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 the planes?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I did read it a long time ago and its the same BS now as it was then.

D.Duck




posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



The WTC fuel explosions seem much too large for ordinary passenger carrying 767s which had already burned up a good portiuon of their fuel loads.


Wow!! You just make up new stuff, as you go along?


...767s which had already burned up a good portiuon of their fuel...


? The airplanes had been in the air for, what? 1:20? They were fueled for a roughly six-hour transcon flight, with required reserves and extras, they'd have had the equivalent fuel to fly for over seven hours before exhaustion.

Let's look at the explosion of jet fuel from a jet crash:


Not 'quoted' here, but your fantasy of hte magical 'replacements' in flight is simply...well, fantasy!

AND the notion of a Pentagon 'fly-over'?? NO ONE saw it? (oh...there's one guy who NOW claims to have seen this happen. ONE?)

And, the other witnesses missed something like this???
(Be sure to turn up your sound!)



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 


D.Duck, please describe, then, why it is considered by you to be bunk?

We are talking about the use of hijacked airplanes here. YOU seem to think AAL 11 didn't fly. YET you can clearly see that UAL 175 and UAL 93 flew, per the same BTS stats that have convinced you that AAL 11 and AAL 77 didn't fly.

Why? In your own words.

BTW...I knew the F/O on AAL 77.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Mr Duck, please listen to this video. It is the last 8 minutes of the life of someone who you claim was not on that plane.



or maybe you would like to call all of the people in this video....

LINK TO VIDEO

Believing in a conspiracy is one thing but you show no regard for anyone.

Also, these men were trained to do one thing and that is kill the cockpit and fly the planes into a target. A pilot, even if he had military training, would be hard pressed to fight off an attack like that. The box cutters were a perfect weapon to use. Sharp, small and deadly. All they needed to do was cut their throats. Remember, many of these hijackers cut their teeth in Chechnya and other locales in Asia.

The perfect weapon was used and we should be glad that the structural integrity of the WTC stood up or the loss of life would have been 5x greater.



[edit on 28-7-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I think one of the best possible answers to your question is that the so called "terrorists" planned it that way.

Take the jets and crash them into the towers. Wait say an hour (plenty of response time) let as many police, fire, feds, spectators show up on the scene then collapse the building. Debunker will tell you the "terrorists" are famous for doing this.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

posted by Spreston
The WTC fuel explosions seem much too large for ordinary passenger carrying 767s which had already burned up a good portion of their fuel loads.


posted by weedwhacker
Wow!! You just make up new stuff, as you go along?


...767s which had already burned up a good portiuon of their fuel...


The airplanes had been in the air for, what? 1:20? They were fueled for a roughly six-hour transcon flight, with required reserves and extras, they'd have had the equivalent fuel to fly for over seven hours before exhaustion.


No whacker. No need to make anything up is there? You are the person who makes things up with your specious jet engines spinning parts 2 miles away from the airplane buried underground physics at Shanksville aren't you?



German Engineers Fireball and Kerosene (Jet Fuel) Smoke Cloud Magnitude Analysis

(note that they came to the conclusion that a 767-200 fully fueled for a cross-continental trip to LA could NOT have contained a sufficient amount of fuel to account for the fireball and smoke cloud observed – without knowledge of the Tanker Transport or of the extra equipment [pod and pipe structure] retrofitted to it.




Source


1,800,000 cubic metres smoke volume

divided by

10,000 cubic metres smoke gases

equals

180 cubic metres jet fuel amount required to form observed smoke cloud at Tower Two

The German engineers estimate that the explosion smoke cloud from the alleged Flight 175 would require more than twice the amount of jet fuel officially available.

Thus there were filled fuel bladders inside the passenger area carrying over 90 cubic metres of jet fuel instead of passengers.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



The German engineers estimate that the explosion smoke cloud from the alleged Flight 175...


"Alleged"???

"smoke cloud"???

You really will believe anything, just so it fits a twisted fantasy.

IF these German alleged 'scientists' measured the smoke cloud to arrive at their calculations, and you fell for that as "proof"...well....

I don't know how to help you, then. This sort of desperate clinging to the most complex of scenarios, and using anything, no matter how preposterous, to try to support a pre-determined mindset is just sorta sad.

Really, after all of these years, IF there were any credibility whatsoever to any of these allegations, then there'd be a heckuva lot more people on your side of the fence.

As it is, those who actually have some experience in aviation, just for instance, can pull apart so many elements of this fantasy that is being woven. I don't blame you for falling for it, because without the knowledge base needed for critical thinking in areas you're not familiar with, it could seem plausible, from the outside, to a layperson.

eta: How much fuel do you suppose was onboard that B52 when it crashed, in the video up above? 180 cubic metres??

