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: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

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)


I have no idea what struck the pentagon but it was NOT an airplane. An airplane CANNOT penetrate thick steel reinforced concrete walls. Absolutely no way in hell! The military has developed special bunker buster bombs for such purposes, such as these:




If it wasn't for this inconvienent fact and the announcement of the $2.3 trillion missing one day prior to 9-11, I would continue believing the official story because it does NOT have that many holes in it and yes I don't feel like researching everything in detail because its a lost cause.

edit on 5/27/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: edit videos




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Get over the fallacy, first:


An airplane CANNOT penetrate thick steel reinforced concrete walls.


You apparently have never even SEEN the Pentagon???

Nor, been there, personally???

Go visit, take a tour....then, come back and try to support these ridiculous assertions.

And, while there...feel free to say these nonsense claims, out loud, to anyone who will listen. Just to see the reactions you will get..... (Be ready to duck....or, have a thick enough skin, to withstand the laughter and scorn.....).



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



I have no idea what struck the pentagon but it was NOT an airplane. An airplane CANNOT penetrate thick steel reinforced concrete walls. Absolutely no way in hell! The military has developed special bunker buster bombs for such purposes, such as these:


So we are back to the Pentagon being some sort of impenetratible concrete bunker

The exterior (E Ring) wall was a limestone facing over an ordinary brick wall


Structurally, the Pentagon was reinforced concrete floors, supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame. To form the walls, the spaces between the concrete beams and columns were filled with ordinary bricks and mortar. The outer wall was decorated with a thin limestone facade. Thus the Pentagon was a typically constructed low rise office building. As such, it was dangerous in the event of external bomb blast.



Here are pictures of the Pentagon wall construction

Notice limestone facings over brick wall backing






posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Try this for pictures






Link in case pictures dont work

guardian.150m.com...



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Get over the fallacy, first:


An airplane CANNOT penetrate thick steel reinforced concrete walls.


You apparently have never even SEEN the Pentagon???

Nor, been there, personally???

Go visit, take a tour....then, come back and try to support these ridiculous assertions.

And, while there...feel free to say these nonsense claims, out loud, to anyone who will listen. Just to see the reactions you will get..... (Be ready to duck....or, have a thick enough skin, to withstand the laughter and scorn.....).


It is people like you who deserve ALL THE SCORN! First you come here saying the pentagon is not hardened concrete and second you probably think the pentagon had only ONE WORKING CAMERA from the thousands that "mysteriously" stopped working that day.

Give me a break. I don't want to get banned calling you names....sheesh!!!!



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by yourmaker

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by yourmaker
 


Making a false assumption that WTC 7 was "pulled"

Arent you ignoring fact that building was on fire all day....


so fire brought down all 3 buildings?? how is this remotely possible???????????


NO NO NO..
Two planes brought down 3 buildings.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
9-11 was definitely an inside job and the pentagon and donald rumsfelds admission of the $2.3 trillion missing are the smoking gun of it all. No video footage of the airplane hitting the pentagon and those that had videos of the action, had the tapes confiscated by authorities.

There is no way in hell someone with absolutely limited flight experience could hit the pentagon, as low as it is and at such an angle, nevermind the fact that the hole was too small to indicate a 757 and that aluminum cannot penetrate hardened concrete.

I don't really care about flight 93 because a government that is willing to kill 3000 american "citizens" is likely to go to any lengths to cover its footprint. For all I know those people on that list from www.unitedheroes.com... could have been taken to guantanamo and executed.

Nice try though.........

edit on 5/20/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)


Sounds to me that you have got to the stage of putting your fingers in your ears and lah lahhing.

But as you seem to think that there are no relatives of 9/11 flight victims you might care to listen to the mother of UA 93 victim Mark Bingham. And I don't think she has been whisked off to Guantanamo :-

www.youtube.com...


Hi Mom...Its Mark Bingham.

The entire story is a lie and that ONE statement says it.

I call my Father every day and have never said, Hi Dad, its (my full name)
I have called my Aunt 2 times in my life...and neither time have I said, Hi Aunt Cindy, its (my full name).

And you know what....NEITHER HAVE YOU OR ANYONE ELSE YOU KNOW.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
9-11 was definitely an inside job and the pentagon and donald rumsfelds admission of the $2.3 trillion missing are the smoking gun of it all. No video footage of the airplane hitting the pentagon and those that had videos of the action, had the tapes confiscated by authorities.

There is no way in hell someone with absolutely limited flight experience could hit the pentagon, as low as it is and at such an angle, nevermind the fact that the hole was too small to indicate a 757 and that aluminum cannot penetrate hardened concrete.

