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.

 

I Challenge You Conspirators on This (Bombs on the Planes)

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
So planes crashed into the twin towers and the pentagon.

The towers collapsed and the 1/5 of the pentagon got annihilated.

The towers were designed to withstand planes.

No one has absolute proof that the pentagon was hit by a missile and the towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.


So what if there were tons of C4 or other explosives in the planes?

There are instances of employees transporting tons of coc aine between Mexico and US without anyone noticing.



I think explosives in the planes would explain everything.



[edit on 9/16/2009 by die_another_day]




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
These kinds of posts don't help the truth movement at all.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I thought that C4 requires an electrical charge to detonate, not an explosion.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
well it wouldnt nor couldnt explain everything....

but good and nice try



edit: think space station

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Myendica]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Explosives inside the plane seems like a pretty good conjecture to me.

Answers why there was molten steel and a chunk of the pentagon disappeared.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   

posted by die_another_day

I think explosives in the planes would explain everything.



So the 96th floor of the North Tower and the 81st floor of the South Tower would have been blasted to smithereens by your explosives in the planes, and the top 14 floors of the North Tower and the top 29 floors of the South Tower would have toppled off to the streets below, and the undamaged remainders of both towers would have stood there forever.




But that did not happen did it? The North Tower remained standing for 102 minutes and the South Tower for 56 minutes, with multiple explosions and molten metal and demolition reported by firemen and policemen and 1st responders and many others prior to the final destruction.

So how did they get the explosives in the planes to delay exploding and move themselves to multiple areas of both towers, including the sub-basement levels?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
It has never been proven a plane crashed at the pentagon.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
couldnt be true

the terrorists hijacked the planes there was no way the could of carried on board bombs, they would have been caught right away.

and if they did have bombs on board that means they would have to allready been there which would mean they would have to have someone one the inside who helped get them on. and you dont belive it was an inside job.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by taylor101
 


You place the bombs in the cargo during the loading process, that's how drug smugglers do it on commercial airliners. The employees at both airports will cooperate and make sure the drugs are loaded and removed when the passengers are in the plane.


Maybe the explosives had delayed ignition? Maybe they didn't use as much on the WTC as on the Pentagon.


To me, this is more likely than planting demolition charges all over a building and sending missiles over highways without people noticing.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by die_another_day
 


how would terrorists be able to place bombs in the cargo during the loading proccess, doesnt the airport pay people to make sure that doesnt happen.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
So the explosve survived for over an hour before detonating? And people didn't notice an air liner flying over head but they would have noticed a missile?

Your theory is even further detached from the truth than the official story is.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Re: Bombs on plane

WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane.

Still doesn't account for all the anomalies.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by die_another_day
 


First of all--- bare in mind that none of us have enough information to draw conclusive, conclusions. The best we can do is work with what we have. Our government has made damn sure we do not have that info.. They try to hide it like a monkey tries to hide his banana from the troop. We can see it behind it's back but it is obscured. I am slightly hesitant to post this as I wish not to contribute to any infighting amongst the folks here attempting to get the 911 tragedies REINVESTIGATED. The psychology of this entire debacle is very difficult to measure. We all know that there is a paid, concerted effort to derail us. Deny them and thier ignorance.

First--- the same analysis wouldn't work well for the two different type buildings. Call the towers ---soft construction and the Pentagon hard construction.
I think the A3 bomber retrofit could satisfy the towers being hit by remote control jets, that look close enough to an airliner at that speed and angle of view.
Pack those suckers with whatever it takes to cause the molten steel.
The majority of explosions IMO were squibs planted prior to impact. Thermite or thermate to boot. The A3 could launch ordinance just prior to impact for added destruction.
No one has debunked Tom Flocco's A3 story. I have posted it several times on other threads.
An A3 could have launched the missile that IMO took out the pre-planned Pentagon target.
It could have then also been the flyover aircraft.
There is also the possibility of internal ordinance in the Pentagon as well. This would take out specific material that must go away to protect and enrich the perps.
I offer the above not as fact but possibility.



[edit on 17-9-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by die_another_day
 


An A3 could have launched the missile that IMO took out the pre-planned Pentagon target.
It could have then also been the flyover aircraft.
There is also the possibility of internal ordinance in the Pentagon as well. This would take out specific material that must go away to protect and enrich the perps.
I offer the above not as fact but possibility.



