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: 27
19
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by wheelerism
I'm confused. Why did no plane hit?

Some people believe the planes on 9/11 were computer generated.

Yeah, I know...


Hence why I decided long ago I'll stick with UFO chasing.




posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Some people believe the planes on 9/11 were computer generated.

Yeah, I know...

They sure seemed to penetrate those buildings like they were computer generated.



[edit on 4-6-2010 by ATH911]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Yeah! and to prove it, lets look at some real footage of another plane hitting a building at over 500mph...


...oh wait.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by warisover
... the criminals who planned this attack had all their bases covered, including the manipulation of what we saw on TV that day.


This is a HUGE FAT LIE. In stating this, you ensure that those responsible get away scott free and that 9/11 cannot be resolved.

All the evidence points to the opposite.

For instance, the pictures released by the Pentagon showing the aftermath of impact there CLEARLY show that they were faked BADLY and in an AMATEUR way.

Granting proffesionalism and competence to those who did 9/11 is a vile misdirection of any form of investigation that the 9/11 Truth movement could possibly endeavour to pursue.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   
CRIMINOLOGY 101...

Crimes are not solved by guesswork or trying to find evidnce to fit some theory, but by analysing the facts. It matters not whether it is a few thousand people dying in the WTC, a man with a gun killing a dozen in Cumbria in the UK or a drunk thug kicking the window out of a bus shelter. In Criminology, just as in science, all principles that work on a small scale work on the grand scale and analysis of the facts is the only way to "solve" a crime, not just on some knee-jerk, extremist rubbish.

Those syaing that it was the US Government are no different to George Bush saying that "we don't need an inquiry at all" - the assumption of guilt on the basis of "we obviously know" is NOT a solving of a crime.

To solve a crime, THREE matters must be considered at core:-

- MEANS
- MOTIVE
- OPPORTUNITY

In today's world, it seems nowadays that only MOTIVE is considered. And, even here, only the most knee-jerk of ideas are considered by most "9/11 Truthers" who make the haenous assumoption that what motivates them will obviously have motivated those behinf 9/11. THIS IS FALSE.

Furthermore, if evidence contradicts an assumption and certainly if a crimne becomes insoluable given an assumption, then it must be disregardedm NO MATTER HOW OBVIOUS:Y TRUE IT MIGHT SEEM - something that 99% of Truthers ignore, resulting in valuable publicity and routes forward being trashed with easily contradicable evidence.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
WHAT IS THE CRIME IN 9/11?

Well, actuallym, the crime breaks down into two separate groups of crimes which ar elikely connected by to assume that they have identical people performing them is a seriously FALSE ASSUMPTION.

Group of crimes number 1 - Mass murder
Group of crimes number 2 - Cover-up, concealment and wilful neglect of proper and due process of the law and of criminal investigation.

The second o these could well have been done by a largely misled group of individuals , corporation and agencies etc, all acting as they saw fit to be patriotic when they country needed them as they saw and to have acting unknowingly, albeit through negligence.

To those ends, I consider those acrtually involved in the killing, knowingly or unknowingly, albeit through negligence in following posts.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
MEANS

With regard to MEANS, it seems crazily unlikely that 16 random people happened to turn up at various airports and hijack airliners simulataneously. Given this, to both the "OFFICIAL STORY" folk and to the "Truthers", it is obvious that a conspiracy of some form has taken place. To the OFFICIAL STORY FOLK, it was Bin Laden's people and to the "Truthers" is was some other group.

So how does a conspiracy work?

For a conspiracy to function, the smallest number of people must be involved as a primary requirement. As this is an act of mass murder, if could people could face execution or maybe even lynching, hence such a conspiracy would mandate secrecy as a paramount importance. To achieve this, people would have to have been employed on a "need to know basis". ON this basis, those involved in any such conspiracy would have searched for the most efficient way to "get the job done" and not have scheduled other minor considerations above this.

On this basis, 99% of the "9/11 Truthers" go WAY WAY off track with a whole schedule of nonsensical assumptions that have NO BASIS whatsoever. And since people are still haggling over who did 9/11, and producing evidence countering most theories, it gives the impression that rejection of these nonsensical assumptions is essential as a first step to finding out who did the crime.

False assumptions made by most 9/11 Truthers:-

- Only the US Government had the ability to launch such an attack
(This makes particularly no sense as it would involve such a huge number of people that someone would have blabbed about doing it by now.)
- They only used planes or only missiles.
(Laughable nonsense - why would they restrict themselves like this?)
- Despite being utter traitors, all the US people involed were patriotic enough to use ONLY US equipment.
(This is a laughably contradictory concept)



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
OPPORTUNITY

So, what opportunity was needed?

- Residue evidence shows that clearly explosives were used. Given this, ad the time to place explosives, there is only one group with potential access and time to do this and that would be the Turner Corporation and its employees, albeit ones that might have been compromised or infiltrated.

