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.

 

Nearly 5 minutes of Unedited audio from within WTC on 9/11 - ***WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES AND AUDIO***

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Uh no, I made it sound like it was logical that they were sitting down since they WERE in their office. A lot of people that I know work in offices and spend 6 hours a day or more sitting down most days, so why wouldn't they have been sitting when the plane hit?



SMR

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They were in the offices when the plane hit.Why wouldn't they be sitting?

Im not going to argue on and on about this.
Im just looking to see WHERE they were.We dont KNOW they WERE in an office do we? It would SEEM that way from the image, but we dont know.Perhaps they were in a cart driving in the halls and when this 'plane' hit, it shoved them into an office.
This is what I see too offen here.Rather than try and get answers, too many just come out and say " This is how it was" without having any suffciant proof.A guess is still just a guess.Best we can do in this situation yes, but to state it almost as fact is what leads people in the wrong direction.

From the images, we can see we have 1 person in plain clothes and 2 men in orange jump suites.We can ASSUME the 2 men were maintenence workers at the Pentagon.The other man looks to be someone who worked in an office in the Pentagon.
The questions are this.Were all 3 together when this event happened? Where is this image taken? Is it safe to say the 2 men were NOT on the 'plane' ?
What about the 1 plain clothed gentlemen.Was he really an office worker at the Pentagon, or onboard this 'plane'

These may seem like questions that may not help anything, but thats what investigating is.You comb over everything to put the pieces together.If we saw a burned up cat in the image, we would really need to know what and how about that cat so we can fit it in.

The 2 men in orange, seems were in the Pentagon.Whether or not they were sitting I do not know.From the positions they are in, perhaps.But sitting where? In a chair in an office or in the seat of a cart.
The other man, looks to be an office worker.Where was he when this happened? Is that HIS office? Is it a hallway?

Reason for these questions, if all 3 men were in an office talking, were there windows to see that a huge plane was about to plow into them.
We are led to believe that a plane headed for the Pentagon, these guys had no warning at all to GET THE HELL OT OF THE WAY!

Another question, if they did not know anything, this 'plane' hit and, from what I can see, just sat there while this fire engulfed them? Hearing a CRASH! and sitting while this fire burned you alive? No getting up after hearing a crash?
Well you may say, the plane hit there....well then how can the bodies be intact like that if the plane hit them.

So, sat there while 'plane' hit and sat allowing fire to catch them and burn them alive, or 'plane' hit near them not allowing them to move, but bodies still intact....



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Well let's see. The plane was travelling at over 500mph at impact. You wouldn't even have time to think "Oh S***!" between recognizing the fact that it was a plane, it was heading for your building, and you had to run. From 5 miles you can barely SEE a 757, let alone say "Oh my god it's coming right at the building!" There are times I have trouble seeing a 747, which is about twice as big, at 5 miles.

How do you know that the fireball didn't kill them immediately? From what I've heard, and read some fireballs have sucked the air right our of a room, which would also suck it right out of their lungs, asphyxiating them.


SMR

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Well let's see. The plane was travelling at over 500mph at impact. You wouldn't even have time to think "Oh S***!" between recognizing the fact that it was a plane, it was heading for your building, and you had to run. From 5 miles you can barely SEE a 757, let alone say "Oh my god it's coming right at the building!" There are times I have trouble seeing a 747, which is about twice as big, at 5 miles.

This is where the NORAD issue comes into play

They SHOULD have had time, but what happened? Them telling us that NORAD had no idea...ok, right.Now compare that to the Payne Stewart issue and tell me that adds up.

They can scramble jets to see whats going on with a little lear jet, but after 2 planes had ALREADY crashed into the twin towers, they werent on alert? That is the biggest BS I have ever heard.If a fly would have come within 10 miles of the Pentagon it would be shot down.They did nothing because there was nothing.Atleast nothing they didnt WANT to happen.

So, to get back to the bodies.Im not sure if they are even real.I know that may sound bad, but Im not totally sure.We are told this 'plane' vaporized and here we have bodies.Ok, so they were ones from within the building.Well then, why did they not have the time to get out.The Pentagon is one of the most protected places in the US and the had no idea after planes already hit 2 giant buildings that MAYBE they should be on alert JUST INCASE OF MORE?!

Another thing.The section that was hit JUST got finished being renovated.
Would there be any office workers there yet? Maybe so.Just another question.
As I sign off tonight as my eyes are heavy, from Department of Defense website.....


From Article:
Curtin and other workers started renovating the 60-year-old Pentagon wedge by wedge in 1997. They no sooner stepped back to admire their first rebuilt wedge when the crashed airliner demolished it.The building withstood the attack as designed --

Source
Little test before they waste any money on a the whole thing right.....

