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.

 

Is this the real truth about the 9/11 planes

page: 10
53
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


This is what is insanely laughable about debunkers. They DEMAND you show proof yet their proof is nothing more than a spoon fed story full of lies. Nobody said planes didn't fly into the towers the debate is if they were R/C and who if anyone was on those planes.

Just saying it is possible to actually R/C a plane of that size in 2001 was in fact the truth. It is very much closer to the truth than your laughable assertion some untrained people with boxcutters not only took control of the planes but flew them with such precision into 2 different buildings.

I notice you once again claim "everything has been debunked" yet after I post numerous links pointing out that flight 93 had debris 8 miles away you left that one alone.

I don't care how many times you post "everything has been debunked" it does NOT make it true just because you repeatedly post those words.

Where is your PROOF terrorists were qualified to successfully pilot all those planes?
When you are done crying about other posters lack of proof go get some of your own.

BTW while you are finding your proof see if you can prove all those buildings fell on their own.





edit on 2-8-2013 by SMOKINGGUN2012 because: correction

edit on 2-8-2013 by SMOKINGGUN2012 because: added info




posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SupersonicSerpent
 


I heard that there was a cover up over missing money. ALOT OF IT.The pentagon couldn't account for,Cheney had just divulged it the day before,of course all the papers got burnt up so no one knows how much and where it all went now.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by micpsi
 

Just because a technology MIGHT be there, doesn't mean that it was used.
There is absolutely NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that it was used. None.


That's not a statement that you can make. You have no idea whether there is any evidence of this that exists. You just know that YOU don't know of any. Big difference.


There is, however, credible evidence that the planes were regular planes; that they were piloted by real pilots; that everyone on board all four planes died; and that Barbara Olsen is NOT alive somewhere living after plastic surgery. That is REALITY.


While those planes may have been regular planes, the technology did exist to hack the autopilot circuitry to allow for a limited amount of remote control - such as getting the planes into the vicinity and at the right altitude via GPS/altimeter coordinates, and then making the last quick remote steering adjustments possible as a manual override. It's not as sophisticated a requirement as making the plane land or take-off, although that technology did exist at that time, and had been widely tested as early as the late 1980s.

As far as the passengers, if their jets had been hacked in that manner, then everyone died in those 2 WTC tower crashes as advertised. Pilots included. You offer a false choice when you insist that the planes were "normal" so the seizure of pilot control was not possible. You're just some dude on a 9/11 conspiracy thread. You're not really in any position of knowledge authority concerning what was possible for big money defense contractors - relative to aviation technology - at the time that the 9/11 attacks occurred.

Your "common sense" approach might've worked in 2005, but we all know a lot more about what was available to military contractors at that time, and we all know how many trillions of dollars they've made off the net result of the 9/11 attacks since then. This isn't 2005, and that "common sense" debunking strategy doesn't work anymore.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by totallackey
 
]
The wreckage ... what there was ... was contained within the confines of the reenforced building that the plane had just plowed into. The plane was shredded and burned within the collapsed building. This is basic materials engineering.


You obviously know nothing about basic materials engineering, or basic physics for that matter. Airplanes don't disappear like that. Try searching for some pictures of 757 wreckage, that much matter doesn't get "shredded and burned" like it were a bunch of paper scraps. If you really believe a 757 hit the pentagon and was vaporized there's little hope for you.

Here are some shots to get you going.











This page shows you a side by side of a 737 hitting a mountain at full speed and the 757 that hit the pentagon. Notice the 2 story tall section of Vertical stabilizer left over in one crash, and then show me the pictures of people carrying scraps of aluminum off the lawn and telling me it was a 757. I work on the damn things i know what they look like.

z15.invisionfree.com...




edit on 2-8-2013 by Shadowcast because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-8-2013 by Shadowcast because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Why has this thread turned into a grab bag of all the seperate conspiracies surrounding 911?
This thread is supposed to be about the planes.

Not the 2.3 trillion.
Not building 7.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by micpsi
involved in searching for the missing trillions of dollars. Some of them DID die. You misunderstood the point, which stands.


you miss the point, there was no money missing, nor did anyone in authority say there was missing money!




Say again?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimithae
I heard that there was a cover up over missing money. ALOT OF IT.


You heard wrong, there was no cover up.... there was no missing money!


,Cheney had just divulged it the day before


it was announced well before 9/11....


of course all the papers got burnt up so no one knows how much and where it all went now.


Wrong again, they now have accounted for it, as there was no money missing.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Just because the technology might have existed .. that doesn't mean it was used.
It is up to the person claiming 'the real truth is that these were used' to prove that they were.
It's not up to me to prove they weren't. That's backwards.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowcast
Say again?


Exactly where in that video did Cheney say any money was missing....



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Shadowcast
Say again?


