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: 18
14
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

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)


exactly dude, they cannot show the plane wreckage because there was none. dont waste your time arguing with paid shills, just ignore them and converse with people that are genuinely interested in this topic.




posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

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.


Dont listen to the shills, of course there were frames missing, it's been proven many times over.
They will always disagree with you even if the evidence is staring them in the face. They know the frames are missing, but they get paid to discredit you! This place is so infested with shills, never known a site like it.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
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.


september clues proved it, maybe you haven't seen it?! I'm sure you have but will not acknowledge it, all the shills say it's a hoax but the evidence does not lie. Try and debunk september clues, video by video, when you can present detailed argument for each video come back to me....



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

This whole theory is getting boring.


Why are you even commenting on 9/11 if you find it boring? Is the pay too good to give up?



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

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.


You're under the misconception that there are only two camps: "Truthers" and OS'ers. There are OS'ers who are deluded, and there are OS'ers who knowingly dispute the "truth". Then there are the "truthers" who are all at varying stages of their research. Then there are "truthers" who are not really truthers at all, but disinfo agents posing as "truthers". The result is that there is a sea of mass confusion.

There are, in fact, a multitude of different camps and varying agendas. There are those who want the truth, and those who want conceal the truth, but then there are those who can't handle the truth.... emotionally, subconsciously, etc.

One thing about OS'ers that unites them, is they all follow the same tactics. They can't possibly defend their entire OS in one fell swoop because there are literally THOUSANDS of smoking guns, questions, inconsistencies, testimony thrown out, gag orders, etc. etc.... so they have no choice but to resort to "debunking" one thing at a time. If there were a FEW isolated problems with the OS, we "truthers" might actually accept that 19 Arabs plus a few ringleaders were responsible for 911. Problem is, not one single aspect of the OS is consistent with the evidence, or logic, or laws of physics. No matter where one looks, the OS is either "fishy", "questionable", or an outright lie.

Most importantly, those of you who are siding with the Government are either purposely or fearfully overlooking a very' very long history of undeniable proof that NOTHING, just as FDR said, NOTHING happens in politics unless it was meant to happen. There is a BIG PICTURE that you OS'ers are oblivious to. It's not just about 911. It is a LONG HISTORY that establishes an undeniable pattern: EVERYTHING is orchestrated from behind the scenes. And until you bozos figure that out, you will remain under their thumb, at least until the whole lot of them have been removed from power which will have nothing to do with you but the hard work and fearlessness of others who will put you to utter shame.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
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.


You know all this is BS! Check the picture one page back, zero plane debris! Where is the CCTV footage, please do provide it all from your CIA buddies, we've been waiting long enough for it now. Not one video that was taken shows a plane, and not one picture shows all the debris!

There might be 'sufficient' debris for you, but unfortunately most people have not seen anything sufficient to be satisfied a plane hitthe pentagon.

Can you please hurry up with the CCTV footage, this will clear everything up...






posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

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 ?


Things might break up on impact but there would be large parts of the plane left intact based on the crash site, where are these large parts? Please see picture on page 17 for the impact site showing zero debris? Do you not find that odd?! All the stuff you have regurgitated in this reply is obviously not real because there was no plane. If so, where is the CCTV footage showing a plane? That you cannot argue! This is getting silly now, but i guess you'll keep regurgitation the same old trash because you're paid to do so, or are just trolling.
Which one are you? Troll or shill?



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 
How on earth can you label that BS a 'truther site'? What are you? It is without question a feeble attempt at covering up pursuit of the criminals resposible for 9/11. You, are not real.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Alfie1

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.


You're under the misconception that there are only two camps: "Truthers" and OS'ers. There are OS'ers who are deluded, and there are OS'ers who knowingly dispute the "truth". Then there are the "truthers" who are all at varying stages of their research. Then there are "truthers" who are not really truthers at all, but disinfo agents posing as "truthers". The result is that there is a sea of mass confusion.

There are, in fact, a multitude of different camps and varying agendas. There are those who want the truth, and those who want conceal the truth, but then there are those who can't handle the truth.... emotionally, subconsciously, etc.

One thing about OS'ers that unites them, is they all follow the same tactics. They can't possibly defend their entire OS in one fell swoop because there are literally THOUSANDS of smoking guns, questions, inconsistencies, testimony thrown out, gag orders, etc. etc.... so they have no choice but to resort to "debunking" one thing at a time. If there were a FEW isolated problems with the OS, we "truthers" might actually accept that 19 Arabs plus a few ringleaders were responsible for 911. Problem is, not one single aspect of the OS is consistent with the evidence, or logic, or laws of physics. No matter where one looks, the OS is either "fishy", "questionable", or an outright lie.

