It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New Footage 9/11 Second Tower Explosion Incredibly Clear Video From Helicopter - Where Is The Plane?

page: 32
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:01 PM

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Danbones

but the amount of truthers here is miniscule compared to the national world wide population

Yes, compared to the world population the number of "truthers" is miniscule, microscopic, in fact its damn near subatomic. You're all alone. There is no movement.

hmmmm a missing link

I am willing to entertain your theory
its just that as we all are expected according to the decorm of good debate to provide references as best we can
so are you

since you are so shy, I'll go first again

now addmittedly at first, many did have faith in the OS
however it is quite plain as time progressed many noticed more and more that the oS was questionable.

This increasing trend in the lack of belief in the OS would be the perfect reason to FAKE a "truther" video like the one in the OP to make it look like the truthers are deperate....or it may just have been a common prank created to entertain the victims families

In November 2007 Scripps Howard surveyed 811 Americans about their beliefs in several conspiracy theories and asked this question[17]

How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely?
32% "Very Likely"
30% "Somewhat Likely"
30% "Unlikely"
8% "Don't Know/Other"

this one is hillary-ious considering that even the US government has admitted saddam if anything was alCIAduhs biggest enemy and had nothing to do with 911

New York Times / CBS News have conducted a number of polls on the Iraq War that have included the question:

"Was Saddam personally involved in 9/11?"[10]
April 2003 responses: 53% said Yes, 38% said No.
October 2005 responses: 33% said Yes, 55% said No.
September 2006 responses: 31% said Yes, 57% said No.
September 2007 responses: 33% said Yes, 58% said No.
but it quite clearly shows the trend in questioning the OS

CanadaIn September 2006 an Ipsos-Reid poll found that 22 percent of Canadians believe "the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans."[23]

A September 2008 Angus Reid poll showed that 39% of respondents either disagree or are unsure that Al Qaeda carried out the attacks. About a third of those surveyed believed the United States Government allowed the attacks to happen and 16% believe the U. S. government made the attacks happen.[24]

In its January 2011 issue, the German magazine "Welt der Wunder" published the results of a poll conducted by the Emnid institute on 1005 respondents. The poll indicated that almost 90 percent of the Germans are convinced that the government of the United States is not telling the whole truth about the September 11 attacks.[26]

A poll placed on the website of Russia Today on September 11, 2008 found that 88% of respondents felt that the 9/11 Commission deliberately hid the truth from their report. Only 12% felt that they "did a great job collecting evidence".

A World Public Opinion poll conducted between July and September 2008 found that 42% of respondents in the Palestinian territories believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 27% said the U.S. government were responsible, 19% said Israel and 9% named another country. 3% said they did not know.[

now admittedly I left out countries that don't have a lot of internet and who had significant amounts of
"Do Not know"
But this shows that the OS beLIEvers are slowly trending into the minority where ever the press isn't too tightly controlled.

edit on 15-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2012 by Danbones because: spellin grammer context and fixed quote box

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:02 PM

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by burntheships

CNN: 'No evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the Pentagon'

Piece of wreckage WAY to small for Boeing 757

But it fits THIS and so does the landing gear and the engine... the SINGLE engine found...

Engine rotor at Pentagon

A REAL 757 engine...

Global Hawk engine....

Single hole at Pentagon

Boeing 757's do not just vaporize with no bodies, no luggage no debris and no hole that fits a plane...

Wow zorgon!

This is the absolute best evidence I've seen to explain all the accounts of what happened at the Pentagon.

That looks like proof positive to me.

I never could believe that huge airliner made that small hole and left no traces, all that metal just disintegrated? Wow, and 2x in one day? And three buildings falling from fire.. also a first... too many firsts for one day.

This plane didn't disintegrate:


Neither did this one:


Just too many damn firsts on 9/11

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:07 PM
here is neat demonstrative trick you can try at home
take an empty toothpaste tube that is made of aluminium

and a nice old fashioed wooden door with the old fashion key hole in it

Now try to jam the toothpaste tube through the key hole

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:20 PM
I really do not understand ATS's policies sometimes.

Why is this thread not in the hoax bin?

Seriously, is the title of the thread not about a video that has been tampered with and falsely implying something?

Sometimes I wonder what the hell is going on around here

edit on 15-3-2012 by liejunkie01 because: I forgot to include. not in the hoax bin, my bad

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 07:09 PM
reply to post by pianopraze


(I truly hope you were being sarcastic here, because if not? Double sigh...)

This plane didn't disintegrate:


That biz jet was on a takeoff roll.....not going fast at all when it over-ran the runway.

It had just a fraction of the kinetic energy that AAL 77 had (or any of the other three).

And, your "link" was to a ridiculous "conspiracy" site, that have no idea what they're talking about? Must have meant it as a joke, right?

BTW...did you miss the part where zorgon was schooled about the photo-shopped Global Hawk?

And, did you know that the claim, in his post (from another sort of silly "conspiracy" site that is in the business of spreading misinformation) about the "Global Hawk engine" in one of the photos is a complete lie?

