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.

 

easy question to answer

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   
ok. so my question is an easy one to answer.. if the flights were indeed bogus and faked... what did they do with all those passengers and the original planes that had those assigned flight numbers leaving from those originating airports?

[edit on 19-1-2006 by mrmakeout]




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
swapped the planes in mid air, landed at a military air base and the pasangers were taken away and killed.

Simple answer but that how they COULD have done it. I personally dont think they did it like that at all.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
"Operation Northwood", the 1962 fake terror plan to get into war with Cuba covers how they could handle this.

I think it would be easier to just let the hijackers jack the plane and once they turn of the repsonders, just re-hijack it from them remotely, depressurise the plane so everyone is knocked unconscience and then send the planes to a GPS location.

That way they can blame the hijackers and just need to convince people that guys who couldn't fly single engine cesnas could actually pull off the moves that make military pilots scratch their heads.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by manta
swapped the planes in mid air, landed at a military air base and the pasangers were taken away and killed.

Simple answer but that how they COULD have done it. I personally dont think they did it like that at all.


But I do! I wouldn't put it past them. They have killed for far less.....this is getting discouraging to say the least.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
when i say i dont think they did it like that. i dont mean i dont think they were involved.

I didnt think it was the correct topic for me to air my view. I believe they were involved up to their eyes on 9/11, it just stinks too much even if you can debunk 1 thing, u cant debunk the whole lot.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
"The official story of 9/11 is dependent on bogus evidence to support a conspiracy theory -- the claim that 19 guys directed by a wealthy dialysis patient in a cave in Afghanistan managed to outwit the largest military and intelligence system in history, a system so incompetent that it needs a massive budget increase to protect the public from a repeat of the attack."


i once read that thus far in history... the collapse of every major world power has been as such. a less advanced, but more resourceful power has taken power from the more advanced and usually deluded (in thinking their technology or weaponry is invincible and undefeatable by lesser powers) power.

bascially the point is that geurilla warfare will always outlast technological weaponry... worked for castro in cuba, worked for the afghans in russia, seems to be working for the insurgents in iraq...

either way nobody has a lgical explanation of what happened to the passengers if the planes that hit the towers were military drones or other no n commecrial aircraft... and what abou the phone calls to their families? wh omade those calls and how would they know to do so if it wasnt the actual persons on the flight?



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Its very doubtful that ANYBODY made a call from those planes, research has shown that at cruising altitudes there is a ver very small percentage of calls that would connect.

Which is backed up by the major airlines only recently making it possible with new technology to offer a reliable connection on their planes.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   
One theory, which I don't necessarily subscribe to, goes like this:
After the drones or military jets took the place of the airliners in the sky, the four airliners were diverted and all the passengers were put on flight 93 (which was possibly seen on the ground in Ohio).
93 was then flown to Pennsylvania and scuttled in the sky by a military jet, which is why the debris was spread over 8 miles.
The large section of debris was further pulverized by same said military jet leaving nothing but a big, unconvincing hole in the ground littered with plane confetti.
Meanwhile phony impersonal cell calls are being made to keep up the ruse that these people are still on their original flights.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   
The drones aren't neccessary anymore. It's a step in the plan which just adds too much effort and organisation which is pointless.

In Operation Northwoods in 1962 they planned to use drones because they had a lot less resources available than today.

Now it's much easier with massive black budgets, GPS and remote control technology - and Dov S. Zakheim is your main man, an ordained orthodox Jewish Rabbai (no, this does not mean Jewish people are evil, nor does it mean all Zionists are evil - in this case thou, it does mean this paticular person could very well be an 'at all costs' Zionist).

1985 - 1987
He was connected in the defence department:
- He served in various Department of Defense posts during the Reagan administration, including Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Planning and Resources from 1985 to 1987.

2000
He was an orignal PNAC founder:
- Member of the Project for a New American Century and participated in the creation of its 2000 position paper Rebuilding America's Defenses which called for "a New Pearl Harbor".

2001
He was CEO of SPC
System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems

May 2001
He was in control of Pentagon Budgeting
At the time of the attack which destroyed the World Trade Center Dov Zakheim was the Comptroller (money-manager) of the Pentagon, appointed in May of 2001.

2001 - 2004
Promotion Time!
He was then appointed to be Undersecretary of Defense from 2001 to 2004 under the George W. Bush administration, and served in this capacity until April 2004.


Now lets add some other pieces:

Sept 10th 2001
Rumsfeld sets the stage under the guise of 'war on bad budgeting'



On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.

