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.

 

Wow! YouTube Documentary shows WTC Impact/Explosion and No Plane @ (5:40m) ?!?!

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sliick

Originally posted by matrixNIN11


where's all the thousands of witnesses you're talking about? If there's that many thousands of witnessess who saw what you claim, surely there should be at least HUNDREDS who had camera's.




I was there. I saw the second plane. I HEARD them both. Yes I had a camera on a coffee table 10 feet away but guess what....

2 PLANES JUST FLEW INTO A HEAVILY POPULATED SKYSCRAPER!!! You honestly think that these hundreds with video cameras saw what was happening and thought, "DUDE!!! THIS STUFF IS PERFECT FOR YOUTUBE!!!" I think not. Your arguments are moot. If you weren't there, do NOT try to speak for those that were. This is nothing but disinformation. I am not trying to defame you in ANY way, I am simply pointing out that your arguments are horribly flawed.



Well if there was so many witness on the ground don't you think one would come forward and show us a real video with a 767/757 in it?

You can go to the live feeds from the MSM and see if you can find one real 767/757 that hit the towers or the amateurs videos shown after 9/11, so please do and you have a case.

If you live in New York it would be a piece of cake to find one you can show me.

Good luck with that.
D.Duck

BTW:Not asking too much , am I?

[edit on 2-3-2009 by D.Duck]




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
I also want to thank BoneZ for posting a picture of a 737 engine in the corner of Murray street, that will tell us a lot of stuff were planted around the WTC complex.

I'd like to thank you for continuously posting disinfo without posting any links to back up your claims, thanks.



Originally posted by D.Duck
Well if there was so many witness on the ground don't you think one would come forward and show us a real video with a 767/757 in it?

It wouldn't matter because you'd still call it fake. Every picture, audio and video recording of the planes were all faked according to the NPT disinfo crowd, so your asking of more "fake" pictures and videos is pointless.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
You can't have NO PLANES, when Most of New York would have had their eyes looking right at the Towers Live as this happened. That type of conspiracy would involve far too many people, just tons of people.

Like when "tons" of people see ufo? Well, guess not. Then it is called mass hysteria.

[edit on 2/3/09 by CoolMemberOfATS]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 





Yea you are right, I also want to thank BoneZ for posting a picture of a 737 engine in the corner of Murray street, that will tell us a lot of stuff were planted around the WTC complex.


Can you please expand on this statement I appear not to be getting a complete picture.

cheers dude



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   


It wouldn't matter because you'd still call it fake. Every picture, audio and video recording of the planes were all faked according to the NPT disinfo crowd, so your asking of more "fake" pictures and videos is pointless.


BoneZ,

I promise I would change my mind in a heartbeat if you could find one video that were shown live on 9/11 or an amateurs video shown after 9/11 that has a real 767/757 hitting the towers, it would make all the different.

As long as you don't have that I will write "a 767/757 hit the towers" off as disinfo.

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
I promise I would change my mind in a heartbeat if you could find one video that were shown live on 9/11 or an amateurs video shown after 9/11 that has a real 767/757 hitting the towers, it would make all the different.
As long as you don't have that I will write "a 767/757 hit the towers" off as disinfo.

D.Duck

If you could show just one video or picture that were shown live on 9/11 or after that has a real 737 hitting the towers. It would make all the difference.

As long as you don't have that, I will write "a 737 hit the towers" off as disinfo.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by D.Duck
 





Yea you are right, I also want to thank BoneZ for posting a picture of a 737 engine in the corner of Murray street, that will tell us a lot of stuff were planted around the WTC complex.


Can you please expand on this statement I appear not to be getting a complete picture.

cheers dude


moocowman,

Well BoneZ posted a picture of what he claims to be a 767 engine and I happened to recognise that engine to be a CFM56 engine of a Boeing 737 and it was planted there.

But lets give BoneZ a chance to back his statement/picture that it is a 767 engine. If he cant do that I will write it off as a statement made out of tin air.

Best
D.Duck

[edit on 2-3-2009 by D.Duck]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by D.Duck
I promise I would change my mind in a heartbeat if you could find one video that were shown live on 9/11 or an amateurs video shown after 9/11 that has a real 767/757 hitting the towers, it would make all the different.
As long as you don't have that I will write "a 767/757 hit the towers" off as disinfo.

D.Duck

If you could show just one video or picture that were shown live on 9/11 or after that has a real 737 hitting the towers. It would make all the difference.

As long as you don't have that, I will write "a 737 hit the towers" off as disinfo.


BoneZ,

Good, you can write off a 737 hit the towers, now can you also write off a 767 hit the towers because if you don't you have to prove that the engine in the corner Murray street is a 767 engine.

