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.

 

9/11 myths debunked . . .

page: 13
2
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
so, Did I kill this post or something..........


Anyone out there????




posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   


"the information from the "insider trading " just before 9/11 that indicated which airline companies would be used"


There was no information about any attack and airline companies.

The myth consists in this:

Sept. 6, 2001

2,075 put options were made on United Airlines

Sept. 10, 2001

2,282 put options were made on American Airlines




"Using the United transaction as an example -- the 2,075 put options, with each put option representing 100 shares of stock -- indicates that someone controlled 207,500 shares of United. The stock dropped from $31 to $18, giving the speculator a $13 profit.

The action in the American Airlines is equally unspectacular – at least by industry standards where the big players may pick up or drop hundreds of millions in such transactions. Between United and American, about $22 million in profits was made on the put options.

Business As Usual

Not only does the relatively modest action belie some daring market conspiracy by those in touch with terror plans, but the pre-Sept. 11 market history is also consistent, more or less, with business as usual. Adam Hamilton of Zeal LLC, a consulting company that does research on markets worldwide, has crunched the numbers and recently told Insight magazine:

"The market was in bad shape in the summer and early fall, and you know there were a lot of people who believed that there would be a sell-off in the market long before Sept. 11. For instance, American Airlines was at $40 in May and fell to $29 on Sept. 10; United was at $37 in May and fell to $31 on Sept. 10. These stocks were falling anyway, and it would have been a good time to short them.”

The downward trend in the airline stocks was backed up in the pre-Sept. 11 trading picture.

Insight reported that there were repeated spikes in put options on American Airlines during the year before Sept. 11 (June 19 with 2,951 puts, June 15 with 1,144 puts, April 16 with 1,019 and Jan. 8 with 1,315 puts). In the same period, United Airlines had slightly more action (Aug. 8 with 1,678 puts, July 20 with 2,995, April 6 with 8,212 and March 13 with 8,072)."

www.prisonplanet.com...



Debunking the myth

The price of the options was 2.20$ (AMR, American Airlines) and 90 cents. (UAL, United Airlines)

This was the historical stock prices (2001) of American Airlines (AMR)

quicktake.morningstar.com...

August

08-01-01 36.23
08-02-01 35.37
08-03-01 34.84
08-06-01 34.45
08-07-01 34.23
08-08-01 34.06
08-09-01 33.03
08-10-01 34.20
08-13-01 33.59
08-14-01 33.73
08-15-01 33.41
08-16-01 33.17
08-17-01 32.46
08-20-01 33.32
08-21-01 32.13
08-22-01 32.40
08-23-01 32.72
08-24-01 33.88
08-27-01 33.55
08-28-01 33.26
08-29-01 32.65
08-30-01 32.32
08-31-01 31.99

September

09-03-01 31.99
09-04-01 32.28
09-05-01 31.99
09-06-01 31.15
09-07-01 30.15
09-10-01 29.70
09-11-01 29.70



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
To clear up a little matter: I suspect that just about every single owner of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000 soon after learning a bit about it, (and I'm talking about pre-9/11 here), flew their simulated planes into the World Trade Center tower(s).

Gamers will be gamers, after all.

The purpose of noting this is several-fold, and since I am NOT going to post this in more than one thread, I'm going to say it all here.

Yes, it was most definitely "in the air" pre-9/11 that this sort of thing was possible. Indeed, thousands of Americans probably did it on MS Flight Sim several times; once for themselves and then to show their buddies. It's not necessary to credit a TV show for being the first to use this a plot element; indeed the writers may have gotten wind of this through flight simulator gamers.

What personal impact then did 9/11 have on those who had gleefully simulated this attack? Guilt? Guilt is an irrational thing sometimes, and not necessarily an emotion to be turned off by logic and rationality (it was just a game, a simulation, after all). More to the point, did gamers' guilt over having this "fun" cause them to act differently in response to the 9/11 attacks than they might have otherwise?

I confess. I flew a simulated airplane into a simulated building. And now it makes me sick to think about it.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
The myth is only a myth to Republicans and very real to the rest of us.

There's no debunking this one, imho.

I will NEVER change my mind.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I just want to post a few FACTS to debunk the myths about the air force intercepting suspicious aircraft, rolling their wings, and shooting tracers at them.

First off, let me tell you about a real life experience I had in 1996.

