It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Hellmutt
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.

Wow...where did you find this? Wow.

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 07:19 PM
I talked to a friend wich is an old pilot, he was flying on DC-9, Boeing-737, and now is captain of Airbus A319. Considering 9/11 impacts, he said that he is absolutely sure that it is crazy even to think that those planes were flown by under-trained men, especially second plane that hit WTC (relatively hard manoeuvre and precise impact). So, my opinion is somewhere between #3 and #4.

Any airliner pilot here? I'd like to hear his opinion on this matter.

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Hellmutt
I recommend reading this:

Operation Pearl (Word document)

That was interesting, thanks Hellmutt

I was with several others who witnessed two planes flying exactly as described in Operation Pearl. Large jets, nose to tail, with an increment of what appeared to be no more than 50 feet between. I've seen fighter pilots pull stunts and fly tight formations, but these were big jets travelling impossibly close the whole time they were in our sight. Not normal.

So perfectly synchonized was their motion that a few of us said immediately that it looked like one was towing the other. That was the most striking thing to me, even more than their dangerous proximity. I instantly recognized that I had never seen two planes fly truly in unison like this; not even elite pilots fly with robotlike straightness in formation, and if so not for long. After reading about electronic towing it seems like a potential explanation.

Mod edit: Fixed Quote Tag.

[edit on 22/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:39 PM

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

It seems you are extremely skeptical of an infiltration into a terrorist organization, but this is not very extreme at all when you learn that Al-Qaeda was basically created by the US. Here's a decent article detailing the formation of the organization: Link.

The other falacy in your logic is that you said "no one had used airplanes for terrorist attacks before" and equated that with being unprepaired for the situation. The truth is that we've had potential plans for just that since 1976!! Link.

Now is it that hard to believe that operations within our government could manipulate an organization that they helped to found? Decompartmentalize the work enough and most people would think they are working for "their cause" (whether 'terrorist' or US) when in fact they are working for the same goal!! In this situation you would have VERY few people in the know, explaining the lack of whistleblowers.

I recommend the book "The New Pearl Harbor" by David R. Griffin as it is very objective and does not try and convince you of anything. Instead it lays out multiple explainations and lets you make the decision.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:58 AM
Well the Hijackers failed flight school, and personally I don't think they would of had the skills to pilot those planes.

What we do know is that some of the hijackers were trained by the US Military (according to MSNBC.)

Although MSNBC have removed the article from their website (they forgot to remove the send this article to a friend page, Google for "Hijackers may of been trained by US Military".)

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:41 AM
i believe it happened just like it was explained.. terrorist hi jacked planes and crashed them..

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:46 AM
Copies of the MSNBC pages can be found here and here

I tried the 'e-mail this story' link but the link to the story in the e-mail I received led to a dead link. This is the address the 'e-mail this story' link goes to though:

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:02 AM
This thread is loaded with debree pictures at the pentigon. Included are airplane fragments with AA (American Airlines) all over them. And don't forget the landing gear! Missles don't need it yet there it is at the pentigon crash site...

quote: Originally posted by diggs

quote: Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Howdy folks...

Just gotta ask a question...

Just what does a Cruise Missle need with landing gear ????

What landing gear?


You haven't seen this thread yet have you ???

Browse that thread and you will see the landing gear...

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:08 AM
Watch this video. It's a well made video, and one of my favorites. It's over an hour long, but it's full of good information.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:20 AM
The following is a synopsis of the case against Dick Cheney who was named as the prime suspect in the crimes on 9/11 by Michael C. Ruppert in Crossing the Rubicon.

This may help. From Michael C. Ruppert's - FTW website

MEANS: Dick Cheney and the Secret Service
Cheney was Commander in Chief on 9/11 calling the shots via Secret Service.

* Secret Service has the legal authority to take supreme command over all agencies in the United States in time of a national emergency on U.S. soil. Even the Air Force recognizes Secret Service supremacy.
* Secret Service has the highest technological communication systems of any agency in the U.S. - as it should.
* On 9/11 Secret Service had the technology to see FAA radar screens in real time.
* Secret Service was in the decision-making loop as early as 8:15am on 9/11, no later than 8:45am.
* Everything was in place on 9/11 for the Commander in Chief to have full supreme control of the Air Force via the Secret Service communication systems and legal mandate to take supreme command.
* However, Bush was reading about goats in Booker Elementary School. Secret Service was within arms' reach, and they chose to keep him there as the 9/11 plot unfolded. Bush's Secret Service detail was in full communication with Cheney's Secret Service agents in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) as the 9/11 plot unfolded.
* Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11 and Secret Service was the supreme command.

Mod Edit: No Quote – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 22/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:50 AM

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Well the Hijackers failed flight school, and personally I don't think they would of had the skills to pilot those planes.

AFAIK even the alleged Fl.77 pilot MADE the course - on a second time. Later lost the license because he failed physical, not because of (lack of) skills.
And why were they viewed as unsuccessful by their instructors? AFAIK because they weren't too good at landing the plane - I'd say hardest skill as it means getting plane to contact the ground with precision and with plane ending in one piece. Naturally, their plan wasn't to land crafts so why train some boring stupid landing and why not practise flight more?

