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.

 

No Plane Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

page: 11
19
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
I Have no doubt you find some excuse.......


How come i am the only one who can post photos with proper sources?




posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You can choose to take their animation at face value or not. But videos show that the planes had no problem entering the towers and made it in just fine, far from barely.


But you only saw from the outside NOT the inside.


The only thing that would have had any impact on the planes were the floors. The rest of the plane would have been shredded by the cores.


You do know the main part of an airliner airframe is mostly thin aluminum?

As this photo clearly shows how fragile the airframe is.



So as stated and proven the planes would have barely made it inside the buildings.

Also the plane at the Pentagon would have not made it all the way inside and punched a hole thorugh the outer ring.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Also the plane at the Pentagon would have not made it all the way inside and punched a hole thorugh the outer ring.


You do realize a shotgun blast is not 1 large projectile, but consists of a multitude of smaller particles...moving at a high rate of speed....which can make 1 large hole at close range.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
What I can't understand about this whole notion that no planes were used is, why not use planes for something like this. I mean, even (for the sake of argument) if it was a false flag operation and you were trying to use this as a new Reistag Fire situation to take control, or whatever, why go to all the trouble to say it was planes and do something else?

You have limitless resources to pull off this operation. You want to make it look like there's been a terrorist attack on 4 sites by crashing airplanes into them. Easiest way to do that is to buy 4 airplanes, or take control of 4 airplanes somehow (remote control was certainly possible by then) and crash them into your targets.

Why make it difficult? Why use a missile and then tell everyone it was a plane? Why not then just say, "the terrorists got a hold of a missile, somehow."

The entire premise of this particular conspiracy makes no sense and is illogical from the get go. It's just piling complexity on top of complexity, over a plan that would have to have already been enormously complex to begin with.

[edit on 4/13/2010 by LifeInDeath]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 


Absolutely, it's completely ridiculous.

Imagine the complexity of trying to confiscate every camera in downtown New York. Bear in mind you don't know who does and doesn't have a camera, or whether it's got footage on it. Do you knock on every door just to check? Do you search everyone? It's completely impossible.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

You do know the main part of an airliner airframe is mostly thin aluminum?

As this photo clearly shows how fragile the airframe is.



So as stated and proven the planes would have barely made it inside the buildings.


REMISNE, after seeing this picture and seeing how fragile and weak airplanes are made, don't you think it's funny that the "planes" that hit the towers completely "disappeared" into the steel and THEN blew up and broke apart? Don't you think if that was a real crash into the tower we would have seen the plane breaking apart on impact, or at least, crumple a little?

[edit on 13-4-2010 by warisover]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by warisover
 


Try firing something very light at your face very fast. It'll hurt.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by warisover
 


Do you not understand physics?

Velocity. Momentum. Kinetic energy.

Try this: Grab a shotgun shell. Throw it at a person. Throw it at a wall.

Observe effects.

Open up shotgun shell. Throw pellets from inside at a person. Throw pellets at a wall.

Observe effects.

Take another shotgun shell. Load shotgun. Fire at wall.

Observe effects.

Demonstration complete.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by warisover
 


Do you not understand physics?


Yes, I understand physics. I understand that an aluminum aircraft can't just disappear into a steel and concrete structure without crumpling upon impact. Please try to catch up.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by warisover
 


(SIGH)

You are doing this on purpose? Because, it isn't funny....

Here, this is shown as best example of 500MPH object, in this case a JET (made of aluminum, mostly...other components, other materials) and its encounter with a CONCRETE wall:



Now....the point, there, was to test the strength of the WALL! Designs for future nuclear reactor domes, and their ability to withstand an attack from an airplane, for example.

Do you see the F4 "crumple up"?

No, you do not. In this example, of course, the wall wins. AT THE WTC, however, the walls gave way, AS THE AIRPLANES entered. Connecting points, of the wall sections, gave way....they were the 'weakest link' in the design, because they were NOT designed to be strong laterally!