I was in the Navy in the middle of a med cuise aboard an Aegis Destroyer that was acting as plane guard for the carrier. It was late at night and I was in the CIC getting my qualifications signed off for the MSS console. A civilian airliner near us suddenly began squawking IFF Mode 3/A code 7500. That meant the plane had just been hijacked, and we had on on radar, and were sailing right next to the carrier.

What happened next? We reported the hijacking to the carrier, which in turn sent it up the chain of command. I believe the plane was supposed to land in Cyprus but instead landed in Tunisia. We sat and watched the plane as long as we had it on radar. The carrier did the same thing. No planes were launched to immediately intercept the hijacked plane, roll it's wings, and shoot it down. We simply watched.

I explicitly asked the CICOOW why the carrier wasn't launching aircraft to follow the plane and he responded that in a hijacking the safety of the passengers is the number one priority. You do not act in a hostile manner. That might provoke the hijackers to kill the passengers or crash the plane. You watch the plane, let it land, and then negotiate for the release of the passengers.

I'll tell you something else about IFF. IFF Mode 3/A code 7600 is squawked by a pilot to report a radio or communications failure. fighters are not scrambled to check on the plane and see if it's radio is OK. The pilot signals this by IFF.

Prior to 9/11 fighters were not scrambled for hijacked aircraft, or airliners that were not responding on a radio. Obviously the US has changed this policy after 9/11 and all hijacked/suspicious aircraft are confronted by fighters.

The description of fighters rolling their wings sounds like the Cold War tactics used when Soviet aircraft entered our airspace, or when we entered theirs. But even then, the aircraft did not fire on each other.

Firing tracer bullets in front of the plane is complete BS. Tracer rounds are placed one every so many live rounds, depending on the rate of fire of the weapon. The pilot cannot select if he wants to fire live rounds or tracer rounds. The tracers simply show the pilot where the live rounds are going.


Planes were scrambled from an air base in the Norfolk, Virginia area during this time, but inexplicably were sent east over the ocean, instead of northwest toward the Washington area. (The weather that morning was perfectly clear, and there is no innocent explanation for why these interceptor planes were sent over the water, away from DC, instead of toward the National Capitol Area.)


Let me explain this for you. I was an eyewitness to this. You see, after I got out of the Navy I became a defense contractor for the Navy. I work at a Navy facility north of Norfolk. I remember being at work that day and hearing about the first plane crash. Like everyone else I thought it was a horrible accident. Then I got a call from my wife that the second plane hit the second tower. I ran to our OCC (Operational Control Center). The OCC has numerous radar displays and at the time was the only room that had a TV feed. I went their to watch CNN. We brought up our radars as the planes were scrambled from Oceana (the NAS you mentioned). They were also scrambled from Langley (an Air Force base in Hampton), Norfolk NAS, and Andrews AFB outside DC. My sight helped provide ATC for some of those planes. I have never seen as many aircraft taking off as I did that morning. It was amazing. The planes initially headed east because that is the direction the runways face. They didn't continue to head east and out of sight. They were sent all over, most to DC and New York, but some went south and some continued east to intercept inbound international flights.

Finally, FLIGHT 93 WAS NOT SHOT DOWN!!! It is true that two Air Force aircraft were scrambled to intercept it. They were supersonic near the MD/PA border when 93 went down. I saw an interview with one of the pilots where he talked about trying to cope with the fact that he may have to shoot down an airliner filled with innocent American citizens. He was not given permission to fire at the time the plane went down, and he was too far away to have it on his radar.

Do you want some proof that the plane was not shot down? Are you old enough to remember Pan Am flight 103? It was blown up by Libyan terrorists over Lockerbe, Scottland. If you remember that bombing, you'll surely remember the pictures and video of pieces of the plane, luggage, etc, scattered for what seemed like miles through the fields of Lockerbe. That is what happens when a plane explodes. In the case of Flight 93, the plane hit the ground in one piece and left a BIG crater when it hit. If it was shot down there would be a huge debris field from the missile. Whether it was brought down when the passengers fought the hijackers or by the hijackers themselves when they realized they couldn't fight off the passengers remains to be seen. However, it was not shot down.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
I just want to post a few FACTS to debunk the myths about the air force intercepting suspicious aircraft, rolling their wings, and shooting tracers at them.

First off, let me tell you about a real life experience I had in 1996.

