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.

 

Truthers-What if Planes Crashed into the Building?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I do not think that this post is a serious query. This is baiting, pure and simple. Do not cast pearls before swine. If this person does not want to do independent research with an open mind, let him swim in his own delusions.

Sure, bub, the government loves you and wants to keep you safe. All "truthers" are easily led "useful idiots" (sarcasm) who do too much research. You do have the ability to connect the dots for yourself, there is alot of information out there that would lead any rationally thinking person that we are not being told the whole story. People who refuse to accept this are simply relying on faith in government, which is no different than faith in religion or the easter bunny.




posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by daeoeste
 


hello again. this time I give you a star for a change. you are totally right.
this is a provocation, not a real thread.
cheers



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
ill buy that for a dollar....and to think, i thought i was haviving a serious discussion! why waste you time, dude? if you want to change someones mind, get a good argument with alot of info to the contrary of what your opponent believes.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
NO PLANE HIT THE BUILDING....

WTC Building 7 that is... did kerosene melt that steel as well?

Then there's that pesky pentagon 757....

Where exactly did that 250,000 lbs. plane go anyway?

I Will Not Forget!



“We will never forget” - Every True Patriot, September, 2001

We will never forget the most horrific crime in United States history,
We will never forget the airplanes that hit their targets with pure precision,
We will never forget “W” being informed,
We will never forget that “W” said he saw the first plane hit the first building,
We will never forget the most sudden and exact collapse of two skyscrapers in NYC,
We will never forget who did security at the WTC,
We will never forget who was leasing the WTC,
We will never forget the report;”secondary explosives”
We will never forget William Rodriguez’s testimony,
We will never forget he refused to be bought,
We will never forget the statements made by hundreds of EYE witnesses,
We will never forget the most sudden and exact collapse of a third skyscraper in NYC.
We will never forget who occupied WORLD TRADE CENTER SEVEN
We will never forget who decided to “pull” WTC7,
We will never forget a countdown to the collapse of WTC7,
We will never forget the expedited shipment of evidence overseas,
We will never forget who didn’t see a plane fly into the Pentagon,
We will never forget who did see a plane fly into the pentagon
We will never forget the small round hole in the outer ring,
We will never forget the small round hole in the inner ring,
We will never forget the witness who spoke of an aroma of cordite,
We will never forget the confiscated videos,
We will never forget the released video,
We will never forget the plane in Shanksville, Pennsylvania,
We will never forget who was in charge,
We will never forget that the “order still stands!”,
We will never forget the NORAD exercise,
We will never forget the confusion during the chain of commands,
We will never forget the TOTAL disintegration and disappearance of an airplane,
We will never forget who was accused,
We will never forget being told that alternate theories will not be tolerated,
We will never forget Project for the New American Century pg 63,
We will never forget the “War on Terror”,
We will never forget the “weapons of mass destruction”,
We will never forget the “unknown unknowns”,
We will never forget who “W” appointed to head the 9-11 commission
We will never forget what the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T. stands for,
We will never forget that our freedom to speak is a right,
We will never forget the failure of our intelligence agency to cooperate with our bureau of investigation,
We will never forget who was promoted,
We will never forget who was fired,
We will never forget the true heroes are,
We will never forget the innocent victims,
We will never forget the first responders,

Will you never forget?



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
To end part of this discussion, the fuel igniting wasn't an "explosion". Explosives cause explosions. This isn't a Hollywood movie where you shoot the gas tank of a car and the whole car explodes into pieces. Mythbusters did a show on that and proved that it cannot happen. They use nitroglycerin in the movies to make cars explode like that.

Here's some NASA footage from 1984 of a Boeing 707 (which the towers were desinged to withstand) being remote controlled into a crash landing. Watch the ignition of the jet fuel. Notice the ignition of jet fuel doesn't blow the plane or the dummies inside to pieces?

Two different views:

www.youtube.com...
www.metacafe.com...


Good links you provided, thanks.

Funny that wing explode on impact with that little wall and made a large fireball but on 9/11 the aluminum wings didn't explode on impact.

On 9/11 the aluminum wings went right through the massive steel beams and exploded inside the tower, like the steel beams were made out of cotton.

The only thing that could do that is a fake CGI 767 shown on TV.


D.Duck



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
Funny that wing explode on impact with that little wall and made a large fireball but on 9/11 the aluminum wings didn't explode on impact.

That wing got torn apart because the aircraft was doing less than 200mph and it hit an immovable wall. The walls at the WTC were not immovable and the aircraft was doing 500+mph.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ragman
 


What happens when a plane hits the building? Regardless of speed or trajectory or size, it would have caused a huge mess on the outside of the buildings at the very least. It didn't even slow down (2nd plane) when it hit, and it should have done. The tail section/wings should have fell crashing to the streets below.

There would/should have been a huge explosion on the outside not the inside.

As Ive said many times here before, planes may well have hit the buildings, but it wasn't shown on TV.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
It didn't even slow down (2nd plane) when it hit, and it should have done.

