It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 05:42 PM

Their is footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon and its very easy to find. Also witnesses saw planes at both the Pentagon and Shanksville. And that link you have seems to ignore all the pictures, wreckage and human remains recovered. None of this seems be hidden or secret information so how do you just ignore it and go with no planes? And for that matter why if this was all plot from within the Gov bother to use planes at all.

Would it have not been simpler to just blow up the World Trade Center with explosives, something I see claimed, and not bother with the huge tast of adding planes to the mixture? Terrorist have tried to blow up the WTC before so, would it not be even more simple and easly bought by the public to just make it a bombing and not add all the extra work of planes? In the world of black ops missions are kept as simple as possible with as few people involved as possible for maxium chance of success.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by MrSpad]

We seem to disagree. I looked at several videos, this was the best one I saw that showed an aircraft hitting the pentagon. Seriously, if you could post what you consider the best video I would like to see it; everything I found was blurry/non-convincing.

Why would they bother to use planes? Terrorism is not about stats and damage, it is about emotional impact. Planes hitting buildings is very dramatic, whether it happened or not.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by BenIndaSun]

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 05:45 PM

Originally posted by thedman

Never fails that some idiotic truthrer falls for this........

Hey... who's an "idiotic truthrer"?

I'm not as dumb as I look, you know!

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 05:59 PM

anything about 9/11, but - to be quite honest - the OS sure as hell sounds a lot more plausible than the bunk that "truthers" put out there. "It was cruise missiles disguised to look like planes!" "No, it was holograms!" "No, it was modified alien ships from Area 51!"

I don't think you'd get many truthers agreeing that the planes were holograms or modified alien ships originating from Area 51; those people are few and far between. Most truthers just simply want an independent, non-partisan re-investigation. The investigation by NIST was no doubt flawed. They didn't even do any chemical testing for explosives, which is in direct violation of NFPA code and thus common law. Every year that passes though, the chance of a re-investigation just seems to become smaller and smaller and it's not helped when there are people discrediting the truth movement by making up crazy claims like the ones above. Still, at least it shows that people are thinking for themselves and not just automatically accepting what they're told by authority as the be-all and end-all of truth.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 06:39 PM
Wow. That was interesting.

This video should get posted on the ufo forum as well..

If I looked up and seen this 'ball', and my mind registered it, at what 230+ mph, I'd be screaming UFO's.

Or, if it was a secret government explosive weapon/craft with anti-gravity, guidance systems I'd be screaming UFO's!!!

This alleged evidence of a silent, saucer shaped, anti-gravity, controlled 'ball'/craft is not feasible without back engineering the very craft (silent/hovered/saucer shaped) witnessed by so many (except me, dammit!) people.

And I only say alleged because when they show the helicopter footage of the 'ball', it says alleged at the bottom.


posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 06:56 PM
hello i am brand new to this site be kind to me humans i have a few questions if any one can answer on this topic

1. if the planes did not come from the airport they say they did would it have been easyer for them to hit the buildings if they popped out of thin air if you will

2. has any one got any videos of the planes taking off from these airports
like in the airport people getting on the plane the plane on the runway ready to take off the planes in the air

3. if hussein barack obama came on sky news and said yes we did do it me and little bushey watched fight cluand well you know what would you do

thank you

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 07:33 PM

Originally posted by MrSpad
I know I am going regret even asking but, what is this suppose to mean? The pilots did hit the towers. So it could be and was done. Or is this one those theories that planes were holograms, remote controled fakes, mass hypnosis etc? I always find all these theories fasinating as they all present so much evidence that seems to cut the legs out from the other theories. So in this scenerio the planes did not hit the towers, is that correct?

Everyone on board was gassed including the Saudis patsies then the planes were remote controlled into the buildings. No hologram strawmen arguments. The military has had the ability to remotely control aircraft for a very long time. The planes involved in the attack were targeted for modification and on the day of the false flag were piloted by remote into the buildings. Allowing for maneuvers that were impossible to perform by a pilot, possible through RC.

And I don't want to even hear about the limitations of remote controlling an aircraft. We have no idea the advancement in military tech if we have at all even seen any tape of a remote controlled plane landing and taking off and Global hawks that are almost the size of jet craft being fully remote controlled then we sure as hell can remote control any plane completely.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by Beefcake]

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:24 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:29 PM
reply to post by Point of No Return


Second line.

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:46 PM
reply to post by Dogdish

So you know the difference between Eastern and Central Time ?

Unfortunately most "truthers" apparently dont realize shift from Eastern to Central or ignore the time differences because it conflicts with their conspiracy fantasy

Its called R E S E A R C H - information is easily available

"At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response".

I will go over it SLOWLY for benefit of any truthers ....

Plane took off from Orlando Fl, which is in EASTERN time zone

Jacksonville ATC tried to contact plane at 9:33 AM Eastern (8:33 Central)

F16 was vectored to investigate at 9:52 AM CENTRAL (10:52 AM Eastern)

Do the Math - time from loss of contact at 8:33 Central to when F16 investigated at 9:52 Central - that is 1 hr 19 minutes NOT 35 MINUTES !

