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.

 

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

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by winston_jones
Er, no. I'm saying that I don't think it's a nose cone. I'm saying it's most probably what it looks like: an elongated cylinder. But I'm saying I don't think the footage is faked. I think an elongated cylinder really was propelled out of the corner-angle of WTC2. It may well not have originated from the plane.


Only reason they would need to do that would be if no plane hit the building in the first place and that does not hold water for me because if they fake a plane hitting the building then they would fake the plane going out the otherside.

In general both sides agree it was fake footage and i also agree but i say it was a deliberate fake to create confusion else they must have had a hologram flying around outside to fool everyone else and if it was a militry plane dressed up to look like a normal plane then they would not need fake footage of the plane, just don't zoom in so close.




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Yep nice link you gave to the 911 nut jobs and they all seemed to have a low IQ but then again Bush that day reading to school kids about a goat didn't seem too smart.

maybe you should join the converstaion so we can judge your IQ level since you are trying to sugest anyone that does not swallow what they are told somehow have a low IQ.

Do you think a nose cone can come out the other side of the building because after all you saw it with your own eyes on TV.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


Oh....


I also looked into this info years ago, and still have not seen it debunked.


I will assume by "this info" you are referring to the OP's video, "September Clues" (Also called, by those who've analyzed it, "September Clueless". And THAT comes from some "Truther" sites!!)

Sorry if this seems like a broad brush to wave, but it has been my impression that a lot of the people who fall for all of the 9/11 "conspiracy" stuff are usually of a younger generation, so I thought that THIS might be interesting, and on that level -- based on the host in the video:



There are plentyof other videos that tear "Simon Shack" and his baloney a new place to excrete digested food.....



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Now, that was the 'short' YouTube for-the-short-attention-span crowd.

Here's another one....and it's even shorter!!


video.google.com...#



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Who said holograms, I said cruise missiles were likely imo.


So we have a cruse missile with a hologram around it to make it look like a plane and charges on the side of the building to burn holes to leave the indent of a plane.

They landed the original planes at an airforce base, killed the passengers and chopped the plane up into small pieces

Don't think so buddy

Why go to all this trouble when they had a perfectly good plane and passengers to get rid of and they could pack tons of TNT into the cargo bay on a normal plan to add extra bang if needed.

i would go so far as saying it would had been easyer to had faked the whole lot up in hollywood and play the footage back using all the media outlets and shut people up that looked up at the towers and didn't see dents in the building.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


In that last one the guy's completely missing the point.

He's attacking the September clues video on the fact that it is impossible for the nose cone to survive the crash, and come out of the other side of the building.

This is exactly the point September clues is making, they saying it's trickery because of that fact. The guy in your vidis actually supporting the Sep clues vid.

He claims the footage wasn't originally like this, because he couldn't find it on the internet.

He presents no proof whatsoever, and the other vid you posted doesn't either, just opinions, sofar I haven't seen September clues debunked.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 





So we have a cruse missile with a hologram around it to make it look like a plane and charges on the side of the building to burn holes to leave the indent of a plane.


Why do you insist on holograms? I never claimed that. Cruise missiles look like planes, especially if you keep hearing reports about planes.

A flash is clearly visible coming from the tower just before impact, so explosives could also have been used.




Why go to all this trouble when they had a perfectly good plane and passengers to get rid of and they could pack tons of TNT into the cargo bay on a normal plan to add extra bang if needed.


You don't believe it were Arab hyjackers, do you?

How would they get the plane to fly directly into the WTC, without a suicide pilot?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanks for the link

First time i've came across anyone saying it didn't go out live on TV just like it was presented so it becomes a question of who faked it and unless i'm corrected about this it's looks like the no-planers did the dirty.

Does anyone else know if this was live footage or not ?

Thanks again my man.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 





First time i've came across anyone saying it didn't go out live on TV just like it was presented so it becomes a question of who faked it and unless i'm corrected about this it's looks like the no-planers did the dirty.


The guy also completely missed the point of the September clues, attacking it by saying it is impossible for mthe nose cone coming out intact, wich was the whole point why they claimed tv trickery.

He also says it wasn't live footage, because he couldn't find on the internet.

Some quality arguments there.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 





Why do you insist on holograms? I never claimed that. Cruise missiles look like planes, especially if you keep hearing reports about planes.


No a cruise missile looks nothing like a plane so it would need to be cloaked by a hologram for that theory to have any legs.

We all, every one agree it's fake footage and we have moved on to who faked it and before today i took it as gosbal that it was live footage shown on 9/11 but it now starting to look like one of our own have faked it.

it should be easy to prove one way or another if this was live or not and i would had exspected a lot more people to know about this and to had passed the word around if it was not a live release regardless of the interpritations of what the footage shows.

another one to watch out for is a still picture of firemen peering into a glowing hole of what looks like molton metal because the picture has been 'Colour enhanced' and the original looks as if it's nothing more than light from the firemens tourch.

if it's fake we don't need it because we have more than plenty to see jusdice done for 9/11.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return


How would they get the plane to fly directly into the WTC, without a suicide pilot?




