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: 20
53
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Number of days until an investigation was ordered into the 9/11 attacks: 411

Amount of money allocated for the 9/11 Commission: $14 million



Your evidence is lacking,,,, it only includes the 911 commission report.


Did you read your own link ? It debunks your post.

911myths.com...
edit on 3-8-2013 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


Give me the government source that says they spent way more than any other investigation please.




posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
It's funny, I have yet to see documentation of over 19 million on the 9/11 attack investigation.

My issue is with people acting like the government went far and above other investigations. Note how long it took to get it started! 411 days after compared to other national tragedies that take less than 1 week max 2 weeks!

Don't act like this is nothing but a sham investigation. They didn't even look at building 7 that fell at free fall speed.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by doryinaz
it seems you have "drunk the koolaid"...

Right back atchya.


.as a former flight attendant for United, i can tell you.....

This statement is meaningless. IF you are telling the truth, then all you did was
serve soda and peanuts to people on airplanes for a while. Fluff some pillows.
You have no special knowledge of those 911 airplanes.

.why do you even come to a site like ATS???????????

Many reasons. One of my special talents is to expose silly things ... like saying that the
911 airplanes were remote controlled. :shk:
edit on 8/1/2013 by FlyersFan because: nicer wording


Regardless of how "silly" you may think it is, you have to admit that there is a possibility. Therefor it isn't silly to mention.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Regardless of how "silly" you may think it is, you have to admit that there is a possibility. Therefor it isn't silly to mention.


There are conspiracies and there are fantasies.

The witnesses and/or their videos show that airplanes hit the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. We all saw the second hit at the WTC on live televison. To claim that it was missiles, not airplanes, that struck the targets is to indulge in fantasy, not reality.

The first rule of puzzle solving is to first establish what you know, and work from there. We know that United and American Airlines planes hit the targets. Any credible conspiracy theory must accept, at the very least, the obvious facts.


edit on 3-8-2013 by Tuning Spork because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2013 by Tuning Spork because: to edit :-D

edit on 3-8-2013 by Tuning Spork because: speeling erorrs

edit on 3-8-2013 by Tuning Spork because: Punctuation. I liked it better when multiple edits didn't have to be explained on an edit-by-edit basis.

edit on 3-8-2013 by Tuning Spork because: Tweak tweak tweak...

edit on 3-8-2013 by Tuning Spork because: Paragraphing.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by NorEaster
No...I "brought in" about the fires. Read my post again.

You said that the Pentagon wasn't as completely devastated as it should have been.
That's why I mentioned the tons of steal and concrete. MUCH more than the towers.

I'm old. You're all kids to me.

I'm 51. I feel 100. But that's a subject for another thread ....




WHOA!

are you actually saying MORE concrete was devastated at the Pentagon than at the WTC twin towers, FOR REAL?



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 

You're not the only one who thinks it was a sham "investigation".


Not to mention that the Pentagon lied. Its being portrayed as a department which was embarrassed by their poor response to a national tragedy. What were they really trying to hide? We'll probably never know.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."


edit on 3-8-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen

Originally posted by pinkbirdatabasewould never fly horizontally at the speed of 400+ knots at an altitude of half the wingspan or less because ground effect would automatically lift the aircraft back to wingspan level. That is how their wings are constructed.


Let me guess, Capt. Rob is your flight instructor?


At 400 kts near ground speed might be an issue, ground effect not so much.


A horizontal flight at 400+ knots - below wingspan - (still dont know how you get there, please explain your flight skills - would immediately lift the aircraft at wingspan altitude. There is nothing you could do to prevent that. That is how the wings of such aircrafts are designed. How would you descend below wingspan if your angle of approach is horizontal? Tell me!
Nose down at 15 degrees. Fine. That exactly is a possibility. However, CCTV shows a horizontal approach.
That is IMPOSSIBLE simply because ground effect would immediatelyand always lift that plane at wingspan altitude if you did that at 400+ knots. We arent talking about low speed nor do we talk about stalling!! Nothing of that is evident on the CCTV.