No Donny. the Secret Service and/or the FBI would still have to stage the light poles and the generator trailer and the explosives at the exterior wall because a stubby winged A-3 could not have possibly knocked down all five light poles, nor could an A-3 together with a missile have created the damage pattern on the exterior wall.

There is zero evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon and zero evidence that any aircraft knocked down the light poles, moved the generator trailer, or impacted the Pentagon.



It had to have been planted explosives leaving behind a cordite-like smell of explosives and planted debris. They should have planted 10 steel wheels instead of one, three engines instead of one too small engine, some pieces of tail stabilizer, some pieces of wing, some seats, some luggage, and three heavy steel landing gear. Maybe planting one of the Pentagon personnel in a planted seat might have convinced somebody.

Perhaps some jet fuel splashed back on the lawn would have helped convince the sceptical and perhaps the 1st responder firemen should have hit the polyethelene cable spools with acetylene torches instead of foam. But then the 1st responder firemen were uninvited party crashers just doing their jobs putting out fires, weren't they? It wasn't their job to create evidence was it? That was the role of the FBI. The FBI could have done a better job confiscating damning photos also.



Maybe a plowed furrow across the lawn would have been a good idea.



The Federal agents the 9-11 perps hired were just too lazy to do their jobs right. Just can't get decent help anymore can you?

Maybe spread out the debris from contact with a 530 mph aircraft wing a little better? A handy $435.00 Pentagon hammer would have worked wonders making that guard rail more convincing.





[edit on 9/17/09 by SPreston]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by die_another_day
 



There are instances of employees transporting tons of coc aine between Mexico and US without anyone noticing.


Well, then how do YOU know about it??

Source examples of "tons" of coc aine being smuggled between Mexico and the US by airline employees, please.

"tons"?? How many trips were needed for these "tons" to be moved around??

Much, much more is smuggled in on trains and in trucks...risky with trucks, of course, because they may have to stop and be weighed.

Airplanes are the LAST place to sneak any extra weight on, too many prying eyes. They get caught, eventually.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 





WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane.


No it was hit by 110 story building

Does that count for anything?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


O. K.
But as I see you are not so sure about the A3 and the towers.
Just a little quirk on the poles. Why would they set up light poles indicating
a smaller aircraft? I think the poles are a phoney set-up nevertheless.
I was privy to tactical missiles 40 years ago, second hand knowledge of EOD. I saw bombs, napalm and phosphorous till it came out my ears.
Again it is an opinion accompanied by confirmation by Mr. Donald himself.
Let's say it didn't launch a missile, could it in your opinion qualify for the fly over aircraft people say they saw? I also think the internal EOD scenario,even if correct is a harder sell to sceptics.


It also appears to me that the entry hole looks more like the entry of a projectile than an exclusively internal outward explosion. (no significant rubble on the lawn.)
just sayin
[edit on 17-9-2009 by Donny 4 million]

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
23 American Airline Employees Arrested Over Cocaine Ring


You guys act like this is impossible when it's more plausible than demolition:


more than 9,000 kilograms of coc aine and smuggle them aboard American Airlines airplanes,


[edit on 9/17/2009 by die_another_day]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by SPreston
 


It also appears to me that the entry hole looks more like the entry of a projectile than an exclusively internal outward explosion. (no significant rubble on the lawn.)
just sayin



No, if you look closer some of the columns on the Pentagon facade are blown outward, and there were reports of concrete landing out on the road.





[edit on 9/17/09 by SPreston]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by die_another_day
So planes crashed into the twin towers and the pentagon.

The towers collapsed and the 1/5 of the pentagon got annihilated.

The towers were designed to withstand planes.

No one has absolute proof that the pentagon was hit by a missile and the towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.


And no one has absolute proof that the pentagon or WTC were hit by flight 77, 11 and 175 and that the towers were destroyed by those planes and jet fuel.

The EVIDENCE matches the wtc being hit by a missle and being destroyed by controlled demolition FAR MORE than what the OFFICIAL STORY claims happened.

So how is the GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY STORY more logical when the alternative theory from truthers, far better explains it and have better and more logical evidence to support it?


Originally posted by die_another_day
I think explosives in the planes would explain everything.
[edit on 9/16/2009 by die_another_day]


No, pre planted explosives in the WTC and Pentagon explain everything even better.



time to abandon your theory. There's not enough evidence to support it.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Orion7911]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join