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.

 

Ted Olsen and flight 77 the phone calls that never were.

page: 6
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 11:36 PM
link   
When you look at the Pentagon surveillance videos, the thick black cloud and giant orange fireball are consistent with jet fuel.




posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


I can understand that to accept that even a small amount of the evidence with regards to all the nine eleven stuff ,is traumatizing. Because it means accepting that virtually all the top politicians are just war mongering psychopaths that don't give a # about your way of life or all the guys that died. To accept this as even remotely possible, any sane person has to ask where is the proof that they could have done anything like this. Well its not that far to look, Kennedy threw out a plan that required the bombing of parts of Florida and Miami by the American Air force which would then be blamed on Cuba, which would then be used to justify an invasion. After his assassination, the guy who proposed the plan went on to become a NATO general.
Eighteen vets are committing suicide a day, that's what happens when you believe bull# and end up shooting kids



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

I am well aware that politicians will do anything to keep power and whatever is in their best interest. That doesn't change the fact that the evidence points to large aircraft hitting three buildings, and one crashing in a field. I have yet to see anything that has convinced me otherwise.

I've spent many years studying all kinds of accident reports and crashes, as well as working on aircraft, and have some experience with flying. I'm not coming at this from a "the government says so" position. Nothing I have seen yet is inconsistent with a large aircraft crash.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

You think for yourself by using the same old truth movement talking points?




You see Neutron, this is exemplary of why I avoid discussions with you. In every thread you participate in, you twist someone's words to fit your liking.



So, you have been involved in threads where these tired truth movement talking points have been debunked over and over again? Yet, you post what has been debunked with happy ignorance?




At that speed and altitude, as Boeing's chart shows, there would be structural failure.



As pointed out multiple times, by multiple people, the safety limits are guidelines, so the fuselage will meet its excepted service life. By another poster, an example of a passenger jet undergoing more demanding maneuvers has been provided.

Please cite from the manufacturer where the wings would just fall off? The sad part, nobody is saying the jet wasn’t experiencing some form of failure. But please define structural failure? Structural failures might mean the fuselage stressed where it would no be cleared to fly again, the start of corrosion as another type of structural failure, or the start of stress cracks. Structural failure is not defined universally as the sudden catastrophe failure where wings break off, and the jet suddenly falls stright to the earth.

Can you even name the limiting component? It might be the engine mounts to the wings? Not the wing mounts to the fuselage?

There is a difference between structural failures and catastrophic failures.

Again, cite from the manufacturer where the jet would under go sudden catastrophe failure that would prevent the jet reaching the pentagon for the short duration decent into the pentagon.

The truth movement is the mother of out of context arguments, hiding of facts, and lies. Sorry.
edit on 2-4-2018 by neutronflux because: Addec and fixed



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 04:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
The short answer: It's physically impossible for a 757 to fly at 500 mph at that altitude. At least not without the wings breaking off and landing on the lawn you saw in the picture.




the graphs you provided are for normal operating conditions, to protect the aircrafts structural integrity for its intended service life.

it doesnt necessarily mean that if you exceed the boundaries by 1 knot the wings must disintegrate.


Yes but the speed wasn't merely 1 knot above the boundary. It was 130 above. And at an altitude nearly 25,000 feet lower.


the graph cannot predict where and when complete structural failure will occur, the graph can only show the tolerable operating conditions for the service life of the aircraft. these are almost on completely different spectrums.

exceeding this graph has a risk of damage not a guarantee of damage.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 05:31 AM
link   
This whole no-plane hit the Pentagon carry on is just offensive. The basic fact that gets overlooked about it is that the Pentagon was originally designed as a library/archive and it's walls were of an insane thickness, I forget the reason.

This is why that plane didn't leave much of a hole and was largely vaporised. The fact that the terrorists didn't realize this would be the outcome when they targeted the place points away from it being a set up. If the govt had been behind it they would have known fine the plane could not destroy the Pentagon. Unless this was precisely the reason it was targeted, for effect as it were. I'm not buying it. It's too messy to be a setup. You cannot just magically disappear an aircraft without someone seeing where it went.

