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.

 

OK 9/11 Truth movement please stop with this

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
ok your claim a missile is attached to a Boeing 767 ,this is not true

you guys compare it to a different airline , why can't you compare it to a united airline ?

here is a different airline


here is United Airline



more pics





and for the missile well look for you self








[edit on 30-5-2009 by dino1989]

[edit on 30-5-2009 by dino1989]




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
The points you highlighted are the fairings covering the landing gear
when it is retracted in flight

EVERY 767 has them....



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dino1989
ok your claim a missile is attached to a Boeing 767 is not true


Where was this claimed?
Was that here at ATS?

I've never heard that particular theory before.

- Lee



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma
Where was this claimed?
Was that here at ATS?
I've never heard that particular theory before.

Like the no-plane at the WTC "theories", there are a few who believe that a "pod" was attached to the bottom of FL.175 and has been debunked for years here:

www.questionsquestions.net...

You can also see in the following video at 3:20 and 3:29 that there is nothing attached to the belly of the plane:

www.youtube.com...


I'm not sure where "dino" gets his info from, but the majority of the 9/11 truth movement does not support the "pod" theory.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
You guys should watch Dave VonKlesits "In Plane Site" and "911 Ripple Effect". Dave makes a good argument for pods.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Regardless if there's a pod or missile or whatever attached to the bottom of that plane, the argument should be stayed away from because it's more strawman. The case against the official story can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt without that. They want to continually pull you away from the bulk of the meat and have you argue about the worthless scraps.

Peace



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Regardless if there's a pod or missile or whatever attached to the bottom of that plane, the argument should be stayed away from because it's more strawman. The case against the official story can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt without that. They want to continually pull you away from the bulk of the meat and have you argue about the worthless scraps.

Peace


I respectfully disagree, if we have proof of pods we need to show them in court. Its just more evidence to indict the true perps of 911.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by brad james
I respectfully disagree, if we have proof of pods we need to show them in court. Its just more evidence to indict the true perps of 911.

Did you even read my post above. I don't think you did because it's a quite-lengthy debunking. And then there's the video I posted with 2 different angles of the plane coming head on and still nothing under the plane.

To keep saying there's a pod when you can see in the videos that I posted above that there are no pods, is the very definition of disinfo. You can keep believing in debunked fantasies, but like the Love Doctor said above, the point is moot.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by brad james
I respectfully disagree, if we have proof of pods we need to show them in court. Its just more evidence to indict the true perps of 911.

Did you even read my post above. I don't think you did because it's a quite-lengthy debunking. And then there's the video I posted with 2 different angles of the plane coming head on and still nothing under the plane.

To keep saying there's a pod when you can see in the videos that I posted above that there are no pods, is the very definition of disinfo. You can keep believing in debunked fantasies, but like the Love Doctor said above, the point is moot.


We'll just have to agree to disagree.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by brad james
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Take some screen shots of the planes coming head-on in the video I posted above and please show us the pod hanging off of the belly. It's very simple to do if there is something really there. I'll await your reply.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by lee anoma
Where was this claimed?
Was that here at ATS?
I've never heard that particular theory before.

Like the no-plane at the WTC "theories", there are a few who believe that a "pod" was attached to the bottom of FL.175 and has been debunked for years here:

www.questionsquestions.net...

You can also see in the following video at 3:20 and 3:29 that there is nothing attached to the belly of the plane:

www.youtube.com...


I'm not sure where "dino" gets his info from, but the majority of the 9/11 truth movement does not support the "pod" theory.



umm loose change guys said it , Charlie sheen, Dave VonKlesits, pilots for 911 truth said it too

[edit on 31-5-2009 by dino1989]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dino1989
umm loose change guys said it , Charlie sheen, Dave VonKlesits, pilots for 911 truth said it too

It was in the very first Loose Change. It is not in the last 2 editions.

Charlie Sheen was not fully versed in 9/11 like some of us that have been researching non-stop for years. I also was peddling the "pod" theory when I first got into 9/11 truth until I did more research on it.

Dave von Kleist and I had several email exchanges over the issue, but what it all boils down to is what you want to see and believe. The "pod" is nothing more than the sun and shadows highlighting a wing fairing. I posted a link and a video above debunking the "pod". I also said that if there's one in the video, show us all. But I know you won't be able to show us because it's not there.

As far as Pilots for 9/11 Truth, I used to be part of the staff there and they officially do not support the "pod" theory. They may have changed their stance since I've been gone, if so, post a link, but I'm pretty sure you won't have one of those either.

I also know that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice are all disinterested in the "pod" as well. There's an occasional discussion about it here and there, but that's all there is.

