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.

 

Why they didn't use planes...

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Are we only allowed to post threads that only you agree with?

You can post whatever you like, but this is a discussion forum and discussions have more than one side. NPT has been debunked for awhile and is considered disinfo by the 9/11 truth movement and I'm making sure that everyone knows these facts, especially the new people who are just starting to look at these things.



Originally posted by thesneakiod
I also don't get why time and time again you fail to explain any of the anomalies in Sept clues and other docs regarding the NPT.

You apparently haven't read any of my posts on this subject as I've made many long and exhaustive posts debunking NPT. In fact, I've received applause twice from the mod team for my thorough research.

Not only do I have many posts debunking NPT, I also post a couple videos that also debunk "September Clues" here:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...



Originally posted by thesneakiod
Whether planes hit the towers or not, the tv/amature footage that was shown was most certainly tampered with. Do you at least agree on that?

The government-sponsored video of the alleged plane impact at the Pentagon, more than likely tampered with.

At the WTC with all the news media, independent and private audio and video recordings all showing the same exact thing, absolutely not tampered with.




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Are we only allowed to post threads that only you agree with?

You can post whatever you like, but this is a discussion forum and discussions have more than one side. NPT has been debunked for awhile and is considered disinfo by the 9/11 truth movement and I'm making sure that everyone knows these facts, especially the new people who are just starting to look at these things.



Originally posted by thesneakiod
I also don't get why time and time again you fail to explain any of the anomalies in Sept clues and other docs regarding the NPT.

You apparently haven't read any of my posts on this subject as I've made many long and exhaustive posts debunking NPT. In fact, I've received applause twice from the mod team for my thorough research.

Not only do I have many posts debunking NPT, I also post a couple videos that also debunk "September Clues" here:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...



Originally posted by thesneakiod
Whether planes hit the towers or not, the tv/amature footage that was shown was most certainly tampered with. Do you at least agree on that?

The government-sponsored video of the alleged plane impact at the Pentagon, more than likely tampered with.

At the WTC with all the news media, independent and private audio and video recordings all showing the same exact thing, absolutely not tampered with.


How can you be so sure.. "ABSOLUTELY NOT TAMPERED WITH"?

IMO there is plenty of evidence for the NPT and denying it all together and saying "not to bring it up" and "quit posting b/c its bad for the cause" wreaks of disinfo....my opinion



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by XTC_savedmyLife
How can you be so sure.. "ABSOLUTELY NOT TAMPERED WITH"?

If it was just mainstream media only, maybe a possibility. But independent and private all tampered with also? Not a chance.


Originally posted by XTC_savedmyLife
"quit posting b/c its bad for the cause" wreaks of disinfo

Good thing I've never said that.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   
AIRPLANES DON'T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM


Every one of those are fake CGI planes and they are easy to do.

Watch this clip and you can see how it was done, very easy job.

www.youtube.com...


Watch the Fairbanks clip @ 0.44 you can clearly see the tower repair itself after the right wing is in the tower.

www.youtube.com...

In the real world this could not happen

If a real 767 would crash against the tower it would explode on inpact and it would be plane parts all over the place.

In the CGI world a plane can fly right through the steel beams and explode inside the tower.

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 





If a real 767 would crash against the tower it would explode on inpact and it would be plane parts all over the place.


Looks like lot of plane parts










More pictures here

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Of course you will have some idiotic reason why this cant be....



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Correct link for more pictures


wtc7lies.googlepages.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by D.Duck
 





If a real 767 would crash against the tower it would explode on impact and it would be plane parts all over the place.


Looks like lot of plane parts










More pictures here

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Of course you will have some idiotic reason why this cant be....


If a 767 hits the south side of the south tower you should see plane parts falling down the south side of the tower, but we don't get that.

Thedman, I would appreciate if you could find out who is making the tyres in the picture you showed me.

That tyre penetrated steel beams on the south side, crushed concrete, been through an explosion, then penetrated the north side and then hit the ground from 700 hundred feet and it survived with a little bit of dust on it.

Have you heard of planted evidence, the guys in funny jackets use it a lot.

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Those pics of part of the planes are funny, what's on the BMW anyway? a piece of the building? I cant really tell also I don't remember seeing the landing gear open before the planes hit, poor quality video i guess.