Good luck with that.
D.Duck



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
Good, you can write off a 737 hit the towers, now can you also write off a 767 hit the towers because if you don't you have to prove that the engine in the corner Murray street is a 767 engine.

I don't understand why it's so hard for you to show proof that it's a 737 engine. And NOBODY can look at that crumpled pile of metal from a photo and instantly recognize it as a certain engine from another.

Post your proof or stop posting disinfo, thanks.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by finemanm
I am so sick of seeing people put this no planes theory forward. Thousands of New Yorkers saw a plane go into the second building with their own eyes, not on TV. They were all looking at the WTC burning from their windows, the street, the Brooklyn Promenade, the NJ side of the Hudson river, etc...

So the government somehow caused thousands of New Yorkers to have a mass, unified hallucination. This is ridiculous. This is one of the most densely populated places on earth, and not a single NY'er has come out and said there were no planes.

I think that the people who keep putting the no plane theory forward are purposely trying to discredit the real truthers out there.


[edit on 1-3-2009 by finemanm]



Millions of Americans said that al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden did it, and then millions of Americans said that Saddam Hussein did it, and then millions of Americans wanted to support the troops, and then millions of Americans decided that the government lies to its own people, probably after the 9/11 truth movement or an episode of The View or Bill Maher or some other crap.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by D.Duck
Good, you can write off a 737 hit the towers, now can you also write off a 767 hit the towers because if you don't you have to prove that the engine in the corner Murray street is a 767 engine.

I don't understand why it's so hard for you to show proof that it's a 737 engine. And NOBODY can look at that crumpled pile of metal from a photo and instantly recognize it as a certain engine from another.

Post your proof or stop posting disinfo, thanks.



BoneZ,

The burden of proof is on you.

You made the statement a real 767 hit the tower and to back that statement you show us a picture of an engine you say is a 767 engine in the corner of Murray street.

I will give you a chance back that statement/picture. If you cant do that I will write you off as making statements out of thin air and claim that the engine is a CFM56 engine of a Boeing 737 that was planted there.

Best
D.Duck



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
I will write you off as making statements out of thin air and claim that the engine is a CFM56 engine of a Boeing 737 that was planted there.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The whole world knows 767's hit those towers that day. But the disinfo artists claim there were no planes that hit the towers and hence this engine was planted.

D.Duck first claimed that he "recognized" the engine as an engine from a 737, which is all but impossible in the crumpled up pile of metal that the engine was in unless you actually tear it apart. Then he said I was right that no 737's hit the towers. Now he's just going to "claim" the engine is a 737 engine because "no planes hit the towers at all and therefore the engine was planted".

This is what disinfo artists do, ladies and gentlemen. He first lied and said he "recognized" the engine as a 737 engine, then said there were no 737's, now he's going to purposefully misinform and just "claim" it is a 737 engine because he doesn't believe any planes hit the towers and the engine was planted.

That is THE definition of disinformation. And that is also why the no-planers will never have any credibility. They make things up out of thin air and then peddle it as "truth" and "factual". But lying and purposefully deceiving is the opposite of truthful and factual.

Case closed.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by D.Duck
I will write you off as making statements out of thin air and claim that the engine is a CFM56 engine of a Boeing 737 that was planted there.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The whole world knows 767's hit those towers that day. But the disinfo artists claim there were no planes that hit the towers and hence this engine was planted.

D.Duck first claimed that he "recognized" the engine as an engine from a 737, which is all but impossible in the crumpled up pile of metal that the engine was in unless you actually tear it apart. Then he said I was right that no 737's hit the towers. Now he's just going to "claim" the engine is a 737 engine because "no planes hit the towers at all and therefore the engine was planted".

This is what disinfo artists do, ladies and gentlemen. He first lied and said he "recognized" the engine as a 737 engine, then said there were no 737's, now he's going to purposefully misinform and just "claim" it is a 737 engine because he doesn't believe any planes hit the towers and the engine was planted.

That is THE definition of disinformation. And that is also why the no-planers will never have any credibility. They make things up out of thin air and then peddle it as "truth" and "factual". But lying and purposefully deceiving is the opposite of truthful and factual.

Case closed.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]


Why is this adressed to everyone else? I thought the debate/argument was between both of you...

Anyhoo, to put my two cents I will say I believe the Military planes theory so yeah planes did hit the towers.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
There is a force at work here that is pure sinister. There are 3 sides t this. The people who did this. The people who know who did this and want something huge in return for staying quite and going along with the plan and the people who want the truth and will stop at nothing to get it.

I think the 3rd. group is getting close and counter measures are being released.