He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.

"In fact, it could be said it's a matter of life and death," he said.

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

www.cbsnews.com...


The next day the Pentagon explodes by an aledged terrorist plane attack, hitting the newly renovated area which also housed the budget anaylists.

Rumsfeld 'war on budgeting' proclaimed the day before was now a PNAC dream - a war on terror BOOSTING military spending.

Zakheim is given a new job by Bush for his work in hiding funds spent on organising 9/11 that would be channelled through proxies.

So instead of using drones and adding more procedures and more innocent eyes to the days events, you pre-plan years ahead and get someone like Don Zakheim to use his resources to develop a remote control system which the Pentagon can fund via proxies. Put him incharge of spending 4 months before 9/11 so he can pay his proxies without linking the Pentagon and make sure any evidence is in the right part of the building for the attack to be destroyed (just like with WTC7).

Let the arabs hijack the plane like they've been planning to do for years but make sure the FBI don't get to close to the fact that your working with Mossad to double cross the hijackers by making it believe they are going undected.
Make sure you help plan their hijacking proceedure so they get control of the cockpit quickly and also so they know how to turn off transponders. This will be made easy because the flights will be undersold.
When Cheneys wargame team are following the hijackings live, knowing inadvance which undersold flights will be the ones hijacked, see that the responders have been turned off, their window will be open to re-hijack the planes via the remote systems they've built into them.
When you remotely have control of the planes, depressurize the plane and knock everyone out, including the hijackers as you don't want them fiddling around wondering what's going on and ruining things.
Now fly those planes to their GPS location.

Flight 93 was shot down because the fighter pilot got no response from the plane, there was no one flying it - everyone on board was knocked out.
The fighter pilot acted alone (as in without Rumsfeld, Bush or Cheneys authorisation) after following standard intercept protocol while also knowing what was happening that day. Afterwards, to cover this up they again act like he was given direct authorisation to shoot down the plane they had heading towards Congress for a coup d'etat and they give him a promotion and no doubt a warning never to talk about what happened.



President Bush gave the military orders to intercept and shoot down any commercial airliners that refused instructions to turn away from Washington, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday.

"I wholeheartedly concurred in the decision he made, that if the plane would not divert, if they wouldn't pay any attention to instructions to move away from the city, as a last resort our pilots were authorized to take them out," Cheney said on "Meet the Press."

www.flight93crash.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
That way they can blame the hijackers and just need to convince people that guys who couldn't fly single engine cesnas could actually pull off the moves that make military pilots scratch their heads.


I am getting quite tired of seeing this remark, its based on opinion, nothing else. Others that have had flight experience disagree with it. This person had professional simulator time, a 757 is no harder to fly then a Cessna and is in fact more stable, and a 3 mile 270 degree descending turn is not a difficult maneuver. Any pilot that thinks this maneuver is difficult needs to go back to flight school…

Besides this at what point in this mans training was the person responsible for the “could not fly a Cessna”, remark involved, how much training did he have after that point, and how much heat was this aviation school under at the time the remark was made?

Its like going to the rifle range were someone was taught to shoot after that person just did something illegal and now that range is under heat, they are also going to downplay the persons ability because they want to stay out of trouble. Therefore, what are they going to say, “we would have never though him capable of such a thing since in our opinion he lacked the ability to do such a thing”.

So anyway, where are the planes now? Where they put back into service? Where they renumbered, and if so how would they hide this from all the airline people that work on those planes everyday?



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:30 AM
link   
I wasn't saying I buy into it, I was just relaying one theory.

However, more that a few pilots question the maneuvering of the flights. Many of them are military and commercial pilots whith many years and flight hours of experience



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   
The quote used most often from the ATC people where they say a 757 can't do a manuver like that is cut short. If you find the whole quote then at the end of it they say "It's not safe." which means that if you were flying passengers, and wanted to land safely you wouldn't try a manuver like that. If you were planning on crashing and killing everyone you wouldn't care.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
That way they can blame the hijackers and just need to convince people that guys who couldn't fly single engine cesnas could actually pull off the moves that make military pilots scratch their heads.


I am getting quite tired of seeing this remark, its based on opinion, nothing else. Others that have had flight experience disagree with it. This person had professional simulator time, a 757 is no harder to fly then a Cessna and is in fact more stable, and a 3 mile 270 degree descending turn is not a difficult maneuver. Any pilot that thinks this maneuver is difficult needs to go back to flight school…



haha, yeah right. Good one!

