9/11 nose cone comes out the far side of tower

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 





the no plane thing is considered to be a strawman anyway aluminum going thought that much resistance? try jamming a toothpaste tube through a key hole


Tell me you are not serious.

Comments like this prove that people that attack no-plane theory, have no idea what the theory is based on.

That's just the point, there is no way it could go through the building, wich shows that the famous footage of impact, was faked.

Duh.




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by winston_jones
An interesting sequence here of stills of this 'nose cone' emerging from WTC2, from a better angle too...


Yes it's from another angle and does seem to show something very solid coming out which is impossible from my understanding of physics and planes must had hit the towers conplete with passengers else we would know by now if you ignor the six terrorists that were dead but are now alive.

Why crash the planes but then show fake film footage or crash them and also use a holograms unless you wanted to confuse the enermy because it's certainly working and i can see how no-planers can be fooled.

we also have picture of the planes that shows something attached to them so is this also part of the plan to create confusion



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by winston_jones

Originally posted by john124
What about the holes in the sides of the towers shaped like a plane's wing........ how would a missile have done that?


Has anyone mentioned a missile?


The point being - how would an indentation the shape of a jumbo jet be in the side of a building unless a jumbo jet hit that building?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
There's quite an interesting analysis here of some of the anomalies relating to the second plane, including those being discussed here. I don't necessarily agree with some of the author's conclusions but to be fair he does seem to be trying very hard to be guided only by the evidence.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 



I support the 911 truth movement
my point refers to the nose cone going through the building
what were those things flying towards the buildings?

edit to add
thats why I chose the toothpastetube analogy
I worked in scrap metal for a few years and we did a lot of airframes
aluminum "Ductible"


from : A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories

With the combination of the civilian and military radar recordings from 9/11, either the transponder or primary radar returns from flights 11 and 175 were recorded for the entirety of those flights, according to documents recently released by the NTSB which show both the complete flight path and the altitude profiles of each flight. It doesn't appear that either plane was missed by primary radar for any significant length of time during the flights.
www.questionsquestions.net...


[edit on 10-6-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Hold on big guy i'm one of you.

That the films was shown live at the time does not make it live and it could had been recorded weeks in advance with delibrate floors in the footage to server the purpose of confusing the enermy.

We all agree i think that something hit the buildings and most agree it was the missing planes and we all agree nothing could survive to come out the other side of the building intacked like that.

We also agree people not controlled by the zionists heard, saw and recorded planes so the conclusion i'm coming to is that the live news footage was not more live than elvis is.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I also looked into this info years ago, and still have not seen it debunked.

It's possible that this particular issue, within the vast scope of 9/11 subject-matter, is the most disturbing. Reminiscent of matrix-level reality bending, it should at least make the honest person pause and consider.

Sadly, from what I've seen, the "no planes" theory is seemingly most reviled, garnering emotional knee-jerk responses, sometimes degenerating into hysteria. But this makes sense in a way, because the issue forces people to confront the very uncomfortable notion that we can't believe what we see anymore.

But it's not quite that bad. We can perhaps still believe what we see, BUT we must realize that what we usually "see", are only images carefully selected by our masters, who have already calculated our predictable responses.

So, taking a step back, one should always ask, "Does it make sense"?

I think the NPT easily makes sense within the greater context of what most of us have already learned about these kinds of false-flag operations. They are very sophisticated, and as such, what we may be seeing is perfectly logical, and I might even go further and speculate that this situation is "probable", given the circumstances.

Consider the issue from "their" perspective. They spend years planning every detail, and yet, after so many years of operations like this, they know all-too-well that things can, and do, go wrong. This is precisely why you would include "back-up" plans, if you were a good planner.

What would a back-up plan look like, if plan "A" was to crash jetliners full of people into the towers? Could you perhaps have a special "cruise" type missile, at the ready, just in case? Perhaps plane number one goes as planned, but #2 encounters a problem (Shanksville sort of thing, etc.)

Also paramount in perpetrating your plan, is to ensure that the media is completely under control. No, this hardly requires "complicity" on the part of the average player, the reporters, the anchors, none of them need to know anything. As has been pointed out before many times, there is compelling evidence that "cues" were utilized in this operation as well, yet another sign that something was up. Add to this comm delays, so many seconds that ordinarily should not be there, if reporting was truly being done on the fly, as the news occurred. Missing frames, etc...

I'm glad to see this issue raised again, it is among the most vigorously suppressed, from what I have seen over the years.

As for the knee-jerk no-planer reaction, it will certainly come. Too bad they don't seem to be able to get outside their box to honestly consider the many dimensions of this issue.

And if I can see a "real" debunking, that would be great. But, I personally will be looking for something less one-dimensional than, "it's a hoax!" Really, there are too many things going on here, from different angles. A good debunking is going to have to go deeper.

