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.

 

VIDEO: Large Airliners Did NOT Hit the Twin Towers on 9/11!

page: 11
74
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
1. "Interesting. So people are deciding that others are not allowed to search for the truth...."


No, we are deciding that because of the IMMENSE importance of the search for the
truth in this instance that reason and logic be applied. And that erroneous, illogical, false
and ESPECIALLY MISLEADING assumptions be denied voice so to focus research
and gather support for the cause. And we have to be especially vigilant of disinformation
as a government ploy to derail attention and awareness of our cause. The no plane theory
is clearly without merit. If my child had gone missing two hours ago, from school in Texas,
In would have no appreciation of someone drumming up support for a search of the African
continent later that day. And I likewise, have no appreciation of this erroneous search for
the truth, based on an absolute refutation of FACT.




3. "To surmise that in a city of SIX MILLION potential eyewitnesses"

I wonder where you pulled that six million number from? At the time, everybody was looking at the towers, nobody was commuting, nobody was at work, nobody was at home, nobody was sleeping, nobody was having breakfast, etc. In other words, all six million people were out on the streets were potentially looking at the Towers at the time of impact. Sure they were.


You were right about the population of NY City in 2000---I underestimated from memory.
The population of New York City was actually 8,008,278 for the year 2000 according to the US Census.

potential
–adjective

1. possible, as opposed to actual.
2. capable of being or becoming.

The reason behind my use of the word "potential" in context:

It is simply that with the potential number of eyewitnesses available it would be an astonishingly
absurd notion that the engineers of the attack on 9/11 would be so bold as to assume that they
could fool/coerce/bribe/compel or otherwise influence EVERY eyewitness to disbelieve THEIR
OWN EYES.

Are you playing devil's advocate? Do you truly believe there were no plane impacts on the
twin towers?




posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
As we go on and on about the ins and outs of what may have or may not have brought the towers down..or the what may have or may not have hit them...and what may have cause tower 7 to fall...or what happened to the near never mentioned flight 93...and let us not forget flight 77 pentagon flight.

i take a different approach...this is a crime...and i am treating it as such...first we line up suspects...collect evidence...assess the motives...follow the money trails.

The longer we all argue the unprovable because alot of the physical evidence was quickly taken and destroyed.
We need to look into the people whom might have been involved and the mechanisms in which these crimes could have been commited.

so i have been posting in a thread everyday for the last week trying to piece somethings together....and i have been asking for help in solving the crime....so keep on arguing....while the perpetrators of this make their get away and dupe the world.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo
What I find even more remarkable is not just the perfect height and shape of the superimposed image of "nose in" over "nose out"

They're not the "perfect height and shape". In fact, they're not even close to being the same height and shape.

Nose-out debunked here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and here:





Try again......



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Try what again? No need to be cheeky dude. Oh, and thanks for posting a link to your own hypothesis. And to think you were offering information from an unbiased source only to find you were looking for acknowledgment and a back pat.

I'm not saying no planes hit, hologram or anything of the sort. I just find it interesting is all. Besides, what say you regarding the sudden vertical overlay. Oh wait, never mind...

P.S. The clip in your link was removed. I wonder why?



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


It Amazes me that people are Ignoring this part!

in which it shows the Major Damage of the WTC Bombing of 93 From a Truck Bomb
More like the Oklahoma Building !

RICK RASCORLA the Security Chief of a Major Firm that had over 2,700 Employs in the WTC1 North Tower

He Had planned Saftey Routes and Drillsl for the Company Morgan Stanly Dean Witter Company

RIck and his Consultant Fred McBee Used! a DAM Microsoft Flight Simulator and Estimated a Airliner pack with explosives Would be Used for the Next Attack another Security Consultant is Dan hill explains what Happened on that day!

911 - the men who saw it coming: Rick Rescorla ( the Man who Predicted 911)


Plube as you know me please watch this Thanks

ATS Please watch 7:15 mark on though..



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Just a random click of your links because I do have an open mind and I get this:



Are you effing kidding me?



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Of course you didn't post the link...

I just clicked around at most them and that didn't come up. It's an old set of links. I checked all of them outside of the killtown links.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
As a witness on 911 i saw planes hit the WTC from across the Hudson.

There was no way this so called 'TV Fakery' thread should have front page status.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


The parallax definition would be for the people who don't understand the moving bridge video.


Moving Bridge Truthers Rock!



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


It was the wiki link. At any rate, yes disinformation runs wild in this topic. I am aware of this, but lately I am seeing waaaaay to many anomalies.