As far as I can see, it didnt do to good a job, but maybe thats good enough for them seeing as they would never allow ANYTHING to get close enough to try.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Payne Stewart and 9/11 had NOTHING in common.

Payne Stewart- Lear 35, WITH TRANSPONDER OPERATING, intercepted by two F-16s that knew EXACTLY where it was, and had already been flying at the time they were requested to intercept the plane.

9/11- No way to track the planes in real time after the transponders were turned off. No fighters flying in the area where contact was lost. If there HAD been, they would have had to sector the area and fly search patterns to try to find the planes, all while they were moving towards their targets at several hundred miles an hour.

[edit on 4/15/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
No, its exactly like 911. There were serious failings and they should have been investigated but they wernt.

Anyway
Are the photos cropped or not, is that the whole photo or just the bit they wanted to focus on.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   
What failings? What failings happened with Payne Stewarts crash?



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
failings on 911.
Thats what needs to be investigated and someone held responsible.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Could the guys in the red overalls be electricians or maintenance guys of some sort? possibly fixing or looking onto a fault when it hit.

Looking at the pentagons heavy re-inforcment and extra thick bomb proof windows, I dont find it at all impossible that they never heard the plane coming at all, especially at the speed it was flying, all the noise from the plane would only of been audible from its wake anyway, nothing in front. Same as when you see a plane in the sky, you dont hear it COMING you only hear it GOING.

And to say that they were all exposed to the same intensity of heat is rediculous! fire is not a predictable element, if you jump in the sea you're gonna get wet, if you jump in a fire you're not gaurenteed to get burned, it depends on whats fueling it and how close to the source and flame front you are and any other of a million different possibilities.

Please look at things with an open mind rather than a "must be black or white" agenda, unfortunately with fire there is a considerable grey area.


SMR

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ernold Same
And to say that they were all exposed to the same intensity of heat is rediculous! fire is not a predictable element, if you jump in the sea you're gonna get wet, if you jump in a fire you're not gaurenteed to get burned, it depends on whats fueling it and how close to the source and flame front you are and any other of a million different possibilities.

Please look at things with an open mind rather than a "must be black or white" agenda, unfortunately with fire there is a considerable grey area.

You say to use an open mind, yet you do not.Saying "you're not gaurenteed to get burned" by jumping into fire itself is rediculous! Your telling me that there is a chance that if you jump INTO fire, you MAY NOT get burned? Please.
Also, yes it was the same experience.The blast from whatever was ONE and not several.When the explosion happened, it was ONE huge fireball that created others.If the 'plane' crashed, I can almost say 100% that EVERYONE oboard would have experienced the same degree of heat and exposure at that moment.

Again, if the men in orange were in the building, they should still have been told.How? Because as I said before, the Pentagon is one of the most protected landmarks on earth.After 2 planes crashing into the towers they should have been on full alert to fly ANYWHERE.Some say the transponders were off.Well then, how in the hell do they know and SHOW us the flight paths? If they can do that, then they should have been able to see right?


Originally posted by Zaphod58
Payne Stewart and 9/11 had NOTHING in common.

I never said they did.I was giving an example of how NORAD works.That day they did.Yet on a day that 4, almost 5 planes pick targets in the US, they are where? NOWHERE! Infact, they are all out doing 'something' else.How convenient.Perhaps you didnt here the tapes when you hear pilots asking if this is REAL or DRILL?!



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I have said repeatedly, but here goes again.

1. The person asking "Is this real world or a drill" was a NORAD controller, NOT a pilot.

2. On 9/11 there were TWENTY-ONE armed fighters for the entire Continental US. NOT because they were on a drill, but because after the cold war, they had a massive draw down of the alert force because the threat went away. At the height of the cold war there were dozens of bases with fighters armed and ready to launch. By 9/11 there were SEVEN.

3. The armed alert fighters NEVER participate in a drill, for ANY reason. Their sole mission is to defend our airspace, and they NEVER launch for any reason except to intercept someone.

4. Primary radar is the only way they could have tracekd the planes after the transponders went off, and it can't be done in real time, by 5 or 6 different controllers, which is what would have happened. Most radar coverage of the United States is civilian, and it's just not designed to track targets that don't have a transponder.

[edit on 4/15/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

2. On 9/11 there were TWENTY-ONE armed fighters for the entire Continental US. NOT because they were on a drill, but because after the cold war, they had a massive draw down of the alert force because the threat went away. At the height of the cold war there were dozens of bases with fighters armed and ready to launch. By 9/11 there were SEVEN.

