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.

 

What Happened to the Planes? 911 and Logic

page: 17
14
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
This whole ‘no plane’ nonsense has been beaten to death for years.
Not one person or group has proven that there was ‘no plane’.

Why do you persist in your belief in silliness? You take wrong information and mix it with mistaken beliefs and come to conclusions that fly in the face of eye witnesses.

For your belief to be correct, the following must be true.
All the people on the expressways were in on it.
The clean up crews were in on it.
The pilots who understand ground effect and flight path are in on it.
The people who analyze the data were in on it.
The airline who supplied the plane was in on it.
ATC who watched radars were in on it.

This whole theory is getting boring.




posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I am not saying that the Pentagon was not hit by anything. I am saying that if it was hit by an airliner then there should have been sufficient debris....

There was.

....and there should be sufficient photographic evidence of that debris to show that it was indeed an airliner.

What does that even mean? There's is plenty of photographic evidence of the plane debris. Is it "sufficient"? Everyone but you seems to think so, but everyone else is also rational enough to consider the photographic record in context with all the other evidence including eyewitnesses and DNA evidence of the last known passengers of the plane being found at the crash site.

So why aren't there plenty of photographs of seats....

Why should there be? Give me one good rational reason why someone on that day would have been rushing around taking photos of the seats, or what remained of the seats. And even if I gave you say, 12 photos of the seats whats to stop you from claiming that 12 is not sufficient? Maybe you want 13, or 14 or 15 or etc.

....and more than just one photo of one wheel that we can't even tell the size of?

One photo is enough. If you can't explain why that wheel is there other than the crash of Flight 77, then two photos is no more proof than one.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 



So you're saying that one engine penetrated through the c-ring, but the other didn't even put a dent in the outside wall. In response, this "numb nutz" presents Exhibit A:


No idiot - I was making an ANALOGY between Pentagon and Empire State

Apparently have problem with reading comprehension.....

Showing how debris from aircraft is capable of penetrating completely through a building

Here is hole left in C Ring wall by debris (including section of landing gear)




Notice construction of wall - Brick

As for dimensions of hole in E Ring

911review.com...

As determined from these photos was about 96 ft wide

The windows......

Ever wonder why the windows are still intact?

Thats because they are BOMBPROOF - designed to resist a truck bomb


Eventually, all of the nearly 8,000 windows in the Pentagon will be replaced with fixed double-pane glass mirroring the original architecture but offering improved thermal and ultraviolet filtering properties. However, the new exterior outermost E-Ring windows facing the perimeter roadways and the innermost A-Ring windows (at the courtyard center of the complex), being the most vulnerable, will be blast resistant. The new windows are an insulated, laminated, fully-tempered assembly that is designed to absorb and resist the blast loads without shattering into small projectiles or leaving the frame as a single unit. This design meets the client criteria for translucency and energy efficiency, as well as for safety in a blast event.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Cassius666
To even speculate we need information about the ammount of debrie recovered. As other posters said, you cant just assume everything has been posted online in pictures.

If you say that the debrie has been planted, how do you think it has been done? Before the explosion, after the explosion? imbedded during the renovation of the wing? You dont touch on that.


Don't assume anything.

But that also means you don't ASSUME an airliner went into the Pentagon. It needs to be PROVEN that an airliner went into the Pentagon. So why can't people who say an airliner did that provide sufficient pictorial evidence for debris sufficient to be an airliner? The empty plane would have been about 100 tons. How could 50 tons be cleared out without lots of pictures from such a news worthy event?

psik
edit on 26-4-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)


How do you account for the debrie that has been found? Planted evidence? Photoshop, pictures not taken at the pentagon?

Is there any testimony of the people who have been on the site that there was foulplay involved? So far the evidence for a wrecked plane at the site seems to be pretty overwhelming, such as landing gear, tires etc. and you do not account for it.


I am not saying that the Pentagon was not hit by anything. I am saying that if it was hit by an airliner then there should have been sufficient debris and there should be sufficient photographic evidence of that debris to show that it was indeed an airliner. So why aren't there plenty of photographs of seats and more than just one photo of one wheel that we can't even tell the size of?

psik


The wheel has been carefully considered by aerospace engineers who have concluded that it was from a Boeing 757-200.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

You can go on forever about where are the seats (flimsy structures mostly upholstery) where are the toilet doors etc but things do get smashed up in 500 mph collisions with pretty solid objects.

In any event, it is only part of the evidence. There are many witnesses. DNA identified body parts and personal possessions of passengers and crew of AA 77 were recovered from the Pentagon. As was a flight data recorder from which the data could be recovered. Radar tracks, air traffic control tapes. Flightpath damage i.e. chopped lightpoles, trees clipped, generator trailer and low wall knocked about.

