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: 15
2
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
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.


The debris actually was scattered some distance. According to Shankville's mayor, an engine was found away from the crash scene in a nearby forest. Debris was similarly spread for some distance, usually given in miles, but the exact numbers escape me at the moment, though the specific information has been posted around these parts of ATS before. If you look up pictures of the actual crater, you'll find little more than that: a crater.




posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
How Did United Flight 93 Crash?
This website explores different theories of Flight 93's crash.




'Crash debris found 8 miles away '



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
How Did United Flight 93 Crash?
This website explores different theories of Flight 93's crash.




'Crash debris found 8 miles away '



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
This website may answer a few questions you have about flight 93, or it may raise more questions.


How Did United Flight 93 Crash?
This website explores different theories of Flight 93's crash.


'Crash debris found 8 miles away '


[edit on 10/11/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Sauron your avatar is giving me nightmares! Make that girls close her eyes, er maybe two of her mouths before I scream! heheheh

I really mean it, that avatar creeps me out!



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Pilots do NOT need ground control to set a course. There are numerous navigation aids that assist them with no help from ground control. They fly set courses so that they don't fly into other airplanes going the other direction, or even in the same direction. Do you really think that planes flying International flights are in constant communication with ground control? They have a texting system that lets them report as they hit each waypoint, but they're not being controlled by ground control.

They set a route before departure, and file a flight plan so that if there is an accident then they know where to start looking for them. Otherwise they would have a much bigger area to search in if they lose contact. Pilots are NOT going to get lost if they don't talk to ground control.


For the record, the guy that flew the plane into the Pentagon WAS a licensed commercial pilot. He failed the FIRST time he tried to get his license, but was successful on the second attempt. He had his license revoked when he failed to have a physical performed as required, but that doesn't mean he suddenly didn't know anything about flying again. All the others passed their flight exams on the first try.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Pilots do NOT need ground control to set a course. There are numerous navigation aids that assist them with no help from ground control. They fly set courses so that they don't fly into other airplanes going the other direction, or even in the same direction. Do you really think that planes flying International flights are in constant communication with ground control? They have a texting system that lets them report as they hit each waypoint, but they're not being controlled by ground control.

They set a route before departure, and file a flight plan so that if there is an accident then they know where to start looking for them. Otherwise they would have a much bigger area to search in if they lose contact. Pilots are NOT going to get lost if they don't talk to ground control.


For the record, the guy that flew the plane into the Pentagon WAS a licensed commercial pilot. He failed the FIRST time he tried to get his license, but was successful on the second attempt. He had his license revoked when he failed to have a physical performed as required, but that doesn't mean he suddenly didn't know anything about flying again. All the others passed their flight exams on the first try.


1 The problem is that some of them still fluked the class.
2 The oficial statement of the flight istructors remains the same.
3 Some of the hi jakers are still alive in fact alot of them, it just shows the
fbi just randomly picked out people from the arab nations, some of them are out raged of the fact.
4 on the same very day it just hapens that they were runing a 911 type of drill in the same way at the same time that the 911 events hapened.

There are other things that will point on to this so many thing like the fema
guy sayng they arived a day before, bush own quotes that he saw
the first crash when it is not posible it was way later on tv, some insiuate
now that he saw it with his mind or that the people told him never the less
in his own words it was"i saw it" after lisening to the pet goat story and continuing to lisen to it after the second plane crash.
It is disturbing and what is more disturbing is FBI agents wanting to do a investigation before the atack and bush stoping them with a presidetial directive order this was in the news papers it hapened wake up.
All we can hope is that this is only for oil and for their gready mind and does not go further, but when we take the patriot act and see what
is in there words like "you are not alowed to talk about " NWO too much"
and anybody that talks about it offen or makes numeros claims to the costitution is a posible terorist.
Than we should all be in jail? what is the NWO got to do with terorists?
And what is the costitution got to do with the fact.

if you talk to much and deffend by the costitution u'r a terorist.

This really just does not work out.

Maybe youre right about a boeing hiting the pentagon but other facts remain the same.





[edit on 11-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
1 The problem is that some of them still fluked the class.
2 The oficial statement of the flight istructors remains the same.
3 Some of the hi jakers are still alive in fact alot of them, it just shows the
fbi just randomly picked out people from the arab nations, some of them are out raged of the fact.
4 on the same very day it just hapens that they were runing a 911 type of drill in the same way at the same time that the 911 events hapened.
[edit on 11-11-2005 by pepsi78]


Drills are often carried out on a regular basis. The fact that one was being carried out on 9/11 was a coincidence. These things do happen.
Second, which ones completely flunked? They were learning how to fly a plane in the air, not land one or take off. My sister learnt to fly and was fine at take-offs and mid-air routekeeping, but was a bit pants at landings at first.
Thirdly, which hijackers - apart from the ones that were misidentified - are still alive??? What? Links please! You know, evidence?



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   
It does not matter at all.
So you got the people that trained them sayng it.
1
They say they had major problems with english and that the instructors
could not comunicate with them and it was very dificult.
Some of them didint even know how to drive a car.

First we got the statements of the flight instuctors.
They state "we can not belive on this day that they could fly"
Are you a flight instructor did you train them?

2
How do you know drills are runned on the twin towers and on the pentagon daily?do you work for the pentagon?or are you just asuming.
You said it i didint so prove to me how many drils where there in that month.