_BoneZ_ has explained this, numerous times. The concept is logical, and understandable, to anyone with even a basic knowledge of physics, and an understanding of the designs involved, and how forces work at the energies involved, due to the kinetics of velocity, mass and momentum.

IF this is still going to be a case where everyone is showing you that the sky is blue, and you keep insisting it isn't, that it is green, then by all means, show examples to PROVE to everyone else that they are wrong.

[edit on 13 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by warisover
 


Here, this is shown as best example of 500MPH object, in this case a JET (made of aluminum, mostly...other components, other materials) and its encounter with a CONCRETE wall:


I already saw that video. Do you notice how the wall blasts out as the plane enters and on 9/11 the building didn't blast out until after the "plane" completely disappeared all the way in? hmmm


IF this is still going to be a case where everyone is showing you that the sky is blue, and you keep insisting it isn't, that it is green, then by all means, show examples to PROVE to everyone else that they are wrong.


I already posted a video showing that the sky was green on 9/11, it was also pink and grey and a lot of other colors. It's not that hard to figure out that the media fooled you on that day.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by warisover

Originally posted by eyesdown

I don't know every answer to 9/11 but i know this. Planes were definitely involved.

I'm all for the 9/11 truth movement, there is so much fog in the story it is fair to question the original story, but whilst there is fog, there is also definitely planes.


"Planes were definitely involved," "there is also definitely planes." Well thank god someone with evidence has finally come along. Please post the videos of those definite planes.




No need you have posted those yourself. Or just have a browse through you tube, or are those all doctored by government?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by warisover
 


planes did hit the wtc.

but they weren't what brought it down. why would they go through so much trouble to say it was planes if they didn't use planes? especially when its rather easy to put together. with no maverick jets going out to take em out because everyone thought it was apart of the training exercise...etc etc



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
You do realize a shotgun blast is not 1 large projectile, but consists of a multitude of smaller particles...moving at a high rate of speed....which can make 1 large hole at close range.


Sorry but the official story states tha the nose of the plane punched through the outer ring.

You really should learn what the official story states.



[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


The "outer ring"??

Of the World Trade Center?

Please, explain and clarify what yourpost means.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The "outer ring"??

Of the World Trade Center?

Please, explain and clarify what yourpost means.


Very simple. The official story states that a plane made mostly of aluminum, nose punched all the way through the Pentagon walls and out the outer side if the rings.

But also the simple fact remains that the planes at the WTC were shredded as the entered the building.

By the way your post about the F-4 hitting the wall is a little off. The F-4 had a lot of steel, also the wall was a speacial design to keep reactors safe.





[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Have a look from 5:39 onward in this video, where is the plane?

Sorry if this has been debunked already but I haven't seen it posted in this thread yet. By the way, saying "well it could just be this" to someone's theory isn't debunking, I've just noticed a few people here seem to think that.



Most witnesses who say they saw a plane (not counting the highly controlled media) say they saw a SMALL plane, which a cruise missile could easily be mistaken for to the general public. Couldn't it be possible that cruise missiles were used and then the 767's were digitally added in? That could cover both sides of the argument. Also for every witness that said they saw a plane, there is one that said they didn't so that argument is invalid for both sides.

The problem with these kinds of arguments is that when people already have their minds made up, they tend to quickly accept any evidence to support their own theory and instantly reject anything opposing it no matter how good or bad said evidence is.

It seems to me that most people here already have their minds made up and short of going back in time to NY on 9/11 and personally watching the attacks unfold, they aren't going to change them.

Keep an open mind, just because you don't believe it is possible, doesn't mean it isn't, I thought that would be a given on a site like this



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 





Very simple. The official story states that a plane made mostly of aluminum, nose punched all the way through the Pentagon walls and out the outer side if the rings.


Empire State Building - 1945 B25 struck it

Aluminium airplane hit the building - it was traveling at 1/3 the velocity
of the 767, it weighed only 1/15 (20,000 lbs vs 300,000)

Do the math - energy of B25 is 1/100 of the 767's (1%)

Yet it punched a hole in the building some 18 x 20 ft

One of the motors flew through the entire building and came out the other side, loanding on roof of adjacent building




The Crash
At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.




