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.

 

If MILITARY plane(s) were what flew into WTC, then how did the real plane(s), passengers perish?

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Ya ok keep regurgitating what they told you they found.
The pictures from the site don't prove beyond doubt that that is from 77.. You have random parts and can only go off those pictures as after they were collected it was barred form all outside eyes.
Can't use just pictures as hard evidence.
Yes i have seen the pictures to the building, in no way can I see a 757 fitting in the angle they said the plane came in.
It is likely that the wings could sever off like you said, I never said they did, but that would also leave the wings still intact, or big chunks of the plane left
The plane is obviously moving slower by the time the tail hits because the entire plane has crashed into the building at this point slowing its self down, you know newtons 3rd law.
Hence the tail not taking the full speed of the impact to the building. The wings have a lot more of the sturdy hardware that plane needs to fly, so that is why debris that resemble the wings is usually around.
So the wings should have it that building pretty hard if it was going 500 mph. Doesn't seem like there is too much damage where the wings would have hit. So did the wings just get vaporized right when they hit? Get good chunks of wings from wreckage as well. They were hitting telephone poles and that trailer and air duct before they hit the building according to the findings as well.
The El al flight 1862 didn't have any where near the same trajectory that 77 did...
Compare that to the planes the hit the twin towers and you got it.
77 came in from an angle, not straight on, straight on being much worse.
If they said 77 was a head on accident it would make more sense, but that isn't the case.




posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


I totally agree that plane couldn't have made the hole in the side of the Pentagon as any two year old with a round peg, square peg set could tell you it just doesn't fit!



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Sremmos80
The thing the size of a shoe box is build like a bank vault, and we only have like 2-3 pictures, one form each site, of said dinner table size chunks of steel. So interesting how those things that would significantly help the investigation don't survive but passports and ID's crucial to the criminal investigation survive almost unscathed.


We have photos of all the engines and pieces from the Pentagon and Shanksville. They broke up but you can tell they were engines. Passports and IDs can survive and have survived crashes before. Why are you acting as if this is the first time in history this has ever happened? Did you look up Flight 1771? In that crash a suicide note and a handgun were recovered from the crash site that looked eerily similar to the Flight 93. Where they planted too? Also, black boxes are built to survive, but sometimes they do not. Did you look at the links which mentioned such aircrashes where black boxes were destroyed? I guess not. No surprise.




Oh and the ones they find don't trace back to the planes very well.
Also the ones they find have been altered and only shown to a select few..


How? They traced right back to them and even had previous flights recorded as well. And nothing was altered either.



That is why i still fail to see why you keep bringing up the shuttles, in no way did I say that it was impossible for those things to survive, and I am also sure much larger things survived the same extreme conditions.
I am talking about things not surviving the damage they should have survived.. How is that the same thing?
Not only are we already far off topic outside of the last part of this but you continue to bring up something unrelated.. It is neither a plane crash, hijacking or terrorist attack.


But what [I]should have[/I] survived the crash?



Did you never ever mess up on those flight sims? Cause these guys had one shot to pull of some extremely implausible maneuvers in planes that not one of them had over 10 hours of experience in. Some looking at the controls for the first time ever...
Dumb luck though I bet


I have. However, I have no aircraft training whatsoever. These men did and were certified. Also they only "sucked" at take off landings. However, this was not part of their plan. All they needed to do was fly the plane once the take off was complete. Then it was auto-pilot to target, then they took over for the kamikaze dive. And what you call implausible flying, is only implausible if you try to recreate the exact path, which is hard for anyone to do. But according to real pilots (not the schmucks at Pilots for Truth), these were not fighter pilot moves, but moves of a suicidal pilot. Did you know that kamikaze pilots during WWII barely got any training at all, and were tasked to hit targets on the open sea that were moving and shooting at them? All they were taught was how to take off, basic flight control methods, some "evasive" maneuverers, and then crash into a small moving target at high speed. The terrorists had professional flight training, were able to fly these airliners, used flight sims, and had to fly large airliners into LARGE STATIONARY objects that could be seen from miles away. This was nothing impossible. In fact this is a hell of a lot easier and simpler than having special top secret planes loaded with special equipment that's expensive as hell, high tech, and such a convoluted plan of switched airliners, passengers removed then murdered somewhere else and then shopped to bits and then secretly poured into the wreckage somehow, or whatever impossible nonsense the "Truth" Movement is trying to come up with.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Sremmos80
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Ya ok keep regurgitating what they told you they found.
The pictures from the site don't prove beyond doubt that that is from 77.. You have random parts and can only go off those pictures as after they were collected it was barred form all outside eyes.
Can't use just pictures as hard evidence.