Exactly where in that video did Cheney say any money was missing....


Rumsfeld said it at 1:00 " according to some estimates say we cannot account for 2.3 Trillion Dollars."
edit on 2-8-2013 by Shadowcast because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-8-2013 by Shadowcast because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowcast
. If you really believe a 757 hit the pentagon and was vaporized there's little hope for you.

Boy .. you folks in the 911 forum sure love to spread the hate .. dont' you?


My husband is an aerospace engineer with 30 years experience in the field working on engineering the airplanes and helicopters. He has stated it is very likely that all that there wouldn't be large pieces of debris from the pentagon hit. And your pictures don't show the planes hitting at super-high speed into a 5 layered building that had just had TONS of steel and concrete reinforcement as well as a building collapsing on top of it. Hundreds of SMALL pieces of airplane were found around the pentagon. That's the truth of the matter.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimithae
reply to post by SupersonicSerpent
 


I heard that there was a cover up over missing money. ALOT OF IT.The pentagon couldn't account for,Cheney had just divulged it the day before,of course all the papers got burnt up so no one knows how much and where it all went now.


It was a whole smorgasbord of win-win scenarios that made a lot of people billions and billions of dollars, and is still reaching into our Treasury after 12 years of net results. The WTC towers needed to be replaced (after Silverstein had only owned them for a very short time, bought on a low % margin, and made billions on the insurance payout), the War on Terror needed to replace the now-defunct Cold War as the $never-ending$ war for freedom and democracy, Bechtel, Halliburton, ExxonMobil, big bank war financing, munitions and military hardware usage and replacement $$$, and the biggest Intelligence technology expansion in the history of the world, with 16 new agencies and all the outsourcing of huge government contracts to private (Snowden) firms that any good businessman could ever hope for.

The Pentagon's missing 2.3 trillion was the threat that Rumsfeld held over the heads of the Pentagon brass so that none of them would suddenly become a hero and launch a defense on the following morning. This allowed the 9/11 attacks to proceed unchallenged for a full 90 minutes over the most protected airspace on the planet, and shut down any investigation by the Pentagon into how its own performance could've been so pathetic.

A week later, by way of a handful of letters sent to key individuals, the US government and the mainstream media were alerted to the presence of many pounds of weaponized Anthrax that is still readied for use against the entire American public if either of those entities ever allows or conducts an investigation into the attacks. So far, that blackmail effort has been holding, which is why no call for a new investigation, and no alternative 9/11 conspiracy narrative (other than the official 19 skinny, little hijackers conspiracy narrative) has been allowed to emerge and be aired or seriously examined by either public entity.

The motive was obvious, and so far, they've gotten everything they went for. By all accounts, the attacks were a resounding success that is still paying dividends.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Shadowcast
. If you really believe a 757 hit the pentagon and was vaporized there's little hope for you.

Boy .. you folks in the 911 forum sure love to spread the hate .. dont' you?


My husband is an aerospace engineer with 30 years experience in the field working on engineering the airplanes and helicopters. He has stated it is very likely that all that there wouldn't be large pieces of debris from the pentagon hit. And your pictures don't show the planes hitting at super-high speed into a 5 layered building that had just had TONS of steel and concrete reinforcement as well as a building collapsing on top of it. Hundreds of SMALL pieces of airplane were found around the pentagon. That's the truth of the matter.


By the way, if the jet fuel fires were intense enough to cause WTC tower #2 to completely pulverize into concrete dust and segments of thick, tempered steel within a hour's time, then why didn't the 757 that crashed into the Pentagon burn like that? Why was it so easy to put out, and why was there such comparatively little fire damage?

We've seen the video footage and we've seen the photos. The Pentagon wasn't anywhere near as completely devastated as it should've been when compared to the WTC towers. I know that you don't have an answer for that, but the dichotomy is obvious.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
This is what is insanely laughable about debunkers.

More hate from the 911 'truthers'. How about you stick to the topic instead of insults?


Just saying it is possible to actually R/C a plane of that size in 2001 was in fact the truth. It is very much closer to the truth than your laughable assertion some untrained people with boxcutters not only took control of the planes but flew them with such precision into 2 different buildings.

19 humans who took flight lessons and who were armed with knives were very much capable of steering airplanes into buildings. Remote controls lifting off airplanes and flying them into buildings ... possible ... but the fact is that it is much less likely especially considering the fact that the pilots names and pictures are available for everyone to see. The pilots were living people who died that day.


I notice you once again claim "everything has been debunked" yet after I post numerous links pointing out that flight 93 had debris 8 miles away you left that one alone.

I didn't have to answer. It was answered by someone else. The plane was traveling at too high a speed and was pitching violently. Eyewitness confirm this. Pieces fell off.


edit on 8/2/2013 by FlyersFan because: fixed quote



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
why didn't the 757 that crashed into the Pentagon burn like that? Why was it so easy to put out, and why was there such comparatively little fire damage? ... The Pentagon wasn't anywhere near as completely devastated as it should've been when compared to the WTC towers.

