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.

 

"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

page: 52
17
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


Try again. I never said the plane was ten miles away. I said it's *starting point* was ten miles away (Andrews AFB - remember?). I never implied the plane was ten miles away when seen - you did.

While flight directly over the Pentagon is not supposed to happen - it happened every-single-day, particularly with prop driven cargo planes coming into National Airport.

Are you honestly telling us that you've *never* seen pics of the wreckage from the Pentagon attack? Is that what your comment about "no evidence" is supposed to mean?

Then there's the problem with the witnesses to the impact - literally dozens of them. Please explain these away - including those whose recounting of events don't precisely match the OS - but still saw the plane impact the building.

Bet my soul bearing false witness? Have you lost your grip?



The C130 was seen climbing from the Pentagon, You said it was from the airport. It can't be both.

As far as planes breaking forbidden airspace every day the issue then becomes one of scrambling intercept jets to secure the airspace and yet that didnt happen did it?

What pics I have seen are all that were made available and none of them account for a jet-liner nor its occupants. nor its luggage, nor its seats, tail section, engines, wheels, not even the jet-wash that one would expect from a low flying jumbo-jet that supposedly passed low enough to impact a first floor. Grass would have been peeled back as surely as I had seen pickup trucks being blown away by a real jet with real jet wash.

Yet that wasn't evident was it?

What is evident is the numbers of you people who readily lie for some obscure reason and yes, it is to the detriment of your very soul. Bearing false witness is lying and I am reasonably sure you weren't on site either yet you speak as if your words are the authority of truth when we all know you are as in the dark as the rest of us hence you must be lying if you claim to know anything that absolves this crime of mass-murder.

... and you think my grip is the one in question?
Perhaps you don't believe in God... yet.




posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Still , no one is highlighting the fact that the official story for the supposed Honeywell rotor that was found was aload of tripe , they said that it was from the rear APU engine in a Boeing 757`s tail section ... BUT ... when Honeywell were asked about it and saw the pictures they said .. "there is no way that is any part of a APU engine we manufacture" ...

Maybe not case closed , but it doesnt look good for the web spinners

edit on 18-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Ha Ha, the columns weren't Solid ? Compare them to a human skeleton ? You have no chance of convincing me of anything. Stick to your cronnies who have no proof that any part of the original story is even close. As far as I'm concerned if you believe the obvious lies of obvious liars. Then you're so ignorant that I don't want to convince you or any one like you. I'm glad you believe it. Let it be.


edit on 18-10-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


ProudBird is quite correct - this isn't the thread for a discussion of the Pentagon. However, if you have the stomach for it - open a new thread specifically on the Pentagon and I'll be more than happy to address your comments point by point.

PS - make sure you bring your evidence, not your opinion.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by ProudBird
 
Then you're so ignorant that I don't want to convince you or any one like you. I'm glad you believe it. Let it be.


edit on 18-10-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Bye Bye. Discussion and debate is the very purpose of the forum.
edit on 10/18/2011 by DrEugeneFixer because: delete video from quoted comment



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
And i wonder .... how many more times do i need to ask ? .... Will someone provide an in depth explaination , as to what caused the towers to fall as they did, which agrees with the official story , and abides by the laws of physics ? ... ok i`ll be fair ..... just one tower .... from impact to collapse of the south tower, you know, i mean like, what failed, what hit what , where were the preassure points, what caused the preassure points , what temperatures are you talking , why couldnt the extremely strong structure hold the top section , what caused the concrete / furnature / stud work / humans , to be completley obliterated and turned into ...DUST... ????

Oh... and why didnt the top section just fall into the streets ? it was built in three sections , a complete "pancake" collapse in under an hour, without a "pancake" as an end result ... is just preposturous.

I`m pretty sure theres evidence out there , ALOT more evidence than their is to support my views , or atleast you would think so right ? ..but there isnt .. so why is it that there is more evidence which points to controlled demolition than there is evidence which "backs up" the official story ? Hmmmm, that might have something to do with how mind numbingly ignorant the official story is...... i guess



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



Ha Ha, the columns weren't Solid ?


Read it again.


Compare them to a human skeleton ?


Read it again.


You have no chance of convincing me of anything.


Read more, then. Really, to stick one's head in the sand and scream "La La La, I'm not listening" is the epitome of being ignorant. Or more correctly, of choosing to remain ignorant.

The ad hominem was directed specifically at me, if I recall. That word ("ignorant") is double-edged, and tends to be handicapped with excess emotional baggage, since it can be used both as a statement of fact, and as a pejorative. I felt it was directed in the manner of the latter....


.....However, it was also used incorrectly, and is a sorely mistaken opinion. As evidenced by the quoted statements above, and their apparent indication of a lack of reading comprehension, and also what an 'analogy' is (bones, skeleton, etc and the accompanying sinews and tendons, as relates to a skyscrapers' construction. Not the best analogy perhaps, but for those without their fingers in ears, at least provides food for thought).






edit on Tue 18 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 

You seem to be asking us to write a ten page paper for you. Is your homework due? There are plenty of sources out there, if you are really curious. Here is a great place to start.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


No im not actually , and no i`m not at school , im 24 and in full time employment ( and sick of my kids
) ..... I`m actually asking for one of you "beleivers" to provide YOUR in depth theory , you know , like YOUR REASON FOR BELEIVING ...... is it that hard to understand , or do you all have to side step every reasonable question ?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


I'm just saying if you're so ignorant ( as in you ignore the obvious ) that you believe BS when you hear it. See it. There is no debate.
It just becomes an arguement not worth my time.

Dr.
Very odd that you wear the same lying smile that Bush wears in the vid.


