Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

911 Truth - Somebody Please Give It To Me!

page: 16
7
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 



Hey weedwhacker as a commercial could you tell me and all of us here if commercial planes are painted with radar reflective paint...


No...they are not. Just look at the AAL paint scheme! There's hardly any!

That paint scheme concept grew out of the fact that the paint contributes a lot of weight. Less paint, and depending on the airplane, you can save thousands of pounds. Plus, it is their iconic 'logo'.

The weight savings (and consequential fuel savings) are offset, though, by the man-hours needed to polish the aluminum skin, to keep it looking pretty. You will note, on the more modern jets, pieces that are composites (carbon fibre, epoxy honeycomb, etc.) are painted...because in their natural state they are usually black, or dark grey.

The metal structure of the airplane is what reflects RADAR to return a 'primary' target.

EDIT tags...

[edit on 6/19/0909 by weedwhacker]




posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Somehow the 9/11 triggers terror action by other so-called-muslims in my country, before that there was none as far as i remember. Im a Muslim, 9/11 really doesnt effect our life so much (except that suddenly theyre Balinese and christian groups who hate us) here but many of my families abroad were sent back to my country because suddenly they were seen as the real terrorists (eventhough theyre just Normal muslims like me and have nothing to do with 9/11) :-/



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by Solar.Absolution
 


Who in there right mind in the 1970's would hae built a tower too withstand more than one jet impact at a time. What would be the freakin' odds of that happening?

[edit on 18-6-2009 by grapesofraft]


grapesofraft

I find your feigned innocence quite offensive. As others have stated, there are dozens of threads
here that might be helpful to you.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
Who in there right mind in the 1970's would hae built a tower too withstand more than one jet impact at a time. What would be the freakin' odds of that happening?

[edit on 18-6-2009 by grapesofraft]


Is it possible to buld a skyscraper that size which could not withstand multiple airliner impacts? It was only supposed to sway 3 feet in a 150 mph wind. The design problem is making skyscrapers handle the wind from any direction. A plane only applies force in a small area whereas the wind spreads the force out.

Your question presumes an airliner could destroy it but after SEVEN YEARS we don't even have a table specifying the steel and concrete on every level. The south tower was only deflected 14 inches by the impact and then oscillated for four minutes. This BELIEF that the plane could bring the building down is a lot of emotional nonsense.

psik



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   
I was the first person in America to show how Jews were behind 911. They are the ones that are making billions off of the war. Jews that control the News Media have been blocking this information for years. Which is even more evidence that they were behind the whole thing. They also killed the Kennedy"s This is why my website has both 911 and the Kennedy assassinations combined so you can see all of the similarities.

www.dualidentity.net...



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


Two jets hit the WTC Towers in New York.
One was shot down in Pennsylvania.
One flew into the Pentagon.

Everything else is just filler.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:59 AM
link   
i think it had something to do with the tax paid nuclear black market/drug trade and eliminating key person who held information that could damage sertain other key figures, 9/11 was just the smokescreen to make it all legal and to make sure that the internal structure of sertain nations goverments stayed in power and that the trade continue with the same funding.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft


If an agreement cannot be reached by the majority of 911 truthers then how can anyone call it the truth?



It can't. No one will ever know what really happened on 9/11/01. We will only have theories about what happened and people will endlessly debate about them. Most people will pick a theory, find evidence to support that theory, then (while ignoring all evidence either against that theory or supporting alternate theories) say that the theory they like the best is TRUTH, FACT, and PROOF.




Look at the JFK assassination. It happened in 1963. Almost 47 years later and we have no clue what really happened. We have several theories.

1. NWO had him killed because JFK was going to try to get rid of the federal reserve bank. (Oswalt was not the killer it was someone else on the grassy knoll)

3. 1. NWO had him killed because JFK was going to try to get rid of the federal reserve bank. (Oswalt was the killer)

4. The CIA had him killed (Oswalt was not the killer it was someone else on the grassy knoll)

5. The CIA had him killed (Oswalt was the killer)

6. Tha mafia had him killed (Oswalt was not the killer it was someone else on the grassy knoll)

7. The mafia had him killed (Oswalt was the killer)

8. Cuba had him killed (Oswalt was not the killer it was someone else on the grassy knoll)

9. Cuba had him killed (Oswalt was the killer)

10. Oswalt was not hired by any of the above groups and acted alone and was the killer

11. Oswalt was not hired by any of the above groups and didn't act alone and was not the killer.

12. Oswalt was not hired by any of the above groups and didn't act alone and was the killer.

13. Oswalt had nothing to do with anything.



[edit on 14-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
The truther movement is not about declaring what the truth is, just that there is clearly a lie and we deserve to know why we were lied to and what really happened.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by XsameXoneXotherX
The truther movement is not about declaring what the truth is, just that there is clearly a lie and we deserve to know why we were lied to and what really happened.


I thought the truther movement was largely based on the belief that something other than airplanes and fire caused the collapse of the WTC towers.

If someone says that airplanes and fire caused the collapse of the WTC towers there is no way to ever know if they are lying or not.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
When you follow the money you will find the motive.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by XsameXoneXotherX
The truther movement is not about declaring what the truth is, just that there is clearly a lie and we deserve to know why we were lied to and what really happened.


If someone says that airplanes and fire caused the collapse of the WTC towers there is no way to ever know if they are lying or not.


Unless it is proof they are too dumb to understand Newtonian physics.

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I suggest everyone downloading a nice collection of pre-9/11 definitions of 'ground zero' in all major English dictionaries printed before 2001. It is only 2.5 Mb zip archive. But it will reveal to you a lot. Here is a download link:
www.dimitri-khalezov-video.com...
Hope you will find it interesting enough - perhaps it will also answer the very first question that this thread was started with.






top topics



 
7
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join