As I'm sure you are aware, the Pentagon just had TONS of steel and concrete reinforcement brought into the sections that got hit. The plane came in low and fast. Came in and the top of the building collapsed onto what was left of the plane. Hundreds of fragments were found around the Pentagon. But no 'large fuselage' could survive. that's just the materials engineering fact.


I know that you don't have an answer for that,

wrong.
edit on 8/2/2013 by FlyersFan because: fixed quote



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alda1981
so basically what you say is "i am right cause i am right..."

Straw man absurdium.
No. I"m saying that the facts are correct. Wild speculation isn't correct.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Just because the technology might have existed .. that doesn't mean it was used.
It is up to the person claiming 'the real truth is that these were used' to prove that they were.
It's not up to me to prove they weren't. That's backwards.


Your argument is that it wasn't, and you can't prove your argument at all since the technology was readily available to government defense contractor companies. The same defense contractor companies that directly benefited financially for a decade - so far - from the net result of the 9/11 Attacks.

Oh, and no one has to prove a damn thing. This isn't a court of law, and the suggestion that the technology was available and had been widely tested for many years prior to the attacks isn't a legal prosecution that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Your requirement is invalid. Typical within these debates, and has been typical for nearly ten years now, but still completely invalid.

Hell, you can't prove that the 19 hijackers were the ones who were actually on those planes, since at least a half dozen of them are still alive and have proven that they're still alive. Seems like you folks have a much steeper climb than someone making a case for the availability of remote control technology being a fact that should be considered when examining the WTC tower attacks.


edit on 8/2/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The real truth of the 9/11 airplanes is ... they were airplanes. Fully loaded with fuel. Hijacked by 19 radical islamics. Flown into prearranged target buildings. (except for Shanksville that fell short because the passengers took it down before the Air Force could).


They were military planes with remote controlled pods that simply resembled commercial passenger planes. The government probably bought them from boeing and converted them into flying missiles specifically for the false flag event of 9-11-2001.


And I personally spoke with a cabbie in DC who watched the plane hit the pentagon. Lots of people saw it fly into the building. Lots of people saw the planes fly into the Trade Center as well.

That's the truth about the airplanes.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Sometimes a radical islamic extremist is just a radical islamic extremist.


There were planes in the vicinity of the pentagon but none that actually struck the pentagon. NO ONE SAW ANY PASSENGER PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON! There is no footage of any passenger plane hitting the pentagon. If what you say is true there would be thousands of eyewitnesses and not just speculation.

You have absolutely nothing to convince anyone that any plane hit the pentagon. Just second hand erroneous accounts from people suspecting stuff.




The shoddy coverup kind of stuff comes afterwards. Bush secretly flying the Bin Laden family out of the US. The Israeli government may have caught wind of this ahead of time but let it happen so as to drag the USA into a war against the Muslims. That kind of thing.


So why the hell would they fly the osama bin laden family ouf of the USA IF alqueda had actually done the unthinkable? It simply does NOT make any sense. They would have arrested him and sent him to a federal prison pending trial.


But the planes? They were real. They crashed into the buildings. People died.

That's just the truth of it.


Planes yes, but no commercial passenger planes. I hope you understand simple english.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by NorEaster
why didn't the 757 that crashed into the Pentagon burn like that? Why was it so easy to put out, and why was there such comparatively little fire damage? ... The Pentagon wasn't anywhere near as completely devastated as it should've been when compared to the WTC towers.

As I'm sure you are aware, the Pentagon just had TONS of steel and concrete reinforcement brought into the sections that got hit. The plane came in low and fast. Came in and the top of the building collapsed onto what was left of the plane. Hundreds of fragments were found around the Pentagon. But no 'large fuselage' could survive. that's just the materials engineering fact.


You're purposely deflecting the fire question. Who cares about the concrete and steel. The fires wouldn't have been affected by that. As for the top of the Pentagon outer wall, that collapsed about a half hour - forty minutes after the impact - as proven by video footage that's widely available. The flames had been largely put out by then and certainly the enormous, overwhelming, twin-towers destroying fires had been largely extinguished by then


If this weren't a mass murder investigation, you kids would be pretty hilarious with your specifically targeted attempts to feign cognitive dissonance. I used to spend months battling this issue, and I thought your arguments had died off in 2007. On the serious 9/11 forums they'd eat you for breakfast if you wandered in with that old perspective. It's kind of refreshing to read someone trying to defend it, though. Like going back in time.



I know that you don't have an answer for that,

wrong.
edit on 8/2/2013 by FlyersFan because: fixed quote


oooo, good one.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join