- the coincidental black out from two networks at the exact same time
- the puff of dust that looks exactly like the nose of a plane. Before and after...
- an overturned car in its original parking spot between two other parked cars
-a fire truck burned from the inside but still with a shiny candy apple red exterior

and on and on and on...


edit on 19-9-2010 by FlySolo because: wiki



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo
I am seeing waaaaay to many anomalies.

- the coincidental black out from two networks at the exact same time

That is debunked at 1:50 in the following video:



Google Video Link





Originally posted by FlySolo
- the puff of dust that looks exactly like the nose of a plane. Before and after...

As has already been stated numerous times, the nose-out is not the same shape, nor the same size as the nose of the plane that went in. If you can't see that with the image and video provided, then there's something wrong on your end.



Originally posted by FlySolo
- an overturned car in its original parking spot between two other parked cars

Plane debris from above decided to strike one car and not the rest. That's what happens when debris from almost a quarter-mile up comes crashing down onto the streets.



Originally posted by FlySolo
-a fire truck burned from the inside but still with a shiny candy apple red exterior

That's what happens when fiery debris comes down from above and slams into vehicles.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I'm not gonna S+F this post as I believe planes did hit the towers, but I wasn't in NY on that day and can only go on the televised accounts so my question is this - someone asked for a video showing the approach of the plane on the second tower - i think this is a good amateur vid..




edit on 19-9-2010 by digitalf because: i messed up the link - sorry




edit on 19-9-2010 by digitalf because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
It's pretty hard to debate an issue when one side endeavors to make their case unfalsifiable, by excluding from discussion any and all evidence that disproves them.
According to them (the no-planers) no witness or video evidence that supports the plane theory are allowed. They are all suspect.
Well, that is just a little too convenient, especially when they don't even have to provide any evidence as to why this is the case. We might as well be debating UFO's here.



edit on 19-9-2010 by Smack because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Here you go people Lets Learn how the WTC 1,2 was built shall we!

WTC Tower Structural Design Explained




WTC: Can 767 Aluminum Wing Cut 14'Steel? Crash Test Shows ..


any thoughts ?

Can a 500 Mph 767 Airliner made mostly out of aluminum Cut though Rows Columns of Steel Beams & sections ?




has anyone Notice that just as soon as a poster puts up a video here on ATS its removed within 24hrs from some kind of Violation or Copyright claim like Boeing or some companys Copyright claims
it makes you think .. talk about control
were living in a Orwellian World for sure Winston Smith is at it again removing the Sources even tho it was put up on You Tube for over a year and found its way embedded in a Site like ATS then wham its removed


Be on the look out of ATS Members that talks nothing else but one Topic on Threads There 2 of them i have seen nothing but 911& Trying to Debunk & Troll & Disinfo



edit on 19-9-2010 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)




edit on 19-9-2010 by Wolfenz because: MIssing words LOL




edit on 19-9-2010 by Wolfenz because: fix video Im having a bad Day ok !



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Ok, now you're pissing me off. If plane debris can land on a car but miss thousands of people on the street, then there is something wrong with your head, um end. I've been polite but you want to rub me the wrong way by suggesting I'm stupid. Same goes for you pal. Don't respond to me if you can't be mature, because I will be more immature than you.

Peace out



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Plane debris didn't miss people on the street. At least one person was killed by debris from the second plane impact.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by 6205LH
 



But i would like to know much more about Pentagon. AFAIK US gov. still claims that also Pentagon was hit by the plane. But i never saw any wreckage or plane remains on any Pentagon photo, nor video. How has this issue evolved durring time? Do somebody know?


Maybe didn't look hard enough or need eyes checked?









Debris on Penatgon lawn - in American Airline colors

More debris at hole punched in wall





Compilation of debris at Pentagon, inside and outside of building


Interesting how these pieces could be positioned there by hand. What, they bounced back? Give me one piece of either wing. Wings carry the fuel. Do you see any sign of wings penetrating the building? What, they retracted on impact and went through the whole? No sign of explosion from the wings. Just a hole. Titanium engines would have gone through those walls, if indeed we believe a plane crashed there and was gliding so close off the floor. Why only one hole?

Just because you found a bit of what looks like airplane parts still does not prove an airplane crashed at the Pentagon. From the four events, this is one that from day one smelled like a rat.

Listen to the 9/11 Special here: www.veritasshow.com...



edit on 19-9-2010 by Exopolitico because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
More questions are raised with Richard Hall's recent computer re-analysis of the NBC "Ball" footage. You can look at this footage yourself in the Internet Archive.

www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

Yes, the witnesses saw different things - and I posted a study about this. It is posted, along with other information about the 9/11 Plane stories on this page:

www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

It took me almost 2 years to start seriously questioning the WTC plane stories, having become convinced, in 2004, the official story was false.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join