


Haha, yeah, I know you don't believe in the missile theory. I just like to think (or in this case type) out loud. Gives others a chance to know what's going on in my head and to comment where necessary.

So far, the EMP idea and the idea that the missiles were to increase the "show" of the explosion are the only two remotely plausible reasons for a missile that I've heard.

As for the barium and strontium levels, I can offer a more conventional explanation. Barium is used in glass, rat poison, bricks, fluorescent lights, rubber, paint, etc.. All of these things can be found in the building material of the towers and the items inside them (how many hundreds or thousands of fluorescent lights were there?). I wouldn't be surprised that they found some high readings after all of the items containing barium in one form or another was crushed into a huge pile.

As for the strontium, it's used as a coating in cathode ray-tubes in color TVs (there must have been a lot of conventional color TVs), to refine the metals used in the infrastructure, and even some optics.

Barium and strontium are products of nuclear fallout, but I would stick to the conventional uses before going that far off the path, so to speak, as to declare nuclear explosions.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I just had a horrible idea.

Do we know where those 'empty floors' were where the building noises were heard coming from pre - 9-11 ?


Could there of been huge tanks of aviation fuel or other explosive fuels been stored in tanks and a missile used to detonate it to give that massive fire ball from a half empty plane ?

I still think the EMP idea collapsing a det circuit is as valid.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
So you're implying that the airplanes had DU inside so that they could more easily penetrate the buildings' exteriors?


NO i am not implying anything.

I want to know why the radiation at the Towers and the Pentagon were blamed on DU when the planes that were supposed to be used did not even have DU as counterweight.

Now unless the hijackers put DU on the planes, i do not see how DU could be to blame for the radiation.

www.xs4all.nl...

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Smirnow
To: mailto:Undisclosed-Recipient:;@mindspring.com
Cc: Bill Smirnow
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 10:18 AM
Subject: [du-list] NYC, PENTAGON AREA MAY BE RADIOACTIVE
The or a possible cause of what's being called "World Trade Center Syndrome" might be from the DU on the Sept. 11 airplanes[Depleted Uranium] that may have caught fire[probably].

Has anyone done and/or is anyone interested in getting out their Radalert or other rad monitoring device and measuring and testing radiation levels at:

1. Near The Former World Trade Center[In Manhattan or any of the other 4 NYC boroughs and Northern New Jersey]
2. Near The Pentagon
3. At or Near Shanksville, Pennsylvania where Flight 93 crashed?

From: "Leuren Moret"



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Why the inclination towards nuclear fallout whenever barium and strontium are mentioned. I've seen no statements of these being found in the unstable isotope form (eg Strontium 90) and the elements are very common in electronic equipment. Barium oxide is used as the electron emitting coating on electron guns in CRTs and flourescent lamp filaments. Strontium compounds can be found in the phosphor coating of CRTs and flourescent tubes. I'd like to see any scientifically supported analysis that shows the presence of the 'give-away' levels of unstable isotopes that are commonly produced in nuclear reactions.

Evidence of Tritium was detected at the WTC site in the form of tritiated water but the source has been adequately determined as being 'beta light' exit signs in the buildings and the planes among other possibilities like illuminated gun sights. I don't know about the radiation levels at the Pentagon but just thinking out loud here, could there have been some DU projectiles in a display case in the part of the Pentagon that was destroyed? IE does the source of it have to be the plane?



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Whom? "so russia was flying about this debacle"? Gets better by the moment. Can't believe we don't have plutonium 3 ringing our sinuses by now.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join