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.

 

The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

page: 8
285
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: IamALWAYSright
a reply to: pirhanna

A missile? Hmmm. Okay, Launched from where? Please say the airport.


I saw on you tube, a clip showing a large all-white 747, flying above the pentagon on 9/11, the clip was up for a while, and "poof", i haven't seen it on there since. if it's still around, could someone tell us where to find it.

edited......damn....ZAP pointed it out as being an E4B....found it....my bad
edit on 19-2-2017 by jimmyx because: was wrong with info




posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: FHomerK
Excellent post, OP. I was in northern VA when the attack happened. I saw the aftermath first hand, within hours. That building was not hit by a plane. Period.

Not calling you. Not gonna call you out. Just curious.

What led you to that conclusion? It was a long time ago. Can you still clearly remember?



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

I didn't say anything resembling that. I said there were aircraft on the east coast that were armed. I said OTHER aircraft, beyond those 4, two at Cape Cod, and two at Otis, would have been 1-2 hours getting armed, which by the way, was the comment of one of the Wing Commanders involved.

As for them arriving in half an hour, the aircraft in question, the alert aircraft, are on an Alert 15 posture, meaning they have 15 minutes to get airborne from the time they're notified. It's up to the FAA to perform that notification to NORAD.

As for the caveat of them being armed for exercises, unless they're in Florida, or over the White Sands Missile Range, those exercises are going to be air to ground, meaning they're armed with bombs. Live 8 fire air to air is generally held over the Gulf of Mexico or one of the huge ranges they can close off out West.

As for the caveat, it was added because of too many of these arguments when someone picked out an aircraft on an air to ground mission and pointed out they were armed with live weapons.


edit on 2/19/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/19/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Google "suicide plane crash". Notice under the images section of the search the photos of the crash site investigation.

See all those little flag markers? See all the debris?

The damage to the pentagon was entirely too contained, too "sectional". Not to mention the wing attacked was under refurb, only had a skeleton crew in it that day. If the plane, heading south, had gone directly into the building instead of the curve it made, it would have hit major brass in the military that day. This I know due to knowing military personnel who were there that day and told me.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod, I really appreciate your responses to my inquiries - you really are a deep well of information.

however, I do have to challenge the notion that our entire air defense apparatus was working benevolently, and properly on that morning.

it seems to me like you're implying this was a blundering failure on our part, and there was no foul play - something we were simply and inherently not prepared for. is this accurate of me to say?



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

It was. The alert force was designed to stop incoming Soviet bombers, and later hijacked aircraft coming in from overseas. That's why all the bases with armed aircraft are on the coasts. They weren't set up to deal with internal threats, that weren't trying to be found, and relied almost entirely on FAA radar to direct them to where they needed to be.

There wasn't a need to stand down the defenses, because we were already damn near defenseless. Even if the alert fighters had found them, the first two aircraft would have hit their targets. They couldn't have done anything but fly alongside them, until permission had been given, by the president, for them to down them. And prior to that day, hijacked aircraft just weren't deliberately crashed like this. So permission wouldn't have been handed down until after the Towers were hit anyway. They MIGHT have stopped 77 with more aircraft on alert, but having to rely on secondary radar would have made that a non-trivial exercise.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

even though I'm in no way close to being experienced in military aviation and procedures, the defenseless nature you're describing seems 150% impossible to me. we would have a really incompetent and unorganized air defense system for this to be the case - is this the case?

the mere thought that we were only ready for international threats and not domestic ones seems unfounded and presumptive to me. this isn't a dig at your point of view at all, but merely an observation based on what I've learned about our national defense systems as a whole. it's completely contradictory.

can you point me to any supporting events or examples prior to 9/11 that conveys this insanely dangerous and ignorant national defense system you're describing?



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

They weren't disorganized or incompetent. There hadn't been a hijacking in the US since the 1970s or very early 80s. The internal threat was deemed to be extremely low, so it wasn't prioritized.

The difference between this event, and prior events where alert fighters intercepted aircraft internally, was that those aircraft weren't trying to hide from radar. On 9/11 there were transponder changes, and one transponder turned off. That completely changed the game in terms of the intercept.

