It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:42 AM
reply to post by FlyersFan

The point is whenever a poster starts a thread IMO it should be posted as a question rather than a statement given the fact this is a conspiracy forum. Not everyone is going to agree with every topic posted or the information in it however there are parts that some may choose to believe.

You know the difference between a question and a statement of truth and you intentionally took my title out of context and posted it as if it were a statement rather than what it really is which is a question for those who choose to read the article to decide for themselves.

If you have that much trouble comprehending the english language then I suggest you seek some guidance before posting blatantly false accusations.

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:51 AM

To date this is the ONLY footage of something causing an explosion at the pentagon. It is quite poor in quality and no one can see any airplane impacting the pentagon. Only allegations of a plane in general vicinity during that time.

Clearly there is a fireball erupting but it seems like a missle impact to me rather than some enormous plane.

The worlds most secure building giving us this lousy film to analyse. And why would the feds go around confiscating local cctv footage from local business? They had to hide something....hide the missle impact and sell the public the alciada bs so we could go to war with 2 countries and ram the patriot act down our throat.

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:54 AM
two planes knocked down three buildings....

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:12 AM
The pentagon crash looked so fake when they tried saying a big jet plane crashed in to it... There were a few small metal parts scattered around that lawn, and it looked like a Saturday night live comedy skit when the media and officials were selling the plane crash story..

I remember when it first happened there was a video of a streak of smoke flying low and then hitting the building and then exploding.. Appeared just as a missile would appear.. I feel from the evidence that it indeed was a missile.. If it was a jumbo jet there would have been big wings, big body sections, and plenty of debris and dead bodies strewn all over the front lawn of the pentagon.. There wasn't any of that to be seen..

To buy the official story is like believing in the tooth fairy..

The planes being remote controlled is also not far fetched since that technology was available way before that happened..
911 was definitely a planned event by our American administration just based on the fact that so many witnesses have been silenced by murdering them.
A lot of good decent citizens are dead now because they gave their own testimony about that day.
edit on 2-8-2013 by alienreality because: add

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:12 AM
Here is food for thought from a pilot who questions the Pentagon hit as told by the government.

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour. 61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed."

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. The footnote "59, 60, 61" refers to The Flight Path Study of American 77 provided by the NTSB, which no one can find. One person claims to have called the NTSB and the NTSB says they havent done any reports/analysis for any of the aircraft of Sept 11. NTSB phone in DC (202)-314-6000. I tried, but i hit brick walls. Update: 8/11/06 NTSB Flight Path Study released.

So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. Thats 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots (Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the final impact speed was 530 mph. Update: FDR is now available and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed.

So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we dont know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later...

Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.

So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie...

If a pilot who analyzes the data for this, questions this, I think we all should.
Notice he doesn't say what did happen, only what couldn't have happened, which is the Government's OS about a 757, piloted by somebody with NO experience in the plane pulling off very difficult manual maneuvers senior pilots would struggle with.
Some experienced ATS posters need to pay attention to the ATS motto "DENY IGNORANCE"

edit on 2-8-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:17 AM
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I have seen that before and it does show something on the screen to the right shortly before impact. If you pause from 23-25 seconds, one second nothing is there to the right of the pillar then the next frame there is. It is hard to make out what it is but with an explosion like that was there no plane debris thrown towards this camera that would have been filmed?

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:20 AM


posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:27 AM

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I have seen that before and it does show something on the screen to the right shortly before impact. If you pause from 23-25 seconds, one second nothing is there to the right of the pillar then the next frame there is. It is hard to make out what it is but with an explosion like that was there no plane debris thrown towards this camera that would have been filmed?

Correct that is one of things I thought myself. There should have been some plane debris flying towards the camera as well as everywhere else. I cant see any plane debris being scattered. Just one large explosion.

And the hole made in the wall seems way too small.

The entire area was cordoned off limits to the public which means they had time to plant airplane parts from a prior accident to help support the official story.

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:37 AM
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

If a person with the expertise to properly scale that object given the sizes of other objects in the picture or length of grass shown what would they conclude the size of that object is? I seriously doubt that is a 757.........

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:39 AM
reply to post by hellobruce

Yes, its right here:

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:39 AM
A quick Public Service announcement. I STRONGLY suggest all members participating in this forum take a minute to reread Skeptic Overlord's post here. Bottom line, any member displaying improper behavior including personal attacks and trolling is subject to having their account terminated without further discussion.

Any questions or comments about that policy need to be handled outside this topical thread, preferably via the Complaint/Suggestion function. We've already had a member lose an account in this thread. I'd prefer we don't lose any more.

