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 do you explain away the planes?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
So, if 9/11's all a hoax, who was flying the jets that crashed into the towers?

1) Suicidal maniacs. (aka: Terrorists)

2) Suicidal government operatives. (...and how many of these can u find in the US?)

3) Computerised systems that 'took over' the passenger airliners. (What on earth happened to the pilots, co-pilots, stewardesses etc...did they just sit still while a robot took over their plane?)

4) Computerised systems, the planes were dummies. (Did hundreds of passengers abruptly vanish into thin air then? Or were they murdered by the US government as well? Their families saw them board the planes, and the planes then disappeared. Please explain.)

(edit: changed 7 typo to 9 :p)

[edit on 21-6-2006 by joxang]




posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I too would like to hear peoples thought on this.
I know someone that lost a person on one of these flights.
Am I supposed to believe they are faking their sons death ?
Sometimes I think people are too creative.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Sorry but 7/11 is not a hoax there is a store just down the street from me
sorry couldn't help that one.
You can find all kinds of info at the link below

Start here 9/11 & 7/7 Conspiracies on ATS.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   


Sorry but 7/11 is not a hoax there is a store just down the street from me


lol, changed that unfortunate typo.



Start here 9/11 & 7/7 Conspiracies on ATS.


A direct answer would be nice, from some of the conspiracy theorists on this site. This thread happens to be posted in the forum that you link to, so you can safely assume that I've read through the theories floating around. However, I'm not satisfied that any theory answers the points about the planes sufficiently.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by joxang
So, if 9/11's all a hoax, who was flying the jets that crashed into the towers?

1) Suicidal maniacs. (aka: Terrorists)



Terrorists highjacking planes to fly into buildings does not equal non-governmental compliance. Could the terrorists unknowingly have highjacked the planes because the CIA used them? Remember there is more evidence that links the CIA to Bin-Laden than there is that Sadam had anything to do with Bin-Laden. You be the judge.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
But Bin Laden had a hell of a lot to do with the taliban regime in afghanistan which, correct me if I'm wrong, was the country the US invaded after 9/11.



Could the terrorists unknowingly have highjacked the planes because the CIA used them?


Of course they could have. So now the US government plot involves manipulation of terrorists? I never knew the CIA were that competent.

What is being suggested, with the timing of the WTC explosions and the plane crashes, is actual full blown joint-planning of the 9/11 attacks between Islamic militants and US intelligence agencies
.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by joxang

What is being suggested, with the timing of the WTC explosions and the plane crashes, is actual full blown joint-planning of the 9/11 attacks between Islamic militants and US intelligence agencies
.


Is it really that hard to believe that our government could use terrorist factions by minipulating them? There's a link somewhere that someone posted (I'll look for it) about how the government infilltrated the terrorists that bombed the WTC in '93. They sold them fake explosives and such. Again, I'll ask...is it really that hard to imagine?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by joxang
But Bin Laden had a hell of a lot to do with the taliban regime in afghanistan which, correct me if I'm wrong, was the country the US invaded after 9/11.


We didn't invade Afghanistan right away. There were CIA opperatives there for over a month after 9/11 before we attacked. Rummy was throwing a hissy fit because he wanted to be in control of everything but Bush had Tennet and the CIA go in first instead of Rummy's army. This made Rummy mad and wouldn't send troops in until he was in charge of everything. As soon as Bush appointed Rummy as the head of everything, what do you...the army invaded.

Now, if everyone (in the US) is on the same team, why would he do this? BTW, this dragging of his feet may have been one of the reason Bin-Laden got away.

Look into a documentary by PBS called "Frontline - The Dark Side" it goes into alot of what happened behind closed doors with Rummy, Cheney et all and how they minipulated intellegence reports to suit their own needs.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Think for a moment about the logistics involved in co-ordinating something like this. If we rule out the idea that the US government and the terrorists in question were in open co-operation, then the CIA must have (1) decided on the plan of action for the attacks on behalf of the terrorists (2) decided on (or found out about) september 11th as a definite date for the attacks (3) allowed the terrorists to carry out the attack by hiding intelligence reports from uninvolved parties and disabling security procedures designed to stop terrorist activities.