BTW...I did some math. 180 cubic metres = 6,357 cubic feet. That volume will equal 47,554 gallons. That much fuel would weigh 320,990 pounds. Max takeoff weight for a B767-200 is 395,000. I guarantee you the empty airplane weighs more than 74,000 pounds.

But, why bother with facts, eh?



[edit on 28 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SPreston
 

those who actually have some experience in aviation


Oh really? You are the expert which automatically makes you the expert always correct in every post? Are you including such logic with your specious jet engines spinning parts 2 miles away from the airplane buried underground physics at Shanksville?

Your expertise in aviation along with another alleged expert Mr Reheat verifies that Wile E Coyote physics is a bonafide physics, at least on 9-11-2001?

Sure whacker. Anything you say.

There are lots of sheeple who might suck that reasoning right up.


[edit on 7/28/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Smoke Cloud analysis...are you kidding? Have you ever been to NYC? Did you ever see the Magnitude of those buildings? I saw them the year they opened. I went on the roof to the observation deck before some lunatic tried to kill himself. I still drive into NYC without staring in awe that they are gone.

Stop looking at pictures and look at a video of that day. Just one.
Plane Number one

PLANE HIT 1

Here is the second plane

PLANE HIT 2

Those videos sum up why they used planes.

Does a missle leave an opening like this

HUGE HOLE


[edit on 28-7-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 




Narrator: "A released fan blade contains enough energy to throw a medium sized car some 100 feet into the air."

An aluminum fan blade, released whilst spinning, will travel in the direction 90 degrees from the axis of the shaft that it was attached to. The fan blades on a jet engine are NOT heavy, one person can easily carry one. IF it has that much energy, to lift a car 100 feet, imagine how far it would travel if released on its own?

Get some string (a yoyo, say) and spin it around over your head, and let go. Does it fall straight down? I know it's an oversimplified example, but sometimes...



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SPreston
 



The German engineers estimate that the explosion smoke cloud from the alleged Flight 175...


"Alleged"???


Too technical for you to understand?

"Alleged" means many investigators think Flight 175 was swapped with another aircraft which was remotely flown into the South Tower. The military replacement aircraft with transponder on flies above or below Flight 175 then turns transponder off. The two aircraft occupy the same spot on the radars and show as one blip.

The two flights swap identities. Flight 175 turns on transponder with military replacement aircraft code and continues on to destination airport. Military replacement aircraft under remote pilot and carrying extra fuel continues on to South Tower.

Scam is complete and Shock & Awe mission is a success.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Firstly, your attitude is not helping your cause, not in the slightest.

Secondly, I am seeing the same old, same old here. It is barely worthy of a response. However, since you're insisting on twisting statements and muddling the waters ---

Your well documented photo of something in a ditch, with a backhoe shovel. I NEVER said exactly what that is. YOU guys keep saying it's one of the engine carcasses. I SPECULATED, based on its proximity to the surface, that it might be a portion of the APU.

NOW...others have talked about finding engine parts in or near the pond that is some distance away. Again, your camp likes to twist and sneer, and mockingly say that the "engine must have rolled two miles through the trees", or something in that same vein. BUT, I thought that what was found near the pond were PIECES of an engine, possible the N1 fan blades (or parts of) and I supposed that it is feasible that a piece could have been flung away, as part of the crash impact sequence.

When they test an engine, as in the video above, to destruction, why to you think they film it with a high-speed camera?

Since there is NO video of the UAL 93 impact, only estimated guesses can be drawn as to the vectors of all the parts, and exactly how they behaved. This is arrived at by deduction, and observation and measurement of the pieces where found, and the original location on the airplane.

If you drive your car into a brick wall at 100 MPH, and the left rear hubcap flies off and lands at a certain point, you don't expect an accident investigator to come along and exclaim, "It's been staged!!!"

He/she calculates how and why that hubcap got to where it did. ( Of course, no one really cares about the hubcap in the car crash example --- unless it decapitates someone or something like that!
)

Point is, in the aftermath, the dynamics can be interpreted, even without a video record, just by using physics.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



The military replacement aircraft with transponder on flies above or below Flight 175 then turns transponder off. The two aircraft occupy the same spot on the radars and show as one blip.

The two flights swap identities. Flight 175 turns on transponder with military replacement aircraft code and continues on to destination airport...


Pure Hollywood fantasy, like it came from a really bad Bruce Willis script!

We have suicide bombers who drive cars, suicide bombers you drive trucks, suicide bombers who strap themselves with explosives, and infiltrate before blowing up. There's just no need to make it more complicated than it was!!

Honestly, I don't understand this morbid fascination with impossible scenarios. It is borderline sick....

(fix tags)

[edit on 28 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 



Have you checked the SSDI?


Did you, or did you not write this? Seems you brought the topic up by somehow insinuating that because some of the victims don't appear on this registry, they're somehow still alive?

Weed was responding to that. He wasn't the one changing the topic. You brought it up...