And, what "small hole" at the Pentagon?
The breach on the outer wall was over 95 feet wide!

Here, just read this thread --- it is the best, and most definitive examination of the evidence on ATS:

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Of course, as usual...the topic veered hard to starboard to some extent, since originally the OP focussed on United 175, with another FALSE claim of "no plane". But, since this Pentagon nonsense is much the same, it is at least tangentially connected.

The foolishness seems to get resurrected on a regular basis, whenever some people fall hook, line and sinker for all the incredibly poor "research" that is out there, masquerading as "facts".....when they are all a crock of crap.

EACH time a claim of "no planes" is made, a puppy dies somewhere in the world....and the really serious "Truth Movement" members and followers get real, real angry and frustrated. It makes them appear to be loonies......

But, if the shoe fits, then it belongs to people like "Simon Shack", and "Jim Fetzer"....two well-known disinformation artists out there, pushing this silliness.

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 07:18 PM
reply to post by ProudBird


Just read this thread Proud Whacker....

Independent Investigation Into The Pentagon Yeilds Alarming Information

That is one of the best threads on The Pentagon attacks, well documented
information and its virtually proven that there was no plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

You seriously cannot expect us to really believe the planes wings just dissapeared as
it so graciously skimmed above the grass perfectly leaving no tire marks,

* Oh I suppose you want us to think the landing gear was up ? *
> A feat of flying no pilot I personally know says is possible <
> every pilot I know has said it is physically impossible <

and that explains how there is just a hole in the Pentagon, not damage
that would fit with the wingspan of a 757??? Not!

edit on 15-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by ProudBird

I suppose all these experienced pilots calling BS are lying too, right?

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 07:47 PM

Originally posted by pianopraze

I suppose all these experienced pilots calling BS are lying too, right?

Ask yourself why the pilot list at Pilots for Truth isn't heaving with applications? There you will have your answer. Why isn't there tens of thousands of pilots and aircrew backing up the P4T theories?

Go over and put your theory to a much larger audience of professional aviators. Ask yourself why the vast majority of them are not scrambling to back up P4T?
edit on 15-3-2012 by tommyjo because: Malformed link corrected

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 07:55 PM
reply to post by pianopraze

Furthermore, let's examine some more of zorgon's quoted post:

A REAL 757 engine...

Another mistake, and/or a lie (not that zorgon lied, mind innocent victim, and just repeating someone else's lie).

That photo is NOT of a Boeing 757. Just looking at the Flight Attendant's uniform, I knew it was very old, from either the 1960s or 1970s. I found that photo using, at this website:

Vintage Flight Attendant Uniforms

Further research, I found the photo on another site, and this caption under this same picture:

Beginning in the mid 1960s, Emilio Pucci began designing for Braniff International, and debuted the "space bubble" to protect the air hostess's teased hair from the rain. (I get it) is a photo of a Braniff Airlines Flight Attendant....and NOT a Boeing 757 is a 747!! (Braniff never, ever, ever had any 757s).

Even more: The direction of rotation of the N1 fan on the P&W engine in that photo (the one on the 747) is opposite from that of the Rolls Royce RB-211-535:

Note the blade angles.....the 747 engine in the photo rotates counter-clockwise (when viewed from the front). The RB211-535 N1 fan rotates the other way. (Look at the propeller blades in my avatar....those engines also rotate the same direction as the 747 Pratt & Whitney turbofan).

There are so many incorrect claims from that post of zorgon's, I could go on. But, that is par for the course when the "information" is gleaned from those comically incorrect "conspiracy" sites.

Oh, and BTW:

Look at the RB211-535 engine in cut-away, above. Note the further deceptive techniques used by those "conspiracy" fool people into thinking the engine is as big as its visible N1 fan.

Anyone else angry at being lied to??

edit on Thu 15 March 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:01 PM
reply to post by liejunkie01

I could be wrong but I think this has now been moved to BTS. Below Top Secret. Somehwat less moderation but still the same T&C's apply.
ETA Still the same old ex-patriated pilots try to claim the innocence of their newly allegianced governments credibility though.

*Whacks some weeds*...of niet soms?

edit on 15/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA

ETA2 Translation for the non-Dutch speakers...
edit on 15/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA2

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:04 PM
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

I was thinking that by now they would just delete the 9/11 forum,
I mean you know, its so old nothing new, and all.

Just hobbyists.
Dangerous hobbyists.

BTW, BTS , I am BTS.

edit on 15-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:07 PM
reply to post by burntheships

Lobbyists? Beg pardon, my eyes are getting tired.

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by Gestas

Citation needed to describe that plane as fully armed. It was running out of fuel and flew too low due to haze its largely fly by sight mechanism (pilot brain) made an error. Everyone else explained the differences but the Empire State Building was built in a grid frame and not just the core but most all of the steel had cement fireproofing. A testament of the over-engineering of the time. The twin towers had little cement fireproofing, most was a sort of drywall, notable in the collapse 'powderization' people misunderstand. ESB had a miniscule of wiring and volatile infrastructure than the WTC, by simple virtue of the times.

