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.

 

September 11: The New Pearl Harbor [Video]

page: 19
62
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo


Nah, there is ALWAYS proof if an act did occur. Whether you can find it or not is another matter. With all due respect, I place no value on that author's theory. He starts with the answer and works backwards. Again, the theory makes zero sense from a practical standpoint. But hey, it's a free Country and folks are certainly free to their own opinion. You ever find a true smoking gun and I will gladly admit that to be the case.


What is your take on the Norman Mineta testimony before the 9/11 commission that was not published in the final report?
edit on 23-5-2015 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 23 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: combatmaster

So to summarize: did hijackers use navigation to attain targets, if not how did they home in to their targets with relative ease considering their view was challenging (to say the least)?

Modern jet airliners are filled with electronic navigation aids

Among them VOR (VHF OMNI RANGE) - hijackers on flight 93 were dialing in the VOR beacon at Reagan National airport

THat daye, September 11, was perfectly clear with almost unlimited visibility

Flight 11 after turning south could follow the Hudson River south to NYC

Flight 175 after turning back east could fly until reached coast then head north to NYC

By this time WTC North Tower was on fire, smoke visible for miles (I know I was watching it burn from New Jersey)

Flight 77 flew until reached Potomac River - Pentagon was next to river

Have to remember that the target were some of the largest buildings on earth and clearly visible for miles



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: fireladdie
a reply to: combatmaster

So to summarize: did hijackers use navigation to attain targets, if not how did they home in to their targets with relative ease considering their view was challenging (to say the least)?

Modern jet airliners are filled with electronic navigation aids

Among them VOR (VHF OMNI RANGE) - hijackers on flight 93 were dialing in the VOR beacon at Reagan National airport

THat daye, September 11, was perfectly clear with almost unlimited visibility

Flight 11 after turning south could follow the Hudson River south to NYC

Flight 175 after turning back east could fly until reached coast then head north to NYC

By this time WTC North Tower was on fire, smoke visible for miles (I know I was watching it burn from New Jersey)

Flight 77 flew until reached Potomac River - Pentagon was next to river

Have to remember that the target were some of the largest buildings on earth and clearly visible for miles


I am an admitted truther. That being said it would seem - and correct me if I am wrong - that all the flights save 93 had circled their target before striking it. I agree with Combatmaster that it seems amazing they were able to pick out their targets without assistance but it unless I am wrong they only came close with their innitial approaches and then either corrected or circled around once target came into view.

I remember the theories about the planes heading towards beacons placed onside the pentagon and WTC 7 to help the jets hit their targets but then why the corrections or the circle around. Are the beacons that were theorized of limited range or just don't fot at all inside the observed events.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The only flight that circled their target was Flight 77 which made a descending 270 deg turn. The reason for the turn was that the plane was too high as it approached the Pentagon. Needed to bleed off altitude to line up for the attack run.

What part of "Largest buildings on earth: do you have trouble comprehending .......??

All the targets were clearly identifiable WTC towers were at southern end of Manhattan where Hudson river enters
Atlantic . The Hudson was a clearly identifiable landmark.

The Potomac river was the same for the Pentagon

Also hijackers were able to use plane navigation systems, any thing from simple compass, VOR, inertial navigation
system where can simply enter coordinates and will plane to that location.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The amazing part is that they were able to pilot those enormous, complicated aircraft without ever having sat in a similar cockpit before and perform precision maneuvers as well. Even more so that automobiles, aircraft, especially big ones, have limitations for turning, climbing and diving which is hard to believe a non-pilot could master in an hour. If this is true the airlines are pissing away a lot of good money paying pilots the salaries that they command when the same job could be done for minimum wage by an illegal alien, sorry I mean a undocumented foreign guest.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The amazing part is that they were able to pilot those enormous, complicated aircraft without ever having sat in a similar cockpit before and perform precision maneuvers as well. Even more so that automobiles, aircraft, especially big ones, have limitations for turning, climbing and diving which is hard to believe a non-pilot could master in an hour. If this is true the airlines are pissing away a lot of good money paying pilots the salaries that they command when the same job could be done for minimum wage by an illegal alien, sorry I mean a undocumented foreign guest.



Pilot for Flight 77 , Hani Hanjour, did take training in a 737 simulator (very like 757) at Jet Tech in Mesa Arizonia

His instructor signed off as making "tight turns"

Nothing was noted about taxiing or landings...........

