It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Evidence Of Remote Controlled Planes At WTC! By Aidan Monaghan

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 09:35 PM
This also warrants consideration I think

ABC/CNN Video Slomo

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 09:39 PM
As does this
(Edit: ignore "UAV" analysis in terms of fast moving dark object and other hovering objects near WTC, because of birds, and helicopters)


Originally posted by micpsi
I suppose all the very similar dots of lights seen in the video that appeared after the explosion were laser lights as well?

No? Well, if you are willing to accept that they were merely sheets of paper and light debris scattered into the air, why on earth are you not willing to accept that the first dot of light was not also a piece of A4 that had come out of the impact hole or shattered windows of the North Tower?

Because you want desperately to find evidence of a conspiracy, that's why. So you dress up the long-discredited footage with lots of phony arguments that were considered by 9/11 investigators and rejected years ago.

Well, let me tell you something. WE have TONS of evidence to prove conspiracy by elements of the US military/intelligence/government. We don't need further evidence like this that is as flimsy as - er - a piece of paper.


Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by micpsi

It passes across the building in the far foreground, that's why, and binks on, and off.

It's just something to consider. No one is hanging their hat on it, don't get your panties in a knot over it.

But it's interesting, and may warrent consideration, because flying piece of paper does not adequately explain it's behavior, relative to the south tower and the foreground building a kilometer away.


[edit on 27-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:52 AM
There is still yet one more proof, a whole series of proofs in fact, whereby only one conclusion can be drawn, and which reveals clearly and distinctly how the planes which impacted the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 HAD to have been remotely piloted military type aircraft, and not planes hijacked by poorly trained Islamist Extremist Hani Hanjour types, and it is a proof which can be arrived at by rational, logical, deductive reasoning (so long as your mind isn't hijacked by Zelikow's mythmaking magic, or by the magnitude of the evil inherent in the Big Lie).

It is the proof, that the twin towers were destroyed with explosives and not as a result of the plane imapcts and fire, which served as the ruse to sell the Big Lie HOAX, that they were the sole cause of the destruction of those buildings, the event which was responsible for the greatest loss of innocent life on 9/11.

Proof that the buildings were destroyed with explosives is not dependant on the proof of remotely piloted military variants of commercial aircraft. However, it leads directly by extension to that conclusion - since to bring the whole thing off as planned, there could be no interference, and no mistakes. To destroy the buildings with explosives required, as an absolutely essential element, that the planes met with their intended targets. For such an event, or false flag catastrophic terrorist operation, such a thing could not be left to chance or uncontrollable variables.

Furthermore, so as to ensure non-interference, the 9/11 War Games Operations served as the smokescreen and the grid within which this modern Operation Northwoods scenario could take place, again with almost total assurance. There could be no mistakes.

Therefore I offer the following video of the explosive destruction of the North Tower of the WTC, as evidence which points to the near 100% probability, that the planes which hit those buildings were in fact remotely piloted military-type variants of regular commercial airliners.

And to that end, I could even offer the miraculous passport of one of the alleged hijackers, found a couple blocks in near prestine condition as further proof that those planes were NOT piloted by those patsies.

Where did the original planes go, or the people, and the patsy hijackers? Who knows. But what we do know is what is not true, and what appears to represent nothing more (however dramatic and earth shattering) than a scripted event, designed to form a globally accepted public myth in history, to bring about the "transformation in military affairs" and a whole host of other things, including the gathering up of raw POWER under the guise of the need for increased security. "Please protects us dear government and go kick some ass and get us some justice for the victims in the form of retribution and vengeance - KILL THE EVILDOERS! no matter what the cost, even at the expense of the loss of some of our freedoms and privacy, that's ok, so long as you protect us and kill them. Heck torture them if you need to, and blow them up over there, so they don't come over here, yada yada yada.."

[edit on 28-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:00 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

That's correct; it's not proof, but it's suspicious and highly 'coincidental'
that these satellites were in an optimum position to improve GPS receiver
tracking during the time of the attacks on the towers.


Quite correct, it is not proof, but what it is if verified, is one more piece of "circumstantial evidence" which points towards an inside job.
The amount of such evidence surrounding the WTC attacks is now staggering.


posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by OmegaPoint

Star for you, my friend. Great post.

which can be arrived at by rational, logical, deductive reasoning

Sadly, this is wholly absent from the OS and those who cling blindly to it.
The list of 'coincidences' that happened that morning is just too long. The 'science' that has offered to support many of the anomalies of that day is tenuous at best.

Your point that allowing any variables in the planes hitting the towers would have been counter to the grand scheme. Had the pilots missed, or simply clipped the side of the towers, the rest of the show would have been fishier than it already is. If an F-16 was too close, and the order to fire would have had to have been given, how would the tower falling be explained. Well, they could just completely ignore it in the reports like they did WTC7.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:57 AM

I thought the Drone Plane in Northwoods would be a "remote?" Perhaps, I read wrong, but-wasn't-the drone to be destroyed?

The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio

[edit on 28-9-2009 by talisman]

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:32 PM
We have here an explosion that measures over 200 metres in length and over a 100 metres in height, around 75 metres of this explosion back blasted to the direction this plane had just travelled. The estimate of fuel this Jet had left was 34 cubic metres, of which two thirds was needed inside to weaken 90,000 tonnes of steel and reduce to dust 110 acres of concrete, so that explosion was caused by roughly 11 cubic metres of Jet fuel, two concrete lorries hold 12 cubic metres (6 each).

We have red and white flames clearly visible neither are the flame colours associated with burning kerosene.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by OmegaPoint

I have yet to see a debunker come up with an explanation for that small dark circle under the tail of the aircraft and how that would be considered normal on flight 175..

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in