Either the CCTV pictures are fake or that plane wasnt a 757. Law of physics!



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by pinkbirdatabase

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase
 

So, what you're saying is that an airplane that flew at the altitude and speed that the 'OS' suggests would inevitably crash, right?


It would never fly horizontally at the speed of 400+ knots at an altitude of half the wingspan or less because ground effect would automatically lift the aircraft back to wingspan level.


But could it descend? Level flight isn't really at issue, is it?


At 400+ knots in a horizontal flight approach you cannot descend. The plane would automatically lift above wingspan due to ground effect. Of course you could descend if you pull down the nose at 15 degrees ( minimum). Even 5 degrees wouldnt be sufficient to descend at that speed at wingspan altitude. However that doesnt happen in the CCTV. We see a horizontal approach below half wingspan at 400+ knots.
That exactly does violate the laws of physics.
Those who believe that they are pilots should explain about how they can fly below wingspan horizontally at 400+ knots AND how they manage to descend when the plane is flying horizontally at that speed. And how they even descend below wingspan without crashing at least 1 mile earlier. Even the master of all flight skills could not fly horizontally below wingspan at 400 knots.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinkbirdatabase
At 400+ knots in a horizontal flight approach you cannot descend.


What a lot of nonsense - care to show some evidence for that claim? So far you have shown none....


However that doesnt happen in the CCTV. We see a horizontal approach below half wingspan at 400+ knots


care to show us this video, also how you measured that the aircraft was horizontal, and had no down angle.

.

That exactly does violate the laws of physics.


once again, exactly which "law of physics" do you claim it violates?


Those who believe that they are pilots should explain about how they can fly below wingspan horizontally


Again, how did you measure that angle?


Even the master of all flight skills could not fly horizontally below wingspan at 400 knots.


Which "master of all flight skills" did you get that claim from?



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinkbirdatabaseplease explain your flight skills -


Skills, well i've been flying transport category airplanes for 41 years.
And you are dead wrong.



This is just about how a sweptback jet would look like in clean config close to the ground.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinkbirdatabase

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen

Originally posted by pinkbirdatabasewould never fly horizontally at the speed of 400+ knots at an altitude of half the wingspan or less because ground effect would automatically lift the aircraft back to wingspan level. That is how their wings are constructed.


Let me guess, Capt. Rob is your flight instructor?


At 400 kts near ground speed might be an issue, ground effect not so much.


A horizontal flight at 400+ knots - below wingspan - (still dont know how you get there, please explain your flight skills - would immediately lift the aircraft at wingspan altitude. There is nothing you could do to prevent that. That is how the wings of such aircrafts are designed. How would you descend below wingspan if your angle of approach is horizontal? Tell me!
Nose down at 15 degrees. Fine. That exactly is a possibility. However, CCTV shows a horizontal approach.
That is IMPOSSIBLE simply because ground effect would immediatelyand always lift that plane at wingspan altitude if you did that at 400+ knots. We arent talking about low speed nor do we talk about stalling!! Nothing of that is evident on the CCTV.

Either the CCTV pictures are fake or that plane wasnt a 757. Law of physics!


Aerospace engineers evidently don't agree with you ;-

www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 





Don't act like this is nothing but a sham investigation. They didn't even look at building 7 that fell at free fall speed.


The 9/11 commission was not a engineering report, it was a report whose remit was to look at why and how the attacks happened and to make future recommendations. As the demise of WTC-7 was not due to a direct terrorist attack (no planes hit it), its collapse was not with in the remit of the 9/11 commission report. However subsequent engineering reports such as FEMA and NIST have thoroughly explored WTC-7.

Which also did not fall in free-fall as Gage et al would have you believe.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 06:47 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).

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.

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.

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

That's just the truth of it.


Proof they were "radical islamic extremists?" I personally think there are a lot of holes in that theory. The govt is unlikely to have let 19 slip through. With 4 planes and almost all went off without a hitch? There would have to be great intelligence and a decent size support team on the ground to get that operation off. It just doesn't seem very likely that 19 radical muslims could come here and learn how to fly passenger planes that well without raising alarm and then pulling it off. I believe there were planes, but you should look at the real logistics and look how much certain people benefited. I have no doubt there were others involved and I don't understand why that's so hard for people to believe.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

care to show us this video, also how you measured that the aircraft was horizontal, and had no down angle.