Proof in point. I know someone personally from PA who's relative was in their garden and saw flight 93 being shot down by a fighter launched missile. The family all believe him and always tell him not to talk about it for his own safety. He knows he was not supposed to see that. I've lost touch with them so I don't know if he ever got any 'visits' or anything like that.

That whole hero passengers trying to retake the plane story is probably a fabrication to explain away the shooting down of it. A hell of a lot of folk on the ground must have seen it happen. Scary how nobody claims they saw anything anymore. The whole thing is very sinister and disturbing. A lot of things don't add up even to the most stolid sober-minded non conspiracy believers.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: anonentity

It is obvious that parts of the tail did not pass in to the pentagon, so must of shot off in some direction.


So where is it?

www.newsradio720.com...


Pentagon Attacked The World Trade Center attacks were followed by a similar attack on the Pentagon. An airliner crashed into the building, causing a major explosion and fire. Witnesses saw a tail section sticking out of the building.


I have yet to find a picture from that day that shows anything other than a burning hole in the outside wall...let alone a 44'x49' tail section...
edit on 2-4-2018 by edaced4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: angus1745

My only beef with the shoot down for 93 is the paper trail, there should be paperwork for all expended ordinance, there would be maintenance crews that loaded the plane and saw it come back empty.

How do you get people to ignore what had to happen if military planes shot it down.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: edaced4


Interesting interview where they slip up and say a missile did it then quickly correct the statement



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: edaced4

You have never studied many crashes have you. And no, that wasn't being an ass, There is zero reason to assume the tail survived the impact. The closest recent crashes that were most similar to Flight 77 were United 585 in Colorado Springs, in 1991, and USAir 427 in Pittsburgh, in 1994.

Both of those were 737s that crashed on approach. Both suffered rudder reversals that flipped them nose down into vertical dives, at low altitude and fairly low speed. Neither aircraft had large easily recognizable parts left, and neither tail section survived in anything but pieces.
edit on 4/2/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

If you can get your head around this, then your post is wrong in saying they shot down Flight 93. I figured that they "brought it down" without firing any shots. One engine ended up too far away from the main crash site. If the terrorists simply pushed the stick forwards, that plane would have only made one big hole in the ground. But if someone controlling it remotely, sent it into a flat spin, then an engine could tear off and come down in a different place.
O.K. This has happened over Queens NYC, and in a way, with Sully Sullenberger's miracle on the Hudson. One was air shear and Sully's engine tore off when he slammed into the water. The Queens crash came from damaged hydraulic lines, from before it ever took off. So too, did the KDKA field news team say when they interviewed some campers, near Flight 92's crash site. They all claimed a small military jet was hot on the tail of the airliner. But no bullet holes were ever recorded. With pirate chips, you may not need actual cannon fire.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: edaced4

You have never studied many crashes have you. And no, that wasn't being an ass, There is zero reason to assume the tail survived the impact. The closest recent crashes that were most similar to Flight 77 were United 585 in Colorado Springs, in 1991, and USAir 427 in Pittsburgh, in 1994.

Both of those were 737s that crashed on approach. Both suffered rudder reversals that flipped them nose down into vertical dives, at low altitude and fairly low speed. Neither aircraft had large easily recognizable parts left, and neither tail section survived in anything but pieces.


Mr. Zaphod, no, I have not ever really studied any crashes. And I didn't take it as you being an ass at all.

I am calling out the member neutronflux, asking for his/her proof. Neutronflux states that:

"It is obvious that parts of the tail did not pass in to the pentagon, so must of shot off in some direction."

By the way, here is a pic of the debris recovered from USAir 427...

www.post-gazette.com...

There are clearly many identifying pieces of this plane in that picture...
edit on 2-4-2018 by edaced4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: edaced4

It’s called wrecked. Pieces smashed small enough that it just became bits of tail.

