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.
Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by AwakeinNM
Your video doesnt do much for your arguement , notice the burnt grass/soil , and the amount of debri ?
Where was that kind of evidence on "9/11" ?
Originally posted by mayabong
I'll post one more time since I think its relevant to the discussion.
2 of the planes crossed directly over stewart AFB at the exact same time nearly hitting eachother.
The base was privatized before 911.
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by AwakeinNM
Your video doesnt do much for your arguement , notice the burnt grass/soil , and the amount of debri ?
Where was that kind of evidence on "9/11" ?
If you don't like AwakeNM's video, how about this one :-
news.bbc.co.uk...
This was a Tupolev 154 which is pretty much the exact same size as a Boeing 757. I think both videos demonstrate how little obvious debris can remain and that questions like "where are the seats ?", "where is the luggage ?", "where are the bodies ?" are often fatuous.
Originally posted by cavscout11cav
Well this argument will never die....
But for the love of god, stop making everything "proof" that it was an inside job. Stop using other peoples claims as proof. Once, just once I would like for someone to do their own homework, come up with a logical question, and try to solve it without a pre-determine answer.
So much can be explained either way, but neither side is listening. Take the crazy out of the scenario, and look at it logically.
Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
Originally posted by mayabong
I'll post one more time since I think its relevant to the discussion.
2 of the planes crossed directly over stewart AFB at the exact same time nearly hitting eachother.
The base was privatized before 911.
Okay, why do you think it is relevant to the discussion? Let me guess: Professional government-paid hijackers or remote control operators would have maintained the FAA required separation from each other at all times, in order to prevent hijacker fratricide. No way would an intricately-planned covert op risk failure so close to the endgame by smashing their planes into each other. Therefore, the amateur (Al Qaeda) hijacker theory is confirmed.
How did I do?
Originally posted by GhostLancer
1. Airliner lands at an undisclosed/secret location. Crew and passengers executed. Airliner scrapped.
2. Airliner lands at an undisclosed/secret location. Crew and passengers handed-over to secret laboratories for human testing.
3. Airliner lands at an undisclosed/secret location. Crew and passengers become the newest "citizens" of secret government underground cities initially created back in the 1950s and 1960s (google nuclear-powered underground drilling machines). Richard Sauder has done a lot of research into secret underground bases. It is a fact that they exist, and have existed since the 1950s. Who knows how extensive the network of underground bases and "cities" might be, and it is suspected that they are connected by superfast mag-lift "trains." This sounds outlandish, but is very possible, if the government were humane enough to offer them a new life underground versus execution.
4. Airliner lands at an undisclosed/secret location. Crew and passengers become the newest colonists, part of a secret space program that either uses exotic technology for space travel or some form of teleportation (google PROJECT PEGASUS).
The levels get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up.
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
The levels get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up.
The exterior walls and interior core did but NOT THE FLOORS THEMSELVES.
And there's the problem.