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.

 

Modified boeings or holograms?

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

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..


So how does the same side of the Moon face the Earth all of the time while it orbits the Earth?

It rotates at the exact same rate that it orbits. If it did not rotate then the same side would always be facing the same way RELATIVE TO THE STARS.

Believing and KNOWING are two different things. So if you don't KNOW the Moon rotates then you have a problem.

psik




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



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...........


So how would the wreckage supposed to look?

One thing Sherlock - when an airplane strikes a solid object be it the ground or a building at a high rate of speed
the aircraft is shredded into what is commonly described as "metallic confetti" . Large number of small
fragments - many only a foot or less in size with a few larger pieces thrown in

Seen this up close and personal at crash scene with LEAR 35A - largest piece we could find was 2 x 3 ft
section of tail fin. Rest was small fragments scattered around



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

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.


I just feel that I should add that "military" 757s come complete with windows. These are made by Boeing as a normal 757, then they are handed over to other private companies holding government contracts to "modify" them. This "modification" does not involve removing windows, everything Boeing is asked to do stays generally as is. To my knowledge there has never been a 757 ordered without windows, or that has had the windows removed by any of the military's various contractors. .
edit on 22-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I just don't see how the rising sun to the right of the building in the second video can reflect off the right wing and body as it does just before the impact if the wing and body are holograms. Light does not reflect off a projected light image.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

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 instead
edit on 22-5-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)


The partial list of airplane victims is from a few weeks after 9-11. Do you know of any full list since then?

Assuming that list is accurate, and it MIGHT be, why do some people say they saw a twenty passenger seat jet?

A twenty passenger jet can resemble a cruise missle in size and shape. Also why do people say there was no airplane wreckage at the pentagon, how can an airplane make a 20 foot hole in hardened concrete, how come there is a crappy 5 frame per second video footage at the worlds most secure building?

Sorry I am not convinced yet!
edit on 5/23/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
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








posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

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


Yeah, ok, whatever! You think people don't have a clue what they saw, eventhough at least one of them was really close to the action. Here watch the video again:



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!

"Nice try" but you have no idea what you are talking about and you neglected the rest of my questions, probably intentionally! No serious researcher can believe the official story because it has more holes than swiss cheese.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


This article divides 9/11 Pentagon witnesses into categories :-

911research.wtc7.net...

You will see that at least 43 saw a plane described as " airliner ", " big ", " silver " and " roaring ". 23 said they saw an "American Airlines" jet.

Only 2 said they saw a " corporate jet " and 0 said they saw a missile.

So, you have to ask yourself why you insist a plane witness is a missile witness and also ignore everyone else.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


LOL!


"Steven Girard", himself says "...out of the corner of my eye, it looked like..."

He did NOT get a clear look, only a fleeting glimpse. First impressions, of events like this and "eye"witnesses are always full of misconceptions, like that.

Also, I am well aware of the videos that come up when you search for similar on-the-spot interviews, like that one that are uploaded onto YouTube. I am wondering, you TOO must have seen all the many, many others that interviewed people that said it was a PASSENGER AIRLINER....yet, you selected just that one, didn't you, to post??

Tactics are rather obvious.

Here, if you like UTube videos:





AND,





posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

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.


Do you have any real idea how long it would take to wire the entire building for demolition? We are talking about 110 floors! You lack common sense? Thats why I said I remember reading/hearing about all tall buildings being rigged with explosives while they are built. The explosives would be built-in but that does not mean the buildings would be dangerous if installed properly.

You don't like my theories? Tough! At least my theory makes sense............





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.


Perhaps they were primers? Four boxes of explosives can't even bring down a five floor building.......



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanks for the videos. I don't know what to say other than 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....I tried a few times but either came short or went over!

And no real camera footage either? Hmmmm, either the government is good in covering up facts or they are terrible in terms of proving their case.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
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.



....were capable of "threading the needle" in terms of landing the commercial airliner into such a short target from so far away.


Huh? "short"? You mean, height of the Pentagon?



You should try doing that with microsoft flight simulator...


I don't own the program, don't need it...and, from what I've seen of others who post their videos on YouTube, using it, I see it as interesting in the sense that it re-creates much of the real cockpit instrumentation, but it is a poor substitute for a real, full-motion simulator that we actually train in (and, the hijacker pilots had some experience in).

These machines are multi-million dollar, very complex and accurate representations of the real thing....a MicroSoft program on your home PC is hardly comparable.


Have you sen the Dutch TV documentary? Titled "Zembla"....here, this is just the simulator portion, and a bit about the crap film "Loose Change", and all their lies and mistakes. But, about half-way in, they fly a simulator (not, in all honesty, a Boeing 757...but, close enough, as all jets will fly just about the same, aerodynamically):





Also, the NTSB used the data from the SSFDR to make the animation, for American 77 (as they do, for many other accidents. Search YouTube, for more examples):




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......








edit on Tue 24 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

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...


So what exactly are they saying? I don't feel like reading a thousand pages when you apparently have your own hypothesis embedded in you. Fact: Concrete and steel are much harder/denser than aluminum!





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.


According to the media those pilots were tardy to class and lousy pilots, so its not just the fact they were "caveman" in attitude/lifestyle.



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......


I understand the theory pretty good, but nailing "a stunt" like that the first time is........oh so difficult, especially when your on an adrenaline rush and know you only have one chance to fullfill your "allah akhbar".



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


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...


More Government lies, if anyone is looking for any truths to 911 you will not find it from gov.org or the NIST report.
Apparently there is an agenda in here to push the OS down our throats as if it is the holy grail of truths.
NIST was proven mostly lies by scientist and experts from:
www.ae911truth.org...

You are not a new member on ATS and you know better, most people who have done some real research on ATS concerning 911 know the NIST Report is a proven lie, including you.
The fact is the floor of the Pentagon photos showing no damaged from the impact of the alleged plane, forget the report from NIST they have been proven liars. In fact most of the reports from the government concerning 911 were proven mostly lies years ago.




edit on 24-5-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 




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!


Have you figured out yet that you just proved Thedman's point with the above post? For the record, one 737, one Airbus 319 (I think) and a 757 were in those photos. No 727's to be found. So much for your proficiency at identifying aircraft.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Wrong (as usual)

Aircraft #1 is AIRBUS 319

Aircraft #2 is Boeing 757

Aircraft #3 is Boeing 737

All are mid size twin engine aircraft 0 which was the purpose trying to discern one type of aircraft from another

Notice all were clear pictures, close up

Now imagine plane several miles away, moving at 500 mph

Now try yo figure out what is was .....



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


I did not say I knew exactly what they were. All I said was I could tell they were not corporate jets.

I can also tell the difference between small, medium and large passenger jets. You do not have to be an aviation expert to make those discernments and the easiest way is to look at the number of windows if no other reference exists.

You and the other sock-puppets cannot discredit me.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Going to look at the number of windows as a plane flashes by at 400+ mph?

Ancient Chinese say "When one find oneself in bottom of hole...QUIT DIGGING"



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Wreckage has been found at the wtc. Unless somebody can make a case for planted evidence, that pretty much settles it.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join