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 inside job, what i just thought that might help prove it

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
ok, it started about 2 days ago in the post office, i was with my sister waiting to send a package, and they have a display on the wall with the firefighters at ground zero raising the flag and i started thinking about how people think 9/11 was an inside job, and at first i was thinking why would the government ever do that to innocent people, but then i started thinking about the pentagon and how another post on this site someone found a story on yahoo about some guy near the pentagon on 9/11 saying he saw 2 planes that day, one that hit the pentagon and one flying up high possibly controlling it, and i was thinking it could have been an inside job because the part of the pentagon that was hit had just been renovated(i saw a speacial about the pentagon on tv once and they talkeed about it, it was on the history channel) and they said how they had kevlar in between the walls in case of an explosion.....

now why would they think of that? either they knew it was going to happen or hey made it happen and they hit the renovated area on purpose to save lives while killing people to help enrage us as civilians into wanting to go to war.


what are your thoughts on this?




posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 03:37 AM
link   
They put in the kevlar lining after 9/11 and the second plane could have been a passenger plane or a patrol.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by spinstopshere
They put in the kevlar lining after 9/11


No they didn't.





The renovation team had help from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers' Blast Center in Omaha, Neb., to incorporate lessons learned from bomb blasts that destroyed U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. Six-inch steel beams were installed, vertically and horizontally, through all five floors. New blast-resistant windows, almost two inches thick, were mounted inside steel frames.

Between these one-ton window units, ballistic cloth had been stretched and bolted to the steel frames to reduce deadly shrapnel. This Kevlar cloth proved to be so strong that a crew removing debris after the attack found a single sheet of cloth holding up a 4,000-pound piece of limestone. "It absorbed fragmentation that might otherwise have come through these spaces between the windows and steel," Evey says. "Stuff just fell to the floor."

www.moaa.org...



[edit on 11-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by spinstopshere
the second plane could have been a passenger plane or a patrol.


All commercial flights were on the ground by this time IIRC.

NORAD did not intercept so what would be "patrolling"?



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
As was being told already so many times, the plane above Pentagon was a National Guard C-130 cargo plane that took off a short time before and was asked by ATC to look for Flt. 77 after it disappeared from radar screens by descending to low altitude.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
As was being told already so many times, the plane above Pentagon was a National Guard C-130 cargo plane that took off a short time before and was asked by ATC to look for Flt. 77 after it disappeared from radar screens by descending to low altitude.


Why would they "scramble" a cargo plane to "look" for a hijacked plane?

Ask yourself that. I am sure there are a few better suited intercept/hunter planes available... an f-16 maybe?

The fact that it was supposedly a C-130 makes it even more suspicious as:

1. It is not suited for this mission.
2. It would be a GREAT platform for "commmand and control"
3. Even if they found the jet they could not make an armed intervention.
4. What were they gonna do? wave at it and say HI? Tip the wings? Give them the finger?

Makes zero sense.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   


Why would they "scramble" a cargo plane to "look" for a hijacked plane?


Read it again, the plane had already taken off, and was in the area. They didn't scramble it.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy



Why would they "scramble" a cargo plane to "look" for a hijacked plane?


Read it again, the plane had already taken off, and was in the area. They didn't scramble it.


I guess that would depend on how long "a short time before" is...




top topics



 
0

log in

join