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:58 PM
reply to post by Doctor G

before i trust anyone who makes the claim :

" it cannot be done , i tried it and failed "

i need to know his motives ,

bottom line , failing is easy if you dont want to suceeed or are trying to make a point

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:58 PM
Even if it was just the planes that caused the collapse of the towers, you still have too many coincidences, and too much cover up. For instance, why should there have been a Bush in charge of WTC security?
Why were two full Air Force national drills going on that day?
Why was there a FEMA drill to place a team fairly close to the impact area, with the team arriving before the event?
Why were there standing orders not to shoot the planes down, and why was there a rule placed in effect a month before that any shoot downs had to be approved by the Pentagon (Rumsfeld's orders)?
Why was the insurance for the WTC to cover a terrorism attack bought a month prior?
Why have none of the security camera footage been released by those cameras around the Pentagon that would have captured flight 77?
Why was all the WTC rubble shipped off to China?
Finally, if as the debunkers say, if it was a "misquote" by the BBC concerning tower 7 having already fallen, then why did they then claim to have lost the footage, when they have a policy in place to have two copies of all footage?

Even without suspicion of demolition teams being used, there is enough suspicious about this event to warrant much further investigation.

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:58 PM
reply to post by Blazer

1st post!!
Blazer, I haven't finished reading the posts for this thread, but your question got me to thinking back to the things I heard and read. One of them is the reports saying the squad of fighters that were sent to NYC actually headed out over the Atlantic. Keeping with this line of thought, the 'real planes and people' did board that morning and take off....they were shot down by those fighters. Who's gonna go out to sea and look for them? Who could be a witness? A fisherman looking for the Titanic?? 'I'm sorry sir, you saw a military exercise' would be the response from the District of Confusion.

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:08 PM
reply to post by MrSpad

I see that you repeatedly ignore some of the more obvious evidences seen at almost all plane crash sites....

Tail sections usually very recognizable... at least in the pix I've seen

engines (very heavy, sturdy built with what? TITANIUM!!!) HELLO!


I suppose you will claim I need to be a crash investigator to notice the obvious?

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 11:26 PM
"Truthers" amaze me.... you all do yourself a HUGE disservice by speculating and coming up with alternate theories. If it not the job of the "truther" to prove what happened or HOW it happened. All you really have to do is point to the OS and show that it could not have happened the way the story is being told.

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 11:46 PM

Originally posted by AntiShyster
reply to post by MrSpad

I see that you repeatedly ignore some of the more obvious evidences seen at almost all plane crash sites....

Tail sections usually very recognizable... at least in the pix I've seen

engines (very heavy, sturdy built with what? TITANIUM!!!) HELLO!


I suppose you will claim I need to be a crash investigator to notice the obvious?

That's what I had said before. In almost any crash, what usually survives pretty much in one piece is the tail!


posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 12:05 AM

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by mike dangerously

Mike do you think as i do...

That some people are just so blind they will just believe anything that the media and the agencies involved says to them.

that no matter how implausible a stroy if the official say it is so then it is so.

[edit on 033131p://f29Sunday by plube]
I agree with that plube as long as they see an government approved expert on the news they will buy into it.It's what every government "investigation" from Warren to 9/11 count on since they are offical government bodies then it must be true.

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:02 AM
reply to post by Sly1one

There was also some sort of frequent-flier card found which belonged to a passenger , as well as a letter to a passenger that was later returned to the lady that had written it to the passenger .

Two other passports were found at Shanksville . An I.D. card was found at the Pentagon also .

I will dig up a link to that , if you'd like .

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:41 AM
I remember thinking as I watched the second plane hit on live television that that was a helluva piece of flying to maneuver that plane in perfectly. Not sure I'm convinced that they were radio'ed in, but this is just some more information to incorporate into the memory matrix of what happened that day for me.

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:10 AM
reply to post by MrSpad

Yeah just throw a bunch of theories together and say anyone who asks questions about 9/11 is a truther.And that means because they are a truther, they believe every single 9/11 theory out there just because....get serious.

They want to be able to associate the term truthers with terrorists.
they want it so anyone who questions the government is a truther/terrorist so they can strip anyone of their rights,arrest them there by eliminating any threat against them(just like the mob do) just by suspecting them to be a truther/terrorist.

Notice a lot of attacks in the last couple of years they say the person who did the attack was a truther or conspiracy theorist?Do you see what they are trying to do?

Who's saying there was no planes besides you debunkers and 1 or 2 people?

"Make the story seem so ludicrous that no one will believe it".

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:11 AM
reply to post by AntiShyster

I see that you repeatedly ignore some of the more obvious evidences seen at almost all plane crash sites....

Tail sections usually very recognizable... at least in the pix I've seen

engines (very heavy, sturdy built with what? TITANIUM!!!) HELLO!


I suppose you will claim I need to be a crash investigator to notice the obvious?

Tail sections only survive low speed/low angle type accidents such as
landing accidents where plane strike belly first

Not being slammed into a building at 500 mph

Engine sections ?

Here is engine from United 175 lying on street

Engine piece at Fresh Kills recovery site

Landing gear ?

Aircraft wheel embedded in exterior wall panel

Try do some research first........

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in