And in support of a missile we have 0 witnesses, 0 physical evidence. Frankly it is only on here that anyone would debate with you a missile at the Pentagon. In the real world of rational people do you dare bring the subject up ?



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
There's is plenty of photographic evidence of the plane debris.


Really? Here is the point of impact... please show us debris that might add up to a model airplane let alone a 757.




And while you're at it, explain why the firemen were pulled back after 20 minutes to allow the building to collapse... what took it so long, how did they know, and why is the furniture right next to the perfect remaining wall not moved an inch out of place and not even singed from all that jet fuel?


edit on 27-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
The wheel has been carefully considered by aerospace engineers who have concluded that it was from a Boeing 757-200.

All that proves is that they planted a wheel. Where's the rest of this 757? Besides the one piece left conspicuously out in the open that has the wrong paint for AA
edit on 27-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 



All that proves is that they planted a wheel.

That just begs the regular:

Who?
How?
When?
Where?
Why?



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 
I don't know how long this charade can go on. The people here who post daily claiming that there is ample evidence of a plane crash at the pentagon, cannot for one second make me believe they are for real. Not a shred of doubt, huh? Child, please. This whole 'argument' is by now so phony, that I grow weary of it.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
As determined from these photos was about 96 ft wide

I don't see a 96 foot hole. Artfully concocted hoping lemmings wouldn't notice, but still no 96 foot hole. COuld it be the space between an OS'ers ears that they're seeing?



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 
I don't know how long this charade can go on. The people here who post daily claiming that there is ample evidence of a plane crash at the pentagon, cannot for one second make me believe they are for real. Not a shred of doubt, huh? Child, please. This whole 'argument' is by now so phony, that I grow weary of it.


I know, it's painfully obvious. But hey, I'm doing this between jobs at a real profession. These guys HAVE to do this. Don't you feel sorry for them that making a living boils down to making an utter fool of oneself every day? I do. And when the truth comes out, rest assured these people will be nowhere to be found.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Alfie1
The wheel has been carefully considered by aerospace engineers who have concluded that it was from a Boeing 757-200.

All that proves is that they planted a wheel. Where's the rest of this 757? Besides the one piece left conspicuously out in the open that has the wrong paint for AA
edit on 27-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)


Well aerospace engineers have also reported on the engine parts from the Pentagon. Their conclusion that they are from Rolls Royce RB 211 engines as fitted to the aircraft that flew as AA 77 on 9/11.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Lets face it, if the whole aircraft was sitting there pristine in the rubble you would still deny it.

So the debris is insufficient. Lets see your missile debris please.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Lets face it, if the whole aircraft was sitting there pristine in the rubble you would still deny it.

Wrong. I would acknowledge it. It would also help if they could show us the video where they got the 5 frames from. You KNOW they have a video with the missing frames don't you? You couldn;t possibly be that dense.... please tell me you're not. Please tell me that you can at least acknowledge that something is being very blatantly and arrogantly concealed.

Good God, do you really think they would try to pull off something this big without at least planting some tokens for you lemmings to grasp onto as "evidence"?



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 
I don't know how long this charade can go on. The people here who post daily claiming that there is ample evidence of a plane crash at the pentagon, cannot for one second make me believe they are for real. Not a shred of doubt, huh? Child, please. This whole 'argument' is by now so phony, that I grow weary of it.



In your haste to pour forth what you evidently think is pure trutherism it has evidently passed you by that "no plane" at the Pentagon is now regarded as embarrasing disinfo by serious truthers who exhibit some signs of rationality :-

www.journalof911studies.com...



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 



Wrong. I would acknowledge it.

And then call them "tokens" (see below for clarification).

It would also help if they could show us the video where they got the 5 frames from.

That was the video.

You KNOW they have a video with the missing frames don't you?

There are no "missing frames".

You couldn;t possibly be that dense.... please tell me you're not.

Yes, how could anyone be sooooo stupid as not to immeadiately believe something on a conspircy website.

Please tell me that you can at least acknowledge that something is being very blatantly and arrogantly concealed.

Nothing is being concealed. I know that's kind of boring and all, but thats all there is to it.

Good God, do you really think they would try to pull off something this big without at least planting some tokens for you lemmings to grasp onto as "evidence"?

So no evidence is evidence of an "inside job" and evidence is evidence of an "inside job"? So you've got yourself into a truther win-win loop, huh?



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Alfie1

Lets face it, if the whole aircraft was sitting there pristine in the rubble you would still deny it.

Wrong. I would acknowledge it. It would also help if they could show us the video where they got the 5 frames from. You KNOW they have a video with the missing frames don't you? You couldn;t possibly be that dense.... please tell me you're not. Please tell me that you can at least acknowledge that something is being very blatantly and arrogantly concealed.