Do you think the tail would just stay as one piece.

You never came across the pictures of wreckage from flight 77 on the lawn? The wreckage that is part of the truth movement’s claim of staged wreckage? Do you live under a rock? Or just have selective memory?
edit on 2-4-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 2-4-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed more



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: edaced4

Only conspiracists would come up with flight 77 wings should have blown apart on the descent into the pentagon, but the tail section that smashed against the wall should have fell off as a whole and unbroken section like a wile e coyote cartoon?



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: edaced4

Yes, there are identifiable pieces of both aircraft, and there were identifiable pieces of Flight 77. But what all three have in common is that no large pieces remained intact. You don't see the tail sitting intact, or large structures, as you would in a lower speed impact, where the pilot was attempting to not crash, or to minimize the impact.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Yes, a plane hit the pentagon. Sorry



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 01:30 AM
link   
There are layers to disinformation which helps keep an event covered up. If you put out information that sounds plausible enough that it takes a lot of technical work to prove or debunk it, you sew confusion and discord among believers of a coverup.

There is some solid sounding speculation that with the kennedy assassination they used Oswald first, then as a secondary layer to the coverup, intelligence officials told people (including congressional staff) that there was a cover up but only because sharing the truth would have implicated Cuba and would have caused a war. They also plant ideas like the secret service accidentally shooting the president and dozens of other plausible but ultimately false narratives that get debunked, muddying the waters enough to make "theorists" sound a bit loony and all over the place. I believe LBJ was a part of the plan, but even the more recent "LBJ did it" narratives ignored the required military intelligence, secret service, mafia elements that would be needed to pull his assassination off. Of course the LBJ stuff didn't come out in full force until well after he passed away.

Its enough to make most of us back away from trying to explain what happened.

I personally think the pentagon missile idea was planted by the co-conspirators, same with the 3D holograms, and the Saudi blackmail story. One must spend a good amount of time to vet and flesh out every "whistleblower" or dot connector. I don't have the technical skill or knowledge of an engineer or physicist, but from what I can tell, the free fall speed of building 7 seems to be the closest we have to a smoking gun. Yet even there we have other specialists debunking aspects of these claims.

The only bright spot in both of these pivotal events in American history is that there is enough evidence of a coverup to make many if not most us mistrust the official narrative. The dark side of it is, we simply do not know who to trust when it comes to information.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Zaphod58


I can understand that to accept that even a small amount of the evidence with regards to all the nine eleven stuff ,is traumatizing. Because it means accepting that virtually all the top politicians are just war mongering psychopaths that don't give a # about your way of life or all the guys that died.


This false dichotomy is a common fallacy among conspiracy theorists and I think it is more indicative of their way of thinking than anything else.

According to their world view either you believe in the conspiracy theories or you love the government/Elite/PTB, there is no other alternative



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

maybe he was just a blonde woman kinda guy?
The photos on the website are interesting, but the eyes look totally different.

Interesting none-the less but as I said, maybe he just liked blondes!



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: FlyingFox

I've always thought that was some of the worst voice acting of all time. Up until the last few seconds CeCe Lyle's voice had no urgency or distress in it at all.

The "It's a frame" thing is kinda debatable, but her acting is bad enough to prove this phone call was BS.


I had to reply to this one Agarth, I totally agree, there is no urgency or emotion in the call until the very last part. When she is talking about telling her children how much she loves them, take the message and put it in context, its sounds like shes telling someone to make sure they turn the cooker off or something as mundane as that.

The location of the hijackers on the plane (alleged) you would have thought it would have been a very quick message for fear of being caught by said hijackers. Surely other passengers who we can assume would have noticed someone having the means to contact their families or law enforcement would have been scrambling to use the phone also, but we only have one other "call".

I think the Phil Klass curse in terms of Ufology also applies to 9/11 - we will never know more than we do now...



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join