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.

 

Reno Air Show Crash Proves Shanksville and Pentagon

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I see more wreckage there than at the Pentagon.

Play it again Sam.




posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
For anyone who thinks the plane crash at reno wasn't real, type in crazy# on google. Enter the site, and click on videos, filter and accidents. It should be the first video on top. WARNING: ADULT SITE! NSFW!

Plane was flying straight down and hauling ass. The plane basically disintegrated.
edit on 23-9-2011 by Anoynymoose because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I think that, above all else, is why all I can do is roll my eyes after reading these claims here. Literally to a many, every single conspiracy theory heavily depends on the existence of armies of sinister secret agents hidden throughout all walks of life going around murdering innocent people behind the scenes for the greater good of some shadowy cabal.


It doesn't require that at all, but that is your prerogative to believe as it is clear that you aren't interested in exploring how. The best defense and offense is to get your "foe" to underestimate what is possible, and mask what they believe is possible with layers of unnecessary complexity.

Namaste!



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by tpg65
 


Why ???

Because the pictures dont feed into your conspiracy delusions ...?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
So it goes like this:

CLAIM: There is no way a plane crashing into a building will not have huge pieces of recognizable debris!
REPLY: Sure, it has happened many times. Here are some pictures of a recent example.

CLAIM: Uh.. well.. There were no witnesses!
REPLY: There were hundreds of witness who saw the plane crashing into the Pentagon.

CLAIM: Uh, well, They didn't take pictures-- so there is no proof!
Reply: No, not of the impact from passerbys, but a security camera did.

CLAIM: Uh, well... That was faked.
Reply: But it matches the eye-witnesses.

CLAIM: Uh, well... They are shills- threatened by the CIA to lie!
Reply: Evidence? Would you lie?

CLAIM: Uh, well, You are just an stupid, retarded flag-waving sheep! I'm siding with Ahmadinejad-- because he is a sane, reasonable, intellectual world leader!



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Personally, I find it disappointing that someone genuinely needs to point out to plane crashes like this to "convince" these conspiracy people that, yes, a plane really did hit the Pentagon. The thing hit during rush hour and there were hundreds of eyewitnesses, so the claim that secret conspirators would shoot a cruise missile and plant hundreds of phony eyewitnesses to falsely testify it was a plane, and then plant so many bits of aircraft wreckage on the Pentagon lawn in broad daylight in front of all the rubber neckers gawking at what was going on without anyone noticing is beyond asinine.

What I don't understand is why the conspiracy people aren't simply claiming the plane that hit the Pentagon was remote controlled by expert CIA drone pilots. It would conform with all the empirical evidence (I.E. aircraft wreckage), fill in the blanks they think they're seeing (I.E. how the plane was expertly flown into the Pentagon) AND still satisfy their need to wallow in abject paranoia (IE. it's all a false flag operation in a sinister secret plot to take over the world).

If they wanted to insist they were really "expert Jewish World Order drone pilots" instead, fine, the point is still the same.
edit on 23-9-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)


While I don't agree with the OP's evidence if you really believe a plane hit the pentagon why were we given a few seconds clip in which you can't even tell whether or not it was a plane?

Why did the FBI scramble to the hotel, freeway cams, and gas station and sieze the footage and never release it ?
edit on 23-9-2011 by seenavv because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
Plus the video of the crash must have been CGI.
How else would they get a frame clearly showing a missing trim tab on the elevator?
How convenient?

I suggest it was the same team of experts as pulled off 911.
They flew a missile into the crowd and manufactured wonderful video to feed to the media.

Have you noticed how few pictures we have of this crash? The crowd was there for a show. They must have had at least one camera for every two people. But all we have are just a few stills and a few frames of video. Just like the Pentagon. This has Rupert Murdock finger prints all over it. He’s clearly in on it with TPTB. They are setting us up for something.


Why does pilot jimmy look photoshopped into the picture?
The reflection in the glass doesn't look quite right.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

A strange story from www.foxnews.com...





A newly released photograph of the deadly Nevada air racing disaster suggests the pilot in the crash may have become dislodged in the cockpit as a result of a broken seat, an aviation mechanic tells Fox News.





Aviation mechanic J.R. Walker told Fox News that the pilot, Jimmy Leeward, would have been seen in the photo even if he had passed out and was slumped in his seat.

Walker, who has worked on similar planes, suggested in an interview that Leeward’s seat may have slipped back, causing him to lose control of the plane.


Very strange. You wouldn't imagine that there would be enough room for the pilot to
'slip out of view'. And what a crystal clear shot the 'lucky' photographer got!
It almost looks like a model!
Anyone notice the double whammy references to both 7/7 and 9/11, on the main body
and tail of the aircraft?

On other news stories at the bottom of the article in the link can be seen:


•9 Amish men sentenced in safety triangle case (FOXNews.com - U.S.)
•Police Officer Dies After Janitor Sprays Cleaning Fluid on Desk (FOXNews.com - Health)
•11-Month-Old Wisconsin Twins Die After Being Left in Bathtub......


Also:
First 9 dead.
abcnews.go.com...

Now 11 dead.
[urlwww.recordcourier.com...&ParentProfile=1049][/url]

9/11 reminder anyone! Get your 9/11 reminder!