[edit on 4-3-2009 by Arsenis]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
AIRPLANES DON'T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM. In the real world this could not happen.

More lying and purposeful deceiving from you I see. In the real world, THIS DOES HAPPEN. It happened with a much slower and smaller plane into the Empire State building in 1945. I guess that was CGI'd also, even though they didn't even have computers back then.

B-25 bomber crash at the Empire State building, 1945:




Originally posted by D.Duck
That tyre penetrated steel beams on the south side, crushed concrete, been through an explosion, then penetrated the north side and then hit the ground from 700 hundred feet and it survived with a little bit of dust on it.

Yeah, because the landing gear couldn't possibly have went through any of the thousands of windows.




Originally posted by Arsenis
I don't remember seeing the landing gear open before the planes hit

I don't remember landing gear ever disappearing from our dimension when it is retracted into the aircraft.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 


A plane weighing nearly 300,000 pounds, at 500 mph can and will penetrate a steel building. They took an F-4 Phantom and slammed it into a concrete block that was 10+ feet thick and it left a nice imprint in the shape of the plane after penetrating into the block. There is no material in the world that would stop a plane that size, going that fast and make it just explode against the face of it. It IS going through the building.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I don't remember landing gear ever disappearing from our dimension when it is retracted into the aircraft.


LOL you are a funny dude, sarcasm doesn't translate through writing i see, anyhow since you are so eager to quote my sarcasm and I dont mind picking any side of the plane or no plane theory answer this question since you got enough knowledge and have done obviously more research than your fellow member ( talking about me).

When were those pictures taken, before or after the towers came down?



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
Every one of those are fake CGI planes and they are easy to do.


I would love to hear how "easy to do" this actually is to accomplish with the uncontrolled aspect of live TV. There are so many variables that could cause something to go wrong, that it just doesn't jive. But since you seem to be so sure and obviously know something the rest do not, please clue us in.

As probably the only person here who has professional industry experience, as well as being in the control room of one of the "big three" networks that morning, you couldn't be more wrong. Period.

The company I worked for was the first to actually do CGI during a live broadcast, and while they have the technology to pull this off in a highly controlled environment, they simply did not do it. I saw it with my own eyes, so I'm sorry but you'll have to come up with another "theory".

The man power to put this together is not a small thing, and the coordination between networks would be incredible, and way way WAY too many people would have been involved.

Didn't happen.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Thanks BoneZ for bringing up the ESB B-25 “Billy Mitchell” bomber.


The plane was hanging half in and half out of the Empire State Building.

Helen J. Hurwitt, who had been working in an office across the street, recounted:
"My husband and I were in a building directly opposite the Empire State Building. … Large plate-glass windows looked out onto 34th Street. The floor we were on was pretty high. At some point, we heard a horrendous noise and rushed to the windows. We were horrified to see a B-25 half in and half out of the Empire State Building."

The debris fell on to the street and the wing did not penetrate the concrete, it was found one block away.


Doris Pope, also in the building at the time, initially suspected that World War 2 had been brought to American soil:
"That day, as we were getting ready to take our coffee break, we heard this terrible noise, and the building started to shake. … As we looked out our third-floor window, we saw debris fall on to the street. We immediately thought New York was being bombed."

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arsenis
sarcasm doesn't translate through writing i see,

No it absolutely doesn't, so apologies. I had no idea you were being sarcastic. Those of us that are newer to the forums have no idea what side the 10,000+ active members are on in a discussion.



Originally posted by Arsenis
When were those pictures taken, before or after the towers came down?

I'm not sure which pictures you mean unless you're talking about the one's on the last page of the jet engine and car. I have no idea when they were taken, but I would assume they were taken before the towers collapsed as there would be dust and paper everywhere in those pictures after the collapses.



Originally posted by D.Duck
The plane was hanging half in and half out of the Empire State Building.

You obviously Googled the ESB story, but you have to research ALL aspects of a topic before commenting on it. You can't just go Google something and then post only the parts that are relevant to your agenda.

The B-25's cruising speed is 230mph and it's approach speed for landing is 145mph. The plane was coming in for a landing and got lost in the fog and slammed into the ESB. So the B-25 was doing around 145mph or a little more.

If the B-25 could be half in and half out at around 145mph, what the heck do you think would happen if that plane was travelling at 500mph? I rest my case.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by D.Duck
Every one of those are fake CGI planes and they are easy to do.


