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: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   
I honestly cannot believe that there are some who think that 9/11 may have been a setup.

There were eye-witnesses right below the WTC who can confirm what they saw - not to mention the countless videos that show what happened (some are even featured on here).

Can we not move on from that tragic incident and think about all the people who died for no reason

Think of the people who lost their friends and family on that day... the children who now have to go through life without their parents.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by selllotape]




posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by selllotape
 



if you really care: go ahead post something productive in this thread I created:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

otherwise:

go away...
PLEASE.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by selllotape
I honestly cannot believe that there are some who think that 9/11 may have been a setup.

There were eye-witnesses right below the WTC who can confirm what they saw - not to mention the countless videos that show what happened (some are even featured on here).

Can we not move on from that tragic incident and think about all the people who died for no reason

Think of the people who lost their friends and family on that day... the children who now have to go through life without their parents.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by selllotape]


I honestly cannot believe that anyone with even limited abilities to absorb information and process it could possibly accept the official story.

Your post jumps out as a level one missive. By that I mean it shows that either you: Have no knowledge of the facts and science...OR that you cannot process that knowledge properly and assign the facts to their proper place.

You have to ignore VAST evidence to believe the official story. You have to discount many scores and thousands of experts in critical fields that see the truth. You have to totally disregard and dismiss the mountains of ' inexplicable anomalies' that scream out for explanation. You have to forget all about the photographs of the Towers blasting upwards and outwards, turing mind numbing masses of concrete into micron sized dust, with huge clouds leaping upwards and the surrounding area a foot deep in dust.

You have to call all the firefighters and rescue people liars; they testified under oath that cars and trucks were ' exploding and catching fire, right next to them, for no apparent reason!! These heroes said that they were injured by pieces of cars blasting off them when they exploded, no heat in the area, no debris blocks away...just cars and anything else metal blosing up and catching fire. You have to IGNORE the fact that ONLY an E M P blast could do what is seen and reported.

You have to not only put blinders on to ignore the obvious, you have to close your eyes and shut out all external input...only someone relying on imagination and wishes could possibly resist coming to the only logical conclusion:

9-11 was a false flag event that was carried out by the shadow government, the Neocons, with assets from the Mossad and Pakistan ISS, etc. The nuclear devices used are only available from the military or private contractor aligned with same. There is more evidence for an inside job than is needed to convince any unbiased and intelligent observer.

Unless the official story believers can give sound, valid and scientifically based explanations for the hard questions, and there are many, they cannot expect anyone to accept their assertions. Ignoring evidence, or giving spurious and nonsensical excuses for same, is not allowable in a debate. One cannot simply gloss over critical points and act as if they do not count when in fact they prove the futility of the official story:

The government cannot even discuss the events, and will not debate, and will not allow discussion formally, because their foundations are so weak and so unstable that even a minor tremor would bring the entire house of cards crashing down...and so they lie and ignore and worse, hoping that those without critical cognitive abilities will acept their tale without question.

Official story apologists not only cannot explain the ' anomalies ', they cannot even begin to assuage the doubt that exists in anyones mind that has educated themselves about this issue: The official story is not only inadequate, it is an insult to the intelligence of anyone that has studied and comprehends the evidence. Period.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
guys here is a compelling video of the "nose OUT" theory with proof.different camera angle.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Today, i'm totally convinced, that 9/11 was almost complete TV fake, resp. "hollywood sfx". They neither need remote controlled planes, nor sophisticated hologramms, but a good tv show to make the audience believe. In 1939 they used an audioplay about the raid of Gleiwitz radio, in 2001 synthetic composition of some sort of virtualreality was taken to produce a fake scenery of New York.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by qwertz
 


So when couple of dozen of my co-workers on the upper floor of our building hearing of the first aircraft impact
watched the second plane strike the South Tower was somehow faked....?

So when I looked across the Hudson from New Jersey and watched the WTC buildings burn it was fake....?

Like to hear your explanation....



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
The buildings indeed did burn, no doubt about it. Severall explosions obviously caused a lot of smoke.

But did your friends really hear, or see any aircraft, or did they only believe, it were aircraft?

Humans tend to synchronize their minds, expecially in a situation of shock.

This was nothing, but mass hysteria, spread by the media.

It was a complete fabrication by using dirty "Jedi mind tricks", too.