Piped steam heat is also a great built-in fireproofing infrastructural system for over-engineered skyscrapers. WTC, not.
edit on 15-3-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:10 PM
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

It must be from the chemtrails...oh I mean Con trails.

*cough* *bts wipes eyes*

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:13 PM
reply to post by pianopraze


Yes.....that stupid demonstration in the video?? Seen it....and it makes me laugh every time. A cheap-ass simulator in someone's garage or hangar??


Here, see it done properly (and without the bias from "Captain Amer". This Dutch TV show (this has English sub-titles) went to a real full-motion jet simulator, with a fairly inexperienced pilot. It is broken up into separate parts for is part three, where we are at the end of the demonstration:

The other part of the simulator demo is at the end of this part. This section opens with the junk FAKE-umentary "Loose Change" and a few of its claims, as narrated by the "film maker" Dylan Avery....another know-nothing waste of space:

Avery's claims that the turn made by the jet was at "535 MPH" is a lie, of course. Typical.

And repeats the straw man about Hani Hanjour at the airport to rent a Cessna 172.....again, he was not allowed to rent because he WAS not deemed to be safe, and knowledgeable about the many aspects of flying that one needs, in order to be competent. BUT, just steering and aiming a jet? Anyone can do that simple task.

P4T are not an organization full of experienced pilots that are taken seriously.....either there are a few there who are solidly insane and deluded, or just playing roles to have fun at others' expense....really, can't figure them out. Majority of the actual members are not pilots, at all. And, many are just sock-puppets created by the site owner.

Of course, the head honcho over there has a ticket on the crazy train, it seems obvious at this point. Others have seen it, and have bailed.....except for a few staunch "supporters" and brown-nosers who actually know nothing about flying, but eat up everything said by the nitwit who owns the site.

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:17 PM
reply to post by ProudBird

Dude, you of all people should know Dutch press had its mouth tied shut years ago. Get a grip on reality, please.

edit on 15/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Grammar

ETA Dumb Dutch Press
edit on 15/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA

ETA2 Guess you never saw Muntz en De Wint when they interviewed van Dries (old Dutch Premier from years ago) and he spilled the beans about how politics was just a show for the Dutch people and was totally pre-arranged. No, I thought not.

edit on 15/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA2

ETA3 Got the name wrong, it was before my time. This one is for ProudBird.

edit on 15/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA3

ETA4 See how difficult Dutch names are? Dries van Agt.
Corrections sometimes exceed the difficulty of Dutch pronunciation. I am just a poor boy with a bad memory...and Dutch pronunciation but I do speak and understand it fluently.

edit on 15/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA4

ETA5 Apologies for the non-Dutch speakers and non-adherence to ATS rules

In a nutshell, these two seeming maniacs interview (and possibly feed Dries van Agt with a certain amount of alcohol to loosen his lips) an ex President of Holland and get the real deal. He is at least honest, unlike many. This was also in the days before the Euro, complots and all the rest but what he says is quite damning.
Muntz en De Wint was one of the few truly great shows on Dutch TV.
Muntz is quite the madman but again, he is straight from the heart. How many more edits can I add to a post? Dunno.

edit on 15/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA5

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:27 PM
reply to post by burntheships

Wrong, on all counts:

> A feat of flying no pilot I personally know says is possible <
> every pilot I know has said it is physically impossible <

and that explains how there is just a hole in the Pentagon, not damage
that would fit with the wingspan of a 757??? Not!

There was nothing "impossible" about any of the flights of 9/11. Not one thing.

"every pilot you know"? How many? What are their qualifications??

The breach at the impact point at the Pentagon was about 95 feet wide. This accounts for the majority of the Boeing 757's 124 feet 10 inch wingspan.....because outboard of the engines the structure of the wing is far less solidly those portions simply broke up on impact, against the Pentagon facade.

The "no plane" claim is utterly ridiculous, a non-starter. Same in NYC.

The radar tapes. The eyewitnesses. The verified airplane debris.

The Flight Data Recorder!!!

The Human remains.....

It is stunningly ignorant to claim otherwise.

(Many more, just search....and there is a lot of BAD info out there, too....).

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:29 PM
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

Oh, so you are alleging that nothing in the Dutch Zembla TV show is accurate?

The usual refuge of a failed argument, when evidence is presented that cannot be refuted. More lies.

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:34 PM
reply to post by ProudBird

For a self-professed Pink Floyd fan, I find it hard to believe you stick to falsehoods so tenaciously. Nuff said?
ETA Open your mind and the rest will follow.
edit on 15/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:45 PM
reply to post by ProudBird

So that's a yes?

Interesting that all the Pilots and Architects are calling BS on the OS...

... and there are so many "arm chair" professionals in here try to defend it...

The people who WROTE the 9/11 report even say it's BS...

top topics

<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in