It was posted right here on page 12 of this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

BTW on the topic of this object being seen in the video around 24-25 seconds, I was looking at some photos last night and either forgot or never knew the trajectory through the pentagon was at such an angle.

Like this:




The image in the video does not appear to be approaching at an angle.

Also someone posted this image yesterday is this for real or was this photo shopped?



edit on 3-8-2013 by SMOKINGGUN2012 because: grammar



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012

Also someone posted this image yesterday is this for real or was this photo shopped?




Photoshopped. The supposed Citizen Investigation Team that was on here for awhile was able to find one person that claimed to have seen a plane fly over the Pentagon, but there was no photographic or documented evidence that anything like that happened.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by AuntieChrist
 


You posted many interesting questions........I don't see the debunkers too quick to jump on those.

Just a suggestion when quoting a post......before typing your response go all the way to the end of the quote and type after so we know what words are yours. Responding inside of a quote is a bit confusing.

Also, some may think threads like these are a waste of time. I for one have already read a number of things I did not know about 9/11 and I am sure there may be others as well.

One thing that stands out in this debate, us truthers, all appear to not believe the official story and although we may not agree on exactly what happened, we do agree it wasn't that story.

On the other hand, debunkers do not budge from 100% of the official version AT ALL. They are united in defending it at all costs no matter what evidence may contradict any portion of the story. To not consider ANY of the evidence against the official story as valid is disturbing to say the least.

It is plausible that multiple plots took place on that day, but it was not simply 19 terrorists that caused all of it.

As someone mentioned earlier, you need look no further than WTC7 to know a smoking gun exists.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by AuntieChrist
reply to post by OOOOOO
 


Hang on... FBI???

I thought it was only Salamic Radicals out to destroy our Utopian way of life ~

Now I'm really confused!


Have CNN been lying to me?

Linklanddestroyer.blogspot.com...

Has the FBI ever presided over "sting operations" that were actually carried out? The answer is yes. The FBI in fact was presiding over the terrorists who carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The role of the FBI leading up to the deadly attack would most likely have gone unreported had an FBI informant not taped his conversations with FBI agents after growing suspicious during the uncover operation. The New York Times in their article, "Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast," reported:
Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City's tallest towers. The explosion left six people dead, more than 1,000 injured and damages in excess of half a billion dollars.

Yes!
edit on 3-8-2013 by OOOOOO because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by cuckooold
I believe that planes hit the WTC and the Pentagon as per the media narrative. One thing does confuse me, and if anyone can enlighten me it would be appreciated.

Photographs show the interior of the Pentagon after the plane hit (full of jet fuel). How is it that there is an opened book sitting on top of a stool, seemingly untouched by the inferno of the exploding plane?

This is one item I've seen mentioned a number of times, yet I've never seen an explanation I can recall.


That one has come up before and the explanation is really quite simple (as to why that exposed room is seemingly undamaged). The room only became exposed when the damaged section of the building collapsed along an expansion joint in the construction and such a large solid building would need to have a lot of such expansion joints to cope with normal temperature variations. The room in question might only have suffered a little smoke damage prior to the collapse, if anything. It was surrounded by concrete which protected it from the fire.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012

Originally posted by hellobruce

care to show us this video, also how you measured that the aircraft was horizontal, and had no down angle.



It was posted right here on page 12 of this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


How do you know that the aircraft was horizontal, and had no down angle from that video?


Also someone posted this image yesterday is this for real or was this photo shopped?


Photoshopped, of course.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

How do you know that the aircraft was horizontal, and had no down angle from that video?



Can you prove that is an airplane?
It was just discussed on this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That the reason there does not appear to be an impact area on the building from the engines that they hit a generator and a wall and were torn off just before impact.

Do you see that happening in that video cause I sure don't.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join