In reality, if the true nature of the source is ever identified and charged, it will be a post humanious conviction because the perps would have died from old age!

I wish I had a team of cyber and info investigators like this on the Obama birth certificate thing.

This is going to heat up again on 9-11.


Eye of Eagle



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


S&F('
')

Show's it exactly. This video shows it all and its been proven countless times in other threads but you still get the derailers that claim that the NPT is a bad thing for the 911 cause. I for one can look at data without being swayed one way or another. Should anyone else see this ten minute clip, they to will realize that the general public has been duped and the Main Stream Media is manipulating you with suggesting.

That's why the clip with the plane shows up 18secs after the initial contact. IF you watch some of the NPT footage you will see that some of the News anchors are told that 18secs after they hear a tone in their earpiece, they will have to make an expression of seeing a horror happen because of the 18sec delay. Better described in some of the videos. But this video is right on the money... Don't let that bonez guy derail your thread like he does all the others. Ignore and don't feed the trolls...

Rgds



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Let us return to this photo of the 'impact' hole again:




Notice the woman framed in the red rectangle.

To her left you see the outline and direction of the alleged wing of a B767.

The dark hole the woman is standing in would then be the impact hole of the left
engine, or nacelle as it's called. Note here that the diameter of a B767's nacelle is
2.79 mtr. or ca. 9 feet.

Above the woman's head you'll see that the floor over her, and the steel plate the floor
trusses are fixed into, are completely gone..... missing. Let's assume that this damage
was caused by the alleged impact of the leading edge of the left wing. We can assume
this by simply following the wing cut-out profile direction already there.

We know that the nacelle hangs underneath the wing, and we know the outer diameter
to be 2.79 mtr.
This being the case, we can now deduce from simple scaling that the lower part of the
nacelle must also have hit the steel plate in front of the woman's legs, together with the
floor she is standing on, but no damage is to be seen in the photo except some
light-weight aluminium cladding is missing.

It seems to me therefore, that we are being lead to believe that an aluminium wing
can completely remove a concrete floor with steel trusses under and heavy steel plate
and vertical columns in front, but a large heavy nacelle can barely make a little visible
dent in the same structure under!!

This doen't make any sense.

Now, we all know that camera angles and perspectives can at times be quite misleading
as to actual conditions and comparisons to straight-on shoots! But I recall seeing
somebody superimpose a scaled B767 over another photo of the alleged impact hole,
which clearly showed that this plane simply doesn't fit the contours. It also showed that
no damage was visible where the upper section of the vertical tail would have hit the
building.
For the life of me I cannot find the photo that shows this, so am hoping somebody has
better luck than me!

This would help reinforce the conclusions drawn above!



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 




Star for ya~!

Same exact thing that I saw as well~! Where's the engine hole(s)? I mean after looking at the picture within a min, I notice something was wrong and didn't add up.

(chanting my law of physics mantra)....



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
PS!
The B767's nacelles protrude 0.93 mtrs. below the belly of the fuselage.
According to where the underside of the fuselage would be in relation to the nacelle, and
where one would expect to see damage to the building, nothing is to be seen here neither!


Another point worth mentioning, is to do with the alleged speed of the aircraft.

According to radar return data received from FAA, USAF, JFK, and provided by NTSB,
the plane UA175 is picked up when it flew at 31000 feet, at 8.33. It reached 33500 feet
at 8.53 and began descending to 25000 feet at 8.58, 24000 feet at 8.59, 18500 feet at
9.00 am, 15000 feet at 9.01, 9000 feet at 9.02.
No time given for when plane descended to 1000 feet, or impact height OGL.

The distance from first contact to towers was around 40 miles.

The maximum operation limit speed for a B767 is 501 mph at 25000 feet, and 340 mph
at 1000 feet.

To accomplish the 40 miles distance in the time span given by NTSB, the B767 would
have been flying way beyond acceptable safety parameters, and with great danger of
experiencing structural damage, or simply would have broken apart under such strain.

So also here we see a great anomaly, and of which any self-respecting experienced pilot of a B767 or B757 again and again have proclaimed would be an impossible task
to perform!

No boeing hit the towers.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by djeminy
 




Star for ya~!

Same exact thing that I saw as well~! Where's the engine hole(s)? I mean after looking at the picture within a min, I notice something was wrong and didn't add up.

(chanting my law of physics mantra)....



Thanks Mate!

Star for you too, Komodo


Cheers



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Guys,

Please check out this German site put together by some independent engineers home.debitel.net...

Have a look at the Pilot Quiz and see what the holes in the tower really look like. Look around at that site because those guys are really good.


Best
D.Duck



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join