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: 19
14
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

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.

Still trying to cast your post-normal spells over everyone’s minds, I see Alfie. You don’t seem to have realised that you have been rumbled though. You still seem to think that you can pull off the Great Bamboozlement with words. You can't convince people to believe in things that they cannot see with their own eyes (i.e. a substantial plane wreckage and a perfectly round hole missing wing-marks). Oh wait, I almost forgot, the wings mysteriously folded back before impact on their own accord. Oh yes, I remember now. It's been some years since I visited this forum and the hilarious arguments are now coming back to me. So what have we got so far then: no footage of a plane, apart from grainy footage of some sort of indistinguishable object that OS-advocates assure us is a plane, an enigmatic lawn that seems to be impermeable to damage, a perfectly round hole 16-feet across that penetrated through three of the Pentagon's rings apparently caused because the plane crumpled up like a xylophone even though the two titanium engines apparently didn't make a mark and vaporised on impact too. Yeah, the engines vaporised but the aluminium body was impervious to damage because it was made by Chuck Norris. To riff off Kurt Angle, it's true, it's true.

Seriously though. Joking aside. Howevermuch the advocates of the OS may wish to pretend otherwise, their claims have not been proven and nor have they been accepted as proven by the scientific community. There is a substantial proportion of scientists who dissent from the OS for reasons which they have explained in depth and detail in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Unfortunately though, most people are not scientists and are at the mercy of the appointed experts to tell them what to believe. And that, I think, is probably the main reason why the the NIST, FEMA and similar pseudoscientific, quasi-governmental bodies are able to exercise such remakable power over the unsuspecting minds of large masses of ordinary people, like Alfie. But as a very wise man said two millennia ago, when the blind lead the blind they all fall down into the pit. It seems to be taking some of us an awfully long time to learn this lesson, at least over the 9/11-issue.
edit on 27-4-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
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.


I never said I needed to pictures of all 12 wheels. I only said the plane had 12 and we only see one picture of one wheel. We don't even have three different pictures of that one wheel from the Pentagon or seats or tail sections.

Are there any plane crashes other than on 9/11 where there is any question about what crashed?

Curious that!


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



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

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.


Just Google:

pentagon crash debris pictures

I have only seen that one picture of that wheel since forever. I find it amusing that I never even see that wheel from a different perspective.


psik



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D

You can't convince people to believe in things that they cannot see with their own eyes (i.e. a substantial plane wreckage and a perfectly round hole missing wing-marks).


Would this be the perfectly round hole with no peripheral damage you have in mind ?

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Nathan D and psikeyhackr

You seem to be "no-planers" at the Pentagon so what is your explanation for Arlington police calling in a plane crash that morning ? At 0.32 you can hear Officer Richard Cox specifically reporting an " American Airlines plane headed east over the Pike."

www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Nathan-D

You can't convince people to believe in things that they cannot see with their own eyes (i.e. a substantial plane wreckage and a perfectly round hole missing wing-marks).


Would this be the perfectly round hole with no peripheral damage you have in mind ?

911research.wtc7.net...

No Alfie, no it wouldn't. Here it is just to re-fresh your memory. Don't forget, that this hole (which penetrated through three of the Pentagon's rings like some bullet on steroids) was apparently the result of nose of the plane being crumpled backwards compacting the plane into some sort of bunker-busting missile. Do you really expect anyone with a barely functioning brain-cell to believe this stuff?





t 0.32 you can hear Officer Richard Cox specifically reporting an " American Airlines plane headed east over the Pike."

They're called lies. Ever told one?
edit on 28-4-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


If you were referring to the exit hole whch you have just posted why on earth did you remark on the absence of "wing-marks" ?

So Arlington police are now part of the conspiracy and complicit in mass murder ?



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1--->So Arlington police are now part of the conspiracy and complicit in mass murder ?


Sure.

By truther twisted logic everything is a conspiracy, and things are opposite of what it seems to be, the good guys are the bad ones.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

what is your explanation for Arlington police calling in a plane crash that morning ? At 0.32 you can hear Officer Richard Cox specifically reporting an " American Airlines plane headed east over the Pike."


He probably saw this thing.....



Keep drinking that gov't kool-aid it eases the pain of the lobotomy....
edit on 28-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen

Originally posted by Alfie1--->So Arlington police are now part of the conspiracy and complicit in mass murder ?


Sure.

By truther twisted logic everything is a conspiracy, and things are opposite of what it seems to be, the good guys are the bad ones.


How profound.

I'm switching over to the OS side....

[reaches for prozac/vicodin cocktail]



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Alfie1

what is your explanation for Arlington police calling in a plane crash that morning ? At 0.32 you can hear Officer Richard Cox specifically reporting an " American Airlines plane headed east over the Pike."


He probably saw this thing.....



Keep drinking that gov't kool-aid it eases the pain of the lobotomy....
edit on 28-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)


wasnt that proven to be a photoshop?