I think the question should be: How would they get the plane to fly directly into the WTC, *with* a suicide pilot (especially one with virtually no flying skills)?

Many professional pilots have expressed incredulity at the proposition that any pilot, however experienced and skilful, could guide a passenger jet at such low altitude and high speed into such a narrow target with such pinpoint accuracy.

This raises another issue that is not often discussed: the speed of the plane at impact. All reliable estimates give the plane's speed at about 570-590 mph. As it happens, this is the listed top speed for a Boeing 767. The problem is that this top speed is for a 767 flying at cruising altitude, where the air is thin. At sea-level (as is the case here) the top speed is appreciably lower because of the much denser atmosphere. 'UA 175' was therefore travelling much faster than should have been possible.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


"You don't believe it were Arab hyjackers, do you? "

No them type of people are becoming very hard to find.

"How would they get the plane to fly directly into the WTC, without a suicide pilot?"

Use auto pilot, retro fit your cruise missile controls or pay me if i was dieing of cancer and was 70 years old are just a few ways that jump to mind i don't know but i do know the nose cone had less chance of coming out the other side of hte building than the pilot surviving the crash so i want to find out if that is fake media news or not and if it is and the no planners are falling for it then i'll be the first to stop them.

winston_jones

Yes it does sound a bit fast and due to ground effect it is very hard to force a plane to fligh close to the ground at anything above 200mph and if you do manage it then it will rip the tufr up from the ground and yet the grass in front of the pentagon looked like a golf course.




[edit on 10-6-2010 by LieBuster]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
PONR
no prob.

What about:
homing devices IN the target zones
they are doing this now with RFIDS in pakistan with the drones
drones are proof this is all possible and has been for years

so lets say you have a plane rigged to fly by remote
or preprogrammed even
all the fancy planes these days the pilot controls the computer,
the computer flies the plane.
cruise missles too.

till it is in range of the transponder
could be the original planes, could be substitutes.

we have all kinds of reasons to think the buildings were wired and blown
so you have target areas full of explosive
seriously check this link
www.rumormillnews.com...

you have transportation secretary testifying that Cheney refused to lift the stand down...from the bunker ...no interferance or visuals

you have all these "drill " returns on the airtraffic radar totally confusing traffic controlers

this way if it was a subtitute, the real planes just flew out to sea and poof or splash

also your dancing Israelis
they wer on sie PRIOR to the first plane hitting the tower

what if the planes were laser guided
just put the dot on the target from across the way
this is STANDARD PRACTICE for guiding in precision munitions

this is all do-able steps that are common practice
no fancy stuff



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Yes this is also a valid option.

I'm not saying the no planes is actually true here, I just find the video very compelling, and decided to defend it.

It's just something I am open to.

I replied to Liebuster who was suggesting they used the actual flights with passengers, these flights would had to have been prepared to accommodate this, and they would've had to make sure the actual pilot couldn't control the plane.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 


You are right about it dividing us.

The whole no plane thing. I don't want to be arguing with people that are on "my side". It feels akward.

I just think the no plane theory has some points, years back, I saw some vids on youtube with people claiming they saw a misslie at the WTC, and I also saw the September clues vid in that time, it seemed possible.

I'm still trying to find those vids.



[edit on 10-6-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 


Man! where have you been, are you from the past? if so, you might also like to know that both buildings fall to the ground not long after. Later it becomes apparently obvious to everyone that it was an inside job, Bush! still manages to get re-elected and no one responsible ever goes to jail...

[edit on 10-6-2010 by strangleholder1]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Point of No Return

Yeah i know the ones you mean but they didn't stand up to peer review and were more than likly the work of disinfo agents.

The other one that pops up now and then is the nutron bomb theory that tries to explain the concrent turning to molecule size dust after the blast and whilst i don't know much on the subject and know technoligy is 20 years ahead of where we think it is and yet i still have trouble suporting that theory.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by strangleholder1
Bush! still manages to get re-elected and no one responsible ever goes to jail...
[edit on 10-6-2010 by strangleholder1]


Well Bushes grandad nearly went to jail for trading with the enermy during WWII but then went on to have a son as president and granson too and the reason it works this way is because we only got to vote for a pile of cammel $hit or dog $hit and all opt for the cammel.

Just remember all men are equal in the eyes of the law so thowing a shoe at me will get you 4 years in the slammer.

I don't know i sometimes think we are playing a rigged game don't you


Anyway my mate the lockerby bomber is having the time of his life and mad dog gadffey, who's not mad anymore says he's a hero after killing 200 people and us letting him go.

Hell the president in Iran will be deemed to be a man of wisdom if only he would bend over for the zionists.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
i dunno, i know how crazy the "no-plane" theory does sound at first, but everything must really be considered, no matter how stupid it seems at first. everyone can laugh and laugh and love their patriot act, but really, how hard would it be to dress up a missle as a plane with wings and junk that will simply be destroyed?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
"Now, that was the 'short' YouTube for-the-short-attention-span crowd.

Here's another one....and it's even shorter!"

Since you're presenting these videos, you seem to be an expert on short attention span. Thanks for the crackpot productions.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join