I managed to visit ground zero in 2006. I did see the big hole in the ground, where the two towers were standing. The crash/implosion was not a dream, it really did happen, but how it did happen, is highly questionable. The official story is definitely a bull# story.

All known video is obviously synthetically fabricated. The blurry, red-, and greenshift videoframes, the Verazano bridge moving into wrong direction, impossible camera views, the famous nose out, are an indication for fabrication. Additionally you have to take into account, that most of "witnesses" shown by media, were hired actors. There was a mad construction worker, talking about a big explosion, imitating explosion noises and a woman crying in a nervous breakdown. They are all suspicious to be hired actors to make people believe what has "correctly" happend.
edit on 20-2-2011 by qwertz because: something to add about



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by qwertz
The buildings indeed did burn, no doubt about it. Severall explosions obviously caused a lot of smoke.

But did your friends really hear, or see any aircraft, or did they only believe, it were aircraft?

Well, if they insisted that they did, you would still not believe them and not forsake your crazy theory of no planes because you would then declare that they were all lying. Yes, ALL. Such is your blind belief in your theory, you deny any evidence that contradicts it.

Originally posted by qwertz
Humans tend to synchronize their minds, expecially in a situation of shock.

Righht! They all hallucinated about non-existent planes. LOL!

Originally posted by qwertz
This was nothing, but mass hysteria, spread by the media.

Few would accept your over-stated case. Especially when there is so little evidence for the non-existence of Flight 175 and Flight 17 and when all arguments for this silly theory stem from faulty analysis of videos.

Originally posted by qwertz
It was a complete fabrication by using dirty "Jedi mind tricks", too.

"Complete"? Ah, that's where you overstate your case unnecessarily.

Originally posted by qwertz
I managed to visit ground zero in 2006. I did see the big hole in the ground, where the two towers were standing. The crash/implosion was not a dream, it really did happen, but how it did happen, is highly questionable. The official story is definitely a bull# story.

All 9/11 truthers know that. But suggesting no planes hit the towers is just more of the same bs.

Originally posted by qwertz
All known video is obviously synthetically fabricated.

Only obvious to those who have been duped by the likes of Simon Shack and his fellow con-artists.

Originally posted by qwertz
The blurry, red-, and greenshift videoframes, the Verazano bridge moving into wrong direction, impossible camera views, the famous nose out, are an indication for fabrication.

No, they are not. They were turned into false problems by faulty analysis.

Originally posted by qwertz
Additionally you have to take into account, that most of "witnesses" shown by media, were hired actors. There was a mad construction worker, talking about a big explosion, imitating explosion noises and a woman crying in a nervous breakdown. They are all suspicious to be hired actors to make people believe what has "correctly" happend.
edit on 20-2-2011 by qwertz because: something to add about

True. But that is not evidence for video fakery and no planes. You are merely clutching at straws in order to defend the indefensible.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
New York is an interesting city. The the city and it's people are quite nice, and even though such incidents weren't rare throughout its history, it doesn't deserve to be treated like that.

As a tourist from abroad, the high rising buildings are really impressive, making it quite diffcult to navigate, too. You can hardly find out, from where the sun is shining to find your way. I walked from Park Avenue to Grand Central Station and back. I finished that task by using the same track for both ways to and from. From this point of view it is hardly possible to see what is happening around the corner, or even in the sky above your head.

From this point of view it is highly likely, that there were hardly any real eyewitnesses, because most people where crowding in front of shop windows with TV sets, and that was the real source of their knowledge. People are busy, and i'm sure they moved their heads after something happenend, so they didn't see how the things happenend.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by qwertz
 


So when couple of dozen of my co-workers on the upper floor of our building hearing of the first aircraft impact


The first "impact" was no plane impact, it was an explosion. There was no plane used at all for the North Tower. The evidence seems to point towards it being a missle. The Naudet footage is a CGI rendering.


watched the second plane strike the South Tower was somehow faked....?

Second plane was not a commercial plane and it did not strike the South Tower, it flew behind the tower and as it did, they cued the explosion. May have been a small military or cargo plane. Although i believe it was an UMV.


So when I looked across the Hudson from New Jersey and watched the WTC buildings burn it was fake....?

Like to hear your explanation....


WTC did not burn . . . it was made of steel and concrete, both of which are "non-flammable". What you saw burning was the office equipment inside the building. When you saw the building explode, that was bombs going off.

