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: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Your video doesnt do much for your arguement , notice the burnt grass/soil , and the amount of debri ?
Where was that kind of evidence on "9/11" ?




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Your video doesnt do much for your arguement , notice the burnt grass/soil , and the amount of debri ?
Where was that kind of evidence on "9/11" ?



If you don't like AwakeNM's video, how about this one :-

news.bbc.co.uk...

This was a Tupolev 154 which is pretty much the exact same size as a Boeing 757. I think both videos demonstrate how little obvious debris can remain and that questions like "where are the seats ?", "where is the luggage ?", "where are the bodies ?" are often fatuous.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   
If a question or comment gets posted by someone who does not believe the official story really need to think a second. First, what are you comparing to? Many many of the authors of these messages all end up saying this isnt how a crash is supposed to look, and to that i say, show us what your comparing too.. Do not compare the 9/11 incident with Die Hard parts 1-4, Rambo, Full Metal Jacket and Platoon. The truth movement peeps are getting the info confused with each other, getting it crisscrossed.... Each of these questions posted are baseless and have an easy answer. What do you mean it could be holograms? Are you really trying to make yourself believe that? Can you FEEL the explosion on a hologram? What do you mean the plane could not fly that low and smack the pentagon. The evidence is very clear, follow the black box trail, the person flying the plane had plenty of time to get the plane low enough to hit the pentagon, body parts, plane parts, AA parts were found EVERYWHERE. My opinion, you make our country look bad and stupid by making such ridicules accusations on the government and of its OWN people. I could go on and will if necessary but i'm just having a hard time with grown people thinking of this as a conspiracy. Im not trying to hurt your feelings, just want you to wake up..
Bud316



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Hey remember all thoses things the "757" hit on the way through.........Ahem.....yeah right...cough....



When watching this, take everything you know into account.
The pilots skills
The altitude
The objects hindering the flight path
The lack of fire
Bla bla bla bla bla bla and so on.

Just a thought.......



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I'll post one more time since I think its relevant to the discussion.

2 of the planes crossed directly over stewart AFB at the exact same time nearly hitting eachother.

The base was privatized before 911.

911anomalies.wordpress.com...
edit on 8-4-2012 by mayabong because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Well this argument will never die....

Truthers will always believe the government pulled off the most complicated, well timed, technically dependent mission ever (even though sometimes just flying a plane goes wrong),

meanwhile others will believe that either the government knew and did nothing, or that Osama pulled off a clever terrorist attack (he was trained by the CIA and turned against us so he knew us well).

But for the love of god, stop making everything "proof" that it was an inside job. Stop using other peoples claims as proof. Once, just once I would like for someone to do their own homework, come up with a logical question, and try to solve it without a pre-determine answer.

So much can be explained either way, but neither side is listening. Take the crazy out of the scenario, and look at it logically.

I for one would love for there to be a smoking gun to make for a great conspiracy, but I have yet to see it. You cannot take coincedental happenings and make it fact.

You cannot say that just because someone posts a out of scale photo of a jet in front of the pentagon, that makes it fact that the terrorist could not fly that plane that low yet say they were remote aircraft which would be 10000 times harder to fly at the level into its target (see logic). It would have to take human input to account for the ground effect, and other variables to make an exact impact.

So lets let logic reign on the 911 topic please, Im tired of crazy



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by cavscout11cav
 


Perhaps you could ask anyone in the know about Northwoods, and what they were planning to do with airliner in that specific operation? After they had switched it that is.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Morg234
 


Oh operation northwoods, the one that said hijack an airplane, replace with a remote control aircraft and crash it "killing all of the passengers". Yeah I know that. I dont remember the part of super special remotes that allow the remote pilot to fly an aircraft in a position that would be impossible by remote.

What you failed to read in my statement, is that, at the pentagon, a remote controlled aircraft would not be able to be controlled at that speed and altitude. Ground effect and the slight delay of the remote would of cause a uncontrolled crash.