Please continue the discussion bearing in mind the requirements of the forum.

edit on 8/2/2013 by yeahright because: Link

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:44 AM
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012

As much as I'd like to believe all of this, and I do believe 911 was an inside job, where are your references? What is the proof? This is just an article with no reference. I mean if we're gonna win this one, we have to be more thorough than that.

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:49 AM
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012

Well, thats the same question that Truthers have, how was the military able to identify human remains at the same time claiming that the heat from the crash fire was so intense, that it incinerated most of the plane:

And there is dispute as to the whether the parts belonged to a 757:

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

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 10:09 AM


posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 10:30 AM
I actually attended a school where two people never returned from there trip. My only question is where are they now? I knew this guys mother and if she knew of this, she would flip. We were all lied to. The shock has subsided and now only questions remain. This hits home for me because I was a student right across the hall from the teacher that disappeared. He told my mom that if I was in his class, he would have taken me instead. That's why the truth is what I seek. It could have been me on that plane.

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by Kody27

Simple fact is that there is absolutely no proof of any of these planes being controlled by remote. This is not to say that a plane cant be flown in that manner, but the evidence that these planes were flown by remote is about as plentiful as the evidence of unicorns farting rainbows.

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 10:47 AM
I hate these kinds of threads,

not only for their ignorance but more so for the total lack of respect for the dead.

implying that the planes were remote control is just spitting on the graves of the dead. Such statements send out a message to the families of those who died on those planes (yes they were real) are liars and part of the conspiracy that killed their loved ones. How would you feel if I was to say that you were part of a cover up to have your wife's death faked and accuse you of lying about her horrible death to cover up some grandiose conspiracy.

It must be utterly soul destroying for the families when they read these tripe on the internet.

Other than that they make no sense, remote control planes are just one step up from the "hologram planes"

It just doesn't add up because as I see it there are only two possible reasons for using a remote control plane. Firstly because the plane is actually a missile disguised as a plane and this was the means by which the buildings were destroyed. Only problem with this theory is that it invalidates the idea of a traditional controlled demolition and the damage does appear to be consistent with that of a plane hitting the building rather than a missile. The second reason for using a remote plane could have been because they did not have any willing volunteers to fly planes into building's so "they" used remote planes then used a contorted demolition to bring down the towers. Again however this has problems, truthers would have us believe that Al-Qa'ida was a CIA front and as such was able to put those 19 men on the planes, in this scenario that would not have been possible.

Furthermore as i have said above these kind of "no plane" theories have yet to adequately explain what happened to the people who were apparently on those planes.

ohhh that and a total lack of evidence to support any suggestion that the planes were remote or were not actually planes.

To say that 9/11 was a false flag because the planes were fakes in someway is why 9/11 truthers get a bad name.

just stick with the facts and you will find the truth you all value so dearly, just dont be too surprised if its not the truth you anticipated it to be.

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

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by flyswatter

I think a more simple fact is, we don't know much for sure. All we know is what we've been told, and that is not really knowing for sure. We all did see 3 buildings fall, that we can be sure of, the rest is literally up in the air. Video of planes hitting is questionable, could have been planes of course, but with CGI what it is and the fact that England reported on building 7 in advance, I'd say what we've been told to believe will forever be debatable.

The OP's link is nothing more than headlines with no meat. I wish it had more, but until something more substantial ever gets reported, we are back where we started on this subject.

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by SunnyDee

Video of planes hitting is questionable, could have been planes of course, but with CGI

CGI, then how would we have had all those witnesses?

England reported on building 7 in advance

Actually it was reported on a number of American news channels that the FDNY had put in place a cordon round WTC-7 and that they suspected it was going to collapse because of the extensive damage. the BBC received a local report suggesting it had collapsed which they reported on. You will note if you watch that interview with Jane Standly she uses phases like "details are very very sketchy" when asked about WTC7 then quickly moves on pointing out she only knows what the news anchor knows. That was because this was based on some random report, there was so much going on that day. what seems to have happened is that one news wire picked up the FDNY cordon and interpreted it as the building had collapsed and the BBC then ran with it.

Besides do you really think that they would tell the press about this in advance, what possible reason would they have for giving the press prior knowledge of their plan to blow up WTC-7.

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Morg234

How do you explain the 757 aircraft parts found inside and outside the Pentagon?
reply to post by hellobruce

How do we explain downed light poles that weren't hit by anything?

What "downed light poles that weren't hit by anything " ?

The pattern of the downed poles and other structural damage reflects just what you would expect from the passage of an aircraft with a 38.05 metre wingspan like a Boeing 757.

See simulation :-

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in