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 they were military planes that hit the buildings, where did the real flights go?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Cinrad
 





Really, you don't see where I am coming from? WOW man!


Yes actually i do see where you are coming from.

You are coming form the perspective of a individual who holds a preconceived bias of what happened that day, you are coming from the perspective of a individual who formulates a conclusion and then cherry picks the facts to fit that conclusion rather than the other way around. As such you are coming form the perspective of a individual who believes that 9/11 was a "super top secret government false flag super op" and you, like so many of your kin, are cherry picking facts to fit around this preconceived conclusion and making massive assumptions.

This is a perfect example, you are trying to argue that a plane going missing in 2014 some how suggests or proves that it is possible that 4 planes in 2001 did not crash but rather where diverted, dropped in the ocean and then "they" (whoever they are) faked the crashes of those planes (just because!).



You're shilting me aren't you?


No,

No, I am not, if anything I am "debunking you".

Not that any of this really needed debunked because any talking monkey could tell you that any attempt to argue that a plane going missing in 2014 suggests or proves some kind of grand conspiracy behind 9/11 in which the planes were diverted and their crashes faked, makes about as much sense as a flat spoon.




posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I think you are missing the point that this event shows how you can drop a plane off of radar to the point where they can not find the plane, crashed or flying.

OP is simply asking why the same type of thing could not have happened to other planes, we now have reports of this plane flying in the wake of another to stay undetected. We have pilots on that thread that say that is more then possible as long as the transponder is shut off, which we are told it was.
We have the flight paths of the flights of 911, we know their paths cross and it just so happens to be right by an air base.....
911anomalies.wordpress.com...

He states a single part of what may be his theory and you already know what the poster and the rest of his kin think about 911 and how they formulated said theory.

This is a perfect example of you putting words in peoples mouth.
The OP is not stating that this is proof that the planes were swapped on 911 but rather that a plane in fact can be taken off radar and then possibly flown off course undetected for hours.
This flight is not confirmed to be crashed and the satellite pinging offers the opposite actually


Oh and if you need to do some more debunking, there are plenty of 911 threads that have either commented on or authored and there are a couple post that are awaiting your debunking power!



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 





I think you are missing the point that this event shows how you can drop a plane off of radar to the point where they can not find the plane, crashed or flying.


Yes but it is the implication of that i am struggling with.

IT is a massive leap to go from saying they can do it to saying it was done and then they faked the planes hitting the towers smashing into shanksvill and the pentagon.

just because a plane goes missing in 2014 does not mean that it was possible for those crashes to have been faked in 2001.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Sremmos80
 





I think you are missing the point that this event shows how you can drop a plane off of radar to the point where they can not find the plane, crashed or flying.


Yes but it is the implication of that i am struggling with.

IT is a massive leap to go from saying they can do it to saying it was done and then they faked the planes hitting the towers smashing into shanksvill and the pentagon.

just because a plane goes missing in 2014 does not mean that it was possible for those crashes to have been faked in 2001.


Doesn't it show that since a plane can still drop of the face of the earth in 2014 that it would have been easier for it to happen in 2001?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 





Doesn't it show that since a plane can still drop of the face of the earth in 2014 that it would have been easier for it to happen in 2001?


No it does not, because we know what happened to the planes in question on 9/11.

And no I am not going to get in to a "no planes debate" because quite frankly even if i was to go and get a full lobotomy I still would not fall to a level low enough to even entertain that as a possibility worth debating.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Sremmos80
 





Doesn't it show that since a plane can still drop of the face of the earth in 2014 that it would have been easier for it to happen in 2001?


No it does not, because we know what happened to the planes in question on 9/11.

And no I am not going to get in to a "no planes debate" because quite frankly even if i was to go and get a full lobotomy I still would not fall to a level low enough to even entertain that as a possibility worth debating.


That wasn't the question,
The question was, would it be easier for a plane to drop off of radar and get lost in airspace in 2001 then it was for the the plane that we just had do it here in 2014?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin
you are trying to argue that a plane going missing in 2014 some how suggests or proves that it is possible that 4 planes in 2001 did not crash but rather where diverted, dropped in the ocean and then "they" (whoever they are) faked the crashes of those planes (just because!).


And you are saying that it does not prove it is possible? You cannot see the connection between a plane going missing and the possibility of 4 passenger planes to have gone missing?

You seem to be hung up on the 13 year time difference, if anything I would have said that it was even more possible for planes to go missing then than now.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 





would it be easier for a plane to drop off of radar and get lost in airspace in 2001 then it was for the the plane that we just had do it here in 2014?


A couple of things come to mind, firstly, we do know know yet exactly what has happened to Flight 370 yet so its implossible to really say until the mystery is solved.

But lets assume it was just as easy for a plane to drop of the radar as it was for a plane to drop of the radar back in 2001.

So what?

It would prove nothing, because as i have said to you before we know what happened to those planes on 9/11 we know how they crashed and where they crashed.

Again the notion of "no planes" is not a subject i am willing to debate.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Sremmos80
 





would it be easier for a plane to drop off of radar and get lost in airspace in 2001 then it was for the the plane that we just had do it here in 2014?


A couple of things come to mind, firstly, we do know know yet exactly what has happened to Flight 370 yet so its implossible to really say until the mystery is solved.

But lets assume it was just as easy for a plane to drop of the radar as it was for a plane to drop of the radar back in 2001.

So what?

It would prove nothing, because as i have said to you before we know what happened to those planes on 9/11 we know how they crashed and where they crashed.

Again the notion of "no planes" is not a subject i am willing to debate.