I was in the Navy in the middle of a med cuise aboard an Aegis Destroyer that was acting as plane guard for the carrier. It was late at night and I was in the CIC getting my qualifications signed off for the MSS console. A civilian airliner near us suddenly began squawking IFF Mode 3/A code 7500. That meant the plane had just been hijacked, and we had on on radar, and were sailing right next to the carrier.

What happened next? We reported the hijacking to the carrier, which in turn sent it up the chain of command. I believe the plane was supposed to land in Cyprus but instead landed in Tunisia. We sat and watched the plane as long as we had it on radar. The carrier did the same thing. No planes were launched to immediately intercept the hijacked plane, roll it's wings, and shoot it down. We simply watched.

I explicitly asked the CICOOW why the carrier wasn't launching aircraft to follow the plane and he responded that in a hijacking the safety of the passengers is the number one priority. You do not act in a hostile manner. That might provoke the hijackers to kill the passengers or crash the plane. You watch the plane, let it land, and then negotiate for the release of the passengers.

I'll tell you something else about IFF. IFF Mode 3/A code 7600 is squawked by a pilot to report a radio or communications failure. fighters are not scrambled to check on the plane and see if it's radio is OK. The pilot signals this by IFF.

Prior to 9/11 fighters were not scrambled for hijacked aircraft, or airliners that were not responding on a radio. Obviously the US has changed this policy after 9/11 and all hijacked/suspicious aircraft are confronted by fighters.

The description of fighters rolling their wings sounds like the Cold War tactics used when Soviet aircraft entered our airspace, or when we entered theirs. But even then, the aircraft did not fire on each other.

Firing tracer bullets in front of the plane is complete BS. Tracer rounds are placed one every so many live rounds, depending on the rate of fire of the weapon. The pilot cannot select if he wants to fire live rounds or tracer rounds. The tracers simply show the pilot where the live rounds are going.


Planes were scrambled from an air base in the Norfolk, Virginia area during this time, but inexplicably were sent east over the ocean, instead of northwest toward the Washington area. (The weather that morning was perfectly clear, and there is no innocent explanation for why these interceptor planes were sent over the water, away from DC, instead of toward the National Capitol Area.)


Let me explain this for you. I was an eyewitness to this. You see, after I got out of the Navy I became a defense contractor for the Navy. I work at a Navy facility north of Norfolk. I remember being at work that day and hearing about the first plane crash. Like everyone else I thought it was a horrible accident. Then I got a call from my wife that the second plane hit the second tower. I ran to our OCC (Operational Control Center). The OCC has numerous radar displays and at the time was the only room that had a TV feed. I went their to watch CNN. We brought up our radars as the planes were scrambled from Oceana (the NAS you mentioned). They were also scrambled from Langley (an Air Force base in Hampton), Norfolk NAS, and Andrews AFB outside DC. My sight helped provide ATC for some of those planes. I have never seen as many aircraft taking off as I did that morning. It was amazing. The planes initially headed east because that is the direction the runways face. They didn't continue to head east and out of sight. They were sent all over, most to DC and New York, but some went south and some continued east to intercept inbound international flights.

Finally, FLIGHT 93 WAS NOT SHOT DOWN!!! It is true that two Air Force aircraft were scrambled to intercept it. They were supersonic near the MD/PA border when 93 went down. I saw an interview with one of the pilots where he talked about trying to cope with the fact that he may have to shoot down an airliner filled with innocent American citizens. He was not given permission to fire at the time the plane went down, and he was too far away to have it on his radar.

Do you want some proof that the plane was not shot down? Are you old enough to remember Pan Am flight 103? It was blown up by Libyan terrorists over Lockerbe, Scottland. If you remember that bombing, you'll surely remember the pictures and video of pieces of the plane, luggage, etc, scattered for what seemed like miles through the fields of Lockerbe. That is what happens when a plane explodes. In the case of Flight 93, the plane hit the ground in one piece and left a BIG crater when it hit. If it was shot down there would be a huge debris field from the missile. Whether it was brought down when the passengers fought the hijackers or by the hijackers themselves when they realized they couldn't fight off the passengers remains to be seen. However, it was not shot down.



I knew americans were guilable but come on.........

They throw a stick and everyone is out to fetch it, This isnt objectivity, objecticty dosesnt excist anymore in the US.

