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.

 

9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Err… I think that’s called misquoting, if I’m not mistaken?

No misquoting at all we simply disagree on wither they were capable of shooting down any aircraft and I contend since reports claimed the aircraft were armed they did have the capability.

Or are you insisting armed aircraft are not capable of shooting down aircraft? If so all I can do is :shk: my head




posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
C’mon shots, don’t do this. Being theoretically capable of shooting down an aircraft is one thing, but actually doing so is another altogether. Those fighters, from what I read and heard, were not capable of actually shooting down any of the four hijacked planes due to them being out of position and late to the scene.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Westpoint, can you explain how a plane that simply crashes into the ground, creating a relatively small crater, also create a debris spread of about 8 miles, and lands one of its engines hundreds of feet away in a forest?


Frankly I can’t; I’m not too familiar with plane crash characteristics as it is so I dont know how this one came about.


[edit on 3-8-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
C’mon shots, don’t do this. Being theoretically capable of shooting down an aircraft is one thing, but actually doing so is another altogether. Those fighters, from what I read and heard, were not capable of actually shooting down any of the four hijacked planes due to them being out of position and late to the scene.



Who is say there were not more fighters involved that we have not been told about?


westpoint responding to bsbray11 said---- Frankly I can’t; I’m not too familiar with plane crash characteristics as it is so I don't know how this one came about.


Do not be so naive; you just do not want to admit there might be a possibility the aircraft got shot down. There are only two ways a plane could be spread over an 8 mile area and that is either there was a bomb on board or it was shot down causing it to disintegrate on the way down. Well actually there is a third possibility perhaps the aircraft broke up into pieces because of no pilot or bad piloting skills.

Just in case you may not be aware of it, if there were more fighters involved they would not be on the same frequency each controller would assign fighters to separate channels to avoid confusion when directing the interceptor aircraft. That alone would explain why you can/could not hear them because those tapes were not released.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Who is say there were not more fighters involved that we have not been told about?


When you start going in that direction there’s really nothing more I can say, I’m not into pointless speculating, how can I disprove that? It’s like saying "Who is to say a UFO didn’t shoot down the plane"? How can I respond to that without just totally dismissing it as groundless, you won’t accept the official story so...

Like I said from what I read and heard there were no other fighters in the area and the ones in the report could not have possibly shot down United 93. If you can provide me with information that shows to a reasonable degree that the military was aware United 93 was hiijacked and that other aircraft were in a position to shoot it down I’d be willing to listen.

EDIT: If I could, I’d just like to go back to the original point, you said these tapes changed your views and that they made you think United 93 was shot down. I’m still having trouble understanding that, I don’t see how they indicate that the military was capable of shooting down United 93.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
If you can provide me with information that shows to a reasonable degree that the military was aware United 93 was hiijacked and that other aircraft were in a position to shoot it down I’d be willing to listen.


How could one show whether or not any aspect of the US military or NORAD was "aware" of U93 unless specific information from such an institution was released?

This amounts to, "I'd be willing to consider the possibility, if only they would tell me themselves that they were "aware" of U93." Is that not blind faith in your military, an institution that makes it living off of killing, lying, and greed?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
So if you can’t show me that the military was aware of United 93, and you wont believe the official report that they weren’t and I can’t prove to your satisfaction that they indeed weren’t we have a predicament then.

BTW, it was not necessary to question my faith in the Military; I’m quite comfortable with what they have to say about 9/11.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
No plane crash in the world has ever had an 8 mile debris field. This is 100% complete proof that the plane broke up in the air.

The only options are a fluke accident, a bomb or it was shot down.

Its pretty obvious which is most likely and that option is one that the government could never admit it did.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
So if you can’t show me that the military was aware of United 93,


Again, because they have not themselves informed us of having been aware. This would be equivalent to a murderer confessing. If they shot it down, they would most certainly not tell us about it now.


and you wont believe the official report that they weren’t


Based on other information, which does not depend upon what they tell you that they did or did not know or do.


and I can’t prove to your satisfaction that they indeed weren’t we have a predicament then.


You only have to consider physical evidence. I'm sure you know how long 8 miles is. A plane will not create a debris spread that large unless it suffers some sort of failure mid-air, and not after impacting the ground.

We can discuss the above if you want, but it suggests that the military is not telling us the whole story. This is, again, regardless of what they tell you; this is based on physical evidence, a different approach to figuring out whether or not they're lying than just saying "Welp, they said they didn't shoot it down, so they must not have!" And guess which method is more accurate?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Westpoint, can you explain how a plane that simply crashes into the ground, creating a relatively small crater, also create a debris spread of about 8 miles, and lands one of its engines hundreds of feet away in a forest?



It is called "a plane crash".... and I don't know where you got your information. How do we know if you are giving real information or just exagerating?....