4. Primary radar is the only way they could have tracekd the planes after the transponders went off, and it can't be done in real time, by 5 or 6 different controllers, which is what would have happened. Most radar coverage of the United States is civilian, and it's just not designed to track targets that don't have a transponder.

[edit on 4/15/2006 by Zaphod58]


I dont believe 2 or 4 is true.

However not wanting to get into an argument over that.
I suppose it has all been improved now as this is one of the primary reasons it happened?



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Not sure if the subject of "faked explosions" was finished or not, but I did want to add my 2 cents.

I'll believe a live news cast taping the event with audio and video over some 5 minute audio tape any day of the week.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Where are these live news tapes with explosions on? I'm sure they exist but I've never seen them.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Payne Stewart and 9/11 had NOTHING in common.

Payne Stewart- Lear 35, WITH TRANSPONDER OPERATING, intercepted by two F-16s that knew EXACTLY where it was, and had already been flying at the time they were requested to intercept the plane.

9/11- No way to track the planes in real time after the transponders were turned off. No fighters flying in the area where contact was lost. If there HAD been, they would have had to sector the area and fly search patterns to try to find the planes, all while they were moving towards their targets at several hundred miles an hour.


OMG they had the Transponder turned off!! Are you kidding me! So I guess next time we have incoming ordinace on our Carrier groups they better be using transponders so we can track them!! When you aquire a boggy in battle Zap do you think we cant find them unless they are using a transponder?

Well mr. threadkiller I think you should look up what a transponder does before you try and act like we need them turned on so we can track an aircraft!

I guess the former Soviet Union had them on the backfire and bear bombers so we can track them on a nuclear run on America'a military bases? Our military doesnt need them, its Air traffic control that uses them to make it easier to keep track of aircraft. That aircraft did not disapear on the radar screen when its transponder was turned off, it just stopped giving an ID (Mode A), an altitude (Mode C) and/or a unique callsign (Mode S).

Edit to add: Zap we are talking about the eastern seaboard of the united states. and most of all the Washington DC area. You try and tell people that we dont cover that area with military radar? Then try and tell me that civillian radar doesnt track in real time!!!

Transponders ID who you are, not where you are. wikipedia on radar



Many technologies are used in air traffic control systems. Primary and secondary radar are used to enhance a controller's "situational awareness" within his assigned airspace — all types of aircraft send back primary echoes of varying sizes to controllers' screens as radar energy is bounced off their skins, and transponder-equipped aircraft reply to secondary radar interrogations by giving an ID (Mode A), an altitude (Mode C) and/or a unique callsign (Mode S). Certain types of weather may also register on the radar screen.


I really dislike disinformation, so please stop spreading it.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Well Mr Lonegunman I guess YOU Had better READ HOW RADAR WORKS before you start spouting off at me! Instead of jumping all over me, maybe you should UNDERSTAND HOW SOMETHING WORKS!

Almost EVERY RADAR IN THE UNITED STATES is a CIVILIAN RADAR, operated by CIVILIAN PERSONNEL who are NOT TRAINED to do their tracking SOLELY by skin paints. Above 18000 feet CIVILIAN PRIMARY RADAR SETS don't track. They use SECONDARY RADAR above 18,000 WHICH CAN NOT TRACK BY SKIN RETURN! IT ONLY TRACKS TRANSPONDERS. Civilian operators are trained to occasionally do SOME tracking by skin paint, but 99% of the time they are relying on transponders.

MILITARY RADARS ARE PRIMARY RADARS. They track by skin return AND transponder. Military operators are trained to track by skin paint only because they always have transponders to rely on.

Try doing some basic research and UNDERSTAND SOMETHING before opening your mouth next time. .



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Transponders dont work that way guy. Go to the link I provided and it will set you straight.

Flight 77 was tracked all the way to its destination from Ohio, and to imply otherwise if you really do know better is wrong. If you are doing tht then you should be ashamed of yourself.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   

ATC radar facilities presently have both both primary and secondary radar. Primary radar (sometimes called "skin paint") works on the principle of bouncing high-powered microwave pulses off objects and detecting the reflected echo. It's the same sort of radar that was used in World War II to detect enemy aircraft.

Primary radar has lots of limitations. It works best with large all-metal aircraft, not so well on small, composite aircraft, and not at all with some of the new "stealth" technology. (There's some debate as to how well it works tracking flying saucers.) Its range is limited by terrain and precipitation. It's rather indiscriminite about what it detects: airplanes, trucks, hills, trees. And it only reports a target's azimuth and range, not its altitude.