It is extremely unlikely that the CIA have such extensive infiltration of Al-Qaeda, that they could virtually plan an attack for them of the detail of 9/11. Simple arms deals are NOTHING to this. This would involve deciding on a target, deciding on a modus operendi, deciding on a date, and knowing the terrorist's plans to such detail that everything can be streamlined without a hitch.

I do not believe there exists an organisation that can manipulate a terrorist organisation of the experience of Al-qaeda just like that.

But even assuming that the CIA have done this, why choose such a complicated modus operandi? Why not just a large bomb or two? Planes had never been used before as a terrorist weapon, the chances of failure were just so high.

And don't say that it was for maximum impact. Several large bombs would have been so so much easier to organise, been more conventional, and led to just as many deaths.

Actually, forget all the diplomacy. The idea that the CIA planned the 9/11 attack on behalf of al-qaeda is beyond ludicrous. Which leaves the other three points...or that 9/11 was simply a terrorist attack against the US?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
...political bickering?! That happens all the time everywhere? Especially when you're invading a country. Political bickering is not evidence of conspiracy in the government.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I never said political bickering was an indication of conspiracy. All I was trying to get at was that maybe he denied army troops for more than one reason. Maybe to alow Bin-Laden enough time to get out of there. I guess you could consider that a conspiracy but it wasn't the intent of my post to say that political bickering is an indication of conspiracy.


Originally posted by joxang
Think for a moment about the logistics involved in co-ordinating something like this. If we rule out the idea that the US government and the terrorists in question were in open co-operation, then the CIA must have (1) decided on the plan of action for the attacks on behalf of the terrorists (2) decided on (or found out about) september 11th as a definite date for the attacks (3) allowed the terrorists to carry out the attack by hiding intelligence reports from uninvolved parties and disabling security procedures designed to stop terrorist activities.


How about (4) Secretly coerced the terrorists to attack in such a way. I know I'm stretching this but I like to discuss all avenues before I close my mind to anything.


It is extremely unlikely that the CIA have such extensive infiltration of Al-Qaeda, that they could virtually plan an attack for them of the detail of 9/11. Simple arms deals are NOTHING to this. This would involve deciding on a target, deciding on a modus operendi, deciding on a date, and knowing the terrorist's plans to such detail that everything can be streamlined without a hitch.


You don't think that CIA operatives have infiltrated terrorists groups? Then I guess all my years of watching James Bond have been a waste. That was a joke if you didn't get it.


I do not believe there exists an organisation that can manipulate a terrorist organisation of the experience of Al-qaeda just like that.


Look into the WTC '93 bombing. It wasn't Al-qaeda but it was a close relative. We did manipulate the terrorists in how they made their bombs and where to set it off I believe...could be proven wrong.


But even assuming that the CIA have done this, why choose such a complicated modus operandi? Why not just a large bomb or two? Planes had never been used before as a terrorist weapon, the chances of failure were just so high.


You answered your question already. Planes hadn't been used before...bombs have. How would you feel if they did just bomb the WTC after having been bombed in '93? Would you feel safe that your government is really looking out for the safety of everyone? It is much easier for them to say "oh....we didn't think they would use planes as bombs" instead of saying " oh...we were lax in our intellegence and let the terrorists bomb the same building again".


And don't say that it was for maximum impact. Several large bombs would have been so so much easier to organise, been more conventional, and led to just as many deaths.


It was for maximum impact. Sorry had to. Actually, large bombs would have lead to more deaths. Remember that after the planes crashed, there was almost an hour to evacuate each building. With bombs, there would have been no time to evacuate. What do you think the terrorists would want? More deaths or time to evacuate?


