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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu
Please explain this in more detail. And provide links to this theory. Thanks!


*SNIP Cos i was
.

Passengers on united 93 called home in mobiles. I doubt they cut off mobile signals to these planes...

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by joxang


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.


Actually, you are dead wrong on that point. As soon as communication is lost with an airplane, NORAD automatically scrabbles jets to intercept the plane:

Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times.
In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times



[edit on 6/21/2006 by pstiffy]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
And on 9/11 jets were either scrambled to the wrong area or not scrambled at all. How does one explain this without the aid of the government?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Could you give me a source for that information?

The majority of scrambles generally occur because of private airplanes wandering into restricted airspace, and for monitoring suspected drug shipments. The FAA had no dedicated way of contacting NORAD on the event of a hijacking, the only method of contact was by phone.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
...explained because NORAD, like the CIA, screwed up. Screw-ups happen. It's funny that most american agencies are regularly derided for their total uselessness (cough cough CIA bay of pigs), but when it comes to government cover-ups they develop superhuman powers and abilities.

I would mention the military exercise, but that was obviously a set-up by the government.

Just out of interest Griff, the 7/7 bombings in London: real or conspiracy?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
So, what's wrong with picking up the phone? Once the transponders were turned off, I would think they should have been scrambled. They weren't until at least a half an hour later. Why?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
joxang,

You "request" for topics/threads discussing some of your initial questions has been fulfilled, Please check your U2Us.

As for the "delay" in the FAA contacting NORAD and the "scrambling of jets" ... Well, if I must, give me a minute. I'll see if I can find that equine's carcass.

On a side note,
We're Not here to stifle your efforts, just to try and maintain some semblance of order and minimize 100s of threads on the same topics.

It's easier to follow the flow of discussion and research that way.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by joxang
...explained because NORAD, like the CIA, screwed up. Screw-ups happen. It's funny that most american agencies are regularly derided for their total uselessness (cough cough CIA bay of pigs), but when it comes to government cover-ups they develop superhuman powers and abilities.


I see what you are saying, but shouldn't we at least hold these agencies accountable for their screw-ups? I've said it before. If i were to design a structure and it happens to fall because of my error, why can't i just say..."oh, well it was a screw up"?


Just out of interest Griff, the 7/7 bombings in London: real or conspiracy?


To tell the truth, I don't have much knowledge of that event to say one way or the other.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Why didn't the CIA find out about the threat beforehand?
If NORAD had considered the possibility of planes being used as weapons, why no precautions?
If the FBI knew about terrorist suspects training as pilots, why were they not detained?

And why on earth would two large towers collapse just because two also considerably large airliners crashed into them?

I can't answer your NORAD question. It could be explained by a simple screw-up, but it can also be part of a giant conspiracy. I know which one I think it is, but there are so many points you can pick up from 9/11 and ask questions about which can all have perfectly simple explanations.

The answer 'people screw up' is a valid one.

Some of the points made in the conspiracy theories are also valid: but at least two of them are *not*. The main one, as I've brought up before, being "who was flying the planes?".

Your CIA-terrorist manipulation idea is more valid then most of the other conspiracy theories on this site. Though that's not honestly saying a lot.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
And on 9/11 jets were either scrambled to the wrong area or not scrambled at all. How does one explain this without the aid of the government?


How does one explain that Payne Stewart's plane, flying in straight course on autopilot, was intercepted unsuccessfully few times?That was a conspiracy as well? Also it took much longer for the interception than it took for the hijackers to crash the planes on 0911.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pstiffy


Actually, you are dead wrong on that point. As soon as communication is lost with an airplane, NORAD automatically scrabbles jets to intercept the plane:


[edit on 6/21/2006 by pstiffy]


Actually, not. The ATC has to decide and in case of need, contact NORAD and ask for interception (unless of course the interception is because of violation of restricted area). NORAD then scrambles emergency fighters - total available on 0911 were 21 crafts across the entire States, at 15-minutes standby (after 0911 shortened for 8-minutes).



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   
maybe the planes were controlled by remote



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Joxang, you're obviously new to the whole CT-9/11 thing and don't know as much information as the rest of us. Believe me, there is more than enough evidence, acts of coverup, and documented testimony that contradicts the official story to suggest government complicity.

