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: 8
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by warisover

Originally posted by rcwj1975


hahahaha...you are actually using that video as a means to justify the NO PLANES theory....


Not just that video, all the videos throughout this thread adds up to NO PLANES. use your brain.


Well luckily for me I AM using my brain and NOT getting caught up in complete BS. NONE ...I REPEAT...NONE of the videos you posted proved anything except there are people out there who truly have NO IDEA how to investigate using common sense, real facts, real circumstances, and last but not least, lifes reality. They simply see something they WANT to see and run with, or don't care to wanna see the truth, so in their delusional mind they come up with their fairytale crap that makes them look foolish to the other 99.5% of people who actually understand things.

Logic is a good thing not to waste on made up BS....




posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Oh and here you go...two videos.

First one obviously posted by someone who isn't very bright, VERY LITTLE in the way of IQ and common sense, and from the title of his video must know you. But even this idiot, with his own video admission (i.e. whats shown on the video..hopefully you understand), proves there were planes....I love when morons use their own crap to disprove their own theories.


Belly Back Theory...yeah the poster of this vid is obviously an idiot.


Then we have this one...and according to the OP, this video was also doctored, CGI enhanced, sounds added, etc....and even in HD...thats right folks...our government has better CGI folks and audio people than hollywood making $45,000 a year vs $3.5 million a year making movies...





posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
This guy "warisover" is gonna try to keep this thread going with this bs, better to just let the thread die. I bet atleast 90% of people that visit this thread only clicked on it after they chuckled.


Originally posted by rcwj1975
Oh and here you go...two videos.

First one obviously posted by someone who isn't very bright, VERY LITTLE in the way of IQ and common sense, and from the title of his video must know you. But even this idiot, with his own video admission (i.e. whats shown on the video..hopefully you understand), proves there were planes....I love when morons use their own crap to disprove their own theories.


Belly Back Theory...yeah the poster of this vid is obviously an idiot.


Then we have this one...and according to the OP, this video was also doctored, CGI enhanced, sounds added, etc....and even in HD...thats right folks...our government has better CGI folks and audio people than hollywood making $45,000 a year vs $3.5 million a year making movies...




[edit on 6-4-2010 by abovetopromen]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by warisover
 


Actually i am not kidding silly....NYC is the most populated city in the US of A bud.....plane hits WTC...Guess what brains? Cameras are going to be pointed at it.....HOLY CRAP they actually filmed the 2nd plane hit?? NO WAY!!

again stud....think about it. Tell me why you are right and everyone else on the planet, with a brain, is wrong...thats your new challenge....go get em kid...



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jeffiriff

Tell me why you are right and everyone else on the planet, with a brain, is wrong...thats your new challenge....go get em kid...


First, it's not just me against everybody else. There are a lot of people that haven't bought into the fake plane theory. Some threads have already been started about Dimitri Khalezov, who is a former officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence, he also knows there were no planes on 9/11.

Here is the part where he starts to talk about the planes.



Please try to catch up.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by warisover
 


Yes, it really is you against everybody else... but your persistence in your folly is not making you wise. It's making those of us who study disinfo scratch our heads and wonder why you keep posting this frivolous nonsense, why you never engage with any arguments other than by posting more fatuous videos, and why you think anyone here agrees with you.

And Khalezov? He's the one going round pushing the nukes theory. Please, catch up. That's more disinfo.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
They have you guys EXACTLY where they want you to be. Instead of working as one we fuzz and fight over details. Plane or no plane ... that's not even the question. Think about it.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by warisover
 


My only take on this subject is anything is possible; we really do not have any proof to what hit the WTC, because we all know none of the four planes that crashed were investigated.

What has me thinking that two planes did hit the WTC is there were other videos taken by many eyewitnesses in many locations.

I agree we cannot trust television, because we all know they are capable of anything these days.

Who to say it was not a missal; we do not have any proof.
Even those eyewitnesses who filmed the plane hitting the WTC from different locating “could “have all been working together, we really do not know.

