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: 4
53
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


OuiIt was identified within days of the attack though. Nothing really mysterious about it.




posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Maybe you can explain how debris from that plane was found 8 miles away?

www.flight93crash.com...




The Pennsylvania state police said debris from the crash has shown up about 8 miles away in a residential area where local media quoted some residents as seeing flaming debris from the sky.





Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.



This is one of MANY reports found by a simple search on this topic.

Like I said, it exploded way before impact.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





There doesn't have to be any wreckage.


Absolutely, without any question, the single most insane statement ever written within any forum here at ATS...

Let me get this straight...a plane crashes and leaves no wreckage? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


If you would even bother to read what I posted the 2 battle ready F-16's were already armed and always are 24/7 and only takes 5 minutes to get plane warmed up for takeoff.

From the link I provided:




The unit at Langley keeps two F-16s on “alert”—armed, fueled, and ready to take off within minutes if called upon.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
reply to post by smurfy
 


Those statements IMO are far from out of the blue. I have been following that guys blog for years. He is constantly getting hacked by what he claims is the NSA and he recently had to change websites due to the hacking. That to me indicates he is posting information that is not supposed to be seen by the public.


Wait so if I start a blog about some outrageous conspiracy theory and then claim that I am constantly being hacked then suddenly change my IP address this gives me instant credibility? Good to know. I think I'm going to go start some rumors.

edit on 1-8-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


The aircraft was coming apart, but not because it was shot down. If you look at the maneuvers the pilot was making, he was going in a rolling motion side to side. Aircraft aren't designed for lateral stress the way they ate for vertical stress. If you "Dutch Roll"like he was, you put enormous stress on the engine pylons, and they're going to fail. It happened to a KC-135 in Desert Storm. They ended up with two engines falling off, and the other two pylons heavily damaged.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


If you would bother to read my earlier posts they're F-15s, and I said, "OTHER THAN THOSE". The rest of the aircraft are unarmed, and once those launched there wasn't a single armed aircraft on base.
edit on 8/1/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Ok I suppose that can happen didn't know that but can you point out what source you have to show that is exactly what happened here?

From the link:




Theory 3 - It was shot off or blown off by a bomb. This jives best with the eyewitness accounts above in my mind. Remember the widely reported cell caller that said he heard an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane prior to the crash. In apparent confirmation, we have a number of ground witnesses reporting hearing a series of explosions. Also, we have ground witnesses that saw debris falling from the sky miles from the crash site within moments of the crash. Check the eyewitness page over. These things did not happen at the Pentagon or the WTC. Would the explosions have been heard if Flight 93 overstressed?



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


So now someone put a bomb in the engine?

Failure of the engine pylon odds the most logical reason for the engine coming off and being found away from the Martin crash site. There were no air to air capable aircraft in the area until after the aircraft crashed. The only aircraft reported in the area by either eyewitnesses or ATC were a C-130, and a Falcon business jet. The first fighters weren't reported in the area until after both the Falcon and -130 had flown over the crash site.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I was merely replying to this post:
reply to post by samkent
 


When you stated:




I'm just saying it's a big leap to say those pilots had the weapons and the athority to shoot down a passenger air liner before said planes hit their targets.


Then I replied with YES they were already armed and ready and no you did not specify the F-15's in that post. There were F-15's and F-16's launched and I am talking about the F-16's from Langley.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 

Whatever came of the new find of the airplane part between the buildings?



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The only aircraft reported in the area?

en.wikipedia.org...




Operational range 0.6 to 22 miles (1.0 to 35.4 km)


Those fighter planes could have fired from 22 miles away........



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


Let me guess... all the people who were on those planes were "actors", and all their families and friends were also "actors"? That's thousands of "actors" for a plot that also killed thousands of people inside those buildings anyway. Or were all the people inside the buildings also "actors", and the people jumping from windows were stunt men?

That, of course, means that those responding to it were all actors too, the paramedics, FDNY, police... all actors!

And all those family members who attend memorials, actors!

Pretty soon, everyone on the freakin' planet becomes an "actor" just because some cannot believe that sometimes sick and twisted people to sick and twisted things.

At the most, the conspiracy here is that elements in the US government (or foreign governments) conspired to allow it to happen or created the circumstances to allow it. I would not put ANYTHING past the NSA and CIA, nor would I put anything past Mossad and the Israeli regime to try to get what they want.

But there is no denying that thousands of people died when a group of people flew those planes into buildings. I wish people would stop looking for BS where none exists, and actually focus on the things there is ACTUAL EVIDENCE FOR - like the Israeli's caught filming it, the financial transactions prior to it, the use of very suspicious identities for those carrying it out, the inconsistencies in the story, the destruction of evidence etc...



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


Which weren't launched until later, after they had time to arm them. The only fighters ok alert that day, in that region were four F-15s. Two at Langley, two out of Otis. The alert fighters from Langley launched at 9:24. The first F-16s airborne were unarmed, and there was talk of having them ram Flight 77 if they got there in time.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


I never said I believe 100% of what was stated.......I said:




I believe this is about as close to the truth about the 9/11 flights as it gets.


I am not saying people didn't die or that nobody was on those planes.

I believe:

1) Flight 95 was in fact shot down
2) The twin towers planes were remotely controlled.
3) The Pentagon was NOT a plane crash.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


The aircraft was coming apart, but not because it was shot down. If you look at the maneuvers the pilot was making, he was going in a rolling motion side to side. Aircraft aren't designed for lateral stress the way they ate for vertical stress. If you "Dutch Roll"like he was, you put enormous stress on the engine pylons, and they're going to fail. It happened to a KC-135 in Desert Storm. They ended up with two engines falling off, and the other two pylons heavily damaged.


so basically air pressure differentials can cause engine pylons to fail yet tonnes of steel and
horizontal concrete floors pose no resistance and allow complete ease of entry of these planes
into the buildings interior.

either we are dealing with unbelievably toughened plane designs or the video we were
shown are suspect in the extreme.
edit on 1-8-2013 by TopsyTurvyOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


If they wanted to risk hitting another plane in the area.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


If they wanted to risk hitting another plane in the area.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


Not too far fetched when you consider the recent roles played by crisis actors . As soon as it happened we had random people on the news describing every little detail like they knew the ins and outs - we have since learned that those people were extras and failed actors so yeah ... the families .... possibly .Obviously there would need to be *some* real people in there to really send the message home and paint the picture they needed.

All in all even if we had all the details they would still get away with it.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Surely you can provide links for those because I have seen nothing saying the first planes from Langley were unarmed OR that they had F-15's at all.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join