- Overwhelming evidence from the Pentagon indicates that at least one missile was used. Film evidence, as shown on "September Clues" clearly shows again that one has to doubt whether aeroplanes were used and whether missiles were used instead. Here abandoning the crass and stupid 9/11 Truther standard the assumption that a gang of traitors decided to buy USA when shopping for a way to trash the constitution is essential. Likewise, the assumption that no hijacking took place is also essential to abandon. For it is possible that hijacked missiles could have been used. Given this, who could have either knowingly launched missiles or rigged missiles to be hijacked in flight?

The assumption that a conspiracy has to be small, it would all but rule out the USA as a source of missiles. Everything would be traceable and someone would have talked. Furthermore, endless 9/11 Truthers have performed various "Audits" on US missiles stock and found little evidence of this, other than a possible link to Global Hawk.

There is therefore one credible source of such missiles that could be compromised:-

- The Royal Navy of the UK

At the start of September 2001, HMS Trafalgar set sail for the far east which would have put it off the eastern seaboard of the US, near a sea area used for test firings known as Whiskey 386. At this time, it is known that she performed test firings of cruise missiles and records show that indeed, upon arrival in the Far East, her stock of cruise missiles was depleted by some half a dozen. Interestingly enough, NATO radar systems are geared not to show missiles or planes fired or launcjhed by ones allies in order to unclutter radar screens. Langley, however, which was running on old, pre-NATO radar systems, would not have been blind to them and interestingly launched its fighters at precisely that sea area once the attack began. Furthermore, it is interesting that allthe flying objects that hit the Pentagon and the WTC made their final approach from the direction of the sea.

So who would have the ability ot override and hijack the Royal Navy's Cruise missiles? Well, actually only one organization has total access to the command systems onboard and the electronics of the cruise missiles and that is the defence subcontractor that maintains them, And the defence subcontractor that had access is Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton and company with close associations with the Turner construction group.

Now, if Kellogg, Brown and Root been the party that had set up the British cruise missiles to have them hijacked, this pose no problem in silencing witnesses in Tony Blairs/Gordon Browns total surveillance society, particularly if all the 9/11 Truthers are searching the wrong continent for the people behind it. Witnesses could have been silenced permanently with ease.

The other major slab of OPPORTUNITY that was needed was in terms of accessing the security of the building which was under a company run by George Bush's brother and had nothing to do with the security of the state.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by airvicemarshal]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Given this evidence on MEANS and OPPORTUNITY, I find it hard not to conclude that the mass killings were nto done by the US Government, although some top officials such as Cheney and Bush are clearly implicated, but that it was done as a private job by corporate America. Indeed, how better to discredit the 9/11 Truthers than to have them pointing the finger in a knee-jerk fashion at the US Government and military who would KNWO thta they were not implicated.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
Planes DID hit the towers , I saw the 2nd plane hit from my Back Deck... Are you going to tell me my eyes were in on the conspiracy too?... I don't agree with the "Official Story" of what happened , who was involved , or Why... But I can verify that at least 1 plane hit the towers.


and i can present evidence of witnesses who contradict what you claim.

but if your intention was sincere, Why are you dishonest in your opening sentence?

then you offer no detailed account of what you claim to have witnessed.

what was your exact location and POV for starters.








Dude , I could give a flying F*** what you think for starters. You have some balls calling me dishonest when you have nothing but 3rd hand information to go off of. I was in Hoboken NJ at the time when it happened. I was close enough to hear , see it and smell it. On top of that I had a close friend of mine that was a port authority cop die during 9/11. Did you see the video?... well THAT'S WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED!!!!


I don't owe you or anyone else a play by play of what happened. Like I said , I don't believe the Official Story , but I can verify that at least ONE plane hit the towers.

Imagine seeing a car run into a house , then someone on the other side of the planet that wasn't there argue with you and tell you that it was a motorcycle that hit the house. THEN the guy calls you a liar and asks you to produce evidence that it was really a car. After the guy calls you a liar he then says " well I have witnesses that say they saw a motorcycle!" That's what this feels like to me.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Saytan75
 


OK...since you asked for it:


Yeah! and to prove it, lets look at some real footage of another plane hitting a building at over 500mph...






Yeah, boy! "500 MPH"! OK...a solid concrete wall, typically to test the resistance of future nuclear power palnt construction techniques...not a 'building', per se, but still, A CONCRETE WALL! Which won? The airplane, or the wall?

Or, how about this?

A larger airplane (a B-52) that is NOT as fast as 500 MPH, obviously....but still, it hits something that we all agree is pretty darned solid -- the GROUND --and is totally devastated, reduced to teeny, tiny bits:




NOW...both the ground, and the concrete block, were pretty (mostly) impenetrable. BUT, a building? With windows? A building constructed out of various parts, and components? "steel sections", yes....sections that had a weak link -- they were BOLTED together!! 3/4 inch, maybe one-inch thick bolts??

Structural components of a building that were designed to carry the MOST loads they would be exposed to vertically (against gravity), NOT horizontally (to resist the occasional rogue jet airliner at ~500 MPH...).

Really, people need to think this through some more.....