We know our military has all the capability of flying planes by remote control, and we all know it is an old technology.

All I can say is when trying to discover the truth to 911; one must keep an open mind to all possibilities.

Cheers



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Anyone with a little military background or understands physics should be able to look at the impacts and see that a passenger plane cannot penetrate a heavy steel and concrete tower. The skin of the WTC and core were thicker than tank armor. Any military expert making projectile and armor penetrating weapons will know that an aluminum shell like that of a passenger plane would not be able to punch a big hole in a steel target.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


How come the landing gears show up down at streets when they where inside the planes ?



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowKnight322
How come the landing gears show up down at streets when they where inside the planes ?

Once the planes impacted the buildings and got torn to pieces from the force of the impact, the landing gear was no longer inside the planes.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 





Anyone with a little military background or understands physics should be able to look at the impacts and see that a passenger plane cannot penetrate a heavy steel and concrete tower. The skin of the WTC and core were thicker than tank armor. Any military expert making projectile and armor penetrating weapons will know that an aluminum shell like that of a passenger plane would not be able to punch a big hole in a steel target.


Apparently have done no research - just pushing nonsense

The planes did not penetrate a solid wall, but a lattice work of steel beams bolted and welded togather. The planes snapped/sheared the connections of the beams.



The World Trade Center towers utilized high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns. The perimeter structure containing 59 columns per side was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces each consisting of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The spandrel plates were welded to the columns to create the modular pieces off-site at the fabrication shop. Adjacent modules were bolted together with the splices occurring at mid-span of the columns and spandrels. The spandrel plates were located at each floor, transmitting shear stress between columns, allowing them to work together in resisting lateral loads. The joints between modules were staggered vertically so the column splices between adjacent modules were not at the same floor.


The "wall" was not thickness of tank armour - the beams were 1/4" in
thickness, 3/8" at the bottom of the towers




But even if it was solid the velocity (~500 mph) and weight of the aircraft
(over 300,000 lbs) would have penetrated

Witness the Empire State Building in 1945 hit by B25 bomber. The exterior wall is solid masonary . Yet an aircraft travelling at 1/3 the speed and weighing 1/10 that of a 767 was able to knock hole in building

www.evesmag.com...



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by warisover
 


My only take on this subject is anything is possible; we really do not have any proof to what hit the WTC, because we all know none of the four planes that crashed were investigated.

All I can say is when trying to discover the truth to 911; one must keep an open mind to all possibilities.


Thanks for replying impressme


I respect your opinion because I've been reading your threads for some time now and can tell you are really seeking the truth. But notice the first sentence in your quote that I posted.."because we all know none of the four planes that crashed were investigated." Do you really think that four planes crashed? I don't think that you do. All I am asking is that you do some more research into the "no planes" and maybe you can start a thread on it, people seem to listen to you, I was literally called a disinfo agent and mocked even though I am telling the truth.

Thanks for having an open mind



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowKnight322

How come the landing gears show up down at streets when they where inside the planes ?



Landing Gear and Tires

There were over 10 different reports of Landing Gear being found. Some of these put the Landing Gear on Vesey Street, West Street, in a Parking Lot (which may be on West or Vesey Street), in a Jacuzzi, on top of a woman or in Rector Street. From the account of Dean Coutsouros (File No: 9110049)

…we got in front of 90 West Street, we held up there for a few minutes underneath the scaffolding to reassess the situation, how we were going to get into the building. There was all kinds of human debris. The landing gear of the aircraft was in that parking lot there. There was all kinds of stuff all over the floor.

From the account of John Breen (File No: 9110321)

We did see part of -- I didn't see it, but Jeff Johnson told me later on he did see part of the landing gear actually fell right through the roof and it was in one of the Jacuzzis in another room.