It doesn't really matter if there was a "pod" or not (which there's not). The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of these planes and fires don't bring steel-structured buildings down. That's what needs to be focused on. Not petty bickering over an insignificant subject of a fake "pod".

So, unless you can point us to the "pod" on the belly of that plane in the video I posted above, let's move on, shall we?



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


agreed, but in court you dont debunk, you prove.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


Straw man argument.

for example, I first attack people that think that Bush is a Lizard and then I insinuate all people who oppose Bush believe he is a lizard and by that process I ridicule an entire movement.

It is a pathetic way of doing things but it does work well for the weak minded

As someone that lived through this, can I ask that the people telling everyone to shut up about 9/11 shut up themselves?

I have friends that lost loved ones yet I don't see them here day in and out telling people to stop asking questions, as a matter a fact many of them want a new investigation as evidenced by NYCCAN.

I don't understand how people who lost nothing, who watched this unfold from the comfort of their television have the nerve to ask anyone to do anything when it comes to 9/11.

If you don't like the subject matter go somewhere else because not everyone is as foolish as the OP would believe.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

I don't understand how people who lost nothing...


Please differentiate between people who lost love ones vs those who didnt. We all lost something.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 



I lost co-workers and I have friends that lost family members, so my question to you is what did you lose?

What makes your voice more important than those of the family members who have questions?

What did people who are telling the family members to shut up, lose?

Those who abide by the official story lost nothing, they feel like everything is OK and fix their eyes and brains on the next episode of American Idol, I know this as I see it everyday.

Most of America could care less about 9/11 at this point so it is only natural that the victims would align themselves with the only people that care.

I lost my faith in Government, the American people and humanity in general but that faith was badly placed to begin with.

Now people like you are coming here to say that we are foolish or mentally ill and you think we are going to run and hide the first time we are challenged?

I don't think so, too many lives were lost and too many questions linger.

For all I know people who are telling the truthers to shut up have an agenda and quite frankly if there was nothing to it, there would not be so much opposition, as far as I know popular mechanics has not done a special debunking reptilians or any other supposedly crazy theories yet 9/11 truth has been attacked relentlessly for years now.

If they were all crazy why is there such an effort to get them to shut up?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Up until now I believed the pod theory, partially because of the photographs but also because of the flash of light which is seen mere seconds before the plane hit the tower. I thought this was proof that something, a missile maybe, was fired from that pod to break the steel outer structure so the plane would penetrate the building easier. having read the above I realise the pod theory is a bit shaky so what could have caused the flash of light?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma

Originally posted by dino1989
ok your claim a missile is attached to a Boeing 767 is not true


Where was this claimed?
Was that here at ATS?

I've never heard that particular theory before.

- Lee


Yes, this theory has been discussed a couple times. However, for the OP to do what MANY 'debunkers' of the subject try to do is just wrong. And I'm sick of it.

He immediately groups all 'truthers' into the same category as believing this theory. That is absolutely wrong. Evident by your posting (unless of course you are a debunker but then it really doesn't matter. If you haven't heard of it then it means not all debunkers have heard of it.)

Please, OP, stop grouping all truthers into the same category. Do I believe in the missile theory? No. I entertained it to see if I felt the evidence was there. I decided that there wasn't enough or simply none at all.

Now, if you reword your statement to include ONLY those that believe this theory I would not have even responded in this way. I'm just sick of this form of posting that I am seeing more and more.

The debunkers (or deflectors I call them now) pick the most ludicrous of the MANY MANY theories out there to try and debunk ALL of the truthers. It won't work. The last thread I saw was about the 3D holograms. The same claim as you are making is made by simply grouping anyone who believes that the governments version of what took place is a big fat F'en lie into one category is wrong.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by dariousg]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Regardless if there's a pod or missile or whatever attached to the bottom of that plane, the argument should be stayed away from because it's more strawman. The case against the official story can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt without that. They want to continually pull you away from the bulk of the meat and have you argue about the worthless scraps.

Peace

This is totally correct, follow what the engineers are doing and the
evidence they are presenting as Arhitects and Engineers that
found nano thermite in the debris.

The missile and pod deal is totally a waste of time as it wouldn't
take the buildings down either, and definitely not Bldg 7.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
I realise the pod theory is a bit shaky so what could have caused the flash of light?





Strobe lights: High-intensity strobe lights that flash a white-colored light are located on each wingtip. Most smaller planes are only equipped with one of these strobes near the leading edge just behind the red or green navigation light. Larger airliners may be equipped with an additional strobe at the trailing edge as well. These flashing lights are very bright and intended to attract attention during flight. They are sometimes also used on the runway and during taxi to make the plane more conspicuous.


Most likely window reflection of one of the strobes on the plane as it got close enough to the building.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join