But wait, isn't that against what the "Truth" Movement is always harping about? There better pictures of it or it didn't happen! Now you are saying pictures are not counted as hard evidence?
Oh boy.



Yes i have seen the pictures to the building, in no way can I see a 757 fitting in the angle they said the plane came in.
It is likely that the wings could sever off like you said, I never said they did, but that would also leave the wings still intact, or big chunks of the plane left


How the hell can wings just magically survive intact or in large chunks after a high speed nosedive impact? They don't just break off and fall in once piece. Oye!



The plane is obviously moving slower by the time the tail hits because the entire plane has crashed into the building at this point slowing its self down, you know newtons 3rd law.


But the plane is traveling at high speed and under the influence of gravity. If by your account, then if I drop an egg off Sears Tower, then it should remain partly intact because it slowed down as it crashed. But that is not true.



Hence the tail not taking the full speed of the impact to the building. The wings have a lot more of the sturdy hardware that plane needs to fly, so that is why debris that resemble the wings is usually around.



Not after you impact the plane face first into a wall at high speed, you wont get recognizable wing debris.



So the wings should have it that building pretty hard if it was going 500 mph. Doesn't seem like there is too much damage where the wings would have hit. So did the wings just get vaporized right when they hit? Get good chunks of wings from wreckage as well. They were hitting telephone poles and that trailer and air duct before they hit the building according to the findings as well.
The El al flight 1862 didn't have any where near the same trajectory that 77 did...
Compare that to the planes the hit the twin towers and you got it.
77 came in from an angle, not straight on, straight on being much worse.
If they said 77 was a head on accident it would make more sense, but that isn't the case.


Can you show me the wings from El Al?



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   

GenRadek

Sremmos80
The thing the size of a shoe box is build like a bank vault, and we only have like 2-3 pictures, one form each site, of said dinner table size chunks of steel. So interesting how those things that would significantly help the investigation don't survive but passports and ID's crucial to the criminal investigation survive almost unscathed.


We have photos of all the engines and pieces from the Pentagon and Shanksville. They broke up but you can tell they were engines. Passports and IDs can survive and have survived crashes before. Why are you acting as if this is the first time in history this has ever happened? Did you look up Flight 1771? In that crash a suicide note and a handgun were recovered from the crash site that looked eerily similar to the Flight 93. Where they planted too? Also, black boxes are built to survive, but sometimes they do not. Did you look at the links which mentioned such aircrashes where black boxes were destroyed? I guess not. No surprise.




Oh and the ones they find don't trace back to the planes very well.
Also the ones they find have been altered and only shown to a select few..


How? They traced right back to them and even had previous flights recorded as well. And nothing was altered either.



That is why i still fail to see why you keep bringing up the shuttles, in no way did I say that it was impossible for those things to survive, and I am also sure much larger things survived the same extreme conditions.
I am talking about things not surviving the damage they should have survived.. How is that the same thing?
Not only are we already far off topic outside of the last part of this but you continue to bring up something unrelated.. It is neither a plane crash, hijacking or terrorist attack.


But what [I]should have[/I] survived the crash?



