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: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Since a thorough and complete investigation was never completed, one cannot come to any conclusion about what happened on 9/11 unless one is either delusional or full of crap. Take your pick!




posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by warisover
 





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


Right......

How objects weighing hundreds if not thousands of pounds being planted in broad daylight on crowded Manhattan streets?

Maybe can explain this .....



or this




or this





posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by warisover
All I am asking is that you do some more research into the "no planes"

What part of: We've done the research years ago and found "no planes at the WTC" claims to be false. do you not understand?



Originally posted by warisover
I was literally called a disinfo agent and mocked even though I am telling the truth.

How are you telling the truth? I've easily debunked every single thing you've posted. There's not one shred of evidence to support your "theories". There's no facts, no evidence, no proof. Therefore, not the truth.



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

We know that's a lie. With as many people that are on NYC streets at any given time, somebody would have seen people dragging large aircraft engines or large landing gear out of the back of a van.




Originally posted by warisover
Are you sure they were planes? Or were they missiles dressed up to look like planes?

You can't "dress up" a missile to look like a plane. Missiles are much smaller than planes. Missiles travel much faster than planes, 2-3 times faster. Missiles don't have 160-foot wingspans like the planes that hit the WTC.

Missile theory debunked.



Originally posted by warisover
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?

Why would someone show you a video so that you can call the video fake? There are many other private citizens that have shown their home videos and you still call them fake, so why Deathshield showing you a home video be any different?


Notice that out of the almost 12,000 active members of ATS, only 5 believe in the no-plane "theories". Thanks to the few that came to support the no-plane "theories", we now know who to not take seriously and has zero credibility.

So pathetically sad, these no-plane "theories". They never hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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.





but the plane exploded inside the tower, how did the landing gear survive the explosion?



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
but the plane exploded inside the tower, how did the landing gear survive the explosion?

There was no "explosion". The plane was shattered into pieces and the fuel was ignited. The ignition of fuel has a very minimal explosive effect. But, even if there were an imaginary explosion, it wouldn't matter as engine parts and landing gear continued through the building and out the other side because they are the heaviest and strongest parts of a plane.

In the following image, look on the very right-hand side and notice all the plane parts that continued through the building and out the other side:





posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Well this bit of information is sure weird. Seems the plane that crashed in Russia first clipped some trees where the one wing fell off. Then the other wing clipped a power line and it was sheared off. hmmmmmm



How could the wings of the "planes" that "hit" the towers just disappear into the steel structure without them falling off on impact? hmmmm
isn't steel supposed to be stronger than tree branches and power lines, not on 9/11, the steel had the consistency of thawed butter.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by warisover
isn't steel supposed to be stronger than tree branches and power lines, not on 9/11, the steel had the consistency of thawed butter.

The plane that crashed in Russia was at landing speeds around 150mph. Not 500mph as was estimated at the WTC.

Secondly, and I'm getting very tired of having to tell you this, the outer columns of the WTC were connected together by bolts and welds. None of the outer columns were severed. The planes severed the bolts and welds only. Do you understand?

Yes, a 300,000 pound object traveling circa 500mph will go through bolts and welds like a knife through butter. I don't know what part of that you don't understand.





[edit on 11-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Yes, a 300,000 pound object traveling circa 500mph will go through bolts and welds like a knife through butter. I don't know what part of that you don't understand.


You should really do a little more research into this matter (it's getting a little embarrassing) What part of, a plane can't travel at that speed at that altitude, don't you understand?



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by warisover
You should really do a little more research into this matter (it's getting a little embarrassing)

Yes, it is getting embarrassing, for you.



Originally posted by warisover
a plane can't travel at that speed at that altitude

You're only half correct. But you conveniently leave out the other half which would amount to: purposeful disinformation.

A jetliner cannot take off and reach 500mph at sea level because it's engines aren't powerful enough. A jetliner can reach and surpass 500mph on it's way down to sea level from altitude. And it doesn't even need it's engines to do so. It's called gravity. Once the plane reaches sea level at that speed, the speed will quickly bleed off as the engines aren't able to keep up that speed at sea level.

The plane that impacted the south tower came down from altitude and only leveled out just 2-3 seconds before impact, keeping most of it's speed from descension.

If you don't believe me, you can try it yourself in any flight simulator. It would appear that you are lacking in the research department.

Keep posting false information and it'll keep getting debunked.






[edit on 11-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Keep posting false information and it'll keep getting debunked.


Bonez, you have not debunked any of my information, just because you say, "debunked" does not make it so.

Check out this video, absolute proof that NIST lied and the "planes" were faked.




posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by warisover
Bonez, you have not debunked any of my information, just because you say, "debunked" does not make it so.

I have, but you continue to ignore it. You don't care about facts or truth, that's why you say that your information isn't debunked.



Originally posted by warisover
Check out this video, absolute proof that NIST lied and the "planes" were faked.

Yes! Super-duper, undeniable, absolute, positive proof that NIST lied! (not really)

The disinfo artist that made the phone calls in this video, Jeff Hill, is actually the one that purposefully and blatantly lied in the video.