Anyways, do a search on the plane that crashed in Miami south Florida a few years back close to the airport and find out about the devastation that it created.... It didn't crash in one neat pile.... Airplanes that crash rarely if ever "leave a neat pile of debris"....

[edit on 3-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
......
Do not be so naive; you just do not want to admit there might be a possibility the aircraft got shot down. There are only two ways a plane could be spread over an 8 mile area and that is either there was a bomb on board or it was shot down causing it to disintegrate on the way down. Well actually there is a third possibility perhaps the aircraft broke up into pieces because of no pilot or bad piloting skills.
.......


No, there is another reason why the aircraft did not crash and leave a neat pile of debris. Depending on the angle of the crash, depending how fast it was going, the motors were still on I would guess but this is only a guess. The aircraft could have lost part of it's fuselage if it bounced once or a couple times before crashing..

We have the recording from the planes and the fact that we know for certain that passengers were going to try to regain control of the aircraft. Maybe the pilot/co-pilot or someone else tried to level the plane but it was too late to do this, hence the plane bounced, and it's fuselage was all over the place.

For all we know as the passesgers tried to take control of the aircraft in mid flight, there was probably a fight and something could have gone terribly wrong during that fight.

Maybe one of the passengers tried to bank the aircraft too sharply for all we know, this would have certainly affected the aircraft and something could have broken off which could have precipitated tha crash, but as it stands there doesn't appear to be any evidence that "it was shot down".


[edit on 3-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
It is called "a plane crash"....


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh ok. I love how you break everything down for us.



and I don't know where you got your information. How do we know if you are giving real information or just exagerating?....

Anyways, do a search[...]


You can do a search as well. I'll even give you a head start: New Baltimore, Somerset County, Pennsylvania. U93 crashed in Shanksville.

I'm not saying there should have been a "neat pile". You're putting words in my mouth that are horribly off from what I am actually saying.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   

BTW, it was not necessary to question my faith in the Military; I’m quite comfortable with what they have to say about 9/11.

even after they got busted giving false testimony (of course not under oath)?

thats a shame.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
First of all...why is it that you people don't describe how is it exactly that some of the debris was found miles away?.... Could it be that much of the debri found so far away was washed away because Indian Lake is 2 miles from the crash site?.....and of course they don't tell you that part of the debri found the farthest was mostly paper.....


Those discoveries, which ranged from a five-inch bone fragment to an endorsed paycheck as much as eight miles downwind of the crash site, sent investigators on a hunt across a countryside that is mostly farms and woodlands. Bits of debris probably blew even farther, Szupinka said.

Carol Delasko, who works at the marina, said she saw a light cloud that stretched several hundred feet across rising about 200 feet into the air moments after the crash.

"It was white," said Theresa Weyant, borough secretary for the nearby resort community of Indian Lake, "so you looked up and it and you saw shiny stuff floating in the sky ... sparkly, shiny stuff, like confetti."

When it got to Terry Lowery's 65-acre farm, about three-quarters of a mile away, "it just looked like it was raining down," Lowery said.

"Paper, insulation and mail -- I picked a bunch up," he said.

Yesterday, a state police helicopter circled overhead as much as five miles downwind of the crash site. Its mission: to find debris -- mostly paper, postage stamp-size pieces of rubberized material and strands of charred insulation.

On Wednesday morning, marina Service Manager John Fleegle found what he figured was a bone, washed up on one of the marina's concrete boat launches.

www.post-gazette.com...



The plane went down two miles northwest of the harbor and crashed so hard it left a debris field spread out over a square mile, said Utah County Sheriff's Office spokesman Dennis Harris.

www.slackdavis.com...

That was a small plane, and it left debris over a square mile.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
No plane crash in the world has ever had an 8 mile debris field. This is 100% complete proof that the plane broke up in the air.

The only options are a fluke accident, a bomb or it was shot down.

Its pretty obvious which is most likely and that option is one that the government could never admit it did.


Actually a bomb or the plane being shot down would have left a larger area of debris. As large as...


The debris from the aircraft was scattered across 845 square miles and the impact reached 1.6 on the Richter scale.

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Oh, and lets not forget, to the people claiming that no aircraft crash has left such small pieces of debris....here is some proof that refutes that claim.


Date: 05 July 1970
Airline: Air Canada
Flight No.: 621
Aircraft: DC-8-63
Location: Toronto, Canada
Fatalities: 109:109
Description: The plane exploded during a go around following a botched landing attempt which slammed the outermost engine on the runway.



Date: 11 July 1991
Airline: Nigeria Airways
Flight No.: 2120
Aircraft: DC-8-61
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Fatalities: 261:261
Description: A fire in a wheel well prompted the crew to attempt an emergency landing. The fire damaged electrical cables and hydraulic lines, causing loss of control and the crash.


All the above information and images can be found at.
911research.wtc7.net...