As for pilot with limited skills being able to make such a flight

Dutch TV did a reenactment with person of limited piloting skill trying to fly a plane into the Pentagon

Was able to do it

www.youtube.com...

Skip ahead to 27:45 (or better yet watch entire video instead of idiotic conspiracy videos)

Hani Hanjour had a commercial pilots certificate



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: fireladdie




Hani Hanjour had a commercial pilots certificate


That's debatable. Most of the instructors were very suspicious of that claim. In fact, they said "He could not fly at all."

nytimes


''There was no suspicion as far as evildoing,'' Ms. Ladner said. ''It was more of a very typical instructional concern that 'you really shouldn't be in the air.' ''



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: fireladdie

Like I said can the pilots and hire illegals.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: fireladdie

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The amazing part is that they were able to pilot those enormous, complicated aircraft without ever having sat in a similar cockpit before and perform precision maneuvers as well. Even more so that automobiles, aircraft, especially big ones, have limitations for turning, climbing and diving which is hard to believe a non-pilot could master in an hour. If this is true the airlines are pissing away a lot of good money paying pilots the salaries that they command when the same job could be done for minimum wage by an illegal alien, sorry I mean a undocumented foreign guest.



Pilot for Flight 77 , Hani Hanjour, did take training in a 737 simulator (very like 757) at Jet Tech in Mesa Arizonia

His instructor signed off as making "tight turns"

Nothing was noted about taxiing or landings...........

As for pilot with limited skills being able to make such a flight

Dutch TV did a reenactment with person of limited piloting skill trying to fly a plane into the Pentagon

Was able to do it

www.youtube.com...

Skip ahead to 27:45 (or better yet watch entire video instead of idiotic conspiracy videos)

Hani Hanjour had a commercial pilots certificate


Really? You call the video you post not "idiotic." ?? It was a documemtry that picked apart another called 'Loose Change'. Loose Change was nothing more than a controlled opposition. There are far better out there. Might I suggest THE TOPIC VIDEO OF THIS F@#KING THREAD!!!

If you watched it then refute it or GTFO and go start your own thread with that trash b flick you posted.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

The "poor piloting" comments come from flight instructor in Teterboro NJ as documented by FBI report

Yet Hanjour was able to rest and fly aircraft from Essex County Airport, Caldwell NJ. (6/06, 6/11, 6/18, 6/19,
7/03, 7/20)

Again was able rent and fly planes in Gaithersburg MD (8/20, 8/26, 8/28)

So despite negative opinion from one flight instructor was able to rent and fly aircraft multiple times afterward

Truthers like to trumpet that Hanjour was acpoor pilot, yet ignore subsequent evidence

FBI report on Hani Hanjour activities

911myths.com...



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You brought up issue that Hani Hanjour was poor pilot and someone of such limited skill was unable to
fly the plane into the Pentagon

I simply brought up evidence that person of limited ability is able to do it........



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: fireladdie
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You brought up issue that Hani Hanjour was poor pilot and someone of such limited skill was unable to
fly the plane into the Pentagon

I simply brought up evidence that person of limited ability is able to do it........



I actually stated that the planes did appear to piloted but all you read was "truther" yaddi yaddi yaddi "approach" blah blah "beacon" then threw a response.

I dissagreed with combatmaster in kind respect. Maybe you don't recognize manners since you seem void of them all together.

If that is the attention you give other members post then I suppose it is no wonder why you have not even watched the OP's videos.

But since I have your attention and to stay on topic here:

What are your thoughts on the testimony of Norman Mineta and it's ommission from the final 9/11 commission report?



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You mean "Does the order still stand Mr. Vice President" testimony from Mineta? The do not shoot down order? I can hardly wait to hear the debunking on that subject, perhaps it will be "the order for pizza still stand". There is a reason it was omitted from Tommy Kean's "report" just as the former sellout NJ governor omitted so many other evidence, for after all if you state with a forgone conclusion, the report must be tailored to fit the end result required. I though Norman shed a lot of good light on what happened but then I am not a Coincidence Theorist.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I am not a Coincidence Theorist.



Our present power establishment rely on many coincidence don't they?

...like how many in the chain of command on the morning of 9/11 could not be reached or were only at the post a single day. How lucky for the terrorists or maybe they had some influence on the placement of US military. Which would they have us believe?