Keep believing that 757s are so easy to fly that any person can do it without any special skill or training. That must be why they hand out pilot licences to anyone with a few hours behind a cesna.


Safe to say these guys had never flown a 757 before, yet on their first attempt they were experts. Amazing! These guys must be very very good under pressure to compare any kind of training to the real life moment.

Considering Don Zakhiem's role in PNAC, Pentagon, SPC, etc, i'll take the fact that planes can be remotely controlled and made to fly how ever you want, over the idea that maybe these terrorists got lucky and became great pilots just before their death - if that's the truth then obviously Allah was on their side because he graced them with the luck of the Irish.

Luckily thou, even Boeing admit their 757s can be taken over remotely so we don't have to believe they were great pilots:
911research.wtc7.net...
911research.wtc7.net...

Since the PNACers have Don's old contacts at SPC developing remote control systems for planes, plus a few trillion dollers of 'bad accounting' to play around with, it wouldn't be hard to get a system to do what ever they needed, be paid for by the Pentagon via Don and lost in the massive budgeting errors which will take years to work out, if they can be worked out at all since the Pentagon was hit in it's budget analysis area.

But no, hey, your right, lets just pretend the Arabs dun it and cross our fingers that one day, maybe 20 years from now, the black boxes will be released so flight data and cockpit recordings can be analysed, i mean, it's just so honerable that the FBI won't release any of that data because of 'the horrors of the recordings', they don't want to upset the families!!



The FBI has refused to release an audio record or transcript of Flight 93's voice recorder with the excuse: "we do not believe that the horror captured on the cockpit voice recording will console them in any way."
911research.wtc7.net...


In other words, the tapes are silent because there was no one flying the planes once they were remotely hijacked from the hijackers and depressurised. The horror any families would have to face would be the silence of a plane flying itself, arab fundamentalists talking and yelling with the faint cry of "Lets Roll" in the background would be a relief to hear, that's what's expected anyway is it not?



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Well let’s see what is the tough part of flying a commercial airliner as opposed to a Cessna?

1) Setting the controls up, doing the checklists.
2) Taking off.
3) Navigating in accordance with the ATC.
4) Landing.

How many of those things did he have to do?
None, the controls where all set, the engines running, plane flying and he had no intention of landing nor following ATC.

What is harder about flying a Cessna?

1) Lack of power and size, makes it less stable to fly, more prone to weather.
2) No fancy navigation instruments, map, compass, radio, whizwheel, to navigate.
3) No local area radar.
4) No autopilot.
5) Almost no warning indicators of any type.

The reason that pilots do not start out flying 757 has nothing to do with their complexity; it has to do with their expense and the number of passengers. You start out as a 1st officer on a DC-9, which is a much more manual plane to fly, because it is the smallest, cheapest plane that is flown, and you move up from there. You have to amass air hours to get your hands on anything that has more responsibility in way of cost and lives on board. That is besides the fact that every pilot out there would be fighting to get to fly one since the cockpit was large, roomy, comfortable, and sparse, plus it was the most automated, meaning the least amount of work for the pilots.

When I first started at the airport the 757 was one of the newest planes there, and there was one parked at Eastern every night. It was the coolest plane there at the time since it was one of the first to be fly-by-wire and have the glass cockpit. I would talk with the mechanics working on it all the time, and I was told several times by different ones, that the 757 is one of the easiest jets to fly ever made. Vastly overpowered engines, glass cockpit, fly-by-wire, ACARS, you name it. Compared to the 727’s, 737’s, and DC-9’s of the day, it was like a playing a big computer game.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Well let’s see what is the tough part of flying a commercial airliner as opposed to a Cessna?

1) Setting the controls up, doing the checklists.
2) Taking off.
3) Navigating in accordance with the ATC.
4) Landing.

How many of those things did he have to do?
None, the controls where all set, the engines running, plane flying and he had no intention of landing nor following ATC.

What is harder about flying a Cessna?

1) Lack of power and size, makes it less stable to fly, more prone to weather.
2) No fancy navigation instruments, map, compass, radio, whizwheel, to navigate.
3) No local area radar.
4) No autopilot.
5) Almost no warning indicators of any type.

The reason that pilots do not start out flying 757 has nothing to do with their complexity; it has to do with their expense and the number of passengers. You start out as a 1st officer on a DC-9, which is a much more manual plane to fly, because it is the smallest, cheapest plane that is flown, and you move up from there. You have to amass air hours to get your hands on anything that has more responsibility in way of cost and lives on board. That is besides the fact that every pilot out there would be fighting to get to fly one since the cockpit was large, roomy, comfortable, and sparse, plus it was the most automated, meaning the least amount of work for the pilots.