Did you never ever mess up on those flight sims? Cause these guys had one shot to pull of some extremely implausible maneuvers in planes that not one of them had over 10 hours of experience in. Some looking at the controls for the first time ever...
Dumb luck though I bet


I have. However, I have no aircraft training whatsoever. These men did and were certified. Also they only "sucked" at take off landings. However, this was not part of their plan. All they needed to do was fly the plane once the take off was complete. Then it was auto-pilot to target, then they took over for the kamikaze dive. And what you call implausible flying, is only implausible if you try to recreate the exact path, which is hard for anyone to do. But according to real pilots (not the schmucks at Pilots for Truth), these were not fighter pilot moves, but moves of a suicidal pilot. Did you know that kamikaze pilots during WWII barely got any training at all, and were tasked to hit targets on the open sea that were moving and shooting at them? All they were taught was how to take off, basic flight control methods, some "evasive" maneuverers, and then crash into a small moving target at high speed. The terrorists had professional flight training, were able to fly these airliners, used flight sims, and had to fly large airliners into LARGE STATIONARY objects that could be seen from miles away. This was nothing impossible. In fact this is a hell of a lot easier and simpler than having special top secret planes loaded with special equipment that's expensive as hell, high tech, and such a convoluted plan of switched airliners, passengers removed then murdered somewhere else and then shopped to bits and then secretly poured into the wreckage somehow, or whatever impossible nonsense the "Truth" Movement is trying to come up with.


The photos are generic and have only been looked at by the eyes that did the whole investigation. If it is so cut and dry then why all the hiding and denial of third part investigations.
I did look at the pictures but they didn't give any description on the crash or anything, how do i know some of those aren't just pieces that were being strength tested and failed?
The engines and all black boxes have been traced back to the plane using SN? Can you show me that, cause last time I checked that wasn't the case.
When the fbi and all that collected the evidence releases it with full transparency, I wont be so skeptical about what they say they found.
We obviously have different sources when it comes to what was on those black boxes... As well if they had been altered or not.. so no point in beating that dead horse

So you can just hopein a 757 and fly it no prob at the top speed, sometimes even over its top speed? Just turn on the auto pilot and go? Most those guys have never even seen a 747 or 757. Some could barely fly single seat single engine planes.
I am sure you have driven a car for many years, every go 125 or higher? Sure in a straight line its no prob, but start going left or right and its a whole new ride. And we are talking things almost 300x the weight of an average car. The towers you right, they are a stationary target, you still have to line it up just perfect at the speeds they were going, any variation carries you to far left or right of the tower too fast.
And then the pentagon is not a huge target, at least not the way they hit it... Not as easy as a 110 story tower. Especially when you have to turn around and require the target that you already had before doing some crazy corkscrew approach..
Are you any better pilot then anyone at the pilots at pilots for 911 truth?
I've seen plenty outside of that org say the same things
And outside of what we have been told, can you prove that the terrorist even entered the cockpit?



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

GenRadek

Sremmos80
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Ya ok keep regurgitating what they told you they found.
The pictures from the site don't prove beyond doubt that that is from 77.. You have random parts and can only go off those pictures as after they were collected it was barred form all outside eyes.
Can't use just pictures as hard evidence.

But wait, isn't that against what the "Truth" Movement is always harping about? There better pictures of it or it didn't happen! Now you are saying pictures are not counted as hard evidence?
Oh boy.

Did i ever say to you pictures or didn't happen? Can you not lump me in with a bunch of people not involved?
I admitted there was pictures, I don't trust those pictures as that is all they are, pictures of something taken away and not independently investigated. Not evidence if no one else can look at it IMO.



Yes i have seen the pictures to the building, in no way can I see a 757 fitting in the angle they said the plane came in.
It is likely that the wings could sever off like you said, I never said they did, but that would also leave the wings still intact, or big chunks of the plane left


How the hell can wings just magically survive intact or in large chunks after a high speed nosedive impact? They don't just break off and fall in once piece. Oye!
Because if they didn't damage the building where they hit then where did they go? Just exploded into nothing when it hit? What about the fuel? Where did it go? No raging fires like most airline crashes where there is spent fuel laying around.
Where are both sets of landing gear and all the tires? Was it when the rest of pentagon collapsed, another great thing, 757 hits the building but it stays intact for a bit.... Seems like this is one of the least violent collisions as far as the building goes.. Seemed to barley take a hit at face level, just have that little magical exit hole at the back.



The plane is obviously moving slower by the time the tail hits because the entire plane has crashed into the building at this point slowing its self down, you know newtons 3rd law.