A 300,000 pound object travelling at 500+mph will not stop on a dime. It took the massive cores of the buildings to stop those planes and is evident by the swaying of the buildings after impact.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by thesneakiod
It didn't even slow down (2nd plane) when it hit, and it should have done.

A 300,000 pound object travelling at 500+mph will not stop on a dime. It took the massive cores of the buildings to stop those planes and is evident by the swaying of the buildings after impact.



I'm not saying I expected it to stop dead, but i would've expected it to at least slow down. Thing is _BoneZ_ im trying to fathom out why the tail section, not to mention the wings went through with little or no resistance.

I admit the fuselage could possibly, possibly make it through, if you take the plastic straw through a tree in a hurricane scenario.

But not the wings. Man, Ive sat many times on a plane looking at the wings, and they are as flimsy as hell. They could not at any speed slice through steel.

All my own opinions of course.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Ive sat many times on a plane looking at the wings, and they are as flimsy as hell. They could not at any speed slice through steel.

The wings didn't slice through the steel. They only broke the connectors that connect the outter columns. The engine and the strongest part of the wing from the fuselage to past the engine broke the connectors. The tips of the wings didn't do anything to the steel columns and only damaged the aluminum siding.

Look at the following picture on the very left-hand side where the wing hit. The last 8 columns of where the wing hit are all intact and only the aluminum siding is damaged from the wingtips:



Also, look at all of the damaged columns. Everything is broken in 3's. The outter columns were put together in 3's:



I hope this explains better that only the strongest part of the wing around the engine nacell and the engine itself broke the column connectors. The wingtips at the ends of both wings did not break any columns or connectors.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by thesneakiod
It didn't even slow down (2nd plane) when it hit, and it should have done.

A 300,000 pound object travelling at 500+mph will not stop on a dime. It took the massive cores of the buildings to stop those planes and is evident by the swaying of the buildings after impact.



I'm not saying I expected it to stop dead, but i would've expected it to at least slow down. Thing is _BoneZ_ im trying to fathom out why the tail section, not to mention the wings went through with little or no resistance.

I admit the fuselage could possibly, possibly make it through, if you take the plastic straw through a tree in a hurricane scenario.

But not the wings. Man, Ive sat many times on a plane looking at the wings, and they are as flimsy as hell. They could not at any speed slice through steel.

All my own opinions of course.


Thesneakoid,

No 767 can slice right thruogh steel beams exploding inside the tower.

A 767 explods on impact with the tower.

Look what happens.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Then that picture of the damage only reiterates my point. If the wings and judging by the what looks to be the charred markings from the tail only damaged the outer sections, then where did they go?

In all the videos the plane goes straight through, infact you could say the building swallows it whole.

If you go by the scenario you say happened then debris would have fell from the tower before the explosion.

Admittedly im basing this on only what Ive seen on videos, docs, etc and they look extremely dodgy to me. I do think that something hit those buildings that day (yeh planes! your probably screaming at me) but i think they were missiles. All the amature videos (well most) didn't come out on the day it happened and all we saw were major tv network footage, the amature stuff could easily have been tampered with.

I also can't explain how so many people saw it happen if the NPT is supposedly true. Its that one piece of logic that puts a doubt in my mind.
That is the one thing that needs to be overcome for the NPT to have any real lasting ground.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by thesneakiod]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
A 767 explods on impact with the tower.

Stop peddling your disinfo. A B-25 bomber didn't explode against the Empire State building. It went into the ESB, just like the towers. That's proof enough. Stop spamming the same garbage over and over that you have no proof of what-so-ever.



Originally posted by thesneakiod
I do think that something hit those buildings that day but i think they were missiles.

Missiles are much smaller than the planes that impacted and therefore wouldn't make nearly the size hole. Secondly, missiles have explosive warheads and likely would've destroyed the top half of the tower. Missiles don't carry jet fuel that ignite in a huge fireball. Lastly, missiles don't come close to weighing 300,000 pounds causing the buildings to sway. I have video evidence of the swaying, just won't be able to post it until this weekend.



Originally posted by thesneakiod
the amature stuff could easily have been tampered with.

How? All media videos, amateur videos AND home videos show exactly the same thing. How the hell would you let someone tamper with your home video that you made? You would scream to every media outlet that would listen to you that the government tampered with your home video. This "theory" isn't even close to plausible.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by D.Duck
A 767 explods on impact with the tower.

Stop peddling your disinfo. A B-25 bomber didn't explode against the Empire State building. It went into the ESB, just like the towers. That's proof enough. Stop spamming the same garbage over and over that you have no proof of what-so-ever.



Originally posted by thesneakiod
I do think that something hit those buildings that day but i think they were missiles.

Missiles are much smaller than the planes that impacted and therefore wouldn't make nearly the size hole. Secondly, missiles have explosive warheads and likely would've destroyed the top half of the tower. Missiles don't carry jet fuel that ignite in a huge fireball. Lastly, missiles don't come close to weighing 300,000 pounds causing the buildings to sway. I have video evidence of the swaying, just won't be able to post it until this weekend.