I will say it yet again: THE PLANES DID NOT CUT OR SLICE THROUGH THE STEEL COLUMNS. THE CONNECTORS CONNECTING THE COLUMNS ARE WHAT FAILED.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

The disinfo artist that made the phone calls in this video, Jeff Hill, is actually the one that purposefully and blatantly lied in the video.


So, you are saying that the guy in the video has been debunked? For asking questions? Please provide evidence.


I will say it yet again: THE PLANES DID NOT CUT OR SLICE THROUGH THE STEEL COLUMNS. THE CONNECTORS CONNECTING THE COLUMNS ARE WHAT FAILED.


So in other words, the "plane" penetrated the building through the, "CONNECTORS CONNECTING THE COLUMNS" and not the steel structure? Please explain how that is possible?



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by warisover
So in other words, the "plane" penetrated the building through the, "CONNECTORS CONNECTING THE COLUMNS" and not the steel structure?

DING DING DING!!!! Now you're getting it!

The outer columns were prefabricated in sections at the factory. Those sections were then installed on the towers:




The sections were bolted together on the towers by welds and 4 large bolts:






The only thing keeping the aircraft out was the welds and those 4 bolts on each column.

The floor trusses were very lightweight and crumpled against a 300,000 pound object traveling circa 500mph:




Breaking the bolts and welds allowed the steel column sections to move out of the way of the planes as they entered.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

The only thing keeping the aircraft out was the welds and those 4 bolts on each column.


So four large bolts failed and that's how the "plane" disappeared into the building? hmmmmm


The floor trusses were very lightweight and crumpled against a 300,000 pound object traveling circa 500mph:


Now who is spreading disinfo?
The floor trusses were built very strong and would NOT crumple.


Breaking the bolts and welds allowed the steel column sections to move out of the way of the planes as they entered.


That is hilarious
Did you hear what you just said? The steel columns, "moved out of the way of the planes as they entered".


Maybe your steel columns were holograms



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by warisover
The floor trusses were built very strong and would NOT crumple.

I showed a diagram of the floor trusses. If you don't think those trusses would crumple against a 300,000 pound object traveling circa 500mph, then it's no wonders you believe no planes hit the towers.



Originally posted by warisover
Did you hear what you just said? The steel columns, "moved out of the way of the planes as they entered"

Removing the bolts to the floor trusses, and the bolts and welds that connect the columns together, there is nothing else holding those columns in place. Break those bolts and welds and those columns are useless. If you don't think a 300,000 pound object traveling circa 500mph can break bolts and welds, then it's no wonders you believe no planes hit the towers.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Just for any of the "no plane believers" who are reading this. IF you really think this is the truth and you are convinced by the evidence then stop and realize what it is you are believing in and where it could logically lead.

#1. It could lead to a complete denial of 9/11 as a real event. Why stop with the planes? Perhaps, the World Trade Center was one big CGI effect?

#2. If that many people are lying, then you can never believe anything. Everything could be a lie and the info you research might be a lie.

#3. You would have to believe that the United States could control every single tourist and amateur camera in New York that day.


AS for #1. This is where some have already have went. Simon Shack is doubting many of the passengers and even has questioned the collapses!

AS for #2. This is obvious. You would have to have entire news agencies "in on it" and you would have to have the entire airlines "in on it." The amount of people keeping this secret would be too high, much too high to be believable.

AS for #3. It is ludicrous to think that the United States somehow controlled random pictures and film that day, and if one were to actually believe this, then why aren't they stopping you from talking about No Planes! If they had the power to stop pictures that would show what really happened, why would they be allowing anyone to talk! Why wouldn't they be using that power to shut all the amateur voices down?


The NO Plane Theory can never stand under its own skeptical thought process. If falls under its own weight.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Okay there may or may not have been a plane BUT if there was and it his one side ( even one corner) of the tower, then why would the tower fall and cave on on itself?

it is more probably to say that is the plane hit the right side the building would start crashing down on that side, not straight down like it does. The way the towers came down were similar to the way old buildings are demolished to clear the space...

it seems to be, and i have looked at a couple videos for a long time now that in order for the building to collaspse on itself like that is if explosives were planted inside. and the funny thing is that suposably the towers were shut down previous to 9 11 for a renovation...and all power and ect was shut down..( could be the potential insertiion of explosives)

finally take note that as the towers are falling you can see tiny puffs of smoke coming out of the sides of the building and sometimes light ignitions on the floors WAY BEFORE the "big cloud" of smoke on top reaches the area.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
And just to comment on the people who believe america cannot possibly control all the media and videos that were released...i beg to differ.

China is able to control what its people read, see on the internet, and watch and is able to block anything that they want.



if they can do it; so can we.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by 410403
 





it seems to be, and i have looked at a couple videos for a long time now that in order for the building to collaspse on itself like that is if explosives were planted inside. and the funny thing is that suposably the towers were shut down previous to 9 11 for a renovation...and all power and ect was shut down..( could be the potential insertiion of explosives)


Tens of thousands of people work in those buildings

If they were closed why did nobody know about it!

The only person claiming such, Scott Forbes, has been outed as a fraud

He claimed that the South (WTC 2) was powered off weekend before 9/11
Debunkers were able to prove building was still open and Observation
deck on 106 floor was operating, Forbes is a fool - later retuced it power
shut down on on section of floor.

As for "puffs of smoke" claim

They are windows shattering as building twists during collapse



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join