The implications of this, if it is real, are enormous. No, I wouldn't think ATS'ers typically just believe their standard news sources, but the fact is, we all "tend" to believe more than we should. Psychologists have identified this natural "bias" we have, to believe, and since this is warfare, our masters would certainly be using it against us.

And the "next time" we all "see" something they have presented for us? Yes, perhaps it is high time we started questioning the "obvious"...

JR



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by winston_jones
 



good points

also Liebuster
did the lone gunman of x files episode show planes hitting the tower?
did eye witnesses other than the dancing Israelis witness the planes?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 





We also agree people not controlled by the zionists heard, saw and recorded planes so the conclusion i'm coming to is that the live news footage was not more live than elvis is.


So they had one tower burning, exactly like it did on all the other footage, and pics that weren't broadcasted live. but they made it weeks in advance? And edited the plane in at that same time?

Impossible.

The conclusion is that the footage was indeed live(technically not, 17 sec delay), the explosion was real, the fireball was real, only they edited in the plane, in 17 secs, using the delay.

Because, time was short, they screwed up, with the end line of the inserted plane footage, making it appear nose out of the building.

In order to compensate for this mistake, some "control guy" reacts as he sees the footage on tv broadcast, and pulls a killswitch and the picture goes black, only too late.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


that's a good theory too
ok?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 



Well the Pentagon obviously was no-plane. Shanksville was obviously no-plane.


Yeah, Shanksville is one reason I was SURE the whole 911 attack was an inside job.

I've got some inside (I guess you'd call it) information about Shanksville that I heard, first hand, the day it happened - before it happened. So, nothing can ever change my mind on that. But I guess that's for another thread. If I ever tell at all.

So, it's tough to say, but, where there's one lie - there's always another to cover it up, so, at this point? The NPT is something I'm willing to take a look at.

Will I subscribe to the theory? I don't know. But I wont close my mind now that that horse, it's already left the barn...

peace



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Do you feel I mistreated anyone for having another theory?

Cause I don't.

Your reply clearly showed you didn't understand the no-plane theory as presented in the video.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I was under the impression that this discussion was about the object seen in the video and the picture I posted.

Seems to have became another no plane discussion.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   


The conclusion is that the footage was indeed live(technically not, 17 sec delay), the explosion was real, the fireball was real, only they edited in the plane, in 17 secs, using the delay.


OK lets run with this because it sounds like a better theory than mine.

Are you saying they blew the building from inside and nothing hit or do you agree a plan hit and if a plane hit then why doctor anything at all so we are back to squair one saying a nose cone could not pass through the building.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


no
we are debating
I consider you a good debater and we are all after the truth which must be fire tested and hey I'm blunt too on occasion when I believe I am correct so relax ok
I said it was an inside job while I watched it live on tv
I had it on 50 tvs at the time because I worked in a store selling electronics we had a wall of them
my views were considered VERY contriversial around here and I drew live heat from the man over it...serious man

the fakery of things like the bin Ladin vids are terrible


here are a bunch of stills from various sources
www.911myths.com...
and eye witnesses of planes



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 


my point
a nose cone is not likely to pass through the building
aluminum makes lousy bullets

wish we had this "close staff scrutiny" on the second tower
where were you guys then


[edit on 10-6-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Why do so many have a problem accepting the simple possibility that a military cargo plane was used as a surrogate to Flight 175, painted in the colours of an United Airways jet plane, loaded up with tons of extra fuel in order to create a big bang when it impacted the South Tower, thereby making it credible that it helped to cause the collapse, and fitted with a depleted uranium nose so as to make the plane penetrate deep into the tower like a tank shell, causing maximum damage?

Instead of this hard-nosed explanation (:lol
, all kinds of silly speculations are spread in order to discredit 9/11 truth.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 





Are you saying they blew the building from inside and nothing hit or do you agree a plan hit and if a plane hit then why doctor anything at all so we are back to squair one saying a nose cone could not pass through the building.


Well, I suppose it was a cruise missile that hit, or less likely, nothing hit, and explosives were planted.

Since that I have seen eye-witness reports that claimed they saw somthing hitting the WTC that looked like a missile(still searching for those vids), I think a missile is the most likely, out of those two.

They obscured the missile and edited in the plane.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I don't buy into this idea that the 'live' TV footage was somehow inserted or tampered with. It would be a highly risky and self-defeating thing to do.

The point about the second plane is that it was THE spectacular TV event. It was the one that everyone saw in horrifying detail. This was the 'Shock and Awe' event.

Hardly anyone saw the first plane. Because of the first plane however the WTC area was swarming with TV crews and onlookers by the time the second plane came in 15 minutes later. Many of the onlookers had video cameras pointing at the towers when the second plane arrived.

It would be insane to broadcast TV footage of the event that might later be contradicted by the footage taken by the onlookers. Nor does it; the TV and amateur footage all show the same details.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I havn't really read about the no plane theory, but that things that makes me wonder the most is, If the planes were somehow faked, what happened to the actual passengers that were supposed to be on both planes?





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join