But the plane is traveling at high speed and under the influence of gravity. If by your account, then if I drop an egg off Sears Tower, then it should remain partly intact because it slowed down as it crashed. But that is not true.
Drop an egg from a distance where it can reach free fall, and i bet the top part of the egg with be much more intact then the bottom. I don't see the point of dropping from the sears tower, it isn't going to get any extra speed if only gravity is acting on it.


Hence the tail not taking the full speed of the impact to the building. The wings have a lot more of the sturdy hardware that plane needs to fly, so that is why debris that resemble the wings is usually around.



Not after you impact the plane face first into a wall at high speed, you wont get recognizable wing debris.
It wasn't really face first though.. the right wing would have hit before or about the same time as the nose, spreading out the energy... The left wing and the tail could not have taken the full impact, it is impossible... look at where the tail and stablizers would have hit... nothing done to the building. So either they were going 500+ to get demolished which the building should show, or it was slowed down in which case there should be more debris.
WHY WON'T THEY SHOW THE VIDEO THEY HAVE OF IT HITTING THE BUILDING??? You honestly think only TWO cameras at that place caught what happened? And that segment was released was edited as well



So the wings should have it that building pretty hard if it was going 500 mph. Doesn't seem like there is too much damage where the wings would have hit. So did the wings just get vaporized right when they hit? Get good chunks of wings from wreckage as well. They were hitting telephone poles and that trailer and air duct before they hit the building according to the findings as well.
The El al flight 1862 didn't have any where near the same trajectory that 77 did...
Compare that to the planes the hit the twin towers and you got it.
77 came in from an angle, not straight on, straight on being much worse.
If they said 77 was a head on accident it would make more sense, but that isn't the case.


Can you show me the wings from El Al?

No, it hit the broad side of a mountain, that is by far worse then hitting any type of building. Buildings would have a lot more give then solid earth...
We get more out of the El Al then we do 93 and 93 hit "soft" dirt... How does that work out?
And do either site really remind you of that crash? The fire it caused alone doesn't match either site...
And the respected damage, look what el al did to that building and look what 77 did to the pentagon... doesn't seem like the same thing hit both buildings...
Why did the pentagon have such a delayed small scale collapse if it just got hit with the same thing that brought down 220 stories of steel?



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Sremmos80

Did i ever say to you pictures or didn't happen? Can you not lump me in with a bunch of people not involved?
I admitted there was pictures, I don't trust those pictures as that is all they are, pictures of something taken away and not independently investigated. Not evidence if no one else can look at it IMO.


But it was independantly investigated. In fact it was used in a trial of law. It does not get any more air tight.



Yes i have seen the pictures to the building, in no way can I see a 757 fitting in the angle they said the plane came in.
It is likely that the wings could sever off like you said, I never said they did, but that would also leave the wings still intact, or big chunks of the plane left


Ok now which crash are you talking about? There were four. In the WTC you can see the wing marks. In the Pentagon you can just slightly see the impression of wings. Realize wings are not solid chunks of steel or aluminum. They are more or less hollow, and although light, they are sturdy to support the aircraft in flight. But impacting the Pentagon, they were turned into confetti on impact. At Shanksville, the plane impacted the ground nearly headfirst at over 400mph. The wings are not going to do this:
on impact. Rather they are going to stay with the plane as it plows into the ground. Now if the plane flew headlong into a row of steel columns, where they sheer them off, then yes i can see recognizable wing traces. But not if it is plowing headfirst into a solid mass like the ground.




Because if they didn't damage the building where they hit then where did they go? Just exploded into nothing when it hit? What about the fuel? Where did it go? No raging fires like most airline crashes where there is spent fuel laying around.
Where are both sets of landing gear and all the tires? Was it when the rest of pentagon collapsed, another great thing, 757 hits the building but it stays intact for a bit.... Seems like this is one of the least violent collisions as far as the building goes.. Seemed to barley take a hit at face level, just have that little magical exit hole at the back.


But the wing debris was seen. Smashed to confetti. The fuel tanks exploded destroying a large section, the rest just smashed against the side of the building. The rest of the fuselage went into the building and exploded and burned. There was landing gear recovered at the Pentagon too.