Most importantly, those of you who are siding with the Government are either purposely or fearfully overlooking a very' very long history of undeniable proof that NOTHING, just as FDR said, NOTHING happens in politics unless it was meant to happen. There is a BIG PICTURE that you OS'ers are oblivious to. It's not just about 911. It is a LONG HISTORY that establishes an undeniable pattern: EVERYTHING is orchestrated from behind the scenes. And until you bozos figure that out, you will remain under their thumb, at least until the whole lot of them have been removed from power which will have nothing to do with you but the hard work and fearlessness of others who will put you to utter shame.


Well said! they are working off a rigid script, their behaviour is deliberate, 'truthers' was a term made up by these 'fakers'. I am seeking the real evidence, but I am not a truther, that is a term penned by shills and used by shills, easy way to detect a shill is if they use the word 'truther' because no one else but disinfo shills uses that term! They are so dumb that they think people do not know who the shills are, they are so easy to spot it's laughable!

I'd rather be a 'truther' than a 'faker' any day!



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

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.



One of the fake truther sites set up by your shill buddies, we're not daft, we know you have set your own truth sites up to spread disinfo. Nice try!



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 



All that proves is that they planted a wheel.

That just begs the regular:

Who?
How?
When?
Where?
Why?


If you're not intellegent to work all tht out by yourself then I'd get yourself another job and give up on commenting on 9/11 because you dont seem to have the aptitude for this kind of research!



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
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?


Wow, you seem so certain about everything but as per usual you shills never provide an iota of real evidence!
Obvious shill, give up before you're made to look even more stupid!



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Alfie1
 
How on earth can you label that BS a 'truther site'? What are you? It is without question a feeble attempt at covering up pursuit of the criminals resposible for 9/11. You, are not real.



If you don't know "journal of 9/11 studies" is a truther site you don't know anything.

Anyway, call them BS all you want but it is obviously very upsetting for me to see truthers slagging each other off.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by 4hero
 

All you have is 'shill'. Everyones a shill in your mind. It's like people use the term god. "It's gods will" If you can't explain something then it must be a coverup.
This world runs on proof.
You have no proof of any conspiracy.
Like all truthers you go on about this and that but nothing comes of it.
If any truther had any proof they would take it to court or at least the news media.
But alas NADA. Just more whinning on the internet.

Find on piece of proof that can't be countered by simple means then get back with us.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
This world runs on proof.
You have no proof of any conspiracy.

Incorrect.

It runs on MONEY.

"Give me control of a nation's currency, and I don't care who writes its laws."

You do know who said that, don't you?

The guy who founded the corporation that prints the money that pays you.

Your employers own the media, the police, the corporations, the courts, the judges, Hollywood, the music industry, and most importantly, the banks.

Worst part of all this is, not only are they Nazi's, but they're paedophiles, rapists, murderers, and Satanists.

You should be very proud.

But that "Internet" that you speak of so derisively, will be the end of them. And you sir, will have to find a real job.
edit on 27-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero

Things might break up on impact but there would be large parts of the plane left intact based on the crash site, where are these large parts? Please see picture on page 17 for the impact site showing zero debris? Do you not find that odd?! All the stuff you have regurgitated in this reply is obviously not real because there was no plane. If so, where is the CCTV footage showing a plane? That you cannot argue! This is getting silly now, but i guess you'll keep regurgitation the same old trash because you're paid to do so, or are just trolling.
Which one are you? Troll or shill?


Why would there be larger parts than we have already seen :-

www.youtube.com...

Please explain.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero

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.


OK, links to your missile witnesses please.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

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 ?


So you put one wheel inside whatever actually hit the Pentagon and say, "You see, that is from a Boeing 767."

That would explain why there weren't eleven more and no seats and tail section.

psik



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So you put one wheel inside whatever actually hit the Pentagon and say, "You see, that is from a Boeing 767."

That would explain why there weren't eleven more and no seats and tail section.

psik


But there wasn't just one wheel was there ? There were engine parts identified by aerospace engineers as from Rolls Royce RB 211 engines as fitted to AA 77 :-

www.aerospaceweb.org...

and a multiplicity of other parts within and without the Pentagon. What sort of vehicle contained all these parts and also managed to distribute them all over the lawn as well as deep within the Pentagon ?

Please link me to the pics of the debris of this vehicle and the witnesses who saw it, thanks.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 




So you put one wheel inside whatever actually hit the Pentagon and say, "You see, that is from a Boeing 767."

That would explain why there weren't eleven more and no seats and tail section.

psik

Show us photos from any crash that shows all 12 wheels and 100 plus seats.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join