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.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker
Meh! Someone who can't realize that the Moon rotates on its axis...what is the point trying to use logic and facts??
Well I don't really believe the moon rotates, so sue me..
Thanks for the pictures. I don't see *N6* on the wreckage, I see *W* and something else next to it. Trying looking closely! And is that the only airplane evidence at wtc? Suspiciously low amount...........
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by pccat
OMG.. the pods? this was thoughly debunked back when I was still somewhat of a truther..
the is no reason to believe this nonsense.. check out an old CT site here..www.oilempire.us...
I don't recall anyone claiming the planes "were substituted". Is this original research?
The hypothesis that I am aware of is that it was A MILITARY VERSION of the 757, with no windows and the extra pods, whether they were missle pods or remote control pods OR BOTH!
Clearly, unless you are blind, you can see the bulge on this aircraft on that picture. Then compare that bulge to a normal boeing 757 and you will see the difference.
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
so the families left behind had funerals for imaginary people ? How does that work, they faked their entire lives up until that point, school records, photos, medical records, birth announcements, death annonucements, all made up ?
that's a pretty big hole in your theory I would say
it took me all of 2 minutes to find a partial victims list for flight 175 external link. I have a suggestion for you. I bet it's pretty easy to locate these families, I'm sure it is well know in thier local communities who they are. Why don't you contact one of them and share with them your theory that their family members didn't die, and it was all a plot to frame AQ ?
you know what, they've been through enough, maybe you should send them a condolences letter insteadedit on 22-5-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)
Assuming that list is accurate, and it MIGHT be, why do some people say they saw a twenty passenger seat jet?
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
Assuming that list is accurate, and it MIGHT be, why do some people say they saw a twenty passenger seat jet?
Because most people are not skilled in aircraft identification
Particularly if viewed at distance against the sky - no frame of reference to judge size
Here - try to identify what aircraft these are
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by weedwhacker
There were no "explosives" *planted* inside the buildings.
This is foolish nonsense, has been beaten to death, years ago.
Three WTC buildings were wired for explosives, and it's foolish denial to think otherwise. Audio, video, and witness testimony are factual and prove explosives were in those buildings. Opinions and denial are not factual.
Two New York City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas DeMasi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes in October of 2001, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them.
I find it tough to believe an aluminum airplane can penetrate the hardened concrete, steel reinforced walls of the pentagon, regardless how fast it was going.
I also find it hard to believe some cave-man terrorists....
....were capable of "threading the needle" in terms of landing the commercial airliner into such a short target from so far away.
You should try doing that with microsoft flight simulator...
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
I find it tough to believe an aluminum airplane can penetrate the hardened concrete, steel reinforced walls of the pentagon, regardless how fast it was going.
Because, that is a false assumption RE: the construction of the Pentagon.
Have you read the "Pentagon Building Performance Report"?? I have it on my hard drive, but will have to find a URL link, in PDF: www.fire.nist.gov...
I also find it hard to believe some cave-man terrorists....
And, proof positive you have had your impressions influenced by those ridiculous sites, on the Webz....only they make such nonsense claims.
You can see the relative ease of flying....it really is as simple (in the real thing, or a very realistic simulator) just aiming, by flying the airplanes.....anyone who has a pilot's license would have no difficulty. Even a lot of those who just have limited MicroSoft Flight would "get it" pretty fast.
If you don't understand what is represented, in the graphics of the video above, just ask......
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
I find it tough to believe an aluminum airplane can penetrate the hardened concrete, steel reinforced walls of the pentagon, regardless how fast it was going.
Because, that is a false assumption RE: the construction of the Pentagon.
Have you read the "Pentagon Building Performance Report"?? I have it on my hard drive, but will have to find a URL link, in PDF: www.fire.nist.gov...
The pictures you provided are old models of boeings 727 and 737. You can tell they are not 20 seat passenger jets just by looking at the number of windows. At least 6 people per row(3 on each side) and multiply that by...lets say 20 rows= 120 people!