It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So the planes in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon were not real either?
The people and video from the Penetagon who say the plane are what? Lying or they saw a hologram?
And the plane in Pennsylvania?
They just created a crash sight for some reason? A
nd so far I have seen nothing that tells me that guys with little to no training could not do it.
It seems that their many many places who can "prove" that "proof" is wrong. How do you pick and choose what part of theory you believe and how is any more valid then all the others including the official one.
[edit on 15-8-2010 by MrSpad]
Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by johnny2127
When flying into a airport you have someone in the tower telling you the info you need to land safely. These hijackers didn't have that. Even the guy that trained them to fly the Cessna said they couldn't have done it.
Originally posted by drock905
So two thirds couldn't do it.... but the other group could. So what does this mean? It proves the moves made are possible.
[edit on 15-8-2010 by drock905]
If 2/3 couldn't do it then that makes it impossible . Let us all ignore the fact that at least 1/3 of those who tried DID do it .
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Snarf
Isnt that funny? A pilot cant hit a target that is 208ft wide (WTC1+2 width) or another target that is 921ft wide (Pentagon), but they can land a plane on a runway that is 60-200ft wide. Those must be some crappy pilots. If they cant hit a target that is wider than a runway, then how the hell are they landing our aircraft on targets that are smaller? Or unless they all do it on autopilot. If those are the facts, then I'm taking a train or a boat on my next trip.
Also I recall watching an episode of Mythbusters where they managed to land a plane with only commands from the control tower. Wasnt perfect but they sure landed the planes safely enough. After all, how muc training does it take to fly straight, do a circle, then put it ina dive and aim at the target?
Originally posted by fleabit
I don't understand the premise of these arguments.
So.. if it wasn't suicidal terrorists.. it was what? Our own? We actually got some fine pilots to VOLUNTEER to kill themselves for this cover-up? I'm sorry if I don't buy that. ...
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by okbmd
well I did say before that even a novice pilot can have enough luck and skill to turn, speed up, slow down, and dive a plane into a building. Unless the pilots that were asked to try it themselves were asked to recreate the exact same path, speed, altitude, as the hijackers, which I can see where the problems would arise.
Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
I never saw a plane hit a building. I did see a television image of a plane hitting a building. A movie producer could have made that. I also heard all kinds of conflicting testimony about the events of that day. I saw a tepid investigation; talk about the fox guarding the henhouse. I also saw Bush and Cheney get on with things as though they still deserved to be employed in the business of defending the country. When it comes to 911 I know absolutely nothing. Nothing has been well explained.
It isn't wise to underestimate human ingenuity or treachery. And anybody can be fooled. You can fool most of the people most of the time.
Suspicions are called for.