With 4 apparently separate reports of aircraft landing gear or tires being found in different locations, it is difficult to believe that these tires genuinely could have survived the crash. For example, from the account of Steve Grabher (File No: 9110241):

We came right down West Street, down here. We couldn't get too close, because by the time we got near 2 World Trade Center people were jumping off the roof like crazy. Landing near the hotel and the street was littered with body parts. I don't know if it was from the plane or what. But there was just body parts all over the place. Chunks of meat. I saw an airplane tire. I walked past an airplane tire. What looked like an airplane tire. Again we were looking up the whole time.

[color=GOLD]Reading accounts like this, and seeing the picture of the tire under the scaffolding, one is immediately reminded of the story of the survival of Mohammad Atta’s passport.

www.checktheevidence.com...


The plane parts that were found in NYC were all planted before and during the false flag.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by warisover]



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I have to agree that we have no idea what really happened and you can't rule anything out IMO. No one says you have to believe in this but I am guessing 95% of everyone else doesn't have everything correct in their hypothesis either.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by warisover
 



When it is Pseudo-logic and pseudo-common sense?

I'm not an OS Adherent nor am i a truther. I am a skeptic. One thing i am not purebred skeptical on is this ridiculous no-planes theory.

First off you seem to have little knowledge of how TV-broadcasting and cameras work. It's not unusual for colors to shift during a live feed of a chaotic event. Not all home cameras are the same either and if they have Auto-adjust functions there will be inconsistencies in the overall footage.

Second off:

Planes DID hit the towers. Almost every single 9/11 truther i have met subscribed to this fact. The only "no plane" theories that even sound somewhat valid are the ones in regards to the pentagon.


So please explain how ME (yes i saw the planes hit in REAL LIFE.) and THOUSANDS of people saw planes hit the WTC in REAL LIFE. Were they holograms? Let me guess. The same ones they are going to use for Project Blue Beam?


Please, crap like this is what steals away validity from the 9/11 truth movement and smears otherwise honest truthers who pose good questions.

Again i am NOT an OS adherent and i am NOT a truther.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Once the planes impacted the buildings and got torn to pieces from the force of the impact, the landing gear was no longer inside the planes.


Well thanks for at least stating the planes were torn to pieces, you are one of the few people to even bring that up.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeathShield
reply to post by warisover
 


So please explain how ME (yes i saw the planes hit in REAL LIFE.) and THOUSANDS of people saw planes hit the WTC in REAL LIFE. Were they holograms? Let me guess. The same ones they are going to use for Project Blue Beam?

Again i am NOT an OS adherent and i am NOT a truther.


Are you sure they were planes? Or were they missiles dressed up to look like planes?

Anyway if you don't have a video to show us of those "planes" that you witnessed, how do we know you're for real?



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeathShield
So please explain how ME (yes i saw the planes hit in REAL LIFE.)


So please explain to us exactly what you saw.

What size were the planes?

How many engines were on the planes?

What color were the planes?

What was painted on the planes.

Please tell us what you saw.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Actually I have a new theory; The planes were real but the buildings were holograms.


Work with me here. Skylab was launched in 1973. and was obviously capable of projecting two large buildings into New york city. The buildings were faked. Never existed. And all the people listed as having died in the buildings were nothing but carefully prepared aliases. The people were actually holograms and TV fakery. Never existed.

With me so far? Cool...

Every TV movie which showed the WTC was obvious TV fakery. And the people as well. Carefully prepared TV fakeries. The Twin towers were never built. EVER!!!! Don't you see people? how obvious is is this truth? I mean duh~~

The planes disappeared into the Holographic towers. This is obvious and a given. The people jumping from the towers? TV fakery! And holograms.

Who is with me so far?


This is so fracking obvious its a wonder I never saw it before. I just looked at New york City and can obviously see it is a hologram as well, with fake hologram people, full of TV fakery.

Who else is with me in this?

It's all so damned obvious now--

I am thinking the whole Eastern seaboard doesn't REALLY exist except in holographic technology.

The pyramids? Holograms. Chinese wall? holograms and TV fakery..

Gosh why didn't I see this before?

I am starting to think China isn't real and a hologram or TV fakery as well.

Cheers-
phil






[edit on 11-4-2010 by Phil Jayhan]



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join