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.

 

Uh... forgive me if this has been brought up before...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
But if the planes hit the twin-towers wouldn't they have been able to find the plane parts by now? I don't remember seeing plane parts left over after the planes allegedly hit. I find it somehow hard to believe that the planes vaporized completely after they hit.




posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Somebody link this guy to that vid of the Phantom jet crashing into a wall.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
One of the engines that was supposedly found on the street....





posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Seaman_Richie
 

I just find it hard to believe that a lot of the plane is missing. They had found that, but, where is everything else?

I would also like to see the video of this phantom jet crashing into a wall. Could someone link me to it?

[edit on 25-6-2008 by Frankidealist35]



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by Seaman_Richie
 

I just find it hard to believe that a lot of the plane is missing. They had found that, but, where is everything else?

I would also like to see the video of this phantom jet crashing into a wall. Could someone link me to it?

[edit on 25-6-2008 by Frankidealist35]


I'm assuming its this video...not sure though...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I don't know how someone can relate a F-4 Phantom crashing into a wall to a Jet Liner to a building
Someone fill me in please ?



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
perhaps all that thermate melted whatever didn't punch all the way through the buildings? just a thought, considering there were pools of molten metal there for weeks afterwards it seems like a possibility.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   


But if the planes hit the twin-towers wouldn't they have been able to find the plane parts by now? I don't remember seeing plane parts left over after the planes allegedly hit. I find it somehow hard to believe that the planes vaporized completely after they hit.


Airraft have many heavy components - engines, landing gear, wing spars
which can survive the impacts

Map of locations where plane debris landed



Jet engine



Bin of aircraft parts recovered from street



Landing gear



Debris embedded in car - Try explaining this to the insurance company!




More here

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Frankidealist35,
You are forgiven -- but yes, your topic has been brought up before, once or twice
.

I'll give you a synopsis of what an enlightened 9-11 researcher like myself (conceited S.O.B that I am) thinks happened.
The whole 'thing' was a psych-ops from A to Z conducted by our own leaders as a desperate way to bring new oil fields under our direct control and to shore up unlimited support for Israel, militarily, financially and politically.

There were no planes. None. Nada. But there were indeed four reports of hijackings. These news messages were only 'empty' words of course, nothing was going on in reality. However, once released, these four stories needed to be accounted for. So two aircraft (again not actual aircraft but only existing as phony sentences) were 'crashed' into the WTC's and one was 'impacted' at the Pentagon. Now there was only one final bogus hijacking event left open still needing to be somehow 'disposed' of. It's not as if the MSM could somehow have retracted their statement saying that somehow flight UA93 wasn't hijacked after all. Fellow ATS member John Lear has suggested that UA93 (once more, UA93 never existed in reality but only as nouns, verbs and adjectives) was supposed to smash into WTC-7 but for whatever reason didn't . Perhaps technical difficulties of generating phony film footage prevented the 9-11 cabal from claiming a WTC-7 attack. Who knows. It didn't matter. WTC-7 was blown up nevertheless and no one noticed!!

Anyways, I thought I'd let you know this. Some darn good brains have thought long and hard about said scenario (of no real Boeings on 9-11). But of course we are all free to believe whatever. The best of luck to you in your quest for the truth -- if that's what you are searching.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 6/27/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Frankidealist35,
You are forgiven -- but yes, your topic has been brought up before, once or twice
.

I'll give you a synopsis of what an enlightened 9-11 researcher like myself (conceited S.O.B that I am) thinks happened.
The whole 'thing' was a psych-ops from A to Z conducted by our own leaders as a desperate way to bring new oil fields under our direct control and to shore up unlimited support for Israel, militarily, financially and politically.

There were no planes. None. Nada. But there were indeed four reports of hijackings. These news messages were only 'empty' words of course, nothing was going on in reality. However, once released, these four stories needed to be accounted for. So two aircraft (again not actual aircraft but only existing as phony sentences) were 'crashed' into the WTC's and one was 'impacted' at the Pentagon. Now there was only one final bogus hijacking event left open still needing to be somehow 'disposed' of. It's not as if the MSM could somehow have retracted their statement saying that somehow flight UA93 wasn't hijacked after all. Fellow ATS member John Lear has suggested that UA93 (once more, UA93 never existed in reality but only as nouns, verbs and adjectives) was supposed to smash into WTC-7 but for whatever reason didn't . Perhaps technical difficulties of generating phony film footage prevented the 9-11 cabal from claiming a WTC-7 attack. Who knows. It didn't matter. WTC-7 was blown up nevertheless and no one noticed!!

Anyways, I thought I'd let you know this. Some darn good brains have thought long and hard about said scenario (of no real Boeings on 9-11). But of course we are all free to believe whatever. The best of luck to you in your quest for the truth -- if that's what you are searching.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 6/27/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]


Of course there were planes. Witnesses, photos, videos, etc... all show planes. Give up this whole no planer BS already please !!

John Lear also believes that holographic planes were used instead of real planes even though this has been proven as an impossibility. He didn't even research holograms to see if his "theory" was even plausible-which it isn't.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Of course there were planes. Witnesses, photos, videos, etc... all show planes. Give up this whole no planer BS already please !!


You mean witnesses who could not agree on what type of plane they saw.

Photos with no sources of who took them and where and when they wer taken.

No official reports that match parts found to the 9/11 planes.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Of course there were planes. Witnesses, photos, videos, etc... all show planes. Give up this whole no planer BS already please !!


You mean witnesses who could not agree on what type of plane they saw.

Photos with no sources of who took them and where and when they wer taken.

No official reports that match parts found to the 9/11 planes.



Because witnesses couldn't agree of what types of planes doesn't mean no planes. If they saw planes then they saw SOMETHING real. Which is my whole point. There were REAL planes not holo-planes.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123 There were REAL planes not holo-planes.


Its just too bad you cannot prove real planes and what planes they were.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123 There were REAL planes not holo-planes.


Its just too bad you cannot prove real planes and what planes they were.


Prove there were not real planes. Too bad you can't.
My response ONLY mentioned that there were real planes.
Once again, for the 1000th time, either there were REAL planes or there were HOLOGRAPHIC planes.
Since holographic planes are an impossibility, then we have no other option then REAL PLANES. See how simple this is ???

I really don't understand why you don't get this??????
I find it very hard to believe that an airforce, NSA agent, criminology expert, etc... has such poor logic skills.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   
It seems highly unlikely to me that the perps would forget to plant evidence at the site.

Even if we grant you the notion that no plane parts were found, it points away, not toward, a planned conspiracy--at least for me. I find it hard to imagine the perpetrators of a hoax forgetting to cover their tracks in such an absent-minded way.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by BarryLogan]

[edit on 30-6-2008 by BarryLogan]

[edit on 30-6-2008 by BarryLogan]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BarryLogan
It seems highly unlikely to me that the perps would forget to plant evidence at the site.

Even if we grant you the notion that no plane parts were found, it points away, not toward, a planned conspiracy--at least for me. I find it hard to imagine the perpetrators of a hoax forgetting to cover their tracks in such an absent-minded way.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by BarryLogan]

[edit on 30-6-2008 by BarryLogan]

[edit on 30-6-2008 by BarryLogan]


That sounds very logical. By the way, there have been photos of plane debris posted on other threads where Ultima has been involved.




top topics



 
0

log in

join