---Edit, the images are not loaded properly, you have to go to the site to see them.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
First of all...why is it that you people don't describe how is it exactly that some of the debris was found miles away?.... Could it be that much of the debri found so far away was washed away because Indian Lake is 2 miles from the crash site?.....




What was that about Indian Lake washing the debris so far away, Muaddib?

Lol, I don't even see as much as a stream connecting Shanksville to New Baltimore.


and of course they don't tell you that part of the debri found the farthest was mostly paper.....


Mostly? So then what are you ignoring? Check this CNN transcript out:


"DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, we want to take our viewers live to Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Our Brian Cabell is standing by. This of course is the site where United Airlines flight 93 crashed on its way from Newark to San Francisco, crashed on Tuesday, and I understand, in this investigation, there's some breaking news. Brian, what can you tell us?

BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, in the last hour or so, the FBI and the state police here have confirmed that [they have] cordoned off a second area about six to eight miles away from the crater here where plane went down. This is apparently another debris site, which raises a number of questions. Why would debris from the plane -- and they identified it specifically as being from this plane -- why would debris be located 6 miles away. Could it have blown that far away. It seems highly unlikely. Almost all the debris found at this site is within 100 yards, 200 yards, so it raises some question. We don't want to overspeculate of course. But there were some cell phone callers, one cell phone caller in particular, who said saw a bomb, or something that looked like a bomb with one of the hijackers. Also, the man who took over the plane apparently announced at one point, he had -- there was a bomb on board the plane.


Source: CNN Transcript

They had TWO PLACES sectioned off: the crater, and ANOTHER site, 6 to 8 miles away. For what? Paper that was also scattered all in between? What would the point in that be if it was coming down everywhere? There was apparently another site, besides the crater, where there was significant debris that needed to be cordoned off.

And a freaking engine landed 2000 feet away in a forest, too, btw. Did that lift up and get blown away too?

The reporter said himself that it seemed unlikely that debris flew so far away. If you want an idea as to why, take a look at the pic below.


Carol Delasko, who works at the marina, said she saw a light cloud that stretched several hundred feet across rising about 200 feet into the air moments after the crash.

"It was white," said Theresa Weyant, borough secretary for the nearby resort community of Indian Lake, "so you looked up and it and you saw shiny stuff floating in the sky ... sparkly, shiny stuff, like confetti."


Right, and here's a photo of it:



How hard does it look like the wind was blowing?

Looks to me like it's just rising straight up into the air. Wind, generally speaking, would blow it in some other direction, if it were very strong. You know what I mean? It only looks white near the very base.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
No plane crash in the world has ever had an 8 mile debris field. This is 100% complete proof that the plane broke up in the air.

The only options are a fluke accident, a bomb or it was shot down.

Its pretty obvious which is most likely and that option is one that the government could never admit it did.


Or the fact that they were flying it out of the design envelope, and it broke apart. Or they were running the engines at full power for a long time, which they aren't designed to do, and one blew apart and shredded the wing.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Crowley [an FBI agent] said the FBI and NTSB have not determined whether a bomb exploded inside the aircraft before it crashed. Residents of nearby Indian Lake reported seeing debris falling from the jetliner as it overflew the area shortly before crashing.


Source: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review; emphasis mine.

An image of Flight 427's crash (a 1994 crash of a Boeing 737 in PA):



It also hit the ground, but at a much easier angle than Flight 93's. It's farthest debris reached only 2 and a half miles, and that debris was charred and sooty.


Several lightweight items (for example, pieces of interior insulation and a passenger business card) were discovered as far as 2½ miles east-northeast of the main wreckage; these items exhibited soot and smoke damage.


Source



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Or the fact that they were flying it out of the design envelope, and it broke apart. Or they were running the engines at full power for a long time, which they aren't designed to do, and one blew apart and shredded the wing.


Could you clarify? What would be outside of the design envelope? lol

Because, remember: the planes that hit WTC and Pentagon were allegedly going their top speeds (depending on the account for the Pentagon, but 590 mph each for the Towers), and there is video of a plane approaching the WTC at such a speed for a fairly long distance (I'm sure the alleged terrorists would've been taking no Sunday stroll), and in none of these cases did an engine or any other part dismount prematurely.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   
They weren't flying their top speed. The cruising speed of a 757 and 767 is around 600mph. But even if they were flying at top speed, they were flying a long straight path, and not making radical manuvers. And the engines probably weren't running at full power for a long time. There are reports that the terrorists were doing manuvers to try to throw the passengers off balance on flight 93.

Engines are designed to run at full power for take off and climbout, which usually only lasts a few minutes. If you run them at full power for long periods of time, you run the risk of engine failure or even a catastrophic failure where the engine blows apart.

If a hard turn was pulled, it could have gone past the G limit of the plane, and a part separated.


[edit on 8/4/2006 by Zaphod58]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join