One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive.


Picture of hole

www.evesmag.com...

One more thing = the exterior of both the Empire State Building and Pentagon are made of limestone from the same quarry




Look up at the Empire State Building in New York City and you will see an almost endless ribbon of soaring stone—Indiana limestone, to be precise. The Empire State Building, Pentagon, Chicago Tribune Building, and many university structures, state capitols, post offices, and churches in every state (and buildings in other countries) are constructed of this exceptional material, renowned for its durability, consistency, and capacity to accept and retain fine detail. When part of the Pentagon was destroyed after 9/11, an Indiana quarry went to work, mining 46 truckloads of limestone to be sent to the Washington site and enabling reconstruction to be completed ahead of schedule.


Akluminium aircraft will easily penetrate a building - even ones made of stone

Was true in 1945 and in 2001

So care to revise your statement?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePatientMental
Couldn't it be possible that cruise missiles were used and then the 767's were digitally added in?

Absolutely not. For one, you're talking about private citizens going out and purchasing expensive equipment to digitally add in a plane onto their home videos so that it matches the digitally added plane on the media videos.

Secondly, do you have any idea how tiny and light-weight any kind of missiles are compared to a jetliner? Especially lacking on any missile is the 160-foot wingspan of a jetliner. Do you have any idea how fast missiles travel compared to a jetliner? Do you have any idea that if it were a real missile, most of the top of the towers would've been blown off because missiles carry explosives? There was no explosive damage when the planes impacted because the ignition of fuel is not explosive.



Originally posted by ThePatientMental
for every witness that said they saw a plane, there is one that said they didn't

Is that so? Do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands, or millions of witnesses were on the streets watching the towers? I'm only aware of a handful of people that "didn't see" the second plane because they weren't in a position to.

Now you've just made a claim that for every witness that saw a plane, there is one that didn't. I'll ask you to post a list of names or somehow back up your claim. If you can't, I'll ask you to retract your claim.


As far as the video you posted is concerned, NIST calculated that the second plane was traveling around 590mph. If you do the math to see how many miles per second that is, count the number of seconds that the camera is sitting zoomed at the WTC, then you'll realize the camera was zoomed in ahead of the plane. It's simple math that if one doesn't do the simple math, they will just continue to make themselves look ridiculously foolish believing this kind of garbage.

As far as the "nose-out" disinfo, that's been debunked for years, but I'll do it again for the sake of posterity.


A real nose didn't come out because there was no exit hole:




And a fake nose didn't go past the tower because the "nose-out" and an implied "CGI" nose don't match and they should perfectly match if it were a "CGI" nose:




If that weren't enough to debunk the "nose-out" disinfo, then here's a video for good measure:

The Great Nose-In/Nose-Out Hoax:



The likes of Killtown, Simon Shack/socialservice, Jeff "Sure" Hill, are all disinfo artists that actually create the no-plane/tv fakery disinfo and a few gullible people drink it up with zero research other than what they are told. A few others just spread the no-plane/tv fakery disinfo around just to purposely discredit the 9/11 truth movement, regardless of all the evidence against no-planes/tv fakery.

This is the big leagues here. If you make claims, you have to back them up or they will get shut down with the quickness.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Ok... I'm no disinfo guy ... FAR from "Tampa Bay"....

I'll say ... I could actually buy the "no plane" thing ... there is definitely something going on with what was broadcast that day ...

let's face it .. TPTB have tight control over what comes on our TVs.... advanced technology that we have superficial knowledge of and an agenda....

who really knows?... all I know is that .. the OS is not plausible... especially with all that has come out .. ad nauseum...

question is ... does it really matter if there were planes or not??

I watched the "map" videos .. and all I could picture were a few laughing bigwigs ..taking it all in.... saying... "NOW they will do anything we tell them to do..."

keeping an open mind ..and knowing in my soul that the OS is BS... anything beyond the OS is possible...

[edit on 13-4-2010 by sayiamu]



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join