You really do have to open your mind though, there is however a lot of misinformation going around these days and you can't believe everything you hear, from both sides. If researching this topic as convinced me of anything, it's that we simply cannot trust our government anymore, because when you break everything down about the corporate world it all goes back to them and they can easily control policy from the top.

Why would they do such a thing like 9/11? It's not that they 'done' anything, they simply let it happen and made sure the aftermath paved way for them to control policy even more and get even richer from it. Dick Cheney has gotten filthy rich off of industrial defense contracts, and the Bush family has big oil ties as we all know. Something like 9/11 is just TOO convenient when the most powerful people in our nation stand to profit and ensure finacial security for generations to come because of it. That's just the public face of it though, I seriously do think there was a military reason for 9/11 to happen, like they needed a disaster like this to usher in the next millenium under a blanket of fear and war.

I "want" to believe the official story, trust me I do. I've read the 9/11 Commission like I'm sure most have before AND after I put on my tinfoil hat and started questioning things. Too much doesn't fit though, I'm willing to overlook an unexplainable occurance here and there, but when EVERY line of thinking on almost every aspect of 9/11 has a discrepancy or a failure in logic, it stops being coincidence and starts being one big pile of lies.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I notice that the majority of posters on this site are excellent at flowery rhetoric, but break down when solid fact-based debate is required. No-one has even attempted to address any of my concerns about the conspiracy theories (apart from Griffs who made some suggestions designed to help me 'open my mind').

You can't 'convert me' into a paranoid citizen. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe I'm too naive and trusting to be in this world. (I also live in London).

But please - don't talk to me about not knowing enough about this topic. And TELL ME WHAT YOU KNOW THAT I DON'T!



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Joxang, I think your question has been answered. Now you're just being stubborn.

If anyone can psychologically manipulate individuals to become suicidal, factions of the US military can. There's no secret behind the psychology of zealous fundamentalism (and it's not really a far cry from the psychology employed by cults such as Heavens Gate), and as Griff has pointed out, the link between Western intelligence agencies and Islamic terrorism isn't a weak or trivial one. We could've done just as well, if not better, than the Islamic extremists we blamed.

It's a pretty common opinion that the Muslims were there, but only patsies for a larger goal.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by joxang

You can't 'convert me' into a paranoid citizen. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe I'm too naive and trusting to be in this world. (I also live in London).


I would certainly hope not, and that is Not what Denying Ignorance is about. What it is about requires that you consider all sides, opinions and viewpoints prior to coming to Your conclusions. We all see things differently, yet to limit one's views and considerations to a single perspective will never result in broadened horizons, nor enlightenment.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   


There's no secret behind the psychology of zealous fundamentalism


You said it. Taken by itself, that explains terrorist attack very very well indeed.

So a person who refuses to believe in the conspiracy theory is not open minded, but anyone who does believe it (and incidentally flatly denies any theory linked to a decent, moral government) is open minded enough to see the evilness of the people who govern us.

In answer to my apparent 'stubbornness'. There is not one single complete conspiracy theory on this site which holds together against the points that I have made. 9/11 CTs string together events and tie explanations to them. The problem is that better, far simpler explanations can be found elsewhere. That of course is my humble opinion, and I see no need to talk about it further.

Have fun conspiring!



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I can't understand why somebody would totally discount the CIA infiltrating a terrorist group. Why is that hard to believe? That is what they do, among other things. The people in the planes actually died. IMO, They were actually hijacked and led into the WTC buildings. As for how they ended up that way, IMO, the hijackers were manipulated by the CIA operatives that infiltrated their terrorist group. If you don't want to believe it, that's fine. But don't act like it's impossible.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
Here is an interesting website. If you look over this website and you still have reservations about the possiblity of the government being involved, then you are just being unreasonable.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...
Same website, different page.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...
Yet, another link, about the 9/11 commissions naming of arabs as terrorists that are still alive.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by trudginup]

[edit on 21-6-2006 by trudginup]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I recommend reading this:

Operation Pearl (Word document)

A possible scenario. Please read the whole thing before you eventually dismiss it. I believe it might have happened this way.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join