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.

 

No planes hit the Twin Towers?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


First of all, thousands of people saw the planes from the ground, and I know a few who saw the planes coming from inside the building.

Secondly, you have to realize you cannot depend upon videos! When you see the Naudet video of the first plane hitting T1, it looks as though it glides right in and hardly does a thing.

However, INSIDE the building, we were slammed so hard that we could hardly keep our balance. People I know who were on 72, 73, 74 and up in the 80's suddenly found themselves on the floor. You are likely sitting in a chair right now--imagine the force it would take to all of a sudden be on the floor.

Fire was blowing out of elevator doors, the dropped ceiling was crumbling nearby, elevators full of people on the 44th floor skylobby filled with flames and went down full of screaming people. This is not "evil maintstream press" information. This is firsthand knowledge.

Yet look at the Naudet video--do you see any of that happening?




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   
What do you think would happen if a bullet hit a steel beam?

Well here is the answer. Please enjoy. www.youtube.com...

To say any form of plane hit WTC is what the government wants us to believe because they showed us CGI planes on TV.

Planes are not built to penetrate buildings, they crash against them and explode on impact. Remember the fuel tanks is in the wings and will never penetrate the building and explode inside

The only thing that would penetrate WTC is a missile.


D.Duck



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy
Plane parts were obviously planted around the pentagon lawn, so there exist no good reason why the same could not have taken place around the towers.

That could've been conceivable had we not had video proving otherwise. In the following video, after the second plane hits, you can hear the plane parts slamming into buildings and landing on the street. For a brief second, you can see the plane parts falling through the air and landing on the ground.

Here's the kicker, the video even shows someone that got killed from a plane part that landed on top of him. Now unless you think someone killed this person in broad daylight in front of dozens of people and then threw the plane part on top of that person, your disinfo ends here:

www.livevideo.com...



Originally posted by D.Duck
What do you think would happen if a bullet hit a steel beam?

Bullets don't weigh 300,000 pounds, so your argument is irrelevant.



Originally posted by D.Duck
To say any form of plane hit WTC is what the government wants us to believe because they showed us CGI planes on TV.

CGI planes don't have roaring jet sounds or cause plane parts to slam into buildings and land on the ground killing people like is shown in the video above.



Originally posted by D.Duck
Planes are not built to penetrate buildings, they crash against them and explode on impact.

Then you must keep forgetting about the B-25 bomber that slammed into the Empire State building in 1945 when they didn't have CGI or holograms:



The B-25 bomber is much smaller and much slower than a 767, yet did similar damage in the form of a gaping hole and wing damage.

If the steel columns had been continuous from top to bottom, then you may have seen a different scenerio, but there were connectors everywhere and it was the connectors that failed, not the steel columns.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 





Plane parts were obviously planted around the pentagon lawn, so there exist no good reason why the same could not have taken place around the towers.


Right so explain this......


Jet engine -weights several Tons



Aircraft part embedded in car - explain how this was done



Landing gear wheel - again weighs several hundred pounds



Now considering the size and weight of these objects explain how could be moved in broad daylight without a crane?



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by djeminy
Plane parts were obviously planted around the pentagon lawn, so there exist no good reason why the same could not have taken place around the towers.

That could've been conceivable had we not had video proving otherwise. In the following video, after the second plane hits, you can hear the plane parts slamming into buildings and landing on the street. For a brief second, you can see the plane parts falling through the air and landing on the ground.



Sorry, but I didn't hear any "plane parts" slamming into buildings, and I didn't see any
"plane parts" falling through the air and landing on the ground.

However, I did see that the video was edited at 06.41, whereafter the camera zooms in
on something that could look like a plane part, but could also be part of something
entirely different. Much more evidence is definitely needed here.

And neither did I see a man that had been killed, but instead saw something that could look like a person lying on the ground, as too many people was obstructing
a proper view of the scene.

By the way, I also noticed that the sound of the "roaring"! jet engines that could be
heard, was of an amazing short duration; like a second or so.