When I first started at the airport the 757 was one of the newest planes there, and there was one parked at Eastern every night. It was the coolest plane there at the time since it was one of the first to be fly-by-wire and have the glass cockpit. I would talk with the mechanics working on it all the time, and I was told several times by different ones, that the 757 is one of the easiest jets to fly ever made. Vastly overpowered engines, glass cockpit, fly-by-wire, ACARS, you name it. Compared to the 727’s, 737’s, and DC-9’s of the day, it was like a playing a big computer game.




That's all good and well but it's totally irrelevant. I'm one of the best world rally car drivers in simulations and i'm a good driver as well in real life, but put me in a real rally car on a real rally track and i'd suck on my first time, going flat out, i'd probably come off the track at the first turn.

This wasn't a couple of guys learning how to fly a plane and then going out in a nice controlled condition to test their training experience. It wasn't a game, it wasn't 'cool', it was one of the most stressful and panic-fuelled moments in anyones flight experience, pilots, passengers, crew and hijackers included.

These guys didn't need to know much but the upmost basics, i agree with you there, but i doubt they flew that plane for very long either. Their job was to take over the plane and secure the cockpit - not fly it - althought they probably thought they were going to fly it. If it was left to them to fly, there's very little chance all three planes (plus the 4th if it had a chance) would of done what they did so successfully, so precise, so well pulled off, it's just not going to happen with some amatures that have never flown a plane like that let alone on their first attempts in 3 different flights under extreme pressure.

How did they know where they were? How did they find their targets? That takes a lot of skill, totally different to his own previous experience, then we have the moves they pulled off when they got to their targets.

You don't get second chances at this and a 'new pearl harbor' was wanted, why wouldn't they make it work and blame the hijackers? We certainly know the government has taken advantage of 9/11 via new laws and restrictions baised purely off the threat of terror - if they hijackers weren't successful and 9/11 was a failed attempt, would we be at war? would we have laws which are heading us into a totalitarian world? It was a one time offer, the PNAC'ers we'ren't letting this fail, they made it successful and they went to huge measures to make sure it was precise and accurate rather than random and unpredictable.

We don't have to assume anything about their skills when you eleminate the need for hijackers flying the plane once it was hijacked and there are enough pieces to that worth investigating rather than assuming these pilots were skilled just because the government has failed to offer any other explaination (thou considering their company, no wonder).





[edit on 25-1-2006 by TheShroudOfMemphis]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Knowing where they were going and finding their targets is an excellent point often overlooked.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   
This sounds just like something I said earlier, about a computer game…


www.flybernhard.de...://www.flybernhard.de/b757_e.htm

Exceptionally progressive avionics systems, under which are a slowness platform supported on laser gyroscope and computer are available to you for the flight management system as well as for the digitized air value indication. In the teamwork with automatic flight guidance and thrust control systems (autothrottle) these components cause an optimal fuel consumption. The new avionics generation can take over practically the whole control of a flight, so that the crew functions basically only as a system manager.


So they simply let the plane take them to the city, then they revert to flying VFR just like they did in flight school. If you read that page, you will see that the exact same thing applies to the 767 which has an almost identical flight deck...



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmakeout
ok. so my question is an easy one to answer


If it's so "easy", then you already know the answer (or have your mind made up).

Sounds more like an "easy" baiting tactic.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
That way they can blame the hijackers and just need to convince people that guys who couldn't fly single engine cesnas could actually pull off the moves that make military pilots scratch their heads.



Which hijackers couldn't fly a single engine cessna?

Was it Mohamed Atta or Marwan Al-Shehhi? While they did have some trouble training, both of them were instrument rated and had commercial pilot licences.


www.faqs.org...

The three pilots in Florida continued with their training. Atta and Shehhi
finished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA
in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests
and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight
simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in
Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after
their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large
jets.


Or maybe Ziad Jarrah, who was competent enough to fly single engine planes.


www.faqs.org...

In the meantime, Jarrah obtained a single-engine private pilot certificate in
early August.



Hani Hanjour, the pentagon pilot, seems to be the worst pilot of all of them.
However he did have a pilots license, 600 hours, and at least one of his instructors thought him capable of carrying out the attack.


newsmine.org...


Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.



It is not accurate to say they were unable to fly cessnas. The flight training they recieved is well documented.





[edit on 26-1-2006 by LeftBehind]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join