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
wasnt that proven to be a photoshop?

I dunno, and I don't care. If it was whoever did it knew what hit the Pentagon.....

Human consciousness is an amazing thing.

That is, in those that are conscious.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Nathan D and psikeyhackr

You seem to be "no-planers" at the Pentagon so what is your explanation for Arlington police calling in a plane crash that morning ? At 0.32 you can hear Officer Richard Cox specifically reporting an " American Airlines plane headed east over the Pike."

www.youtube.com...


Am I to conclude that you can't read? I am not saying that some kind of flying device did not hit the Pentagon. I am simply saying that I am inclined to doubt that the Device was an AIRLINER which hit the Pentagon because there is not sufficient debris. Or I have not seen what I regard as sufficient evidence of that debris.

Maybe people are hiding lots of photographs of debris that I have never seen. I just keep seeing certain photographs over and over again which don't seem to amount to much but I am supposed to be impressed by them and a lot of blather.

psik
edit on 28-4-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Alfie1

what is your explanation for Arlington police calling in a plane crash that morning ? At 0.32 you can hear Officer Richard Cox specifically reporting an " American Airlines plane headed east over the Pike."


He probably saw this thing.....



Keep drinking that gov't kool-aid it eases the pain of the lobotomy....
edit on 28-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)


I suspect you know perfectly well that the image is a notorious bit of photoshopping. Anyone can google AGM-86C/D and see the original pic. I thought we were supposed to be denying ignorance not promoting it.

And then we have the fact that a cruise missile is 18 feet long with one internal engine and a Boeing 757 is 155 feet long with two large external engines slung under long wings. Nobody could confuse the two unless they often mix up hamsters and elephants.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Cassius666
wasnt that proven to be a photoshop?

I dunno, and I don't care. If it was whoever did it knew what hit the Pentagon.....

Human consciousness is an amazing thing.

That is, in those that are conscious.

What kind of twisted logic is that?

He knew what hit the Pentagon so he photoshopped something to show others what it was???

I proved those exact photos were bogus while on another conspiracy site. SHTF411 before I was banned.

Here is my exact post with the pictures.

Will they ever stop repeating the same old lies???



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





Maybe people are hiding lots of photographs of debris that I have never seen. I just keep seeing certain photographs over and over again which don't seem to amount to much but I am supposed to be impressed by them and a lot of blather.

I can only fine one or two photos of the B25 that hit the Empire building.
Does that mean you don't believe that story?



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Here are some pictures trustnothing posted recently. I haven't seen them before. The debris will obviously be grossly insufficient to meet your requirements but you could take a look :-

cryptome.org...



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





Maybe people are hiding lots of photographs of debris that I have never seen. I just keep seeing certain photographs over and over again which don't seem to amount to much but I am supposed to be impressed by them and a lot of blather.

I can only fine one or two photos of the B25 that hit the Empire building.
Does that mean you don't believe that story?


The building did not collapse so I don't really give a damn about the story. The amount of fuel that went into each WTC tower was triple the weight of the plane that hit the Empire State Building. There is no question of any physical phenomenon being defied by that incident. You are just bringing up an irrelevant comparison.

Just because something is true does not mean it is important.

But if something is important I want to be sure that it is true.

It is amazing how often people lie about things that are important but will bombard you with truth about things that are not. I suppose it helps to hide the lies.

psik



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Cassius666
wasnt that proven to be a photoshop?

I dunno, and I don't care. If it was whoever did it knew what hit the Pentagon.....

Human consciousness is an amazing thing.

That is, in those that are conscious.

What kind of twisted logic is that?

He knew what hit the Pentagon so he photoshopped something to show others what it was???

I proved those exact photos were bogus while on another conspiracy site. SHTF411 before I was banned.

Here is my exact post with the pictures.

Will they ever stop repeating the same old lies???


What is this "he knew what hit the Pentagon." How do you "know" what he "knew"? Venturing off into the realm of remote viewing now? Did the CIA teach you that?

I have no doubt that a missile hit the Pentagon. Why? Because ALL the evidence points to that conclusion. If "eyewitnesses" saw what they thought was an AA flight, then I can draw the conclusion that the missile was disguised as exactly that. And that's exactly what I've done.

That being said, ever hear of satire? It could entail using illustrations to plant seeds of truth in people's minds. Since your bosses specialize in deception and mind control, why does it piss you off so much when the people who logically conclude that a missile was painted to look like an AA plane use illustrations to do so?
edit on 28-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 




I have no doubt that a missile hit the Pentagon. Why? Because ALL the evidence points to that conclusion. If "eyewitnesses" saw what they thought was an AA flight, then I can draw the conclusion that the missile was disguised as exactly that. And that's exactly what I've done.

Name one piece of evidence that points to a missile.
By your logic it could have been a UFO that crashed. As in only a few frames of video. Maybe it was a test UFO painted to look like an airline just to fool any citizen that happen to see it.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join