You cannot not use the arguement that, a terrorist couldnt of flown the aircraft, but then ignore the fact that using a remote control aircraft would of been 10000 times harder at that speed and altitude and still make an acurrate impact. Only human eyesight and control could.

How do I know this, I have flown military remote aircraft, and have personally crashed smaller ones buzzing enemy positions due to wind at low altitude.

Whats your experience level?
edit on 8-4-2012 by cavscout11cav because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-4-2012 by cavscout11cav because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
I'll post one more time since I think its relevant to the discussion.

2 of the planes crossed directly over stewart AFB at the exact same time nearly hitting eachother.

The base was privatized before 911.

Okay, why do you think it is relevant to the discussion? Let me guess: Professional government-paid hijackers or remote control operators would have maintained the FAA required separation from each other at all times, in order to prevent hijacker fratricide. No way would an intricately-planned covert op risk failure so close to the endgame by smashing their planes into each other. Therefore, the amateur (Al Qaeda) hijacker theory is confirmed.

How did I do?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Your video doesnt do much for your arguement , notice the burnt grass/soil , and the amount of debri ?
Where was that kind of evidence on "9/11" ?



If you don't like AwakeNM's video, how about this one :-

news.bbc.co.uk...

This was a Tupolev 154 which is pretty much the exact same size as a Boeing 757. I think both videos demonstrate how little obvious debris can remain and that questions like "where are the seats ?", "where is the luggage ?", "where are the bodies ?" are often fatuous.


Are you kidding me ?

Have you even watched that video ?

Look at the size of the crater the Tupolev left , now where was that on "9/11" ?

As you said , the Tupolev 154 has similarities to the 757 , but the 757 is larger , so , where was the crater on "9/11" , because jets like that do not get swallowed by the earth .

And they say we`re crazy

edit on 8-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Thanks to everyone for the replies. I think we've done a great job of keeping things civil. Yay us!!

Question for anyone who might know. Why would TPTB prefer to use a missile at the Pentagon, when an airliner would (I think) cause far more destruction? I know some people claim there were secret records that needed to be destroyed, so perhaps a missile would be more precise. But if the plane miracously missed the vital offices, how easy would it have been just to toss that stuff into the inferno?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


The supposed sensitive records at that section of the Pentagon is a truther myth. If you have a look at the DoD Inspector General's report of March 2002 and scroll down to the first para under "Executive Summary" :-

www.dodig.mil...

You will see that the effect of the attack was solely on Army personnel who were working on stand alone budget statements for the Army for fiscal year 2001 . No financial records were lost because the Army information was contained in Agency wide statements.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Thank you for the link.

Whenever someone mentions the classified documents destroyed at the Pentagon and WTC 7, I always wonder why the military and other big buisness didn't keep back up data off site. Heck, I used to work for a pharmacy and they kept back up records at a bank just in case of fire.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout11cav
Well this argument will never die....

But for the love of god, stop making everything "proof" that it was an inside job. Stop using other peoples claims as proof. Once, just once I would like for someone to do their own homework, come up with a logical question, and try to solve it without a pre-determine answer.

So much can be explained either way, but neither side is listening. Take the crazy out of the scenario, and look at it logically.


How does a 136 foot building come down in less than 26 seconds? Is there something wrong with knowing how the steel and concrete were distributed so it could hold itself up for 28 years?

Has the conservation of momentum been thrown out the window?

Then there is the effect of impacts from above on self supporting masses. The north tower was hit by the plane at the 95th floor. So there were 15 stories above that point and 94 below.

A simple simulation would be to remove the simulated levels 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories floating in the air and 90 intact simulated stories below. Let simulated gravity take its course. The bottom of the falling 15 stories would impact the top of the 90 in just under 2 seconds at 44 mph.