[edit on 1-3-2009 by djeminy]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by djeminy
 





Plane parts were obviously planted around the pentagon lawn, so there exist no good reason why the same could not have taken place around the towers.


Right so explain this......


Jet engine -weights several Tons



Aircraft part embedded in car - explain how this was done



Landing gear wheel - again weighs several hundred pounds



Now considering the size and weight of these objects explain how could be moved in broad daylight without a crane?



I seem to recall that the engine part and the wheel was both found underneath
construction awnings over sidewalks, and that this 'coincidence' was far too
suspicious to be taken seriously.

And the parts have never been identified as belonging to the Boeings in question.
The same goes for the part embedded in the car, as far as I remember.

(It was a long time ago all this was discussed in various forums, and basically
debunked then).



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy
I seem to recall that the engine part and the wheel was both found underneath construction awnings over sidewalks, and that this 'coincidence' was far too suspicious to be taken seriously.

Far too suspicious to be taken seriously by a few who concoct and spread disinfo. Look at the wide-shots of the collapses of the WTC and notice the huge construction crane in the air a few blocks away from the WTC. But construction anywhere in New York on 9/11 is just too suspicious. My gawd, the things you guys make up...



Originally posted by djeminy
And the parts have never been identified as belonging to the Boeings in question. The same goes for the part embedded in the car, as far as I remember.

You have no explanation for the plane part embedded into the car, or the person lying on the ground that died from a plane part hitting him. Or the several hundered pound jet engine that knocked over a street sign on it's way to the ground.

And it doesn't matter what planes those parts went to. The fact is that the parts came from the impact of the south tower and are seen and heard slamming into buildings and raining down onto the streets in the video I posted.


Originally posted by djeminy
(It was a long time ago all this was discussed in various forums, and basically
debunked then).

Well here's the problem. You keep saying that it's "debunked" but you show no papers, no pictures, no videos, nothing at all but your "opinion".

But you keep telling yourself whatever you need to. The real, physical evidence speaks for itself.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Well BoneZ, CGI planes make a lot of noise and different ones too, ON TV, because that is where you saw them, get it.

Haha, What do you think would happen if the tower would hit a 767 sitting still at 550MPH, remember Newton did not have vacation on 9/11.

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
Well BoneZ, CGI planes make a lot of noise and different ones too, ON TV, because that is where you saw them, get it.

The only thing I get is the physical evidence of the damage to the towers and the plane debris on the ground that killed at least one person and another part that embedded itself into the back of a car.

Every single video has the sound of the plane whether the video is from a news organization or an independent journalist or just a home video. Even an office meeting that was being recorded in a building across the street from the WTC has the plane sound in it.

You're not going to sit there and say that every single video and audio recording was faked because I'm pretty sure that private citizens would have a problem with their audio or video tapes being altered.

Then there's the fact that thousands of people were outside staring at the towers after the first impact and there would be a huge uproar if those thousands saw an explosion with no plane while the news kept showing a plane that nobody saw.

Your logic is flawed, your disinfo is debunked and you have no evidence at all. So instead of you "blah blah blah" on an internet forum about a subject that is already debunked before you even post anything, show us some hard, factual, scientific evidence. Or be gone.

Put up or shut up.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


BoneZ,

You don’t have much then do you, because the engine that is lying in the corner is the wrong one, it’s a 737 engine.

There is not one video that are not tampered in one way or another and it seem to me that you have not done your homework and researched it. All the videos that have a plane are from people connected to MSM or professional photographers, I thought you knew that but you obviously don’t.

Private citizen videos or audio were confiscated by FBI or the police on the day, and those who were not, were gladly given to the FBI days after the event because they had adds in the newspaper asking for videos to help solve the crime, I thought you knew that too but obviously you did not.

Most people said they saw an explosion or a small plane and some thought they saw a missile as Dick Oliver reported from the ground, but instantly the news anchors said that is was a big 767 because they saw it in their monitors (TV).