3 I know because after the people found out the fbi changed their story and they said we dont know where we got our lists from
so you dont know where you get your lists
and who was behind it so it looks to me that you dont know if it was terorists

They dont know where they get the lists from but they got pictures atached
to them and they clame here are the hijakers(that are well and alive)





[edit on 17-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Also there's no real evidence that there were drills running for the same attack scenarios on 9/11. The usual logic is something like:

a) Some people said "a hijacked plane? it must be a part of the exercise", therefore that proves the exercise was hijack-related, and
b) NORAD said they had ran drills where hijacked planes were used as weapons, so, uh, maybe they were doing that on 9/11

Not what I'd call conclusive, really.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ashmok

a) Some people said "a hijacked plane? it must be a part of the exercise", therefore that proves the exercise was hijack-related, and
b) NORAD said they had ran drills where hijacked planes were used as weapons, so, uh, maybe they were doing that on 9/11

Not what I'd call conclusive, really.

yes it was a thing said to clear norad and ffa from the blame
But that cant be when you send fighters in the rong way sending them to the pacific ocean


Ohhh what a clumzy mistake.
In stead of sending them to wash..dc you send them in the middle of no where in fact the other way and not from near washinton dc air base but from the middle of united states
".

I just hope it is for the oil and that's it that's what i'm hopeing.
That it does not go biond that.



[edit on 17-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Re: the Langley planes flying out to sea, here's a relevant part from the 9/11 Commission testimony, for what it's worth:



MR. LEHMAN: Why did they head out to sea first?

GEN. ARNOLD: Our standard -- we have agreements with the FAA, and by the way we are looking outward. This is an advantage to us, and so we'd have agreements for clearance. When we scramble an aircraft, there is a line that is picked up, and the FAA and everyone is on that line. And the aircraft take off and they have a predetermined departure route. And of course, it's not over water, because our mission, unlike law enforcement's mission, is to protect things coming towards the United States. And I might even add in all of our terrorist scenarios that we run, the aircraft, if we were to intercept aircraft, it is usually always from outside the United States coming towards us.

So our peacetime procedures, to de-conflict with civil aviation's, so as to not have endanger civil aviation in any particular way.

GEN. MCKINLEY: Secretary Lehman, also if I may add, the complexity of the air traffic over the Northeast corridor is so complex that to just launch fighters, as you know, sir, from your background, into that air traffic system can cause potential damage or midair collision. So we rely on the FAA to de-conflict those corridors. And that is another reason why it vectored east originally.

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   
The only problem is that they send squadrons in to the pacific ocean
than means west.

What is in the west well siberia why would a comercial plane come from siberia?
The trafic is above the atlantic ocean and not the pacific.
This is just one more thing to point out the flaws that are discoverd.
you send planes over the pacific ocean.
Jets scrambled to make it like they are looking for it. they know it's inide the usa and they send planes near siberia.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   
The Langley fighters went out over the Atlantic first (actually heading for the Pacific might have been a better idea, I thought that was the point many people were trying to make)



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

That is true. Most of the 911 conspiracy theories have been shredded pretty thoroughly in these forums.


Including the official one... which is still by definition a "conspiracy"



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   
No i am sure of it
The statement is we scrabled jets but in the other way.
It was the oficial statement.
After a while they stated that they send them over the pacific that is the other way the oposite way.
Why not send them from andrews air force base and from some distant base?
it would make sence since you dont want the jets to intecept them.

Andrews air for base is designed for the protection of wasinton dc.
Armed jets just stay there on the run way ready to take off fully armed.


And not only that but.
First statements we didint see the planes they went off the radar we didint know where they where.

Changed statement we did see them but we srambled jets the on the oposete direction it was neglijents.

Well i dont buy it.
Why send them to the pacific and not the atlantic and why the shifting of
statements.


I already talked about this.
Wasington dc a place where the comercial patern is very strict any brake of from the patern will result in a iterception and you will have 3 jet fighters near your wing.
Why?
The hole area is made out with signatures military coresponders.
Any thing that is not military any thing that does not have a military coresponder will be intercepted if it brakes of course this is not in the hole usa just in the capitol.
So a boeing does not have a military coresponder so id does not have a military signature so how can it enter?
It hapend many times comercial planes broke off route and in a short matter of time they would have jet fighters near their wing.
the area of the capitol is on havy guard by norad's radars they are design
to operate bi signature if it's military they know it and they will let it pass
if it's not it wont pass.
This indicates that the plane was not a comercial air line and that it had a military signature again more flaws show up.
I can go on all night showing you involvement by this kind of examples.



[edit on 17-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 17-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 17-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
No i am sure of it
The statement is we scrabled jets but in the other way.
It was the oficial statement.
After a while they stated that they send them over the pacific that is the other way the oposite way.


See this map:



Flying out over the sea = into the Atlantic, when Washington is NNW



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Yes that is even more stupid.
You take off has a terorist and you do a little america tour before going back from where you took off for your target.
look at the key of the map do you see any fighter jets?
it takes the faa a period of time before informing norad ohh we just
drink cofee so duh we informed them later.
And norad even more stupid they scramble jets near the pacific.

It takes off from was...dc and it go's back after .
It makes no sence why not take off and crash it?
Why do the tour?

[edit on 17-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Langley isn't "near the Pacific". But as clearly you're either a) determined to hold on to your beliefs no matter what, or b) having a joke at my expense, I'm not going to bother repeating myself any more.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by ashmok]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Okay i'll be resonable i have looked at the comision report.
Show me a map of the military planes and what was their course.
I never said it is near the pacific i said that they went there.
i want to see a map of the planes military ones the key shows comercial
planes.



new topics




 
2
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join