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 11:08 AM
Are you still with us? I hope so, because if you are, I'm really curious to know whether all those links and things you've been flooded with actually answer your original question: what about the planes?

Alas, there is not one convincing answer to be found in the thread itself. Nice rhetoric, though.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 11:13 AM

Originally posted by tuccy
AFAIK because they weren't too good at landing the plane - I'd say hardest skill as it means getting plane to contact the ground with precision and with plane ending in one piece. Naturally, their plan wasn't to land crafts so why train some boring stupid landing and why not practise flight more?

Hmm...seems to me that flying less than 20 feet off the ground at high speeds would be more difficult than landing. Ground effect doesn't come into play with does at 500 knots less than 20 feet off the ground though.

edit: BTW, I do believe a 757 hit the pentagon.

[edit on 6/22/2006 by Griff]

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:40 PM
the government did not half to actually work with high jackers to have assisted in the attacks. treat this as a crime. who, in the end, really did profit from the crime? Afghanistan? we bombed them even farther back into the stone age. osama? sure he got some press, but then what? our own administration? they were able to use the attacks as an excuse to force through an entire agenda on just about anything they wanted. attack saddam? got to fight those terrorists! cut back on programs? money to fight terrorists! civil liberties being chipped away? sorry have to find those terrorists!

how many of you know the document known as p.n.a.c? (project for new american century) it was written in 95 by wolfowitz, perle, cheney,rummy, kristol. in it, they espouse a doctrine of an american foothold in the middle east. the first step is invading iraq and removing saddam. to be able to achieve this though they would have to have the american people behind it.

then out of the blue, W was elected. cheney who was asked to find a good vp candidate, picked himself. six and half months into an administration that had falling approval ratings, what happens? a pearl harbor style attack.

as have so often been noted, there were many blaring signals that something was on the way, yet the government did nothing. to have so many procedures that failed at the same time, whether it was law enforcement ( fbi not looking into the flight schools eg,) or emergency flight procedures for highjackings is coincidente?

as for the towers and those planes. does it not seem odd that they were almost able to immediately have identified the highjackers? yet they will not let us see the passenger flight manifests. people forget that marvin bush ( W's younger bro) was the ceo of the security company for the towers and dulles airport. would not be all that hard for him to have agents as guards to place explosives or to let certain people pass security for planes.

never trust any organization that has the powere to investigate itself and yet at the same time says, trust us.

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:10 AM
Just because people think the US had a hand in it.. DOESNT mean the us DID it.

Why could the USA of been in the loop about the attack?
Ie. Bush's memo prior to septmber11 saying alqaeda planned on slamming planes into buildings.
Match this with yusef's personal laptop when he was captured with the bojinka plot explaining flying planes into the WTC's

The us didnt HAVE to be in the plane, or even near them.
Ensure someone soft, stupid and bored is sitting at airport security for the weeks of september,

Thats why i believe bush was so shocked in that classroom.
He'd been waiting and waiting and waiting to see if this rag tag group could pull it off.
They wernt good enough to keep it a secret ( i mean the memo's knew of the plot )
so he probably didnt have confidence.. THUS why he had 'something' prepared to hit the pentagon. If the hijcking didnt take place, they could have something hit the pentagon, in the area that HAPPENED to be under renovations ( I mean.. you wouldnt slam a plan into the CENTRE, hitting all the CRITICAL points would you?)

Again, terrorists would of broought the plane down in the middle, making as MUCH DAMAGE as possible..
why come in from the side? it doesnt make sense.

Perhaps flight 93 deviated from its flight course to avoid certain junctions INCASE they were hijacked?.... when the jets saw this they immediately fired??

I remmeber that in a couple of weeks AFTER sept11, a plane crashed in NY
a boeing that killed everyone on board.
One man on this flight, was MEANT to be on one of the flights that hit the WTC

I believe this is the key,

this plane supposidly crashed, yet the tail section was photographed in near perfect condition severed off..

There was a short news report regarding this crash, but it is almost unheard of.

One way or another this plane that crashed in the days following sept11, for unknown reasons played a part.
Maybe it was the plane that supposidly hit the Pentagon?
There is a report of that particular flight 93 landing at a different airport on sept11, when it was meant to of crashed?..

Again the USA didnt crash the planes into the WTC towers.
Terrorists did. BUT THE USA let it happen.

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 07:12 AM

Originally posted by tuccy

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).

You are both wrong. Every commercial flight has a pre-planned flight path. That flight path is usually scheduled 2 or 3 days in advance. A.T.C. controllers are trained to call NORAD immediately when any of those flights goes off its flight path.

