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.

 

Where are AA77's wings?

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Why don't you find what I actually said about what the condition of the wings should have been after and impact like that.


You have no capability to tell anyone what the wings should have looked like after an impact and you know that.

Either demonstrate that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon or withdraw your claim.




posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Orion7911

The evidence supports NO PLANE HIT

a No-brainer.

so what are you being pissy about?


There is no such evidence. There are lots of fanciful claims that no jet hit the Pentagon, but not a single piece of positive evidence for that has ever been presented.


Since Not a single piece of conclusive evidence has ever been presented that proves any jet HIT the pentagon,


You're stuck in the woo.

There is plenty of evidence. You've been pointed to it. You refuse to refute it.

And you actually delude yourself into thinking you're going to convince anyone there is no conclusive evidence?

Tell us exactly whom the people are. Tell us exactly who you have convinced during the last 8 years.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Well since the best evidence we have that a plane hit the pentagon is actually part of your avatar. With your CIT fly-over photoshopped in it, let me ask you something, does the government not kno how to use photoshop? As for physical evidence on the ground there is very little.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by jthomas
 


As for physical evidence on the ground there is very little.


Says you?



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by jthomas
 


As for physical evidence on the ground there is very little.


Says you?



Yes, says me, but I'm not the only one. You should check out the clean up crew statements, i mean you referred to them in one of your many posts.

[edit on 9/22/2009 by TheAntiHero420]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by jthomas
 


As for physical evidence on the ground there is very little.


Says you?



Yes, says me, but I'm not the only one. You should check out the clean up crew statements, i mean you referred to them in one of your many posts.

[edit on 9/22/2009 by TheAntiHero420]


Maybe it is just the way I think but the fact that no one has come to this thread with any physical evidence is a little striking. There is not even a decent report on an idea of what might have happened. The best we got were a few wild guesses and some taunts. I am starting to think that there were no wings on whatever hit that building.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Was there any fuel in these wings that just folded back neatly along the fuselage? And that fuel stayed in there until after the body pentrated and then ignited and vaporized everything, yeah?
As mentioned, the wings of the 'planes that hit the WTC towers, and the plane at Shanksville all seemed to leave very clear wing shaped marks. So this plane was built differently?
This plane that had the wings collapse - without the engines leaving any big holes?
It just gets better and better.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Badgered1
 


How is it that people like Cameron fox run around some 9/11 threads debunking everything in such an arrogant OS loving fashion and yet those same folks that are so brave and proud to promote the Official Fairy Tale do not even try to answer the simple questions.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badgered1
As mentioned, the wings of the 'planes that hit the WTC towers, and the plane at Shanksville all seemed to leave very clear wing shaped marks. So this plane was built differently?


I suppose at this point in the discussion - 8 years hence- if you still don't understand the fact that the Pentagon was a vastly different construction than the WTC towers or a vastly different crash site than the reclaimed strip mine field in Pennsylvania, you'll never understand the differences.

Enjoy.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by Badgered1
As mentioned, the wings of the 'planes that hit the WTC towers, and the plane at Shanksville all seemed to leave very clear wing shaped marks. So this plane was built differently?


I suppose at this point in the discussion - 8 years hence- if you still don't understand the fact that the Pentagon was a vastly different construction than the WTC towers or a vastly different crash site than the reclaimed strip mine field in Pennsylvania, you'll never understand the differences.

Enjoy.


Fine, then where did the wings go? I have no problem believing that due to the buildings construction itself, it was able to fend off any pesky wing marks. That does absolutely nothing to explain where they went then.

Thanks



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
OK Lillydale. You want a simple answer to your question.
Where are AA77´s wings?
Here it is...
They are no more. They ceased to exist. They were destroyed in the crash of AA77 on the Pentagon building on Sept. 11-2001.
The crash of the aircraft against the building was of such characteristics that what were the wings was destroyed totally. They disintegrated as a result of the collision with the building.
Very few small pieces remained and were actually recovered at the site.
Some other parts actually were recovered outside of the building and some were photographed.
You can research a lot of the info. Here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
OK Lillydale. You want a simple answer to your question.
Where are AA77´s wings?
Here it is...
They are no more. They ceased to exist. They were destroyed in the crash of AA77 on the Pentagon building on Sept. 11-2001.
The crash of the aircraft against the building was of such characteristics that what were the wings was destroyed totally. They disintegrated as a result of the collision with the building.



Thanks so much. Have you read this thread? Someone already tried to claim that for the first time in history matter ceased to be. You are going to have to back up your claim and I am not fishing through an entirely different thread to do it. Have proof, toss it out here.