Its like leading the blind with a piece of beacon...pethetic



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Does someone want to tell me what that last post meant?



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Peanutbutter...you make alot of sense...a plane shot down wouldnt leave such a neat mess (if that makes sense)...more would have been scattered other then plane parts...
...even if youre wrong...youre getting a way above from me...



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   

I believe the plane was supposed to land in Cyprus but instead landed in Tunisia. We sat and watched the plane as long as we had it on radar.


You watch the plane, let it land, and then negotiate for the release of the passengers.


SOP's re: hijackings over international waters and foreign airspace are, and always have been, different than within US airspace. Within US airspace, even after Rumsfeld's revisions it notes the use of escort and intercept procedures may be required if the situation warrants these actions.. 9/11 certainly more than met those requirements....

SOP


[edit on 23-4-2005 by turbonium]

[edit on 23-4-2005 by turbonium]

[edit on 23-4-2005 by turbonium]



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   
turbonium

Excellent find! The link above is a pdf of some SOP's signed by Rumsfeld in June of 2001 which directs the military to provide support for any hijackings in US airspace. The SOP's mainly deal with hijacked military airspace, but the second directive does mention civillian aircraft. So pre-911 the DoD was directed to provide assistance for hijacked aircraft.

Let's take a look at the hijacked planes on 911 and the military response.

The first plane hit the WTC. It was initially assumed to be a terrible accident.

The second plane hit the WTC. We knew it was no accident.

The third plane hit the pentagon. Still no military response, but fighters are scrambled right after this hit. The pentagon is right in the flight path of planes landing at Reagan Nat'l airport. By the time the ATC realized this one had gone of course, it was already at the Pentagon. There is simply no time to react to an event like this. That's why the airport was closed for over a year after 911. It's also highly possible that after the second hit, everyone thought that was it, the attacks were over. This one proved there were still hijacked aircraft out there.

The fourth plane is hijacked and flown towards DC. This time aircraft are scrambled to intercept it, but the plane crashes to the ground before the intercept can occur. So there were planes scrambled as a result of hijackings on 911.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   
I'm guessing we're ALL watching C-Span Saturday April 30.


Sincerely

Cade



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime

Do you want some proof that the plane was not shot down? Are you old enough to remember Pan Am flight 103? It was blown up by Libyan terrorists over Lockerbe, Scottland. If you remember that bombing, you'll surely remember the pictures and video of pieces of the plane, luggage, etc, scattered for what seemed like miles through the fields of Lockerbe. That is what happens when a plane explodes. In the case of Flight 93, the plane hit the ground in one piece and left a BIG crater when it hit. If it was shot down there would be a huge debris field from the missile. Whether it was brought down when the passengers fought the hijackers or by the hijackers themselves when they realized they couldn't fight off the passengers remains to be seen. However, it was not shot down.


Actually there where peices of the plane found up to 8 miles away.. body parts, plane debri and so on...



Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.
post-gazette.com...



Next????

[edit on 4/29/2005 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 06:40 AM
link   
I can hardly see any 9/11 "myths" debunked in this article that have any bearing on the core of the 9/11 conspiracy. The core of the 9/11 conspiracy has nothing to do with the destruction of the WTC. It has everything to do with suspicous activities of the stock market a few days before the attacks, the strange lack of response time by the US Air Force, The convinient abscence of key officals from DC, the fact that a passenger jet, Hijack confirmed for 40 minutes after two planes had just hit the WTC, had no Air Force interceptors sent after it until about 5 minutes before it hit, jets that were sent from a base 170 miles away from the capital when a well known and highly staffed air base was only 15 miles from the capital, the curious and prophetic statements about soon to come future attacks made by our own secretary of defense tucked safely away in a pentagon bunker. The 9/11 conspiracy is not based on myth or rumor, it is based on hard facts, facts reported by the mainstream media, facts and figures that this very same govornment offically gave and confirmed. It is based on well documented curiosities, like the fact the leaser of the WTC took out a 7 billion dollar insurance policy a few weeks before the hit, or the fact that less than a year prior, the army held a training drill outside the Pentagon simulating a civilian jetliner that had crashed into the Pentagon. The 9/11 conspiracy is furthered by anomalies such as the miraculous survival of 7 of the 19 hijackers who were found to be alive and well in foreign countries days after the attacks, or the miraculous survival of Mohammed Atta's passport from a fire that was supposed to be hot enough to melt the steel and bring down one of the world's largest and strongest buildings.