On top of that, the morning of 9/11 the aircraft turned off their transponders. Without transponders, radars cannot see certain information like flight number and altitude. BUT the radar that usually picks up the transponder signals can still see the position, and heading of the plane. The 9/11 flights were off their flight path for more than 40 minutes each. And their transponders were off the same amount of time.. That's DOUBLE indication of hijacking, and ATC should have called NORAD. AND THEY DID. Its a known fact that NORAD was contacted, and a known fact they were told to fly towards the Atlantic ocean, which is AWAY from the 9/11 flights. They even said so on the Flight 93 video on the History channel. "His" "Story" channel. I'm not talking about the Flight 93 Hollywood movie, I'm talking about another Flight 93 episode.

NORAD was more than likely told to stand down, because they were told about the flights, and also have the technology to track the flights and intercept them. But instead they were diverted AWAY from the flights, and pretended they were lost.

As for what happen on the flights.. I think all passengers were transferred to the Flight 93. Then were blown up in the sky, or shot down.

Think about it. All other flights were mysteriously under booked.

Flight 11 = 92 people on board
Flight 175 = 65
Flight 77 = 64
Flight 93 = 45

Add that together and you get 266. A 757 exactly like Flight 93's can hold 280 people max. That's just passengers alone. Not including flight personnel and pilots.

I think they were all transferred to Flight 93, and the jets that flew into the Pentagon and WTC building were fake, equipped with remote control equipment, and maybe explosives, painted to resemble a commercial plane.

The question people should REALY be asking is.... Why was the military practicing war games on the morning of 911?

Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 08:09 AM
What technology does the NORAD have to track planes over the USA short of AWACS? NORAD's primary mission is to prevent bombers to get to USA and accordingly sensors are set up that way.
And the ATC might not be able to track the aircrafts effectively, as in areas with primary radar coverage they'd be one unidentified blimp among other blimps and in areas without primary radar they'll be invisible.

Btw between 1991 and 2001 there was ONE reported interception inside the USA - the Pane Stewart one. Others were exclusively int he ADIZ over oceans, air traffic coming in or out.
It was also SOP to head the scramble fighters over the sea first, as even the hijack scenarios were mostly including incoming overseas flight.
Also the oceanwards departure avoided large air traffic junctions, to give some time to get the civillian planes out of the way. So the ocean departure makes sense in the light of pre-0911 SOP.

NORAD ops on 0911

EDIT to add link

[edit on 23-6-2006 by tuccy]

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 09:39 AM

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
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.

But it seems to me that, that is precisely the point of 9/11 fablers. They have a fixed notion in their minds, they must have entertained the notion that the official case was flawed to undertake their "investigations" in the first place. Therefore, their opinion was already biased against the official view and therefore not objective.

The main problem I see with the 9/11 fables are that there is too many of them. There seems to be as almost as many "theories" as there are people reading them.
I believe if there were one "true" alternative it would be showing itself above all others. There ain't. Why even the 9/11 truth seekers argue amongst themselves as to which is the best story.

Whenever someone questions their "truth" by saying "I don't believe." the response is usually post the links. This is the flawed contention on these boards that pages of Internet derived information, with often doubtful or impossible to prove authenticity, proves a case in an quantity beats quality sort of way. Empty vessels (contentions) make the most noise

I await the post a link response with glee.....

I don't need to. I have read your "proofs" and am not swayed by them. As an individual, sentient, rational, and reasoning human being I draw different conclusions from your "facts" that is my right and ridiculing me like you do to all other dissenters wont change my mind guys.

Yes we all see things differently and I think sometimes we all could do with broadening our minds...................

I now hand over to the "truthseekers" vilification and abuse......................

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:08 AM

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota
Empty vessels (contentions) make the most noise

I believe that the government has made exponentially more of your proverbial noise than any group of "truth seekers".

Your argument is self-defeating.

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 11:14 AM
I lost a former co-worker, Jessica Sachs, and a Pilot named John Oginowski from my Hometown at the time.

In my opinion, these people died in the plane crashes that hit the WTC. How and why the planes hit, is still a mystery to me.

What I do know for certain is, the physics of a building falling straight down, all of them in fact, ensures there were detonations inside the building to cause it to fall "precisely" this way. I have seen many Casino demolitions living in Las Vegas, and even if just a small number of explosives are not perfect the building will fall sideways.

Try this at home using gravity and inertia. Get an empty roll of paper towels, the cardboard tube set up to stand on its end, moisten above and below your area you will burn for the experiement. Take a lighter and burn a small section of the side about 3 quarters of the way to the top. Let it burn for awhile, and there will be a weaking and a hole. Now patiently watch it burn, and see what happens, the side that is most weakend by the fire will be the direction in which the tube will fall, or at least it will sag at an angle this becoming top heavy. Just like a game of chicken when the person on top of you gets too heavy, you don't just fall straight down unless you control the fall. Gravity will dictate it will fall this way, and continue on that path from the weight and inertia. There you have a homemade example of how it would have happened at the WTC. Even if the plan flew fast enough to weaken the structure from damage, it will be even more likely the tower would have fallen at an angle.

That's all there is to it.

Try this at home safely if you don't believe me.


This idea is copyrighted, under Matthew B. Graybeal.

[edit on 23-6-2006 by ADHDsux4me]

new topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in