It wasn't really face first though.. the right wing would have hit before or about the same time as the nose, spreading out the energy... The left wing and the tail could not have taken the full impact, it is impossible... look at where the tail and stablizers would have hit... nothing done to the building. So either they were going 500+ to get demolished which the building should show, or it was slowed down in which case there should be more debris.


The tail is also mostly hollow. The plane is not going to slow down fast enough on impact to keep the tail structure from being obliterated either.



WHY WON'T THEY SHOW THE VIDEO THEY HAVE OF IT HITTING THE BUILDING??? You honestly think only TWO cameras at that place caught what happened? And that segment was released was edited as well


They did. Sorry you do not see it up to par. And it was not edited. It was edited by........... "Truthers". *dun dun duuun!!!*




So the wings should have it that building pretty hard if it was going 500 mph. Doesn't seem like there is too much damage where the wings would have hit. So did the wings just get vaporized right when they hit? Get good chunks of wings from wreckage as well. They were hitting telephone poles and that trailer and air duct before they hit the building according to the findings as well.
The El al flight 1862 didn't have any where near the same trajectory that 77 did...
Compare that to the planes the hit the twin towers and you got it.
77 came in from an angle, not straight on, straight on being much worse.
If they said 77 was a head on accident it would make more sense, but that isn't the case.


Flight 77 was on a slight angle but still at high speeds. Again, the wings are not solid structures.



No, it hit the broad side of a mountain, that is by far worse then hitting any type of building. Buildings would have a lot more give then solid earth...

El Al was the one that hit the apartment complex in Amsterdam. A 747. real messy. No wings seen. In fact, can you also show me the wings from the Lockerbie Pan Am crash?




We get more out of the El Al then we do 93 and 93 hit "soft" dirt... How does that work out?
And do either site really remind you of that crash? The fire it caused alone doesn't match either site...
And the respected damage, look what el al did to that building and look what 77 did to the pentagon... doesn't seem like the same thing hit both buildings...
Why did the pentagon have such a delayed small scale collapse if it just got hit with the same thing that brought down 220 stories of steel?


Ok I think we are confusing things a bit. El Al was a 747 that impacted an apartment structure causing a partial collapse. No wings found there afterwards. Flight 93 was a 757 that nosedived into a reclaimed mine area. I suggest you look up Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771, which was a similar incident as Flight 93.

Also Flight 77 was a 757 as was Flight 93. The WTCs planes were 767s. The Pentagon is a low, squat heavy masonry structure. The WTCs were tall steel structures. Completely apples to oranges.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   

GenRadek

Sremmos80

Did i ever say to you pictures or didn't happen? Can you not lump me in with a bunch of people not involved?
I admitted there was pictures, I don't trust those pictures as that is all they are, pictures of something taken away and not independently investigated. Not evidence if no one else can look at it IMO.


But it was independantly investigated. In fact it was used in a trial of law. It does not get any more air tight.



Yes i have seen the pictures to the building, in no way can I see a 757 fitting in the angle they said the plane came in.
It is likely that the wings could sever off like you said, I never said they did, but that would also leave the wings still intact, or big chunks of the plane left


Ok now which crash are you talking about? There were four. In the WTC you can see the wing marks. In the Pentagon you can just slightly see the impression of wings. Realize wings are not solid chunks of steel or aluminum. They are more or less hollow, and although light, they are sturdy to support the aircraft in flight. But impacting the Pentagon, they were turned into confetti on impact. At Shanksville, the plane impacted the ground nearly headfirst at over 400mph. The wings are not going to do this:
on impact. Rather they are going to stay with the plane as it plows into the ground. Now if the plane flew headlong into a row of steel columns, where they sheer them off, then yes i can see recognizable wing traces. But not if it is plowing headfirst into a solid mass like the ground.




Because if they didn't damage the building where they hit then where did they go? Just exploded into nothing when it hit? What about the fuel? Where did it go? No raging fires like most airline crashes where there is spent fuel laying around.
Where are both sets of landing gear and all the tires? Was it when the rest of pentagon collapsed, another great thing, 757 hits the building but it stays intact for a bit.... Seems like this is one of the least violent collisions as far as the building goes.. Seemed to barley take a hit at face level, just have that little magical exit hole at the back.


