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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:
SMR

posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Is it not the job of NORAD to keep all eyes open at all times? Isnt that why we have NOARD? Also, doesnt the Pentagon has its own radar and, antiaircraft missiles?
Lets look at time line here.......

American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the north side of the north tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) at 8:46:40 AM local time (12:46:40 UTC).

At 9:03:11 AM local time (13:03:11 UTC), United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the south tower.

American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37:46 AM local time (13:37:46 UTC).



NORAD was unusually prepared on 9/11, because it was conducting a week-long semiannual exercise called Vigilant Guardian.

Did someone tell me different in another post? hmm.....
Also, planes transponders were turned off during their flights.This does not hide the plane as it can still be tracked by skin paint, but it hides the plane's altitude and it should immediately call attention to the aircraft.
I think we can safely say it DIDNT MATTER that transpoders were turned off.If anything, it raised eyebrows!

Eight minutes before the crash, at 9:30 a.m., radar tracked the plane as it closed to within 30 miles of Washington.
Andrews AFB is roughly 11 miles from the Pentagon.
Andrews AFB had F-16 fighter jets which could have intercepted Flight 77, but instead, F-16s were scrambled from Langley AFB which is 120 miles south of the Pentagon at 9:30 a.m.
So, it was known that Flight 77 was hijacked and .ing toward Washington at 9:30 a.m., but instead of the above jets being sent to defend the Pentagon, the jets were despatched to New York.... WHAT!




posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.


Hey Thread Killer, you think after both towers were hit and flight 77 turned course 180 degrees turned off its transponder and made a b-line for the nations capitol they might just go a. and track that aircraft and ignore the birds signals?

I think they might just be a little curious and track that flight dont you?


SMR

posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 02:33 AM
link   
They did and people know it including Zaphod58.
They even showed us the paths they took.Just look at images and magazines.Hell, even the sites that say we are nuts have the same images showing flight paths.How in the hell did they get those if they couldnt see them from birds?

It is silly to think that they could not see them or ANY planes in this day and age just because they turn of transponders.If the case were that planes 'disappear' if these transponders are turned off, you think maybe they would have a backup way of tracking them ....just inacse?



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Maybe there was no radar siginal or any recognition of the plane electronically because there WAS no plane.

The 3 planes that exist all had been on NORAD/FAA radars, up until they crashed. Here's a recording of air traffic to United 93: Notice they say it's off the radar AFTER it crashes: duk0r.net...

Also, as far as planes flying 5 feet off the ground at 500MPH, there are tons of videos showing the "plane", but right after the FBI took them all, from the gas station near by, the office building, etc. etc. The only released images happen to be from the pentagon gas station camera itself


One last thing, AgentSmith, what the hell? What news footage of the crash? There weren't any news cameras or anything at the pentagon at that time. They don't just go out everyday and sit there, . in hands, "Man, I wish a plane would crash into this damn building anytime soon." :/

And about the bodies that look like they're sitting:

If they were near/above where the missle hit, it's possible they couldn't escape the flames because the floors fell once the missle took out the supports (inside, the outside obviously fell much later), and so they were trapped in rubble, burning.

Edit: My point about the radar crap, if %75 of the planes didn't turn off their transponders, why would this "plane"?

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Vinci]


SMR

posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vinci
Maybe there was no radar siginal or any recognition of the plane electronically because there WAS no plane.

.... or the simple fact, that, it wasnt meant to be tracked.
People are catching on.Soon it will all come out.The more people finally take a look, the more research.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 03:06 AM
link   
True true. The "alternative theories" = A military plane, or a smaller non-civilian plane hit the pentagon. This would explain the lack of wreckage of a giant ass plane.

Missle theory, which too many of you know for me to bother to explain.
, Also it's quite self-explanitory.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
It is silly to think that they could not see them or ANY planes in this day and age just because they turn of transponders.If the case were that planes 'disappear' if these transponders are turned off, you think maybe they would have a backup way of tracking them ....just inacse?


Just to add...especially since planes have been being highjacked since the 70's. So in thirty years we haven't learned ANYTHING? Bullocks.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vinci
Boundaries exist in this situation, they're:

Body disinigrated? No? Okay so then the one RIGHT NEXT to it shouldn't of either. Logic? You have to have fire hotter than lava to fully disinigrate a body. That body is fully intact, except for the arms, and still has muscle tissue, if that's a real body and if I'm seeing it right.