I don't really care about flight 93 because a government that is willing to kill 3000 american "citizens" is likely to go to any lengths to cover its footprint. For all I know those people on that list from www.unitedheroes.com... could have been taken to guantanamo and executed.

Nice try though.........

edit on 5/20/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)


Sounds to me that you have got to the stage of putting your fingers in your ears and lah lahhing.

But as you seem to think that there are no relatives of 9/11 flight victims you might care to listen to the mother of UA 93 victim Mark Bingham. And I don't think she has been whisked off to Guantanamo :-

www.youtube.com...


Hi Mom...Its Mark Bingham.

The entire story is a lie and that ONE statement says it.

I call my Father every day and have never said, Hi Dad, its (my full name)
I have called my Aunt 2 times in my life...and neither time have I said, Hi Aunt Cindy, its (my full name).

And you know what....NEITHER HAVE YOU OR ANYONE ELSE YOU KNOW.


Once in a while he would say that. He would call up, and he was, he was a young businessman, and used to, used to introduce himself on phone as Mark Bingham, and he was trying to be, uh, strong, and level-headed, and, and strictly business. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham".

The words of Alice Hoglan, the mother of Mark Bingham.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I'm convinced that there were holograms or CGI.
After the attacks of 911 occurred, I thought I witnessed an insane act of terror in which aircraft were used as missiles.
I was skeptical of the conspiracy theories which at first was completely incomprehensible. As time passed and more and more evidence appeared to establish that 911 was an inside job, I realized that one can be as ruthless with his own people are capable of doing just about anything. There are no limits.

I've always thought that the attacks of 911 have seen strange, the plan does not behave as expected and beyond this are lots of other things I could not pinpoint exactly what is wrong, but something does not fit with these planes.
I started a thread a few days ago but it was moved to hoax bin-the reason is the same as when people first started talking about that 911 was an inside job.
Watch the first clip and see how easy the whole scenario can be prepared for an attack in order to get this to look like passenger planes have flown into the towers.
In the second clip is a relatively new film about the NPT theory that I agree for the most likely scenario, the 911th.


No passenger planes were involved in the attacks on 9/11.
No plane hit the Pentagon.
No plane crashed in Shanksville.
No planes hit the twin towers.
This documentary explains, how the mass media illusion was created in front of your eyes. Additional research is advised.

This is the Full NEW Version (August 2008)

Socialservice' website:
www.septemberclues.info...

Socialservice' channel on livevideo:
livevideo.com...

A high quality version (377MB) of this video is available via torrent from here:
thepiratebay.org...

AUTHOR'S STATEMENT Monday, July 30, 2007 at 7:33 PM:

(please read this before commenting on September Clues, thanks for your time)

This statement is meant to adress a series of -in my view - important issues, given the incredible response SC has had in only a couple of months .The overwhelmingly positive feedback has pleasantly surprised me given the painfully controversial issue this is. I take this as a good sign of the clarity of my research and thank all my supporters for helping me diffuse it - a daunting task indeed...

My motivations are to find solely in my personal quest for justice in the light of the most horrid and murderous hoax of modern times. My relentless 9/11 research (helped on by every single component of the wide 9/11 truth movement) reached its decisive turning point when I started to analyze the footage/audio of the Tv networks' broadcasts of that fateful day.

I have double-checked every media (i.e.footage/audio material) that has come under my scrutiny and confronted them scrupulously with official television archives, private VHS tapes and other verifiable sources. The authenticity of the TV media used in September Clues (insofar that it was actually broadcast that day) has now been firmly established by a wide array of cross-referenced sources.

I initially hesitated to publish this work on the www -- if only for the sheer difficulty of displaying , with the available resolution, some of the more subtle details in this study. For instance, the pixel-overlay of the 'nose-in/nose-out' (on SC part1) was unsatisfactory so I have now made a special video - "NOSED OUT" - to illustrate it convincingly in better resolution.

By now, most serious 9/11 researchers will agree that no plane hit the Pentagon and that no sizeable plane debris was found in Shanksville - let alone at Ground Zero. Now, as we analyze the TV broadcasts of that day, what we see emerging is only the continuation of this pattern : no solid, 'slam-dunk' proof of plane debris. Only 'flight175' was broadcast live : in fact, merely three 2sec-clips of bi-dimensional / dark plane-shadows were broadcast on live tv. Keep that in mind : that's a total of 6sec OF LIVE TV footage - which fooled the world.

All the subsequent "plane crash" clips trickled out hours, days if not years later (mostly on the internet). All these (approx. 30) so-called "amateur" clips also show tell-tale signs of forgery but, of course, their relevance in the big picture of 9/11 images pale in comparison to the all-important live TV footage : The latter is almost entirely composed of digital imagery (incl. the Manhattan scenery) as should be clear by the end of this documentary.