I'm sorry but you'll have to come up with another "theory".



Soloist,

You asked for I new theory, I hope you like this one.

19 Arabic hijackers that could not even fly a Cessna hijacked 4 planes and hit 75% of their targets, while the remaining 25% did a Hollywood style heroic storming the cockpit and killed the hijackers but to late.

I hope you like that one because script was in my mind written a long time before 9/11 and it was packaged sold by the MSM together with CGI planes.

The sooner you realize you were watching a "movie" on 9/11, the sooner you will find out what was really going on.

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Seriously guys?

Your argueing that the engine doesn't say 737 on the side? What are you three year olds?

It reminds me of elementary school when a kid would pinch another kid, and the kid would say "hey you pinched me!" "no I didn't" "Yes, you did, it hurt!" "Prove it."

Seriously?



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


BoneZ,

If a real 767 would had hit the south tower at 500MPH you would have seen more debris fall to the ground then seen by the B-25.

When the plane hit the tower in the live feeds and amateurs videos nothing fell to the ground on the south side as we watched it.

The building just swallowed the plane and only CGI can do that.

You my friend should start a business consulting race car drivers.

Just tell them when they are about to hit the wall to speed up, get it.

D.Duck



[edit on 4-3-2009 by D.Duck]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Arsenis
sarcasm doesn't translate through writing i see,

No it absolutely doesn't, so apologies. I had no idea you were being sarcastic. Those of us that are newer to the forums have no idea what side the 10,000+ active members are on in a discussion.



Originally posted by Arsenis
When were those pictures taken, before or after the towers came down?

I'm not sure which pictures you mean unless you're talking about the one's on the last page of the jet engine and car. I have no idea when they were taken, but I would assume they were taken before the towers collapsed as there would be dust and paper everywhere in those pictures after the collapses.


Yeah no apologies needed, like i said sarcasm doesn't translate so well in writting.

as for the questions of when the pictures were taken, it makes it a problem when were they taken, before or after here is another pic of the engine:



www.panoramio.com...

Judging by the yellow tape and all the dust the easiest assumption is that after the collapse the other one seems much cleaner but its upclose so lets say its before the collapse.

Since you said you assume that is before I won't explain anything about it.

Lets say its after, with all the panic and mostly only authorities being allowed its easier to assume this things were planted, also I would assume there would be more damage to the sidewalk if the engine had flown as far and came down from the height as it seems it did.

The problem with all of this is that there are many things being used as facts with minimal information and if you or I start assuming things our stories will diferienciate, everyone claims that if this is a cover up they did such a bad job, I think they did the greatest job that has taken 7 years for us to come up with new information and more plausible theories, a lot of stuff could be disinfo but we wont know if we dont question everything possible.

I am not here to debunk anything but to help myself and others to find better answers or things we haven't question yet.


edit: added the link just in case the image doesn't show.



[edit on 4-3-2009 by Arsenis]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Arsenis
 


If you look at the picture I posted and the one you posted, you can see it's the same engine. But the one I posted is before the collapse as the engine is somewhat clean. The picture you posted has dust all over the engine. You can see the "Murray" street sign in front of the engine in both pics.

We have no idea how this debris landed. There are at least 2 videos of the plane impact where the cameraman was on the exit-side of the south tower and you can see and hear the debris raining down onto the buildings and streets below. We have no idea if this engine rolled off the top of a building or rolled down the street and came to a stop in that position in the pictures. But planted, highly unlikely. There would be no need to plant something that would have came out the buildings anyway.

Besides, the perps wouldn't want us to know exactly what aircraft hit those buildings, so why plant an engine in broad daylight for all to see. You have to remember that there were thousands of people on the streets all over New York watching the towers and I'm sure someone would've seen somebody rolling out aircraft parts from the back of a truck. That would be pretty obvious.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   


19 Arabic hijackers that could not even fly a Cessna hijacked 4 planes and hit 75% of their targets, while the remaining 25% did a Hollywood style heroic storming the cockpit and killed the hijackers but to late


Daffy,
Appearantly you choose to remain ignorant of the fact that some of the hijackers who "could not even fly a Cessna" actually had earned their pilots licenses. I am not sure why you would choose to ignore that fact, however, I would respectfully suggest you find better sources for your research.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join