Um, technically no you dont.

Most cremations take place at an average temperature of 1400 - 1800 Fahrenheit
www.nfda.org...

Whereas Lava is about 2000 - 2200 degrees Fahrenheit
vulcan.wr.usgs.gov...



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Very very different situations, at that I do believe that at such a high temp. the lava preserves the body.

Cremations are a totally different situation, the body has less fliuds, they use a lot of fuel, etc. etc.

As you should know, a body is really really really really hard to burn (into %100 ash). It's %80 water, and so you'd need very specific conditions for a body to be cremated etc. etc.

So your claim is meh.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I didnt think that bodies were preserved in Lava? Have there been any cases of this ?

*Edit for poor spelling*

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Argus]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Pompeii. They're in the same positions as they were when the lava ran over them. (Ran over them? What's the correct phrasing? Spilled over them? Covered them?)



And its been 1921 years too.


[edit on 18-4-2006 by Vinci]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Sorry vinci but you are mistaken on this I believe.

The situation in Pompeii was that the Lava or the pyroclastic cloud smothered the town and caught people off gurad, thus you have athe people going about their daily lives. But they were not preserved! The only reason they exist is that the lava/magma/volcanic dust hardened, their bodies decaying over the centuries, to provide a cavity in the rock.

When the site was excavated, plaster was poured into the cavities to provide a copy of the person as they were at the point of death.

See en.wikipedia.org... for more details
I searched the interweb thing for a while and couldnt find any sites noting the preserving properties of lava.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Shucks


Well that kind of debunks most of my theories on the pentagon bodies...oh well they weren't that impressive anyways


Thanks for clearing that up for me.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinci
Shucks


Well that kind of debunks most of my theories on the pentagon bodies...oh well they weren't that impressive anyways


Thanks for clearing that up for me.


Vinci that really is taking it like a man, you said shucks everything I've argued is based on a bullocks theorie.

I think admitting you went off in the wrong direction because of bad science takes guts.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I can think of quite a few reasons just off-the-cuff as to why an explosion might not be heard on a recording of a phone call.

1) By design the phone system limits the amount of volume you can transmit to stop pranksters and other idiots from shattering peoples eardrums. It could easily chop off a loud noise.

2) Crappy cell phone electronics might get overwhelmed by a very loud noise and chop it off.

3) Cell phone bandwidth. They are designed for sending voice which has a pretty set frequency range. We all know how lousy cell phone conversations can be sometimes.

4) It's a recording of a phone conversation. So all of this applies to the recording equipment as well. Also everytime I've heard a 911 recording it's been very poor quality.

5) Any explosion would have been right before the collapse and would have bleed into one another to make it appear to be one sound.

As I said, this is all off-the-cuff, so all of this would need to be studied or confirmed. You also need to ask why it took so long before this was released. They had it for way too much time for my liking. I think anything they release at this late date is likely to be censored or tampered with.

And what makes you think these pictures are even from the pentagon? Because it says so??



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
What is this?



I'd like to say thats its the guys wallet,
maybe someone took it out to check id
and put it back into the pocket to keep with the body,
untill further instructions of what to do.
List of Emp, to list of the found. A . count.


SMR

posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
If you look at the hi-res image, it is thin and looks very similar to a Buck Knife sheath.I could be wrong, but in the hi-res image, thats what I see.See the little 'snap' at the top?



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
thats what made me think wallet the whites of the pockets,
if the sheath was attached it'd be on the belt.


SMR

posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
It could very well be just junk.Maybe nothing at all.Just some debris that fell on the leg?

Maybe this will help a little?




posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vinci
One last thing, AgentSmith, what the hell? What news footage of the crash? There weren't any news cameras or anything at the pentagon at that time. They don't just go out everyday and sit there, . in hands, "Man, I wish a plane would crash into this damn building anytime soon." :/


I can only assume you are referring to this comment:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by AgentSmith
Where are these live news tapes with explosions on? I'm sure they exist but I've never seen them.


Made in response to this:


Originally posted by white4life420
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.


In which case I'd like to remind you of the thread's title and the reason I started it:

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

I was talking about the WTC


This guy has implied there is news footage recorded which does have explosions in it (not counting the Eyewitness DVD), I merely asked for links to it. Still waiting incidently...




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join