The only situation on 9-11 where a real, fully functional commercial airliner was used was the pentagon.
edit on 2/20/2011 by JPhish because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by qwertz
 



From this point of view it is highly likely, that there were hardly any real eyewitnesses, because most people where crowding in front of shop windows with TV sets, and that was the real source of their knowledge. People are busy, and i'm sure they moved their heads after something happenend, so they didn't see how the things happenend.


So nobody in New York saw the impacts...?

Well several of my friends worked in WTC 7 - only 100 meters away, they witnessed both impacts,
In addition at that time of morning streets in southern Manhattan are crowded with tens of thousands of people

Plenty of witnesses there.

I know. I live right across the Hudson river and frequently travel to New York.

Also witnesses in New Jersey - such as what we saw. In Jersey City are number of high raises directly across
from WTC site. Thousands of witnesses there

If you dont know what you are talking about then dont make stuff up to satisfy your conspiracy fantasy



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
The only situation on 9-11 where a real, fully functional commercial airliner was used was the pentagon.
edit on 2/20/2011 by JPhish because: (no reason given)


Is that supposed to be a troll attempt? If yes you've got me.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Wow, thousands of witnesses are for sure a real big amount of people. I'm really impressed to hear that, but talk is always cheap. 9/11 obviously was a complete media fake. Even forums like this are probably part of that fakery. I can hear Orson Welles laugh out loud.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   


Wow, thousands of witnesses are for sure a real big amount of people. I'm really impressed to hear that, but talk is always cheap.


Yep...when you hear big talk like "thousands of witnesses", don't expect much substance to back up the claim. Who are these thousands of people? Who interviewed them? Where can we find their written/recorded statements? What did they witness? Go into a courtroom with such a claim and no backing evidence and see how fast you get laughed out of it.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
How do you explain planes on private videos. Especially of the second impact there have been maybe hundreds of private videos. A few ended up in the hands of news agencies were aired and upped on youtube. Even if we assume that each video that has been aired has been edited and that youtube censors clips that contradict the story, at least some of the people who would have footage of missing planes where they should have been would have tried their hardest to upload the material on the web, filesharing sites, peer to peer networks, anything, but nothing so far.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Well what's there we already have seen, I doubt that there is some additional footage out there which would support either theory. The most recent video released on the web (bob & bri) has the moment where the plane would have been seen conveniently cut out. The explanation is that the batteries died right at that moment, what a coincidence.


From my POV it is not really about the issue if there were planes which hit the towers or not but rather the massive effort to keep us in the dark about everything. From where I stand all the media we saw is part of a deceptive effort regardless of the details. The are filled with various other contradictions and I find it very likely that everything was scripted.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by crmanager
 


Can we make it clear that the no lane theory does not meant that nothing hit. There is evidence (size and shape silhouette) that what was seen were actually missiles. Even in the footage of the second tower a member of the public is heard screaming that it was not commercial aircraft that it was claimed.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by venomuk
reply to post by crmanager
 


Can we make it clear that the no lane theory does not meant that nothing hit. There is evidence (size and shape silhouette) that what was seen were actually missiles. Even in the footage of the second tower a member of the public is heard screaming that it was not commercial aircraft that it was claimed.


No. Get your facts right! It was a woman screaming that it was not an American airline. That suggests that she was seeing an unmarked military cargo plane.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


So is this woman an expert in aircraft identification?

For how long and at what angle did she see it?

Makes a big difference....

So far have one woman of unknown reliability claining didn't look like airliner

On other hand have hundred if not thousands saying it was an airliner

Just because someone claim it looks like X doesn't mean it is X - have to collect and check all the evidence
and them make a decision based on entire body

Not just cherry pick bits and pieces

Truthers are notorious for taking things out of context and blowing it up.......



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by micpsi
 


So is this woman an expert in aircraft identification?

For how long and at what angle did she see it?

Makes a big difference....

So far have one woman of unknown reliability claining didn't look like airliner

On other hand have hundred if not thousands saying it was an airliner

Just because someone claim it looks like X doesn't mean it is X - have to collect and check all the evidence
and them make a decision based on entire body

Not just cherry pick bits and pieces

Truthers are notorious for taking things out of context and blowing it up.......


Well there is video of the planes hitting the towers, no? Everybody can see for himself wether it is a grey plane with no markings or an AA plane painted in the colors of AA.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join