The 9/11 conspiracy "theory" is not centered around nor based on one single myth, nor is it centered on one single fact. It is not based on whether or not the WTC was destroyed by fire or demolition, though that aspect of the 9/11 conspiracy is still debated. It does not rest on myths like a missile hitting the pentagon, nor does it rest on one single verified fact, such as the President continuing to read a book about goats to school kids while the country was under attack from supposedly unknown agencies, and the secret service, knowing the president was in a well known and highly publicized location, did nothing to remove the president immediately to safety, whether he wanted to or not.

To anyone who truly understands the whole conspiracy of 9/11 knows:

The belief that the US govornment was complicent, perhaps even aided and abetted said attacks, is based on a large, overwhelimg body of readily available facts that are not in dispute. It is based on this collection of pieces of data, that when added together for an overall view, show extremely suspicious and troubling behavior of our elected officals, as well as a total disregard for well established and commonly used proceedures and safeguards.

So this popular mechanics article, while it may debunk some questionable myths, some of those myths not even known or noticed by serious 9/11 researchers who regard the destruction of the trade center as curious, but not a signifigant factor in the bigger picture of corruption, this article has come no where near to even touching the full 9/11 conspiracy, nor does it weaken the arguement in anyway, shape, or form that suggests the US govornment did it.

As far as the destruction of the WTC goes, it has little to no bearing of the overall suspicous events of that day. And while I still question the destruction of the WTC as suspicous itself, and still find holes in PM's explaination, whether the WTC was destroyed by the fires themselves or by controlled demolition has absolutely no bearing on the bigger picture.

I see nothing of any import debunked here.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   
come on, still on this..i havent been here for i think 2 years now, nothing changed, its still the same oll me me, iam better, iam bigger, we the best nonsence..i think most people outside the usa think that 9/11 was being used by the usa to get theyre dirty as always tricks out of theyre sleaves. How can yall still stand behind someone that has as much guilt for 9-11 as the so called terrorist that did it ? What actually is this thread of terror. In Gb there used to be a terrorhread, the ira..but that was real. What happened b4 9-11 in the usa ? nothing, yeah some local fools making bombs, and what happened after 9-11..precise, nothing..no thread what so ever. its funny that yall statespeeps are so on terror, remember the old days when the church said, you will go to hell if you dont do what we say, or believe what we say. This is the same, terror being used for only one reason, getting people behind you. Shame on that....



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Flight 93 was shot down. I had the unfortunate experience of experiencing 9/11 first hand. At one point I was told about Flight 93, it's threat to Washington DC, and the eventual solution. This came from an MI source. Hopefully this will eventually become public. I also believe the passengers did revolt against the terrorists but the safety of Washington DC took precidence.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Ah, the infamous unidentified, "source."

Why is it so important for the conspiracy theorists to "prove" the plane was shot down?



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I make no mention of a conspiracy. It was shot down because it was a threat to Washington, DC. For some reason the government believes the the American public would not be able to handle the truth. Plus I would never give out the name of a military intelligence employee who just happened to be on duty in a command center, who heard the direct commands from superiors to pilots.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Well no one is disputing that the pilots received the go ahead to shoot done the plane, the issue is, did they execute that order.

Available evidence says no, they did not.

What reason would the military have to cover this up?



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Ah, the infamous unidentified, "source."

Why is it so important for the conspiracy theorists to "prove" the plane was shot down?



Important to prove? It hardly needs much effort, since we have plenty of evidence from ground eyewitnesses, as well as a seismic recording station in West Virginia, that Air Force fighters were in the vicinity of flight 93 when it "went down".

www.flight93crash.com...

Im not going to post massive lists of links that have been posted a million times already about all the other oddities of flight 93, but, believe it or not, flight 93 isn't even central to the core of evidence against the govornment. Flight 93 is but yet another tradgedy to add to the list of tradgedies on that day, and another case seperate from the others in which the govornment lied yet again.

Its not important to "prove" flight 93 was shot down, theres plenty of evidence to support that. But its niether central nor crucial to the case at hand, it instead plays the role of a tragic afterthought of a govornment conspiracy of much larger proportions.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
what i would like to know is how Bush knew who did it, without having done an investigation.
Id suggest it was not a suprise to him because he was very quick to point to a culprit after it happened.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join