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.

 

Easy Question: Who's Responsible for the 9/11 Plot?

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Originally posted by 2PacSade




But how did it get there in the first place? It's the Pentagon? You couldn't fly over a drug dealer's house & not be noticed in the USA!



Are you beginning to see the light?




posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by 2PacSade




But how did it get there in the first place? It's the Pentagon? You couldn't fly over a drug dealer's house & not be noticed in the USA!



Are you beginning to see the light?


Yes I am & want to seek out what other informed individuals like yourself think about such subjects. Could something have been launched from close by?

edited for spelling

[edit on 3-9-2006 by 2PacSade]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Originally posted by 2PacSade





Yes I am & want to seek out what other informed individuals like yourself think about such subjects. Could something have been launched from close by?



Too risky. The bomb in the Pentagon had to destroy certain people and certain files. The bomb in the missile was just for show. For some reason the bomb in the Pentagon went off 6 minutes early. This is why none of the film from any of the cameras can be shown not to mention the fact that there is no Boeing 757.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I'm a little confused. So such a crash is too forceful that people couldn't be strapped to their seats still. Yet not forceful enough to tear a plane into little pieces? Don't those kind of conflict with each other?

And did they plant the 757 parts? The engine parts are the same ones used on the plane that was supposed to have crashed there. So how did they get a whole planes worth of parts there as well as the bodies of the people who were on the original plane without anyone noticing?



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by 2PacSade





Yes I am & want to seek out what other informed individuals like yourself think about such subjects. Could something have been launched from close by?



Too risky. The bomb in the Pentagon had to destroy certain people and certain files. The bomb in the missile was just for show. For some reason the bomb in the Pentagon went off 6 minutes early. This is why none of the film from any of the cameras can be shown not to mention the fact that there is no Boeing 757.


What people & files do you think were to be destroyed? According to historical events, this side of the pentagon was under construction. What "top secret" stuff would they leave around with "tarps" over the files for the construction crews to perouse through. Were said people & files embedded into secret places on that side of the building. I would think that they would have moved anything sensitive well beforehand. Thanx-




[edit on 3-9-2006 by 2PacSade]

Wait- Could the construction be a diversion for placing a bomb?

[edit on 3-9-2006 by 2PacSade]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Because I didnt post the actual pics, just the links for those who want to click on them.


That's covered in the T&C too... links are not allowed.

No mod has stepped in. I'm rather disgusted - not because I think your pictures should be censored, but because I think it's important that DU victims' pictures should not be censored either.

And I went through your links and found them unconvincing, btw. The autopsy report was barely worthy of the name: it consisted of a brief overview of the stages that identifying the victims ought to entail, followed by a simple list of the victims. No detail was given on how each victim was identified. It demonstrates nothing either way - it could either have been edited "sensitively", or it could have been lashed together in an "oh well, this'll satisfy 'em" way.

There were more witness reports than I'd anticipated, I'll say that. But... the overwhelming evidence for me, is the photos that I've seen (that I cannot track down on the net at the moment) that show a very small hole visible before the building collapsed. The WHOLE of 9/11 stinks, for me, and those photos suggest very strongly that no airliner hit the building. Therefore it's likely - and certainly within the bounds of possibility - that this eyewitness testimony has been fabricated.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Oh, and I'd like to ask a question.

Why are pictures that show charred corpses from 9/11 allowed to remain posted and yet any links to pictures that show foetal deformities arising from DU poisoning are immediately edited out and a notice about the T&C posted?

Occasionally one does suspect some bias on this board.



ATS is a huge forum and we can't see every post and click on every link. (Especially when many are gone on labour day weekend.)
We appreciate it when members notify us of T&C violations via the complaint feature.

Please Use the Complain Feature for Complaints.

Now please stay to the topic of this thread Easy Question: Who's Responsible for the 9/11 Plot?

[edit on 3/9/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
I thought I had already made this post, but I don't see it. Maybe I posted it in another thread by accident. Just a heads up in case I am just blind.

John

(as always thanks for your contribution). Is there any way you could help explain to us laymen how calibrating an altemeter works? I don't know if that is the proper terminology. But I am under the impression that a pilot must make adjustments to keep the altitude readings of a plane accurate. And with the new issue of the flight 77 data recorder showing unusual altitude readings, I think your expertise might help some of us better understand how that works. If you possibly have the time and it's not too much trouble. Again, thanks so much!



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   


The autopsy report was barely worthy of the name: it consisted of a brief overview of the stages that identifying the victims ought to entail, followed by a simple list of the victims. No detail was given on how each victim was identified. It demonstrates nothing either way - it could either have been edited "sensitively", or it could have been lashed together in an "oh well, this'll satisfy 'em" way.


That's because it wasnt the autopsy reports. Those I believe have not (and for the families sake I hope) will not be released. It was simply a brief overview of the process. I posted it in response to someone who appearantly doesnt believe those people died at the Pentagon that day.

The other links, again, were posted because someone seemed to think that there was no physical evidence of an airliner at the Pentagon.

As for the Pentagon itself, everyone comments on the 16 foot hole made by the fuselage of the jet, without mentioning, or appearantly noticing the other pictures that show the rest of the impact damage. For those that care to really look, there are pictures of the damage to the buildings facade caused by the impact of the wings.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
A lot of those witnesses are over-exaggerating their stories.