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Research into the SSDI



Flight 11: of the 92 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 20 are listed in the SSDI (22%)

Of these 20 people, only three are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

Judy Larocque
Laurie Neira
Candace Lee Williams

=======================================

Flight 77: of the 64 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 14 are listed in the SSDI (22%)

Of these 64 people, only five on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

William Caswell
Eddie Dillard
Ian Gray
John Sammartino
Leonard Taylor

=======================================

Flight 175: of the 65 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 18 are listed in the SSDI (28%)

Of these 65 people, only three are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

Michael C. Tarrou
Gloria Debarrera
Timothy Ward

=======================================

Flight 93: of the 45 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 6 are listed in the SSDI (13%)

Of these 45 people, none are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

No one

LINK


Here you go. someone else did it for you. There are lots of people who are not on there. What does it mean? Nothing but since you asked I answered.

However, do you have anything to add about why planes were used?



[edit on 28-7-2009 by esdad71]

[edit on 28-7-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by D.Duck
 


D.Duck, please describe, then, why it is considered by you to be bunk?

We are talking about the use of hijacked airplanes here. YOU seem to think AAL 11 didn't fly. YET you can clearly see that UAL 175 and UAL 93 flew, per the same BTS stats that have convinced you that AAL 11 and AAL 77 didn't fly.

Why? In your own words.

BTW...I knew the F/O on AAL 77.


I have showed you why Flight 11 did not fly on 9/11 and if you work in the airline business you should know why that is reliable info.

You give me a lot of word salad about you working at an airline and know the crew on flight 77.

Well I know Donald Rumsfeld, now do you see how easy it is to spit out BS so please stay away from that unless you are willing to tell me your name and what airline you work at so I can check you.

You are asking me to speculate on flight 93 and 175 but sorry I don't want to speculate but that does not mean I don't have a theory but at this time I keep that to myself.

D.Duck



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


So out of your list of 266 people allegedly on all four 9-11 flights, only a total of 11 made the 9-11 Compensation Fund list. That must mean that the families of 255 (less the 19 alleged hijackers) of the people allegedly aboard the four flights did not bother to file for compensation, or they did not exist.

That kind of agrees with the fact that only one family comprised of two persons, bothered to travel to LAX and SFO to inquire about their family members allegedly aboard the four 9-11 flights.

Most of the families did not exist and most of the passengers of the four flights did not exist either.

How come the reporter at Los Angeles Airport only saw two family members of the alleged people on the three flights three hours later? Don't the airlines usually console the families of victims of air disasters? There should have been hundreds; even thousands of California family members and friends and fellow employees showing up for the victims of all four flights, and both airports were shut down and evacuated?

Flight 11 - Logan Intl Airport in Boston to Los Angeles Intl Airport
Flight 175 - Logan Intl Airport in Boston to Los Angeles Intl Airport
Flight 77 - Washington Dulles Intl Airport to Los Angeles Intl Airport
Flight 93 - Newark Intl Airport to San Francisco Intl Airport

LAX Evacuated (7:25 in video)



Why? So the American people and the reporters and the world would not quickly realize that most of the alleged passengers on board those alleged hijacked aircraft were either fictional or not dead after all?

So how come all these families and friends of these 266 alleged people aboard the four 9-11 aircraft did not show up at LAX or SFO before those two airports were evacuated and shutdown at 12:04 and 12:15 PM EDT?

September 11: Chronology of terror

This is between 3 hours and 19 minutes and two hours and 21 minutes since three of the 9-11 aircraft which their people were allegedly on, allegedly crashed into US buildings.

Bottom line is most of these 266 passengers and crew and hijackers did not exist.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 



I have showed you why Flight 11 did not fly on 9/11 and if you work in the airline business you should know why that is reliable info.


You merely sidestepped, and now hide behind BTS, when I tell you why just because both AAL flights don't show, you ignore.

And, ignoring other evidence that shows AAL 11 flew that day.

What's funny, in a sad way, is the people who actually worked those flights, on that day, Mechanics, Fuelers, Ramp, Ticket Counter, Gate Agents, Dispatchers, Res Agents, Operations Agents....all of them likely don't visit a site like this, or ANY of the 'conspiracy' sites. Why would they bother? Perhaps they tried, at one time. But, really, when lies get spread by those who know better, and innocent people who buy it willingly assist in spreading it, then really, what's the point?

This is looking more and more like a "Moon Hoax" scenario, or even in some ways it resembles the "creationist" versus evolution.

"Moon Hoax", "Truther", "creationist", even "Flat Earther" (if there really are any, and it's not just a wry joke) seem to work the same ways, down deep. They desperately want to find a flaw in ANYTHING remotely associated with the "PTB", no matter how thin is the thread to grasp. Facts are ridiculed, and why? It's truly a puzzle....



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join