Actually, forget all the diplomacy. The idea that the CIA planned the 9/11 attack on behalf of al-qaeda is beyond ludicrous. Which leaves the other three points...or that 9/11 was simply a terrorist attack against the US?


You're right in that it would be ludicrous for the CIA to plan the attacks. But, it wouldn't be so ludicrous for the CIA to push them inch by inch to plan the attacks the way the CIA wanted.

BTW, I'm just brainstorming and don't hold any of these theories to my heart. You are the one who asked who flew the planes into the buildings. All I'm doing is trying to think outside the box. If something I have stated is ludicrous, so be it. I'm not so high and mighty in thinking of myself to say....hey you might be right.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Yes, you're right...anything can be true.

Hands up who believes in aliens, freemason conspiracies and walking watermelons?

I'm on the wrong site, aren't i
.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
In best Horshack voice...."o..o..oo..me"

Just kidding. Ok, now I've gone into the realm of walking watermelons because I have an open enough mind to explore all possibilities? If a closed minded site is what you're looking for, then I'd say yes you are on the wrong site.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Lol no, i just think that some things require a mind to be too open to believe. There has to ba line drawn somewhere, or else we can all live in a permanent state of desperate paranoia
.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I agree but until you have thought out all avenues, then you really haven't thought it out at all. My earlier posts could have happened. Walking watermellons couldn't have. See the difference?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Joxang...

Your arguments are very weak in my opinion and have been addressed in very sharp detail in hundreds of threads in this section.

The logic you present is flawed to the core and if you cannot see that then I cannot bother to post here.

You should thank Griff for his patience.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
My logic is based on comparing what is 'probable' with what is 'possible but not likely'.

When in doubt, I always go for the 'probable' version, especially when the 'possible' version is even more unlikely than normal.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
So, is it "probable" that 19 terrorist highjackers had our millitary, defense, intellegence etc. cornered that day? Or is it just "possible but not likely"?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Yes, I think the hijacking theory is far more probable than the conspiracy theories I've seen on this site.

Firstly I saw the planes hit the towers. [B]Not ONE conspiracy theory I've read today (and I've read most of them) reliably covers who was in the planes (the main point of this thread)[/B]. The only theory which attempts to explain this was one which outlined possible government plans to stage a terrorist attack where the passengers from the pentagon and WTC planes were transferred to flight 93. This transfer story seems very very unlikely - where did the transfer take place? How do u fit so many people (from four planes) onto a single plane? Did no one complain? Did no one on the planes call relatives, friends, to enquire what was happening?

That's a hole which needs to be filled in to even begin to persuade me. And then there's the question of the 'explosions' - the basis of any 9/11 conspiracy theory appears to be explosives planted in the tower. I've looked at the videos and heard nothing but wind sounds. I've looked a *close-up* video (video.google.com...), posted in two other threads that have unfortunately been deleted, showing the tower buckling, not exploding. I also accept the engineers' explanation of the iron weakening before buckling under the strain.

Many hijackings have happened, some in American airspace - how come us intelligence didn't stop these? On 9/11 there was nothing to suggest that these were no more then 'routine' hijackings. Until they crashed them into buildings.

I don't think defence and military had anything to do with it - The US had pre-9/11 no policy of intercepting hijacked aircraft. And this wasn't due to Rumsfeld's June directive either. Hijacked aircraft weren't considered a direct national security threat.

The american intelligence failed to pick up on it yes, but they've failed to pick up on many terrorist attacks.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by joxang
3) Computerised systems that 'took over' the passenger airliners. (What on earth happened to the pilots, co-pilots, stewardesses etc...did they just sit still while a robot took over their plane?)


Hmmm... I think you might be onto something here. Of course, none of the people on board would be able to do anything if they were locked out of the controls. The radios would be jammed, or only broadcast a pre-recorded performance of the hijacking. And it would be easy enough to simply load a piece of baggage filled with as much "evidence" as you would need to point the finger wherever you wanted.

Please explain this in more detail. And provide links to this theory. Thanks!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join