Good God, do you really think they would try to pull off something this big without at least planting some tokens for you lemmings to grasp onto as "evidence"?


Just give me a brief outline of how stuff was planted within this please :-

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 
Your 'link' is pure drivel. In the last page they write, "the main THEORY still has some unanswered questions" , so back off. This is not proof of anything but a cover-up. How you can wake up and look at yourself in the mirror everyday is a mystery.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
There are no "missing frames".

I have watched the 5 frames played as a video. There are missing frames. If you think there are no missing frames, good for you. Believe that and have a good life.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Alfie1
 
Your 'link' is pure drivel. In the last page they write, "the main THEORY still has some unanswered questions" , so back off. This is not proof of anything but a cover-up. How you can wake up and look at yourself in the mirror everyday is a mystery.



The link you describe as "pure drivel" is a truther site. Do you seriously think people who look at this site can't read and comprehend. This paper says in it's conclusion that " Clearly, the main theory, that a large plane such as a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, is by far the most plausible theory compared with the alternative theories. The main theory still has some unanaswered uestions, but it is much stronger than any alternative theories ."

www.journalof911studies.com...

Out of all that you cherry-pick the words " the main theory still has some unanswered questions" and you ask me a silly question about looking in the mirror. Your devotion to the truth is risible.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl
Greetings, ATS!

I’ve been looking into the 911 conspiracy issues for the past couple of months. I know there’s a plethora of 911 threads on ATS already, but I’d like to make this thread different.

I’m aware that many folks don’t believe a plane hit the Pentagon, or that a plane crashed in Shanksville. Recently, to my surprise, I discovered that some folks even question whether or not the passenger planes hit the WTC. According to a few threads I’ve read, the other theories about what hit the WTC include remote-controlled military plane, a missile, or even a hologram.

I don’t have the expertise to debate the impact sites at the Pentagon, the WTC, and Shanksville. I can’t intelligently discuss what caused the WTC buildings to collapse the way they did, or even if that collapse was unusual. I have to accept what the professionals tell me, and I’m very well aware that the professionals disagree, sometimes quite vehemently. So I decided to take a different route.

Here’s what I’d like to do. Let’s use logic and discuss only one issue: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PLANES? Where did the planes go, if they didn’t crash into the WTC, Shanksville, or the Pentagon? Did the planes fly to some unknown location where the passengers and crew were executed? If so, why?

To me, it seems illogical to fly a missile into the Pentagon and attempt to pass it off as a passenger plane. After all, there were witnesses who saw the plane (and personally, I think I’d remember a plane crashing a couple hundred yards away). More importantly, why use a missile instead of the actual plane? Was it to cause less or more destruction? And if you use a missile, what happened to the plane?

If the 911 attacks were planned by the government to raise support for the War on Terror, then it would be counter-productive to use a missile instead of a plane. This sounds callous, but I believe it to be true; to really enrage the public, you would prefer a higher body count. It would, in that light, make more sense to crash the plane into the Pentagon. Same with the WTC and Shanksville.

So, to recap: this thread is to discuss the logic of the 911 attacks and not to debate free falling buildings, debris fields, etc. ATS has a wonderful reservoir of bright and analytical minds, and I look forward to reading the different viewpoints and ideas.


missiles that look similar to planes were used, eye witnesses were actors, the building was evacuated and area sealed off. Most if not all deaths were faked, and the tv footage was pre-made. The planes were not hijacked.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by Nathan-D
There have been rumours circulating on the web, especially over the last few months, that a plane didn't actually strike the Pentagon, in fact, apparently according to some eye-witnesses, they didn't see a plane at all, but a definitive missile-like shaped object. Recently footage of this 'missile' surfaced. The following video purportedly shows a missile-shaped object just before the Pentagon explodes, and perhaps even more unbelievably, this so-called 'missile' was manned. There is even footage from inside the missile's cockpit: www.youtube.com...

edit on 26-4-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



Yep, people sitting in traffic near to the pentagon said they saw no plane, go figure. Even early reporters said that it did not look like a plane had crashed. Obviously they had not been handed their scripts by them.

Whoever wrote all the scripts for that day forgot to brief everyone. When real eye-witnesses say there was no plane I'm inclined to believe them.


A witness to a "no plane" is nonsense. The only thing a witness can say is " I didn't see one"

Perhaps you could provide your list of witnesses who say they didn't see a plane to counter this list of plenty who did..

911research.wtc7.net...


no a witness to no plane is not nonsense, people have said in a few video snippets that they did not see a plane or hear a plane but heard a missile... Next question.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join