The alert fighters are guided by the FAA radar. NORAD piggybacks on their radar picture for the US, except for around military bases. If the FAA radar picture isn't clear, that makes it harder for them to intercept.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

sorry man, from the way I see it, you're describing severe disorganization and incompetence.

everything you're describing denotes a lack of care and attention for our homeland.

we spent an estimated $400-500 billion dollars on national defense in 2000 alone. you're telling me that with a budget like this, even with low priority, we were completely unable and unprepared to intercept dynamic hijacking scenarios?

sure sounds dangerous, disorganized and incompetent to me.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Think about it. You spend months preparing your home security system to stop someone from breaking in. You spend thousands of dollars on the system. You have cameras on the doors and windows, an alarm system, lights, the whole nine yards.

Then someone that's supposed to be in your home steals something. You have dozens of people in your home on a daily basis, and haven't been robbed before.

Then when you're chasing the person, they change their shirt and put a hat on. You're trying to find them, based on where other people are telling you they went, based on the description you had. Oh, and they're running 15 mph, through an area that covers 20 or 30 blocks, and you're looking through a cardboard tube. And you have one other friend helping, and he's looking through a tube as well. And if you do catch up to him, all you can do is watch him.

Incompetence? Or an incredibly difficult situation, that you have to handle with limited resources?

In this case, you're talking about millions of square miles, using two aircraft that also have to try to cover vital potential targets that can be hundreds of miles apart, using a radar that can see a couple hundred miles, with a couple dozen other aircraft also flying in the area.

The military budget is very misleading. It looks huge, but when you break it down, the biggest portion doesn't go to the guys in the field, it goes to maintenance and upkeep for bases, pay, and sometimes procurement. Once those are taken out, the guys in the field get enough, hopefully, to fund a year of flying.
edit on 2/19/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
Good thread OP.

Getting back to normal around here, slowly but surely.

There is so much that we will never know about that day. I just hope something comes to light in my lifetime.

Personally, I'm in the missile camp.



can you please PM me or provide any background as to where you got this .gif from? I'm stupendously intrigued.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

It's been around a couple years.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 2/19/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

with all due respect, we have an insane black budget for our military that is *well* in excess over the $400-500 billion that we spent in 2000.

with that in mind, what you're describing to me is either a result of sheer incompetence, negligence, or a deliberate attempt to compromise national security.

EDIT: i'm sure you're well aware, however this is severely relevant to our current discussion. not prepared, you say? the below makes this an almost impossible pill to swallow.

Operation Northwoods

they can plan for this and almost carry it out against cuba, but cannot understand the mechanism for defending against this very same kind of attack?

that doesn't add up one bit. thoughts?
edit on 19-2-2017 by facedye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

It's been around a couple years.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


many thanks! *starts to read furiously*



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

And the key word is BLACK. That means keeping it secret, and it's really not as big as you think. The 2017 Pentagon classified budget (I'm only talking military, because i know them) was $68B. Without knowing what was going to happen, even a black program wouldn't have made a difference. They are mostly out West, for aircraft platforms, so would have had to fly all the way across the country.

I know people want to give the military god like powers and abilities, but they're still only human, and make mistakes.
edit on 2/19/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod, if there's a black budget whose severity & scope you really cannot determine, how can you be confident that it's $68B in 2017? just because it's written down on paper somewhere with an official stamp on it? a black budget means it's off the books.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

As I read in a dutch article that Mammoet first got the order from the Russians but Smit international and Halliburton were left out of the deal. Later on Smit international and Halliburton came aboard after convincing Mammoet to join Salvaging the Kursk AND the bodies.
edit on 0b54America/ChicagoSun, 19 Feb 2017 14:44:54 -0600vAmerica/ChicagoSun, 19 Feb 2017 14:44:54 -06001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Wasn't that very section (in the outer ring) of the Pentagon altered and reinforced prior to 9/11 for just such an eventuality.

The piloting skills of one Hani Hanjour are also rather questionable.

Also, didn't that section of the Pentagon house a certain budget office who was tasked with trying to straighten out a serious accounting error, which Rumsfeld made mention of the day previously.

So many unanswered questions about that day - no real investigation.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

No,it doesn't. There is still Congressional oversight of the black projects, which means that they have to account for,and report the money. They don't have to say what the program it's going to is. They simply say that it's for R&D, or procurement, without giving program names or numbers.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

YOU haven't a clue about material strengths under impact please show a link to the design of the Pentagon walls.

I mean the Phantom video into the concrete block has NO relevance to this event either.


edit on 19-2-2017 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
285
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join