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.

 

How 911 Was Staged Reported by Major UK Newspaper

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I found nothing new in the article as I’m sure many of us here who have been discussing the demolition of WTC on 911 will see. The main point though is that a major newspaper has published a piece about the controlled demolition. below is a small snippet of the article.


Major United Kingdom Newspaper “Daily Mail’ posts story How 911 Was Staged

SO FAR THIS IS THE LARGEST ARTICLE EVER PRINTED BY THE UK MAINSTREAM MEDIA RAISING MANY OF THE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 9/11 COVER UP.
By Tony Rennell – Daily Mail, Saturday 6th August, 2005

The plot by America’s military bosses was devilish in both design and intent – to fabricate an outrage against innocent civilians, fool the world and provide a pretext for war. In the pentagon, a top secret team drew up a plan to simultaneously send up two airliners painted and numbered exactly the same, one from a civil airport in America, the other from a secret military airbase nearby.

The one from the airport would have military personnel on board who had checked in as ordinary passengers under false names. The one from the airbase would be an empty drone, a remote-controlled unmanned aircraft.
Somewhere along their joint flight paths, the passenger-carrying plane would drop below radar height, and disappear, landing back at the airbase and unloading its occupants in secret.

Meanwhile, the drone would have taken up the other plane’s designated course. High over the island of Cuba, it would be exploded in mid-air after broadcasting an international distress call that it was under attack from enemy fighters.

The world would be told that a plane load of blameless American holidaymakers had been deliberately shot down by Fidel Castro’s Communists – and that the US had no choice but to declare war and topple his regime.

This ‘agent provocateur’ plan – code named OPERATION NORTHWOODS and revealed in official archives – dates from 1962 when the Cold War was at its height.

Four decades later, there are a growing number of people who look back at this proto-conspiracy and then to the events of 9/11 and see uncanny and frightening modern parallels.
For Cuba, read Iraq, say these skeptics. For the dummy airliner, read the Twin Towers in New York.

The Northwoods plan is crucial to the argument presented in a hugely provocative – many would say fantastical – yet, at times, genuinely disturbing new analysis of 9/11 by two radical British based journalists, Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan.

[~~]

Did the CIA actively help the hijackers?

In it, they examine various conspiracy theories that suggest the Bush administration connived in the devastating aerial attacks on New York and Washington four years ago.

The reason? To give Bush the excuse he wanted to push ahead with his secret, long-held plane to invade Iraq and capture its oilfields.
As we shall see. Many of the theories they raise are outlandish in the extreme. It would be easy to dismiss them as hokum, the invention of over-active imaginations among those whose instinct is always to find some way to blame America for the world’s ills.

Are we really supposed to believe that the CIA actively helped the hijackers succeed – or even that the US government staged the whole attack and itself murdered thousands of its own citizens?

‘The fire wasn’t hot enough to cause a collapse’

Kevin R Ryan, laboratory director at a US underwriting firm specializing in product safety, was sacked from his job last year after questioning the official explanation.

“The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by the burning jet fuel”, he said. “If steel did soften or melt, this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans.”

Intriguingly, Ryan claimed that his firm had checked and approved the steel used in the towers when they were built. This was later vehemently denied by the bosses who sacked him.

To add to the mystery, the tape of the two firemen was kept secret and when relatives were finally allowed to listen to it, they had to sign strict confidentiality agreements.

If the Pancake Effect theory is wrong, there’s one obvious alternative: that the towers were brought down by the sheer impact of the planes hitting them. But this, according to the skeptics, ignores basic physics.

The initial hit on the North Tower, for example, destroyed 33 of the 59 columns in its north face. This meant the damage was asymmetrical, so any resulting collapse would surely have been lopsided.

In fact, the building fell evenly. The TV aerial on the summit sank vertically, in a straight line.

One expert said there were bombs inside the towers

Ground Zero, the base of the towers, was fiercely protected by the authorities – understandably so because it not only contained human remains but a cache of seized drugs held in an FBI office and more than $1 billion of gold from bank vaults in the Buildings.

Yet what went on behind all the heavy security?

After most air disasters, the wreckage of the planes is meticulously gathered up and pieced together in search of clues.

Extraordinarily, in the course of removing the rubble from the Twin Towers to a nearby landfill site, the 9/11 salvage operation seems to have ‘lost’ four six-ton aircraft engines, besides failing to find the ‘black box’ flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders from either of the planes.

These data boxes – which could have revealed exactly what happened in the doomed jets – are deliberately designed to withstand heavy impacts and exceptionally high temperatures. It is, according to experts, very rare for them not to be recovered after an accident

Why didn't fighter planes intercept the hijackers?