Originally posted by thesneakiod
the amature stuff could easily have been tampered with.

How? All media videos, amateur videos AND home videos show exactly the same thing. How the hell would you let someone tamper with your home video that you made? You would scream to every media outlet that would listen to you that the government tampered with your home video. This "theory" isn't even close to plausible.


boneZ,

haha, yes the B-25 exploded on impact www.withthecommand.com...

And parts of one wing was found one block away and it never penetrated the ESB, so stop the disinfo.

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Then that picture of the damage only reiterates my point. If the wings and judging by the what looks to be the charred markings from the tail only damaged the outer sections, then where did they go?

In all the videos the plane goes straight through, infact you could say the building swallows it whole.

If you go by the scenario you say happened then debris would have fell from the tower before the explosion.

Admittedly im basing this on only what Ive seen on videos, docs, etc and they look extremely dodgy to me. I do think that something hit those buildings that day (yeh planes! your probably screaming at me) but i think they were missiles. All the amature videos (well most) didn't come out on the day it happened and all we saw were major tv network footage, the amature stuff could easily have been tampered with.

I also can't explain how so many people saw it happen if the NPT is supposedly true. Its that one piece of logic that puts a doubt in my mind.
That is the one thing that needs to be overcome for the NPT to have any real lasting ground.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by thesneakiod]


Yes it was a missile and I think it was a AGM-158 JASSM it look like a small plane.

www.vectorsite.net...

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
it never penetrated the ESB

If it never penetrated, it wouldn't have left a huge hole!



From your link:


The fuselage of the plane disintegrated into the 78th and 79th floor killing all four onboard the B-25


That reads INTO the 78th and 79th floors leaving the huge gaping hole in the pic above, not up against.



Originally posted by D.Duck
Yes it was a missile and I think it was a AGM-158 JASSM it look like a small plane.

Well, too bad missiles explode and cause extensive damage, jet fuel doesn't explode and only created a fireball. That missile weighs 2000 pounds and wouldn't make the towers sway like the 300,000 pound jet did. That missile has an 8 foot wingspan and wouldn't come close to making the 100-foot wide damage to the towers. Keep trying.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by czacza1
reply to post by daeoeste
 


hello again. this time I give you a star for a change. you are totally right.
this is a provocation, not a real thread.
cheers


Glad I read this far. I totally agree. This was a complete effort to provoke people into discussing a topic that has been hashed through THOUSANDS of times on this site over nearly the past 8 years. The guy is insincere and simply spouting his/her unfounded 'facts'. Totally has not done ANY research at all on this subject matter. AT ALL.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ragman
 


Apparently you guys figure you have baited the subject enough that you can now switch it, eh?

Get bent.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
It is just amazing to me that when these questions started to surface after 9-11, everything was just waived off with the excuse "Well, the CIA doesn't communicate with the FBI."

I KNOW that is bunk. They should have stated it as follows: "The CIA doesn't communicate with the FBI unless they decide to, and in this case, they didn't."

And then people would obviously ask, "Well why didn't they."

I would then reference them to the above poster with the "We will never forget" post.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 



I have done a bit of research on the topic-- and while my thread title was slightly sardonic, few people actually answered my question.

The vast majority of posters explained why planes didn't hit the building-- few actually answered the question-- what would happen if planes hit the buildings. I was impressed with some of the B-25 talk with the Empire State Building. Clearly, many people on this forum have done their research.

My overarching thesis concerning this topic is that regular people with little to no knoweledge of structural engineering, civil engineering, explosives, aerodynamics, mechanical engineering, and physics can explain how jet fuel should explode or a building should fall. Personally, I know enough to know that there is no way I could possibly know how the towers would fall in this scenario except that it actually happened. Many engineers have expressed the same logic-- that this is very complicated scenario, and even they, have come up with hypotheses as to the exact mechanism by which the buildings fell. This is not to say that they think the buildings shouldn't have fallen, but rather that the exact way they fell down is very convoluted.

Yes, perhaps, I was being contraversal, and perhaps I was attacking this 9/11 theory-- but my goal was to better understand the brand of physics that allows many of you to come to these conclusions.

Personally, do I think the missile/no plane, or the explosives theories are true? No. Do I think they are possible? Of course they are-- how could I know with 100% certainty that it didn't happen. Likewise, how do many of you know with 100% certainty that this is an inside job? And that you particular theory is true? This is my whole point-- you believe a theory on faith and THEN back it up with facts rather than looking at facts and arriving at a theory. This is what conspiracy theorists criticize 'normal' people for doing, yet they are guilty of it themselves. A similar analogy can be made between evolutionists and creationists.

The last thing I will say is I doubt it was an inside job-- there is no motive. At least not for the government as a whole-- the only convincing theory on the subject I have seen is that Israel knew about and wanted the attacks to happen to try to get us involved in middle eastern affairs. I would also be willing to accept that a small portion of the Mossad were involved and not the entire gov't. I believe this is plausible because there are actually facts to suggest it AND a motive.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join