Secondary radar was invented to overcome these limitations. It depends on a "transponder" in the aircraft to respond to interrogations from the ground station. Depending on the type of interrogation, the transponder sends back an identification code (Mode A) or altitude information (Mode C).

Transponders are also sometimes referred to as "beacons", and another name for secondary radar is "ATC Radar Beacon System" or ATCRBS (pronounced "at-crabs").

www.avweb.com...


The orientation of the radar antenna provides the bearing of the aircraft from the ground station, and the time taken for the pulse to reach the target and return provides a measure of the distance of the target from the ground station. The bearing and distance of the target can then be converted into a ground position for display to the Air Traffic Controller.

The advantage of Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR) is that it operates totally independently of the target aircraft - that is, no action from the aircraft is required for it to provide a radar return.

The disadvantages of PSR are that, firstly, enormous amounts of power must be radiated to ensure returns from the target. This is especially true if long range is desired. Secondly, because of the small amount of energy returned at the receiver, returns may be easily disrupted due to such factors as changes of target attitude or signal attenuation due to heavy rain. This may cause the displayed target to 'fade'. Thirdly, correlation of a particular radar return with a particular aircraft requires an identification process. When PSR was the only type of radar available, this was typically achieved by the Controller observing a directed turn by the aircraft, or by correlating a DME distance report by the aircraft with the position of a particular return along a known track.

www.airwaysmuseum.com...


The disadvantages of PSR outlined above led to the employment of another aspect of wartime radar development. This involved the Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system, which had been developed as a means of positively identifying friendly aircraft from enemy. The system which became known in civil use as Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR), or in the USA as the Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System, relies on a piece of equipment aboard the aircraft known as a 'transponder'.

The transponder is a radio receiver and transmitter operating on the radar frequency. The target aircraft's transponder responds to interrogation by the ground station by transmitting a coded reply signal. The great advantages of SSR are three: firstly, because the reply signal is transmitted from the aircraft it is much stronger when received at the ground station, thus giving the possibility of much greater range and reducing the problems of signal attenuation; similarly, the transmitting power required of the ground station for a given range is much reduced, thus providing considerable economy; and thirdly, because the signals in each direction are electronically coded the possibility is offered to transmit additional information between the two stations.

The disadvantage of SSR is that it requires a target aircraft to carry an operating transponder. For this reason, PSR will operate in conjunction with SSR in certain areas for the foreseeable future.


www.airwaysmuseum.com...


The FAA currently uses and supports 126 primary en route radar facilities. The FAA is chartered to provide Primary radar services to all federal agencies requiring this data to meet their operational missions. The annual estimated cost to sustain primary radar equipment is increasing every year. In 1990 Martin-Marietta conducted a study which concluded that primary radar could be deactivated without posing any significant impact to safety and may be a means to alleviate/stabilize the rising O&M costs. A formal investment analysis is being done to fully identify the program requirements and the associated costs. This program also looks at converting certain primary LRR sites to beacon only facilities. In addition, the restructuring program includes equipment, facility, environmental, and infrastructure improvements. The purpose of this investment analysis is to determine what physical reallocation of radar assets will achieve the most economical and safe long-range end state, while continuing to provide radar services to all federal agencies requiring use of the National Air Space (NAS) system.

www.faa.gov...

ATC controllers will often set the primary so that it won't show skin returns above a certain altitude since it will pick up birds, and everything else.

Edit to add:

Transponders give altitude, and other information and it puts a signal on the radar screen with that information. Haven't you ever seen a picture of an ATC radar? It shows the flight number, the altitude, etc, and that moves with the plane. It shows the POSITION as received by the secondary antenna.

[edit on 4/17/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Transponders ID who you are, not where you are. wikipedia on radar



Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Transponders dont work that way guy. Go to the link I provided and it will set you straight.

Flight 77 was tracked all the way to its destination from Ohio, and to imply otherwise if you really do know better is wrong. If you are doing tht then you should be ashamed of yourself.


Aircraft do send their position using the ACARS system.

I receive and decode them from aircraft frequently, which often contain position information which plots on a map.

www.qsl.net...

EDIT: Here's a screengrab from just now, I'm using my Ham Radio Alinco DJ-G5 handie for the receiver, but you can use a scanner too:



You'll see the United Airlines flight sent it's positional information in the transmission, and it's plotted on my map.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Them telling us that NORAD had no idea...ok, right.Now compare that to the Payne Stewart issue and tell me that adds up.


Payne Stewart intercept = 70+ to 80 minutes, depending on where you start and stop counting (www.ntsb.gov...).

Longest time from "likely takeover" to crash on 9/11 = 48 minutes for Flight 77 if I remember correctly.

Yes, I think that adds up rather well.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join