Still more unanswered questions surround what happened at the Pentagon in Washington, in the third successful terrorist attack that day.

After taking off from Dulles Airport, Washington, American Airlines Flight 77 dropped off the radar screens for 36 minutes when its transponders sending signals back to air traffic control were switched off.

When the blip reappeared, it was closing on the city but where precisely the aircraft had been for the past half an hour was a mystery. Nor could anyone in air traffic control figure out what it was.

Experienced officials apparently watched its speed and maneuverability and thought it must be a military plane. Conspiracy theorists maintain this is precisely what it was.

In a repeat of New York, no evidence has ever been produced from the wreckage to prove that it was Flight 77 that hurtled into the side of the Pentagon at 350mph.

The hole in the Pentagon was too small for a Boeing

If they were to produce the video recordings of that day, they might lay to rest the theory that what hit the Pentagon was a military drone painted in airline livery and that just before impact it fired a missile to enable a clean entry which would explain the lack of debris. But until they are, the skeptics will continue to have a field day.
In essence, to the extreme conspiracy theorists, what took place on 9/11 was a repeat of the aborted OPERATION NORTHWOODS.

The air force scrambled from the wrong base

For some reason, too, when fighter planes eventually were scrambled to New York, they were from an airbase 150 miles away, rather than the much closer one in New Jersey. The Twin Towers were ablaze before they got there.

All the while the local TV channels were smoothly getting eye-in-the-sky helicopters into the air over the World Trade Centre. In the words of the authors: “Their routine mobilizations stand in stark contrast to the apparent impotence and indecisiveness of the $350-billion-a-year US military.

So how did the passengers make those phone calls?

Another problem here is those very phone calls from the planes. Experts in Henshall and Morgan’s book say it is all but impossible to make a mobile phone call above 8,000 feet – let alone four times that altitude, as the jet passengers are alleged to have done.

So how were these calls on which so much of the 9/11 narrative has been built ever made? Could they possibly have been invented?

www.financialoutrage.org.uk...




[edit on 10/8/2005 by Sauron]




posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Nice post


Cell phones:

I've successfully placed calls using a cell-phone whilst air-borne. One call was placed from a Philadelphia-Chicago flight at cruising altitude, and another just after take-off during the same flight. I know I'm not alone amongst ATS-ers who've accomplished this same feat


I don't know what this represents, other than a flaw in the "You can't make calls from cell-phones when you're cruising" theory; also, I do remember reading elsewhere that some of the alleged calls were made using the airphones - not cellphones.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
the cell phone tech was not there in 2001, so unless you made the call then,it is a mute point.

as time marches on, the sheeples of AMERICA forget and care less and less about 911..and thats what the govt whats. more time for the sheeple to forget...and AMERICA is a very forgetfull country. if it isn't impacting the sheep specificaly..they don't care....



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Calls were made between 2000 and 2004.

Point isn't exactly moot.

Of course, not everyone is one of the "sheeples" you proclaim, either.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   
As soon as I read them quoting Kevin Ryan I instantly stopped reading this "report". Kevin Ryan was fired for making claims he wasnt qualified to make. And he was fired for misrepresenting his firm.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Yes, he was. He's apparently trying to fight to clear his name, but the circumstances do suggest he's got a very nasty case of "the bitters", so to speak.

Then again, perhaps the reason the broadsheets (as opposed to the tabloids) haven't really picked up on this is because the author is simply repeating old conspiracy theories which don't really offer proof in either direction?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Well i know that the planes were switched because the real flight 93 has been seen in 2003. Some guy kept a log of all his flights and he noted their tail numbers, a hobby of his and he posted the stuff online. A 9/11 researcher saw one tail number and instantly recognized it as that of flight 93 which is supposed to be blown up. The planes did disappear for a few minutes and they switched off their transponders to make a smooth transition but air traffic controllers noticed the weird behavior.

Many of the passengers were also highly qualified people, a few from Raytheon, military personal, aircraft engineers and so on. There were a lot of TV people on board as well so some think the drill was supposed to be on television. It is a pitty the newspaper didn't do any research of their own.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
Well i know that the planes were switched because the real flight 93 has been seen in 2003. Some guy kept a log of all his flights and he noted their tail numbers, a hobby of his and he posted the stuff online. A 9/11 researcher saw one tail number and instantly recognized it as that of flight 93 which is supposed to be blown up.


And the proof of this is where?

Seriously. Where can we read about this?