But we do know that the plane disappeared off of radar and was pinged by satellite which means the plane would still have to have power to the plane for that to happen, and that is from a pilot on one of the threads.
The crash theory seems less and less likely as more info comes forth. So at his point we have a commercial airliner that dropped off the face of the earth... in 2014

What it proves is that plane swaps could easily have taken place since radar can in fact be fooled, just as it was in 2014

You think you know what happened to those planes, you are willing to take the word of the investigators.
You can not tell me just by looking at the crash sites that you can tell a boeing did the damage, cause remember there was never a plane crash like either of those in the history of aviation, that is why there was not parts easily visible like in most other crashes.

Both places have officials on record saying that the scenes looked nothing like a plane crash, i know that does not meant that they are saying there wasn't one, rather that when they arrived on scene, what they saw did not match what they were told....Seems to be a common occurrence on 911. People being told one thing, but seeing completely different

For some one that doesn't want to talk about no planes, you sure keep bringing it up a lot... No one but you has mentioned no planes.
Why does this theory have to imply no planes?
The first 2 planes crossed paths almost colliding into each other RIGHT over a military airport
93 and the Cleveland airport anomaly
Why does it need to be no planes when it could simply be swapped planes?
Seems you are just ITCHING for me to subscribe to the no planes theory lol
And well 77 is just weird, they take off less then 10 miles from their target, turn around 300 miles later and norad is not notified for almost 45 min...
I don't have a theory on where that swap took place but I do believe one happened
So as you can see I do not subscribe to no plane, so you don't have to worry about getting that lobotomy for this discussion, sorry



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


Let me guess, they were secretly built by Boeing and painted in airline colors by the military without anyone on base noticing.

It's 13 years later and the first US military 767 flight is still 4-5 months away. They won't be operational for three years.

The first foreign military 767 didn't fly until after 9/11. So the question is where did they come from.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


Let me guess, they were secretly built by Boeing and painted in airline colors by the military without anyone on base noticing.

It's 13 years later and the first US military 767 flight is still 4-5 months away. They won't be operational for three years.

The first foreign military 767 didn't fly until after 9/11. So the question is where did they come from.


I would say that they could secretly do things on a military base and get away with it.... does that not sound reasonable?
Black projects could literally be anything...
Would you agree lots of top secret things get maintained on military bases?
You are the first to mention the 767...Why does that instantly have to the plane that was used?
Unmanned tech has been around for almost half a century and we have to focus on just one model?
What knowledge do you have off all the black projects that the military has?



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


You have no idea what military bases are like do you? The vast majority have no black projects because the ramp area is wide open where everything can be seen. You can even see into the hangars from the roads.

The two planes that hit the WTC were 767s. There is no question about that, and you can't confuse anything in the military inventory for a 767.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


You have no idea what military bases are like do you? The vast majority have no black projects because the ramp area is wide open where everything can be seen. You can even see into the hangars from the roads.

The two planes that hit the WTC were 767s. There is no question about that, and you can't confuse anything in the military inventory for a 767.



Did I say that every base had black projects?
Or did I ask if black projects get maintained on military bases...

Yes I have plenty of experience on a military base, grew up in a military family and spent 6 years in the marine corps... in aviation, 6400 field.
Was on Pcola, Ocenina, Pendlton, Miramar, cherry point just name a few
I understand that some hangers are visible and I am fully aware that there are plenty that are not. I have also seen hanger doors even closed once... I know, sounds crazy.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 




The two planes that hit the WTC were 767s. There is no question about that, and you can't confuse anything in the military inventory for a 767.


Now, now Zap, be fair we both know that you can confuse almost anything in the Military inventory for a 767....

If you are a die hard 9/11 truther that is.....



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 





The two planes that hit the WTC were 767s. There is no question about that, and you can't confuse anything in the military inventory for a 767.



Except for a modified 767....
I know you are screaming kc 767 and the fact that the timelines of its production are no where near 9-11. Fair, I won't dispute that, that project is not a black project
Why could a black project modified 767 drone not exist?
Compartmentalization is real and it works, why could it no be applied in this scenario?
As far as any working on the plane knows the military is doing a contract for AA or UA and they just do what they are told like any good service member? Especially the ones working on the hush hush stuff...
They are more then used to the "need to know" basis...





edit on thTue, 18 Mar 2014 18:54:03 -0500America/Chicago320140380 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


So now the military does work for the airlines?

As for black projects, they wouldn't be sitting on a base in New York.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


Yes doors close, but eventually that project has to fly. That means moving on the ramp and the runway. That means visible.

Commercial planes on a military base don't happen without a troop movement. There would be notice and talk.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


So now the military does work for the airlines?

As for black projects, they wouldn't be sitting on a base in New York.



I would rather say the airlines work for the gov/military and that when the gov says hey we need planes for x reason, here is the amount of money you would require.
Boeing will give them some planes with a smile on their face in appreciation for everything they do for boeing

And yes as for black projects..
How do you know where any said black project could or could not be stationed?

Why would a black project not be stationed in New York?



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


Yes doors close, but eventually that project has to fly. That means moving on the ramp and the runway. That means visible.

Commercial planes on a military base don't happen without a troop movement. There would be notice and talk.


Meh, commercial planes can just be carrying a reserve unit for their AT, the station in NY just so happen to be a reserve base actually.

Sure the plane has to be moved but who is to say it isn't the project doing the moving?
Or are we launching our black projects with just whatever crew so happens to be working the deck at the time?



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


There are four major airports within range of Stewart. The point of black projects is to hide them, not buzz around near major cities and congested airspace.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join