I have, of course, drawn a personal conclusion out of this research. I am not, however, pushing any agenda or seeking personal attention. I'm nevertheless putting my twenty years+ of experience in the audio/video field at stake by ruling out beyond any reasonable doubt that the planes shown on tv (and on 'amateur' footage) were real.

What does this mean for the honest, 911 truthseekers ? It simply means having solid, tangible, repeatable proof of foul play -- something which has not been available for over six years. This study does NOT invalidate the hard work of the many 911 truthseekers - let this be very clear. This is just the last - and most factual - piece of a frustrating puzzle which has taken too long to assemble.

I will gracefully listen to anyone's objections and suggestions - but I'll ask fellow truthseekers to cut the 'disinfo' accusations. I also understand the shock this is to many people : to realize the extent of human evil and deceit is never a painless process - but don't place the blame on September Clues...



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by stavis
 

Whenever September Clues is mentioned, I feel obliged to post the following video (made by a truther I believe):

Google Video Link

edit on 28-5-2011 by roboe because: I can't spell



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Here is another interesting fact:


edit on 28-5-2011 by stavis because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I believe that 9/11 was an inside job and I have been reading a lot on the subject. One that I have read recently stated that what we saw on TV was all faked and used CGI (which is a bit out there if you ask me) but the article stated that many witnesses in New York at the time said they did not see any planes hitting the WTC. An interesting theory and one that I would like to delve into more.

My question and one that I haven't seen answered anywhere (and sorry if it has been and I just missed it) but what of the people that supposedly boarded these planes and died? I remember reading somewhere that a producer or someone who worked on the TV show Fraiser was on one of the flights. If no plane hit the world trade centers than what happened to the people that were supposedly on the plane? That's what I would like to know.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   


edit on 28-5-2011 by stavis because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Once again, this exhibits outright lies about what I did, and DID NOT ever write!!!!


.....you come here saying the pentagon is not hardened concrete and second you probably think the pentagon had only ONE WORKING CAMERA from the thousands that "mysteriously" stopped working that day.


TWO LIES, you write about me.

I already showed you the link to the Pentagon Building Performance Report. Did you bother to read any of it???

Apparently, not. It will strip away most of your ignorance, on the topic.

You could stand to take some classes on physics, as well. To understand the forces and energies involved in the motion and velocity of an object that weighs around 175,000 pounds, moving at about 483 knots (about 815 feet PER SECOND).

Too bad, for the "Inside Job" people.....they just lack the science education, to understand these things.....



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by DIDtm


Hi Mom...Its Mark Bingham.

The entire story is a lie and that ONE statement says it.

I call my Father every day and have never said, Hi Dad, its (my full name)
I have called my Aunt 2 times in my life...and neither time have I said, Hi Aunt Cindy, its (my full name).

And you know what....NEITHER HAVE YOU OR ANYONE ELSE YOU KNOW.


Once in a while he would say that. He would call up, and he was, he was a young businessman, and used to, used to introduce himself on phone as Mark Bingham, and he was trying to be, uh, strong, and level-headed, and, and strictly business. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham".

The words of Alice Hoglan, the mother of Mark Bingham.


Well I am a businessman as well. As are my colleagues.
It is simply not natural to address your full name when speaking to your parents or anyone else that you are not being professional towards, that may not know you.

Again...have you or anyone else you know EVER addressed their mother with their full name?

I like how you 'trusters' believe everything that is told to you. You must have all been phenomenal students and children while growing up.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 

It's not very natural to be involved in a hijacking either.

In any case, Mark Bingham wasn't the only person on the plane. You also had Jeremy Glick, Joseph DeLuca, Todd Beamer, Linda Gronlund, CeeCee Lyles, Marion Britton, Sandra Bradshaw, Honor Elizabeth Wainio, Edward Felt, and FSM knows how many others calling their friends and relatives, relating what had happened on the plane.

Linda Gronlund even told her sister where her safe was located, as well as the combination for it, since it contained her will. How did "the fakers" get that information?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


What's your "credible" story then ? That Mark Bingham's mother is lying to cover up her son's murder ?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I seriously wonder how people can come to this site, see and read all the bias and still believe this site is for free thinkers. I have yet to see or hear proof that planes hit the world trade center. I do know that people who fight hard to say there were planes are covering something up, because you don't fight hard to prove something you know cannot be true.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by DIDtm
 


What's your "credible" story then ? That Mark Bingham's mother is lying to cover up her son's murder ?


Is it unheard of that distraut family members embellish the truth sometimes?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by DIDtm
 


What's your "credible" story then ? That Mark Bingham's mother is lying to cover up her son's murder ?



I wish to Hell I knew what the real story is.
I dont claim too. But I can spot BS pretty easily, and this story is full of it.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join