"Some guy" is an odd fellow who suspiciously disappears every time he's asked to provide evidence of his sightings....




posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
It's amazing that people can't see, at the very least, that 'terrorists' were alllowed to attack America. They were left to slip through the net becuase they needed it. They needed the war. The fear. The enemy. The freedom it gives them. England is going down the same route.

Incidents like WTC7 collapse and the transactions going make it even more apparent how deep it goes. It's a money trail.

Excellent article.

[edit on 10/8/2005 by earthtone]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   
The fighters were launched from the "wrong base" because not every base has armed fighters sitting alert waiting to take off. There were SEVEN Air National Guard bases with armed fighters waiting to intercept any planes coming into the US. And that was for the entire COUNTRY.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The fighters were launched from the "wrong base" because not every base has armed fighters sitting alert waiting to take off. There were SEVEN Air National Guard bases with armed fighters waiting to intercept any planes coming into the US. And that was for the entire COUNTRY.


This is true and has been verified several times, correct? Is anyone missing that little bit about "waiting to intercept any planes coming into the US"? The threat of terrorism coming from within just wasn't considered.

Anyway. You know how terrorists win?

When we're suspicious of everyone who looks a little bit different, accusing each other without basis, and indulging our ignorance by buying into every last false rumour and accusation.

That's how they win.

(Incidentally, any luck on finding "that guy" who had proof of the "matching tail number" thing?)



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I love to see folks, namely the Bush Legionaires, deny and deny and deny the obvious. Come on...3...count 3 Skyscrapers collapsing like controlled demolitions. I have a feeling eventually they will go to phase 2 on this subject if it gets out of control parameters.It will go something like this: "Ok we did collapse the WTC towers and building 7 because it was unstable and might have toppled into surrounding buildings creating even more loss of life."



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I never said anything about it not being a conspiracy, or the gov't not having knowledge of it or anything of the sort. As the site says "Deny Ignorance" and when people keep going on about the fighters, and other things I know about, and I can get the right information out there, I'm going to do it.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I never said anything about it not being a conspiracy, or the gov't not having knowledge of it or anything of the sort. As the site says "Deny Ignorance" and when people keep going on about the fighters, and other things I know about, and I can get the right information out there, I'm going to do it.


It is almost as if something prevents people from getting over that final cusp...from gov knowledge to, gov involvement. When I say gov involvement Im not talking Johnny IRS agent or Sally FBI..or Joe ATF special agent ,folks just suiting up and trying to make a living. Im talking the big hitters: Warren Buffet, Silverstein, Wolfowitz, Rummy, Kissinger,Cheney, Sharon, Saudi Royals, and God knows who else



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   
here's a poll......Total Votes: 22809

Poll Results:

Do you believe that the U.S. Government was complicit in 911, and Guilty of the Crime of 911?

Yes, I have no Doubt in my Mind, the USA is Guilty 52.0 % (11868)

Yes, I think there is High Probability that "elements of the US goverment" committed 9/11... 21.2 % (4835)


No, 911 was carried out by Usama and his 19 Cave Dwelling Templar Terrorists 14.0 % (3192)


No. but I do believe the Bush Administration let it happen on purpose 7.3 % (1664)


I am new to this, and not sure, but it sure doesn't look good for America 5.5 % (1250)



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
(Incidentally, any luck on finding "that guy" who had proof of the "matching tail number" thing?)


Here is the site with the details of the "matching tail number" thing.
www.911bts.brad.com...
Took me 2 mins to find through yahoo by searching for "flight 93 tail in service".
Perhaps investigating is just not your "thing".



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
You know it really makes me laugh. The gov't was smart enough to pull of this HUGE 9/11 coverup and bring down the towers with explosives, and kill all the passengers, etc, but they were dumb enough to NOT get rid of the planes they supposedly used? It would have been easy enough for them to find some excuse to sieze those airplanes and get rid of them. If they were going to fake a UA flight, why not put the registration number of a plane that was taken out of service, or put the fake records of a reg number out there? There are so many ways they could have faked it and no one find out.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
It's not so HUGE if they simply allowed these 'terrorist people' , whoever they were, to carry out their plans and ignore the intelligence. Which is what happened with the FBI right? Only benefits for all involved in this one. All the sponsors of the government, oil companys, arms companys, they all reep the benefits of war and invading oil rich countires. And the government as a bonus gets the FEAR. It's not a huge thing to ignore something.


[edit on 14/8/2005 by earthtone]



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
If you listen to the people claiming that it wasn't a 757 that hit the Pntagon, and that the WTC was a controlled demo, then you have a huge coverup going on.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
That report "rings" more of the truth than all the stories we've been told. Thank you for the good read!

I love horror.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join