The levels get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up. Even at a 3 to 1 ratio of destruction, which I regard as extremely unlikely, that would leave 45 stories standing. That destruction would require energy. The only source is the kinetic energy of the falling 15 stories. They would slow down. Completely eliminating 5 stories is more destruction than the airliner impact and fires could have accomplished. So if that simulation comes nowhere near complete collapse then what is with this nonsense that has been going on for approaching TEN YEARS?

www.youtube.com...

Grade school kids could build that and test it to their hearts content.

psik



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by mayabong
I'll post one more time since I think its relevant to the discussion.

2 of the planes crossed directly over stewart AFB at the exact same time nearly hitting eachother.

The base was privatized before 911.

Okay, why do you think it is relevant to the discussion? Let me guess: Professional government-paid hijackers or remote control operators would have maintained the FAA required separation from each other at all times, in order to prevent hijacker fratricide. No way would an intricately-planned covert op risk failure so close to the endgame by smashing their planes into each other. Therefore, the amateur (Al Qaeda) hijacker theory is confirmed.

How did I do?


If somehow planes were switched this is where it would have happened. Also dov zakheim actually owned or ran a company that specialized in remote control tech. I think it's very relevant. Sorry you dont



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostLancer

1. Airliner lands at an undisclosed/secret location. Crew and passengers executed. Airliner scrapped.
2. Airliner lands at an undisclosed/secret location. Crew and passengers handed-over to secret laboratories for human testing.
3. Airliner lands at an undisclosed/secret location. Crew and passengers become the newest "citizens" of secret government underground cities initially created back in the 1950s and 1960s (google nuclear-powered underground drilling machines). Richard Sauder has done a lot of research into secret underground bases. It is a fact that they exist, and have existed since the 1950s. Who knows how extensive the network of underground bases and "cities" might be, and it is suspected that they are connected by superfast mag-lift "trains." This sounds outlandish, but is very possible, if the government were humane enough to offer them a new life underground versus execution.
4. Airliner lands at an undisclosed/secret location. Crew and passengers become the newest colonists, part of a secret space program that either uses exotic technology for space travel or some form of teleportation (google PROJECT PEGASUS).



Are you seriously trying to explain a story which (admittedly!) has some holes, with alternative theories which are far, far more bizarre than the actual "official story"?

How can you not believe the official story, but see it as likely that the passengers got "abducted for secret experiments" or "transported to another planet by some form of teleportation" or "put in secret underground bases"?

If you want to find a solution and fix the holes in the official story, it least make it REMOTELY plausible. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Blurring the edges of this thread a little......just straying off the path....sorry!

Psikeyhackr: I totally agree my friend, it's just logic? Well, when it comes to "unaided" free fall of debris anyway?

Back on track...........

Rocklobster: Once again agree, you can't....again CAN'T smash a 757 into a building and not have an extensive debris field. I'm not buying shiny bits of aircraft fuselage. If there was more debris that can conclusively prove a 757, just bloody show the pictures........hey, here's an idea, show us the impact video!!

Mayabong: Perhaps the "Aircraft" were obtaining a fix directly overhead the base. Using the military’s advanced navigation aids? Sort of like a starting point?

edit on 8-4-2012 by CaptainBeno because: Hold my head in shame spelling



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Further to this......................




Notice also at around 45 secs, The aerial view of the Pentagon. This photo was taken before the "Attack" and you can clearly see the supposed "Scar" left by the 757..............What a load of tosh............Yawn.

Also stated before I am a commercial Pilot for the past 15 years. I agree with the statements in this vid.
edit on 8-4-2012 by CaptainBeno because: addition



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





The levels get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up.

The exterior walls and interior core did but NOT THE FLOORS THEMSELVES.
And there's the problem.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

The levels get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up.

The exterior walls and interior core did but NOT THE FLOORS THEMSELVES.
And there's the problem.


I said "LEVELS". I have explained what I mean by LEVELS versus Floors before. Each 12 foot LEVEL includes the core and perimeter columns. The concrete of the floors outside the core was 600 tons. Curious how you people can't tell us the weight of all of the trusses and floor pans of the floor assemblies.

psik



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join