When you call the facts and the basic research as disinfo, I will write you off as someone that makes statements out of tin air and needs to go back and do the basic research.


D.Duck



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I know at least two people that were standing in New York City on that day, and they both were able to identify a 767 as being what hit the second tower. They didn't see it on video, they saw it with their own eyes. They were watching the first tower burning, and watched the second plane hit. They heard the engine noise before impact, saw the plane, and saw the plane hit the tower.

One of the two also has a coworker who was almost killed by a falling plane part. He was responding to the scene and a large piece of plane hit the road in front of his vehicle.

[edit on 3/1/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


My mothers ,brothers, friends sister saw a bus hit the tower. "They didn't see it on video, they saw it with their own eyes".

D.Duck


[edit on 1-3-2009 by D.Duck]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 


The difference being that these are people that I had personal interactions with and had no reason to lie. Unlike anyone that says no planes hit the towers. The evidence and the personal eyewitness accounts from friends of mine tell me that a plane hit each of the towers.

But I forgot, the government got the aliens to use their magical hologram generators to create holograms that had shadows appear on them and reflected sunlight to do it. And they somehow planted explosives on the outside of the building that no one noticed at all.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   


The reason people report planes is because they saw a 500+mph winged missile painted to look like a united airlines flight. There are multiple news reports of people saying what they saw looked like a small plane or a plane with no windows etc. The above video is very good witness testimony supporting missile/no plane theory. Anyone who watches september clues pt 1 on youtube and sees that Kai Simonsens chopper 5/nose out has been PROVEN as fake. It is impossible for the plane to have been where it was in that video, not only is the fact that it was shot by a news helicopter with a gyrostablized camera mount evidence that supports the idea that they edited the video (inserting the plane on a normal non stable camera from a helicopter during a live feed would be very difficult to make look legit)- but the fact that the plane appears immediately after 3 zoom ins and is nowhere to be seen previously in any of the wide shots proves that it is a fake plane. Several people have taken the distance the plane travels while its visible and multiplied it to determine where the plane would be in the previous zoom ins but its nowhere to be found.

To see what I'm talking about go to about 3:00 and watch the video played forward then go to about 7:00 and watch the video backwards, then follow the link provided for an analysis. Or just watch the entire video and see for yourself undeniable evidence of video tampering/lies from media witnesses/blatant cover-ups of incriminating footage, etc.




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Well, the one that saw a bus hit the tower had no reson to lie, I just write that guy off as being plain stupid because no bus could have hit the tower just as no 767 could have hit the tower.

D.Duck



[edit on 1-3-2009 by D.Duck]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Originally, I was leaning towards Donald, but this is definitely Daffy....

Answer me this question D Duck. If it was not a 767 that hit the second tower, HOW did the image of a 767 get onto all the video/still cameras that were there that day?

I ask that question of everyone who starts talking about CGI/holograms etc.... There were dozens of video cameras that recorded it...there were hundreds of still cameras that caught it....HOW did the image of a 767 get onto all of those? No one has answered that question yet.......



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



For the stills, have you heard of photo-shop, if you have not, go and research it, very easy job.

For the videos its just as easy, watch this.
www.youtube.com...

BTW: I don't believe in holos.


D.Duck


[edit on 1-3-2009 by D.Duck]

[edit on 1-3-2009 by D.Duck]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 


So how did they get the planes into the pictures of regular non-digital cameras? And that means that every single person that took a picture that day had to have photoshopped them. And they all would have had to have matched the official photoshopped pictures or it would have stood out as obvious.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



Well those pictures with planes sold like crazy, people do a lot to make a buck, dont you think.

I will give you a job, please go and get me a picture that are not photo-shoped with a 767, good luck with that.


D.Duck

[edit on 1-3-2009 by D.Duck]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 


Why should I even bother to try? You've made up your mind and even if I showed that it wasn't photoshopped you would find something about it to scream fake and say that it was.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join