But the wing debris was seen. Smashed to confetti. The fuel tanks exploded destroying a large section, the rest just smashed against the side of the building. The rest of the fuselage went into the building and exploded and burned. There was landing gear recovered at the Pentagon too.




It wasn't really face first though.. the right wing would have hit before or about the same time as the nose, spreading out the energy... The left wing and the tail could not have taken the full impact, it is impossible... look at where the tail and stablizers would have hit... nothing done to the building. So either they were going 500+ to get demolished which the building should show, or it was slowed down in which case there should be more debris.


The tail is also mostly hollow. The plane is not going to slow down fast enough on impact to keep the tail structure from being obliterated either.



WHY WON'T THEY SHOW THE VIDEO THEY HAVE OF IT HITTING THE BUILDING??? You honestly think only TWO cameras at that place caught what happened? And that segment was released was edited as well


They did. Sorry you do not see it up to par. And it was not edited. It was edited by........... "Truthers". *dun dun duuun!!!*




So the wings should have it that building pretty hard if it was going 500 mph. Doesn't seem like there is too much damage where the wings would have hit. So did the wings just get vaporized right when they hit? Get good chunks of wings from wreckage as well. They were hitting telephone poles and that trailer and air duct before they hit the building according to the findings as well.
The El al flight 1862 didn't have any where near the same trajectory that 77 did...
Compare that to the planes the hit the twin towers and you got it.
77 came in from an angle, not straight on, straight on being much worse.
If they said 77 was a head on accident it would make more sense, but that isn't the case.


Flight 77 was on a slight angle but still at high speeds. Again, the wings are not solid structures.



No, it hit the broad side of a mountain, that is by far worse then hitting any type of building. Buildings would have a lot more give then solid earth...

El Al was the one that hit the apartment complex in Amsterdam. A 747. real messy. No wings seen. In fact, can you also show me the wings from the Lockerbie Pan Am crash?




We get more out of the El Al then we do 93 and 93 hit "soft" dirt... How does that work out?
And do either site really remind you of that crash? The fire it caused alone doesn't match either site...
And the respected damage, look what el al did to that building and look what 77 did to the pentagon... doesn't seem like the same thing hit both buildings...
Why did the pentagon have such a delayed small scale collapse if it just got hit with the same thing that brought down 220 stories of steel?


Ok I think we are confusing things a bit. El Al was a 747 that impacted an apartment structure causing a partial collapse. No wings found there afterwards. Flight 93 was a 757 that nosedived into a reclaimed mine area. I suggest you look up Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771, which was a similar incident as Flight 93.

Also Flight 77 was a 757 as was Flight 93. The WTCs planes were 767s. The Pentagon is a low, squat heavy masonry structure. The WTCs were tall steel structures. Completely apples to oranges.


Who did the independent investigation... The commission? How about a non conflict of interest investigation
I am talking about flight 77... wings going at 500 mph are not going to leave a small barely noticeable impression.... They are strongest thing that would have hit the pentagon.
Even in your c130 that hit the apartment building there is a wing that they found.. a good chunk of it as well.
Did you drop your egg btw? If you drop an egg and it reaches free fall you are saying it will just blow up into tiny tiny pieces? I would like to see your video of that.
When you do that I will entertain your theory that the tail would still be going fast enough to hit the building and disappear like the wings supposedly did.
I did that experiment in high school, i know the results
And how can you tell what the confetti sized debris really is? You say they found the wing debris but in the size of confetti? How does one make the connection if the piece is so small?
So out of all the cams at the pentagon we get 2 videos form the gate guard station, one with the view blocked and frame 23 of the other video was edited before the release.
Why won't they release another, clearer version then?
The lockerbride had the nose of the plane survive and you want to bring that one up? Did you see the amount of debris recovered as well? Clearly plane parts, I am sure they found wing debris even larger the the size of confetti on that one as welll.
That landing gear you mention can come off just about anything, who says it came form a 757? Just because we see some rubber and a hubcap that resembles a 747?? Guess what, UAV's have landing gear as well...
And almost all the other plane crashes you are referencing me too are not boeings that are 600 tons.. And I still see more wreckage on most those sites then I see of any associated with 911..