First, how can anyone identify the name of something going 450 mph? Have you ever been on the side of the interstate and look straight across? You can't even identify cars going 70 mph but yet you have these "witnesses" claiming to see the actual name and even one guy claim to have seen the faces of the victims LOOKING out the window.


Come on now, how many of you all ever lived near an airport? The noise is defeaning within itself but only a couple of them made the claim of hearing it which makes most of the "witnesses" suspicious at best.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by 2smooth4ya]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Its rather easy to read an airliners markings even at 450 miles an hour, and if you are close enough, you can see even more.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Its rather easy to read an airliners markings even at 450 miles an hour, and if you are close enough, you can see even more.


Proof? Link?

Besides, the loud noise from the plane would've most people to covered their ears, which would've made most people close their eyes(natural reaction). So can you see people looking out of the windows also?



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Originally posted by snoopy




as always thanks for your contribution). Is there any way you could help explain to us laymen how calibrating an altemeter works? I don't know if that is the proper terminology. But I am under the impression that a pilot must make adjustments to keep the altitude readings of a plane accurate. And with the new issue of the flight 77 data recorder showing unusual altitude readings, I think your expertise might help some of us better understand how that works. If you possibly have the time and it's not too much trouble. Again, thanks so much!



Snoopy, please give me a reference here and maybe I can help you. Basically the altimeter is set during preflight to the local baromatric pressure so that it reads the exact altitude of the airport. When climbing through 18,000 feet the altimeter is reset to an arbitrary but universal setting of 29.92 inches of mercury so that all airplanes are flying at an altutude from the same reference. Descending back down through 18,000 feet the altimeter is reset to the local barometric pressure at which the airplane is landing.

Please let me know what the question and issue is. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
2smooth4ya



Proof? Link?


Well if I could link 20 years of aviation experience, I would.

Have you ever been to an airshow? Had any problem reading the markings of the Blue Angels or the Thunderbirds during their shows?




Besides, the loud noise from the plane would've most people to covered their ears, which would've made most people close their eyes(natural reaction). So can you see people looking out of the windows also?


In my experiences, people look to see whats causing the loud noise. Hell, on my last two week deployment, even when we knew what the loud noise was we still looked. And yes, if you have decent eyesight and you follow the object, you can pick out details such as someone in the windows...



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
In regards to the altimeter, I would be more interested in seeing what the last reading on the radar altimeter was.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999




In regards to the altimeter, I would be more interested in seeing what the last reading on the radar altimeter was.



Of the UAV or the missile? Its unlikely that the missile had a radar altimeter per se.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by 2PacSade





Yes I am & want to seek out what other informed individuals like yourself think about such subjects. Could something have been launched from close by?



Too risky. The bomb in the Pentagon had to destroy certain people and certain files. The bomb in the missile was just for show. For some reason the bomb in the Pentagon went off 6 minutes early. This is why none of the film from any of the cameras can be shown not to mention the fact that there is no Boeing 757.



Again John- What people & files do you think were to be destroyed? According to historical events, this side of the pentagon was under construction. What "top secret" stuff would they leave around with "tarps" over the files for the construction crews to perouse through. Were said people & files embedded into secret places on that side of the building. I would think that they would have moved anything sensitive well beforehand. Thanx-



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Haven't there been internal conflicts in our military between the Navy and other branches, Mr. Lear? I've heard this from different sources, but don't exactly understand the nature of the conflict besides some cout stuff, so if this mirrors your thoughts, any elaboration on the idea would be appreciated.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
For John Lear

First, thanks for your contributions thus far. I've got a couple of questions, one of which was earlier on and you must have skipped over it, so please forgive me for reposting it...


Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by johnlear
As far as the second plane is concerned, I'm not 100% convinced that it hit the north tower as advertised. In another video it is seen climbing away from the WTC.


I was going to ask if you had a link to this, and I thought I'd do some digging on my own first... and I found this rather fascinating page which shows that a large, commercial sized plane was circling lower Manhattan at the time of the impacts. Could this plane have housed a remote-control facility that would have to all intents and purposes eliminated latency?

Is it, as the site claims, anomalous for the plane to have been there in the first place?

And if this is not the plane in the video you reference, is there any chance you could link to a site with the video you mention?


The second question (ok, actually the third or fourth, depending on how you count, but what the hell) is, is is possible to fake flight recorder evidence? I had heard that no black boxes had been found for the WTC and Pentagon planes, but my recent readings seem to indicate otherwise.

Thanks for any attention you can give this.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


Well if I could link 20 years of aviation experience, I would.

Have you ever been to an airshow? Had any problem reading the markings of the Blue Angels or the Thunderbirds during their shows?




That's involves individuals who KNOW that a plane is coming, where it's coming, etc. You also have to take into account where these witnesses were located, as this will tell a whole lot as to whether some are fabricating their story.





In my experiences, people look to see whats causing the loud noise. Hell, on my last two week deployment, even when we knew what the loud noise was we still looked. And yes, if you have decent eyesight and you follow the object, you can pick out details such as someone in the windows...



But was the plane a Boeing 757, engine fully-throttled at 400 feet?

[edit on 4-9-2006 by 2smooth4ya]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join