Bye Bye yourself.

edit on 18-10-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Maybe we need Bullsh1t Man to save the day on this thread ?

www.youtube.com...




posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1


PS - make sure you bring your evidence, not your opinion.





Google Video Link


again, simple question why the need to lie?


Google Video Link


and again, a simple question, do your ears work?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


look at the state of it ... that didnt "survive" the crash , i mean like - IN-TACT- yeah sure they look battered they lose a few little bits here and there but not to the point of recovering a few inches of the engine. That was faked , really really faked , and they cant deny it , their so called evidence defies logic.

it doesnt even look like a 757 engine.


Reptile- what do expect an engine to look like after a devastating crash? I'm so confused by what you're saying. Your reasoning is what seems to be defying all logic here.

But back to the topic at hand...



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


What part of the word P-E-N-T-A-G-O-N do you *not* understand?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


engines survive plane crashes ...... just thought i`d point that out

2nd line.


So assertive of you. Are you an NTSB aviation expert? I'd point out too that landing gear tends to survive crashes also.


What I really meant to ask is: Are you suggesting that remnants of engines (or landing gear) were not found at each of these sites?


edit on 18-10-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)


A C130 was seen climbing in altitude at the Pentagon and what is a C130 but a cargo carrier and why would it be climbing (unless the Pentagon were a landing/takeoff strip) if not to drop off cargo and in this case speculating it was plane parts seems more logical than all the jumbo-jets pieces turning to vapor.


Yes, a C-130 was confirmed in the area. The pilots of that craft had been assigned at the time to follow Flight 77 and report on it's heading.

What else do you think it was doing?


I have yet to hear an explanation of what was under that blue tarp but then again it would all be a lie to keep covering up the evidence. IMO it was the remnants of a missile but not having been there all I have is my own conjecture. Why not give the people the evidence and end all the theories?


Okay, be careful how you tread with this one. You may come across as a bit of a paranoid conspiracy theorist if you jump to conclusions like that. You'd also have to resolve why witnesses saw the c-130 (which is confirmed) but didn't notice that it had shot a missile across DC airspace.



As to why nobody had come forward that they are still alive and were on that plane, doubtful any were left alive (dead men tell no tales) and it isn't out of the question that all the planes that supposedly were hijacked that day were fitted with gas to knock the people out first then remote controlled to fly into the buildings. That is my thinking and isnt based on anything but suspicion as to how liars carried out the attacks in the first place.


Now you say planes- remotely controlled. You just stated above that you're thinking is that it was a missile. So what exactly do you believe?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


What part of the word P-E-N-T-A-G-O-N do you *not* understand?



is that your answer then?

In a court of law that would be considered U-N-R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-V-E

you do understand that one lie is built upon another and if there was a single proven lie everything else becomes highly suspect... that is only common sense so I will guess you are at least that bright.

What part of evidence don't you comprehend?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by anoncoholic

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


engines survive plane crashes ...... just thought i`d point that out

2nd line.


So assertive of you. Are you an NTSB aviation expert? I'd point out too that landing gear tends to survive crashes also.


What I really meant to ask is: Are you suggesting that remnants of engines (or landing gear) were not found at each of these sites?


edit on 18-10-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)


A C130 was seen climbing in altitude at the Pentagon and what is a C130 but a cargo carrier and why would it be climbing (unless the Pentagon were a landing/takeoff strip) if not to drop off cargo and in this case speculating it was plane parts seems more logical than all the jumbo-jets pieces turning to vapor.


Yes, a C-130 was confirmed in the area. The pilots of that craft had been assigned at the time to follow Flight 77 and report on it's heading.

What else do you think it was doing?


I have yet to hear an explanation of what was under that blue tarp but then again it would all be a lie to keep covering up the evidence. IMO it was the remnants of a missile but not having been there all I have is my own conjecture. Why not give the people the evidence and end all the theories?


Okay, be careful how you tread with this one. You may come across as a bit of a paranoid conspiracy theorist if you jump to conclusions like that. You'd also have to resolve why witnesses saw the c-130 (which is confirmed) but didn't notice that it had shot a missile across DC airspace.



As to why nobody had come forward that they are still alive and were on that plane, doubtful any were left alive (dead men tell no tales) and it isn't out of the question that all the planes that supposedly were hijacked that day were fitted with gas to knock the people out first then remote controlled to fly into the buildings. That is my thinking and isnt based on anything but suspicion as to how liars carried out the attacks in the first place.


Now you say planes- remotely controlled. You just stated above that you're thinking is that it was a missile. So what exactly do you believe?


i didnt bother reading all this as it borders on lunacy. The fact that the first time I heard the missile being fired from the C130 is here now makes everything you just said worthless IMO.

I also stated it was my conjecture and that isn't proof and wasn't intended to be but merely put forth to show that there is more possibility in the realm of what if than mere facts could allow for. It wasn't me who pretends this isn't a crime that took thousands of lives. In fact I keep mentioning it but to those of no moral fiber I guess it would be asking too much for compassion towards others or even concern for humanity and the inevitable course it is being led to with all the mass-murders going on round the clock like clock-work and mucho dinero ... but then you already know its about money don't you?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 

Start the thread as I suggested and let's see what happens. No stomach for it?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


Forget the airplane engines. You're trying to sell me on some convoluted story that whoever planted the engines in broad daylight planted the wrong ones. I can't buy that. It's just not reality.

But back to the towers.

Your claiming that the collapse defied the laws of physics. Did you come to this conclusion on your own or are you relying on some 9/11 conspiracy site for this info?

How about this:

What about this collapse is defying the laws of physics in your estimation?




new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join