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I am especially amused by the "incompetence defense". American exceptionalism one day, incompetence the next. All I know is that from MY experience in the military, politics may be one thing, incompetence is a non existent entity except of course for the CIC....



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I am especially amused by the "incompetence defense". American exceptionalism one day, incompetence the next. All I know is that from MY experience in the military, politics may be one thing, incompetence is a non existent entity except of course for the CIC....



So your saying that in your experience, when one is as incompetent as those were on 9/11 leading to death of 3000 US citizens, they should not expect to keep their job or get a promotion? I suspected as much.

Rumsfeld being the last SOB on earth to be aware of the atttacks has always tickled me. Then when the problem lands on his front lawn, he runs out to said lawn to help clean up rather than pick up the f×#kin phone a calling somebody.

It is no wonder Donny was left to play the ass hat. He could not have been in anyones good favour. He was once the youngest secretary of defence only to become the oldest? Thats no honour. I heard somewhere it was Rumsfeld that appointed Bush 1 to the CIA in hopes he would never become president. Kind of bit him in the ass it seems.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

That's right, Dandy Don was Secretary of Defense when my class graduated in '76 now that you mention it. Funny how he announced on 10 Sep 01 that the 2+ trillion dollars went "missing" only to have the very office of Naval Intelligence (strategically located in the only section of the Pentagon to NOT have been reinforced structurally) blown sky high along with all of its swabbies but one the very next day. Coincidence Theorists have to just love that one, no?



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: jaffo


Nah, there is ALWAYS proof if an act did occur. Whether you can find it or not is another matter. With all due respect, I place no value on that author's theory. He starts with the answer and works backwards. Again, the theory makes zero sense from a practical standpoint. But hey, it's a free Country and folks are certainly free to their own opinion. You ever find a true smoking gun and I will gladly admit that to be the case.


What is your take on the Norman Mineta testimony before the 9/11 commission that was not published in the final report?


I think his testimony is suspect and that as time has gone by it has only become moreso. To wit: www.911myths.com...



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: jaffo


Nah, there is ALWAYS proof if an act did occur. Whether you can find it or not is another matter. With all due respect, I place no value on that author's theory. He starts with the answer and works backwards. Again, the theory makes zero sense from a practical standpoint. But hey, it's a free Country and folks are certainly free to their own opinion. You ever find a true smoking gun and I will gladly admit that to be the case.


What is your take on the Norman Mineta testimony before the 9/11 commission that was not published in the final report?


I think his testimony is suspect and that as time has gone by it has only become moreso. To wit: www.911myths.com...


So your limk states that Cheney was 8n charge of national security since it fails to memtion that Rumsfeld was not aware of the attacks till after the pentagon was hit and he "felt the building shake".

That chap giving updates to Cheney should have been "still no answer from the secretary of defense, should I keep trying" and then chenney could respond "of course you should" lol.

Im sure after 14 years there is something better to explain it than what if. Besides the OS changed the story to place Chenney in the same room as Mineta not till AFTER the pentagon was hit so that would not make Minetas statement missread but impossible all together. The video goes through the timeline. Watch it.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: jaffo


Nah, there is ALWAYS proof if an act did occur. Whether you can find it or not is another matter. With all due respect, I place no value on that author's theory. He starts with the answer and works backwards. Again, the theory makes zero sense from a practical standpoint. But hey, it's a free Country and folks are certainly free to their own opinion. You ever find a true smoking gun and I will gladly admit that to be the case.


What is your take on the Norman Mineta testimony before the 9/11 commission that was not published in the final report?


I think his testimony is suspect and that as time has gone by it has only become moreso. To wit: www.911myths.com...


So your limk states that Cheney was 8n charge of national security since it fails to memtion that Rumsfeld was not aware of the attacks till after the pentagon was hit and he "felt the building shake".

That chap giving updates to Cheney should have been "still no answer from the secretary of defense, should I keep trying" and then chenney could respond "of course you should" lol.

Im sure after 14 years there is something better to explain it than what if. Besides the OS changed the story to place Chenney in the same room as Mineta not till AFTER the pentagon was hit so that would not make Minetas statement missread but impossible all together. The video goes through the timeline. Watch it.


I'm not sure that I am following the issue with Cheney and Rumsfeld.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join