A google image search throws up very few pictures (some dodgy looking)
of doomed pilot jimmy leeward. This is strange considering he is apparently so well known.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Was that a giant passenger plane? No... it wasn't. This proves nothing.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Tale section of a mustang is MUCH smaller than the tail section of a DC-10.

The plane completely broke up on impact, much easier to do with a plane the size of a mustang with 70 year old metal and fabrication standards than with a modern DC-10 with tonnes of steel and modern construction methods used.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I reckon the fact that the plane at Reno was upside down and the object that hit the pentagon was the right way up would make some difference to the amount and distribution pattern of debris too.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 


best comment ever



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Personally, I find it disappointing that someone genuinely needs to point out to plane crashes like this to "convince" these conspiracy people that, yes, a plane really did hit the Pentagon. The thing hit during rush hour and there were hundreds of eyewitnesses, so the claim that secret conspirators would shoot a cruise missile and plant hundreds of phony eyewitnesses to falsely testify it was a plane, and then plant so many bits of aircraft wreckage on the Pentagon lawn in broad daylight in front of all the rubber neckers gawking at what was going on without anyone noticing is beyond asinine.


edit on 23-9-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)


Sorry but I'm a truther and I'm not part of that category. A plane obviously hit, but it was a military/drone type plane. Hence why they will not relsease any REAL footage, from the 85 other captured video shots. Give me a break. Obvious cover up here for what really hit. So again, it's not that no plane hit, but the airliner we've been lead to believe did not hit. This is the logical conclusion. They won't release the real video. Any logical person can see the bs in this.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by Saltarello
To sum it all up, you high?


...The Merlin engine of the P-51 was one of the first cast aluminum block, steel sleeved engines. With it being liquid cooled, it would make a good APPROXIMATION of the jet engine on the 757.


Would you please explain this statement further? What does the aluminum block/steel sleeves have to do with anything? What does the engine being liquid-cooled have to do with anything? You do understand that you are comparing an internal combustion engine to a jet that is made up of turbines, correct?

If we were sitting here in person talking, I would be looking you in the eye and explaing just how full of poop you are, but, since I don't know you, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you got caught up in the moment and just started spewing before thinking.
edit on 24-9-2011 by DragonTattooz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
There's plenty of pictures on the net which shows how little is left of a passenger plane after a crash. Not that you truthers would be interested in what doesn't go along with what you choose to know. it obviously needs to be pointed out to those of you who have mentioned the tail surviving that that's usually because the fire has been put out before it all burned up. Sad that it had to be pointed out though.
edit on 24-9-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


Erm, no. If you dont mind point us to your imaginary pictures please. So we "truthers" can see them, Ive been looking at aircrafts and crashes for the last 20 years, but I still can learn.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
It wasn't the planes lack of parts that convinced me it didn't hit the Pentagon, it was the lack of long burned skid marks on the lawn. Look at crash pictures of crashes of that type of craft and you Always see them, even on concrete. The Pentagon had nothing resembling what you normally see.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Anyone can take a single photo from a pile and make a (albeit: weak) point!

But how can you rationalize this comparison?
It's the equivalent of a speed boat to an Ocean Liner for cryin' out loud.


Here, why didn't you use this photo from within your link? Oh, because it shows a field of debris?



In both the Shanksville and Pentagon cases it still remains highly unlikely if not virtually impossible for standard passenger planes to have been involved in those 'attacks'.

It's amazing the mind-control the media had and still has. They are powerful enough to convince people even when it totally defies logic!

Ever hear of Edward Bernays (nephew of Freud?) He revolutionized the art of MASS media manipulation!


www.youtube.com...


Had we ONLY heard from eye-witnesses on the morning of September 11, 2001 and THEY were broadcasting the news, we'd all know and agree that passengers planes were not involved in Pennsylvania and DC.
But instead, the mass media TOLD us what happened (despite countless eye-witness contradictions) and also had names of the perps before lunch time!


So keep eating the fodder. Edward Bernays would be very proud!
edit on 25-9-2011 by Human_Alien because: Changed video



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
It wasn't the planes lack of parts that convinced me it didn't hit the Pentagon, it was the lack of long burned skid marks on the lawn. Look at crash pictures of crashes of that type of craft and you Always see them, even on concrete. The Pentagon had nothing resembling what you normally see.


Whatever made you say that the plane hit the ground and skidded before hitting the building. The eyewitnesses certainly didn't see it that way - they said it went right into the building.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Originally posted by seenavv
Originally posted by GoodOlDave


While I don't agree with the OP's evidence if you really believe a plane hit the pentagon why were we given a few seconds clip in which you can't even tell whether or not it was a plane?

Why did the FBI scramble to the hotel, freeway cams, and gas station and sieze the footage and never release it ?
edit on 23-9-2011 by seenavv because: (no reason given)


Actually they did release all the videos they took along with a description of what they showed. Try using google...
edit on 25-9-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Originally posted by ProphetOfZeal
Originally posted by GoodOlDave


Sorry but I'm a truther and I'm not part of that category. A plane obviously hit, but it was a military/drone type plane. Hence why they will not relsease any REAL footage, from the 85 other captured video shots. Give me a break. Obvious cover up here for what really hit. So again, it's not that no plane hit, but the airliner we've been lead to believe did not hit. This is the logical conclusion. They won't release the real video. Any logical person can see the bs in this.


See response above and use google.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join