And where is the crater at the pentagon? All the plane crashes you showed me involving a plane and the ground had pretty decent sized craters.. Where is the one in the pentagon?
Also can you show me where the punch out hole can be replicated from another flight?
Massive impact hole, tiny tiny little punch out hole in the back?



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Sremmos80

And where is the crater at the pentagon?


I think this stupid comment really shows how little research some truthers have actually done....

Just why do you think there should be a crater at the Pentagon?


All the plane crashes you showed me involving a plane and the ground had pretty decent sized craters.. Where is the one in the pentagon?


You are not even aware that Flight 77 never hit the ground at the Pentagon! You are not at all interested in what happened, you just repeat nonsense you read on a silly truther site.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 

Please tell me how a plane doesn't hit the ground when it hits the bottom of a building.....
Does that makes sense to you? So it hit the building and all the force was directed away from the ground?
You see the impact site, if you line a 757 to the impact it is like 20 feet off the ground... Your saying that nothing would have hit the ground? That plane after impact would have had to have hit the ground at some point... And it would leave its mark
How am I the non logical one....



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Sremmos80
Please tell me how a plane doesn't hit the ground when it hits the bottom of a building.....


What makes you think it hit the bottom of the building....


That plane after impact would have had to have hit the ground at some point... And it would leave its mark


So now you wonder why you cannot see a mark on the ground inside a very large 5 story building.... that collapsed on top of the wreckage....
edit on 31-1-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   




posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


So look at the pics NAM just posted... HOW DOES IT NO HIT THE GROUND... THERE IS NO CRATER ANYWHERE....
WHY



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Sremmos80
HOW DOES IT NO HIT THE GROUND... THERE IS NO CRATER ANYWHERE....WHY


Because it did not hit the ground - is this how silly truthers have gotten - they somehow think there should be a crater when a plane does not hit the ground...

Would you please tell all of us exactly why you think there should be a crater when a plane does not hit the ground....



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Just simple as that huh? It just didn't hit the ground?
So it hit the very bottom floor the building.... But not the ground... You can see the ground... then a hole... no building in between.
There is damage to the foundation of the building but it didn't hit the ground..
Seen the pictures inside, you know the ones with the airplane parts you showed me, do you see a crater in there anywhere?
Or did the plane continue to not hit the ground inside as well...

edit on stFri, 31 Jan 2014 18:01:15 -0600America/Chicago120141580 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


I think he's saying that because it hit the bottom floor that there should have been a mark on the ground at a distance from the wall, but the lawn is pristine all the way to the wall, with the impacted area at the bottom floor, where the gap itself is hardly any taller than the engines.

Firetruck comparison

There's also not even a mark on the wall where the tail fin or rear vertical stabilizer wing should have hit the building. Heck the windows aren't even broken. (image is pre-collapse of the outer wall)


That Hani Hanjour - what a pilot!




edit on 31-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I think that the passengers were loaded onto another plane and taken underground maybe Area51 and unfortunately the greys have eaten them to keep them happy, I really hope that's not the case after all lots of innocent people died for the cause of greed and entertainment. I hope those souls that have passed on are now reincarnated to start again in life.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
I think he's saying that because it hit the bottom floor that there should have been a mark on the ground at a distance from the wall, but the lawn is pristine all the way to the wall,


It seems you cannot get anything right, it did not hit the ground floor, it hit the 1st floor!

So why should there be a mark on the ground in front of the building, when it did not hit the ground in front of the building?



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Sk8ergrl
 


They may be waiting first for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, Bush Jr. and Co..



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Wow, oh man your right.. It hit the first floor, that changes everything. I am sure that 8-10 really made a difference when we are talking a 500+ ton boeing crashing into a building.
Your right, the ground should be just fine...
How could I not see that

Makes that move the pilot made even more impressive, J hook turn accelerating to max speed at low altitude and crash that bad boy 10 feet off the ground without hitting the ground. First try mind you.
Guy had some natural talent apparently



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join