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, was it Al-Qaeda?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Actually DaRage - the IRA did have access to Semtex from several East European sources. However the vast majority of their activity was confined to producing devices from non fire supressed Agricultural Fertiliser - something very common in the Irish Republic. Its also pretty cheap to manufacture a device using this material - howere has a drawback of bulk etc - hence the vans and buldozers used to transport such devices to targets. Where they did use Semtex or conventional explosives the results were very much more in evidence.

First hand I can attest to the power of a bomb made of 6lbs of Semtex vs 100lbs Fertiliser. Just 6lbs vaporised the vehicle that it was planted in - and I mean vaporised - bits and pieces were turning up for weeks after and i think some are probably still embedded in stone walls where this happened.

What was used in Bali I have no Idea - but i would guess some high yield plastic rather than the Boyos type of home made concoction. For a rather good read on the subject I can suggest - "Bombs Kill People" - again cant recall the author but he was senior in the UK forces Bomb Squad during the 1970s.



posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Skadi - thanks for the post - I will see what else i dig up.

As for the PA flight - one thought - youve just fought of the hijackers - regained control - now the radio - what frequency do we need ? - do they even know an airforce jet is tailing or has fired ?. In the aftermath of what happened to these people - they might not have even had time to consider that a threat. I believe the aircraft tailing might have launched "fire and forget" and got the hell out of Dodge before the take over was attempted.



posted on Oct, 1 2003 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Good questions, Silk, and Illa nswer them as best as possible, with what knowldge I have.

When a fighter intercepts a plane, he doesnt automatically fire on it, theres a set of steps they go through. The first one is that the fighter jet will try and establish radio contact with the pilot of the target plane. No contact, then the jet will rock his wings to catch the pilots attention. The fighter makes sure he can establish visual contact with the pilot he is pursuing. If that doesnt get thier attention, he fires tracers in the flight path of the plane. No response then, its time to shoot it down.

Shooting down a plane doesnt automatically destroy it, you can down a jet without blowing it to pieces if you take out the engines. during this time, during the whole interception process, lets say they had regained control from the hijackers. The pilot on flight 93 would have seen the fighter jet, and made sure to let the fighter know that the plane was back under friendly control, dont shoot, please help me find a safe place to land.

of course, this is all pure speculation drawn from information of the day and normal FAA proceedures. We will probably never know what happened truly, but flight 93 was very suspicous, For one, a 911 call made by one of the passengers was seized by the FBI and the dispatchers were told to shut up about it. the black box was "too damaged" to get info from, and the cockpit recorder, oit was a year before they let the families listen to it. Very suspicous.

Anyway, it is worthy to note that scrambling jets to intercept planes is actually more common than you think. In 2001, before sep 11, there were 67 times the airforce was scrambled. they scramble jets anytime there is an emergency or suspected emergency. A loss of transponder signal, moving more than 15 miles off the flight path, loss of radio contact, these are all emercencies in which fighters are scrambled. And they dont get shot down either. As I lisdted above, the fighter jet:

1. Attempts to establish radio contact with the target plane, in case the ground to air radio isnt working, this si done to try to contact the pilot.
2. If no contact is established, the fighter rocks the wings and the pilot, if hes still alive, rocks his back to aknowldge yes, I see you, Im alive. It is here interceptions usually end, because it measn the radios went out, the pilot cant get them back online, but the jet is still ok, it is here, the figher will escort the jet someplace safe to land.
3. If the above steps fail, tracers are fired in the flight path to get attention. This usually means the plane has been hijacked. The tracer rounds being fired ois also a scare tactic to freak the hijackers out and let them know, you can land in one piece, or we are armed and can land you the hard way.
4. if the pilot of the hijacked craft is still gung ho, thats when you down the sucker with a missile or cannon fire.

Thus, while your points are very valid, the mental state of the passengers and everything, it is unlikely that if, the passenger pilot of flight 93 had regained control, he would be fully aware of the presence of the fighter jet, and as a pilot, he would have known exactly how to respond and what to do.

Again, all speculatyion, but speculation can bring interesting insights.



posted on Oct, 9 2003 @ 12:19 PM
link   
In conclusion to the thread.....It definately wasn't Osama Bin Laden, it wasn't Al-Qaeda as far as I can understand, and the sooner people realise that this event was allowed to happen(almost assisted) by the U.S government the better.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
It wasnt osama, hussein, or santa. this operation was covertly planned and overtly carried out by someone far more evil...
The 2001 'confession' footage was fake. Infact there is big evidence to suggest that the tape was just a taliban grunt confessing not to 9/11, but to a recent car bombing in the middle east. Most know of this now.
This subject is very dodgy and requires not media fact, just inner-instinct and knowledge and a bit of real fact. Amongst other things the confession was also mis-translated to suit a certain *cough* agenda *cough* bush.. there should have been little ambient noise considering we are talking about an apparent cocky confession by a high man in a high place, yet the speech is masked with a great deal of noise making it barely possible for translators to decipher what is really said anyway.. The tape was claimed to be *conveniently* 'found' by the feds in a (huge) compound in the mid-east somewhere, probably saudi or afghan. Found...
and to conclude this obvious cover-up, the 'osama' on the tape confesses he recieved information of the 'operation'(twin towers was never specified or admitted) just five days prior to the 9/11 disaster.. So they want us to believe it took only 3 days to first assign 4 units of tactically trained anti-american terrorist personnel to the project; to instruct them first on how to pilot a passenger jet, and then to perform the hijacking, covering any loopholes in the operation and playing worst case scenarios...you get the picture. And on the last 2 days they just flew off to the U.S, slip through customs-security and go ahead successfully with the terrorist assault with ease. If you still beleve it was osama and not the the government of the United States of America, who i'm sure i added before, were the 'first' to 'acquire' the osama 'confession' tape, then your stupidity receeds your ignorance.

Bottom line. the government makes these tapes in home-video format and places a scapegoat as the confessor to set the realism of this ploy. meanwhile smearing the media with a bunch of rhetoric, pursuading the globe that the middle-east is accountable for this act of terror. The governments satellite programs are far more advanced than anyone could imagine, their security is world class, defense, reconaissance, all that does easily outmatch some rusty CIA veteran with a simple hunch and an iron deficiency. Bush knew, officials knew, NSA. You name it! They are all in on it.

No. America didn't do this. The government did.
The more public upheavals, the more violence, crime and terror, the easier it is to take away your rights as a human, take away your freedom as a citizen, take your soul.
That is there plan.
Don't let any reporter, government, school teacher or website tell you otherwise.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by nim_rod_13

No. America didn't do this. The government did.
The more public upheavals, the more violence, crime and terror, the easier it is to take away your rights as a human, take away your freedom as a citizen, take your soul. That is there plan. Don't let any reporter, government, school teacher or website tell you otherwise.



hmmmm did you read this today ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join