You are forgetting something kind of important. How do the wings hit that wall with enough force to "destroy completely" without making a crack or even a scuff on the wall they evaporated against?

I have already thanked people for just saying things because they like to say them. I would like to see someone say something and then prove it finally.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
You are going to have to back up your claim and I am not fishing through an entirely different thread to do it. Have proof, toss it out here.


So, you'd rather ignore a 280+ page thread that discussed this topic already (from 2004), and start another one here?

Sounds like you really aren't interested in the answer then, are you?



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale



Thanks so much. Have you read this thread?


YES
Someone already tried to claim that for the first time in history matter ceased to be. You are going to have to back up your claim and I am not fishing through an entirely different thread to do it. Have proof, toss it out here.


I provided the link here in ATS where all of this has been discussed and evidence has been shown regarding your questions


You are forgetting something kind of important. How do the wings hit that wall with enough force to "destroy completely" without making a crack or even a scuff on the wall they evaporated against?



Can you please provide "your evidence" for this claim?


I have already thanked people for just saying things because they like to say them. I would like to see someone say something and then prove it finally.


Thanks to you all the same.




posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 



Do you realize that you just quoted yourself? There went your credibility as far as I'm concerned.

A flimsy fuselage can punch thru multi layers of the Pentagon.
But a multi ton jet engine crashes into a brick wall at 500mph and doesn't even leave a scuff mark? Please....

[edit on 2-10-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
So, you'd rather ignore a 280+ page thread that discussed this topic already (from 2004), and start another one here?

Sounds like you really aren't interested in the answer then, are you?



I started a thread with one simple question.

All it needs is one simple answer.

Guesses, conjecture, and theories are fun but I want a real answer. One that makes at least a little sense. I was certain that since the OS is so reliably true that I would write my OP and have a solid answer on the first page.

You tell me why you cannot just answer and instead have to offer a link to an entire thread 100s of pages long.

It is simple - WHERE DID THE WINGS GO.

Answer below and be done with it.

Or try and direct me to a junk pile, tell me to go look and then call me lazy for not doing so.

It seems to me that if any of you OSers had any real faith in that government fairy tale, you would have answered it by now.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


You are going to have to try again. I most certainly did not say any of the things you quoted me as having originally posted above. The things you are saying look familiar though. Sorry if I am going to have to pass on discussing such a pointless question with someone who cannot figure out which part of the discussion he said and which part I said.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


1.- The answer you were seeking has been provided.
2.- The information is all here. The ATS link and many other web sites have also been given to you.
There´s only one little question that I asked you.
How can you make a claim that the wings and engines didn´t leave marks or damaged the walls of the Pentagon?
Can you prove what you say? Provide an image of the “undamaged walls” maybe?



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Sorry, my bad!!
First time using this quote feature. I guess I got it backwards.
Is this the way it should have looked?



Originally posted by rush969

Originally posted by Lillydale



Thanks so much, have you read this thread?


YES.



Someone already tried to claim that for the first time in history matter ceased to be. You are going to have to back up your claim and I am not fishing through an entirely different thread to do it. Have proof, toss it out here.


I provided the link here in ATS where all of this has been discussed and evidence has been shown regarding your questions



You are forgetting something kind of important. How do the wings hit that wall with enough force to "destroy completely" without making a crack or even a scuff on the wall they evaporated against?


Can you please provide "your evidence" for this claim?



I have already thanked people for just saying things because they like to say them. I would like to see someone say something and then prove it finally.


Thanks to you all the same.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by Lillydale
 


1.- The answer you were seeking has been provided.


Which answer? Where has it been provided?


2.- The information is all here. The ATS link and many other web sites have also been given to you.


Wow, so let me see if I got this straight. Two people (yes a friend of mine) mention that the fires were over 1000 degrees (i said 3000 to be specific but whatever) and that is seen as two people using the exact same words. They were different words, different sentences, different everything except heat and days but they are the same to you guys. Now, when EVERY OS PUSHER around here just answers questions by stating that the answers have already been given, what is that? Why is this statement tossed about by so many and never seen as the single monotone cop out that it really is?

Is it really satisfying to just say that answers have been given without ever actually finding them or posting them or referring to what they were?


There´s only one little question that I asked you.
How can you make a claim that the wings and engines didn´t leave marks or damaged the walls of the Pentagon?
Can you prove what you say? Provide an image of the “undamaged walls” maybe?


LOL, really? I can make this easy for you. Pick any picture of the building after the crash and tell me to point out where the marks DO NOT EXIST.

I see Jthomasitis is spreading.

You want me to prove something is NOT there, right? It seems to me that with all the photos, if there was wing damage, you could just point it out to us. Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join