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by EyesWideShut

Originally posted by Orion7911

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
Planes DID hit the towers , I saw the 2nd plane hit from my Back Deck... Are you going to tell me my eyes were in on the conspiracy too?... I don't agree with the "Official Story" of what happened , who was involved , or Why... But I can verify that at least 1 plane hit the towers.


and i can present evidence of witnesses who contradict what you claim.

but if your intention was sincere, Why are you dishonest in your opening sentence?

then you offer no detailed account of what you claim to have witnessed.

what was your exact location and POV for starters.








Dude , I could give a flying F*** what you think for starters. You have some balls calling me dishonest when you have nothing but 3rd hand information to go off of. I was in Hoboken NJ at the time when it happened. I was close enough to hear , see it and smell it. On top of that I had a close friend of mine that was a port authority cop die during 9/11. Did you see the video?... well THAT'S WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED!!!!


I don't owe you or anyone else a play by play of what happened. Like I said , I don't believe the Official Story , but I can verify that at least ONE plane hit the towers.

Imagine seeing a car run into a house , then someone on the other side of the planet that wasn't there argue with you and tell you that it was a motorcycle that hit the house. THEN the guy calls you a liar and asks you to produce evidence that it was really a car. After the guy calls you a liar he then says " well I have witnesses that say they saw a motorcycle!" That's what this feels like to me.


Eyes,

At this point in time I think you are being dishonest too but I will give you a chance to clear that up.

Whats the name of your cop friend that died on 9/11?

After you have given me the name I decide if you are being dishonest or not.


Best
D.Duck



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I can't believe people actually think there was no plane that hit thw WTC or Pentagon.Not only is it absurd but it is anti-American!



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by debz325
I can't believe people actually think there was no plane that hit thw WTC or Pentagon.Not only is it absurd but it is anti-American!


No it's not. You don't get it do you?


Originally posted by airvicemarshal
Group of crimes number 1 - Mass murder
Group of crimes number 2 - Cover-up, concealment and wilful neglect of proper and due process of the law and of criminal investigation.

The second o these could well have been done by a largely misled group of individuals , corporation and agencies etc, all acting as they saw fit to be patriotic when they country needed them as they saw and to have acting unknowingly, albeit through negligence.
...



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech

Originally posted by debz325
I can't believe people actually think there was no plane that hit thw WTC or Pentagon.Not only is it absurd but it is anti-American!


No it's not. You don't get it do you?


Originally posted by airvicemarshal
Group of crimes number 1 - Mass murder
Group of crimes number 2 - Cover-up, concealment and wilful neglect of proper and due process of the law and of criminal investigation.

The second o these could well have been done by a largely misled group of individuals , corporation and agencies etc, all acting as they saw fit to be patriotic when they country needed them as they saw and to have acting unknowingly, albeit through negligence.
...


Was your post supposed to be in support of something ? Can you expand please ?



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 

Do you have a point? Just read the quoted post, a few times if nessecary.
But if you *have to* play stupid: The accusation of anti-americanism is just ridiculous in fact it's quite the opposite.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech
reply to post by Alfie1
 

Do you have a point? Just read the quoted post, a few times if nessecary.
But if you *have to* play stupid: The accusation of anti-americanism is just ridiculous in fact it's quite the opposite.


You don't think it is un-American to accuse the US government of murdering thousands of it's own citizens ?

And the evidence is ? as we see on here, pathetic attempts to make something out of George Bush's demeanour on 9/11 or the fact that he was alone on the steps of Airforce 1.

If you have something verifiable let's hear it; it will be a first.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 

Oh yeah the almighty killer argument. Oh and a new word, un-american

Find someone else to play with, preferable the person who gave you a star for this stupidity



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
A gtoup of my friends were there that day and actually caught the 2nd plane on footage. It was a VHS recorder back in the day
But yes, they did see/hear/and video it.


Have your friends been contacted by shadowy government forces and ordered to keep quiet? Has the footage been confiscated?

Because if not, Orion has some explaining to do.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911


No, thats out of context and only part of what i've presented which has been a multitude of arguments responding to your question as well as links that also give more than ample explanations and viable theories addressing your question...



Where? Seriously, where? You have made no effort at all to address it. It's you who is putting forward this theory, and I've pointed out a gigantic hole in your reasoning. It doesn't matter how strong your other evidence is - although I think it's pathetically weak - what is at issue is whether you can provide an explanation for what I ask. And you can't.




you just didn't understand it or want to accept it. If whats been presented is wrong, then why can't you show exactly how and where it is? All you do is hand-wave how its BS, tortured logic and ridiculous. BFD! so we're done here then as well. believe what you want.. the facts and evidence validate what you claim is nonsense.


It's a simple question, exactly the opposite of hand waving. I haven't changed the subject, or asked you something complicated or illogical.

How were the conspirators confident of controlling all the amateur footage?

That's my question. And you've failed to answer it, except to assert that there probably isn't any amateur footage. Challenged about this, you asked - and I can scarcely believe you would even attempt this - why people would be filming the tower. Insane.

Interestingly enough a poster above asserts that his friends made a video - are they in on it?








new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join