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.

 

FAA should have known planes would be used

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Here are some facts that should have had FAA on notice that planes could be used by the terrorists.

Source: www.globalsecurity.org...


Coupled with this; virtually every expert on terrorism for several years prior to 9-11 had been screaming about the ever growing threat to the United States by a new breed of terrorists willing to inflict mass casualties on civilians. The first major wake-up call occurred in 1994, when terrorists planned on blowing up a dozen US commercial aircraft over the Pacific Ocean. This was thwarted by an accidental fire in the apartment where the bombs were being constructed. The second major wake-up call occurred in 1995 when terrorists planned on crashing an airliner into the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Only quick and decisive action by French commandos prevented this disaster. There were also additional indicators.




posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
indeed.








Photos taken from a year 2000 drill.
www.informationclearinghouse.info...



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   
They NEVER could have anticipated a plane hiting the Pentagon... [sarcasm] ^^^

So after the exercsise shown above they failed to have a single stinger missile available in the Pentagon much less a AA battery?

Smart.

Instead they decided to reinforce the Pentagon and then in a stoke of luck a year later a plane DOES hit the Pentagon and just so happens to hit it on the ONLY reinforced side?

What are the odds?

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Erm... Wasn't the exercise concerning an ACCIDENT? So why the heck would you want to install SAM's because of an ACCIDENT exercise? OK, so let's plant antitank mines along roads to blow up any car that in the course of accident leaves highway as the accidents are going on daily...
Besides do you know what would Stingers do to thwart 0911 attack? How long would the reaction time be? Where will the plane come into LOS in the envelope of the missile? And would Stinger be enough to stop it?



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Jetliners fly within 1000 feet of the Pentagon hundreds of times every single day. The FAA will not propose something that would endanger civilian aircraft to defend against what was at that time, a very hypothetical terrorist risk. I really think people forget what the world was like BEFORE 9/11.

Back then, the whole terrorist concern about airplanes was preventing them from being hijacked or blown up. A few people had thought of 9/11-type attacks, and they were mostly ignored. I think if you had asked anyone at Boeing about it, you would have been met with blank stares.

I remember a "design for security" exercise before 9/11, and it was totally focused on preventing ways to take down jetliners. New security features were added to many Boeing jetliners just for this purpose, (no I won't tell you what they are!) but none of them would have prevented 9/11.

As an aside: people also just don't really grasp how small and understaffed the FAA is. The entire SACO (Seattle Aircraft Certification Office) is a single "flash cube" office building in Renton Washington. The nearby Walmart is at least twice as big. Every single jetliner that flies in FAA airspace is certified by the people on just a few floors of that little building. Other ACO's handle propulsion and rotor craft, etc. but all the jetliner stuff is right next door to Boeing where they can watch us like a hawk.
The part of the FAA I deal with is very small, very overworked, and very dedicated.

And enough of this "shoulda known" stuff! If terrorists attack power plants next, you'll say, "Homeland security shouda known they would attack powerplants." If they attack dams, or bridges, or barges, or refineries, or shopping malls, or shipping piers, or pielines, or whatever, you'll say the same thing. But the truth is, the terrorists are thinking exactly the same thing, and right now they're trying to think of attacks on targets which haven't occurred to us.

Crap, maybe the terrorists figure the best target to attack next in America is the ATS server...

-Boenoid



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
Erm... Wasn't the exercise concerning an ACCIDENT? So why the heck would you want to install SAM's because of an ACCIDENT exercise? OK, so let's plant antitank mines along roads to blow up any car that in the course of accident leaves highway as the accidents are going on daily...
Besides do you know what would Stingers do to thwart 0911 attack? How long would the reaction time be? Where will the plane come into LOS in the envelope of the missile? And would Stinger be enough to stop it?


A Stinger missle is certainly capable of blowing up a jetliner engine. However, that bitsy little missle ain't gonna do nothing to stop a 250,000 pound jetliner. Ditto for an AA cannon. You'd just punch holes in a huge mass of metal that would keep right on coming at you.

I am forced to speculate beyond my experience here, but I don't think the stinger can find a jet engine from the front. There's no heat signature to speak of on the intake of a high-bypass jet engine.

-Boenoid



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boenoid
I am forced to speculate beyond my experience here, but I don't think the stinger can find a jet engine from the front. There's no heat signature to speak of on the intake of a high-bypass jet engine.

-Boenoid


Most modern AA weapons would, depending on their guidance system. But you're right anyway; blowing holes in it wouldn't stop it.

Regardless, what would happen if we went ahead and parked various weapon systems within a defensive perimeter of the Pentagon? Well, we obviously wouldn't have AA batteries without troops to guard and maintain them, so there's some boots on the ground too. Which would only be used as ammo to describe the coming of the police state.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boenoid
A Stinger missle is certainly capable of blowing up a jetliner engine. However, that bitsy little missle ain't gonna do nothing to stop a 250,000 pound jetliner. Ditto for an AA cannon. You'd just punch holes in a huge mass of metal that would keep right on coming at you.

Exactly what I thought. The holes may cause the aircraft to fall down after some time, but won't make difference if it's already performing the attack run. Glad I got it correct




I am forced to speculate beyond my experience here, but I don't think the stinger can find a jet engine from the front. There's no heat signature to speak of on the intake of a high-bypass jet engine.

-Boenoid


Modern IR guided missiles (incl. Stinger past version D IIRC) are sensitive enough to get lock even from the front, so it would be possible.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Here are some facts that should have had FAA on notice that planes could be used by the terrorists.

Source: www.globalsecurity.org...


Coupled with this; virtually every expert on terrorism for several years prior to 9-11 had been screaming about the ever growing threat to the United States by a new breed of terrorists willing to inflict mass casualties on civilians. The first major wake-up call occurred in 1994, when terrorists planned on blowing up a dozen US commercial aircraft over the Pacific Ocean. This was thwarted by an accidental fire in the apartment where the bombs were being constructed. The second major wake-up call occurred in 1995 when terrorists planned on crashing an airliner into the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Only quick and decisive action by French commandos prevented this disaster. There were also additional indicators.




Good question however, we can assume the faa has no concern for highjackers highjacking cars or buses. Of course the FAA had warnings for June 21, 2001 up until sept 8 or 9 2001. The FAA received 66 warnings about possible highjackers
and I witnessed this on Senate live with the FAA commissioners. The warnings were not passed to anyone outside of the small group and several stated they received none at all. 30 days prior to 911 all pilots in america were not allowed to carry guns any more, that is itself a strange coincedence. The FAA has a list of 66,000 possible terrorist on a list but stated it was not able to handle such a load. The senate commission stated that they handled freqent flier miles with millions of people names with not problems. As time goes by we will see all the problems come out and maybe in the end a better system will come about.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mondegreen

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Here are some facts that should have had FAA on notice that planes could be used by the terrorists.



30 days prior to 911 all pilots in america were not allowed to carry guns any more, that is itself a strange coincedence.


Do you have any site that talks about the pilots not being allowd to carry guns ?

[edit on 3-9-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I read about it at one of the 911 sites, rather felt it was real, I will find the site for you Ultima1.
I found the FAA story for you.
www.worldnetdaily.com...
40-year-old Federal Aviation Administration rule that allowed commercial airline pilots to be armed was inexplicably rescinded two months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, leading aviation security experts to lay at least some of the blame for the tragedy at the feet of airlines, none of which took advantage of the privilege while it was in effect.

For 911 to work a lot of backdoor policies had to be completed and disarming the pilots was one of them. I believe pilots were searched prior to each flight to make sure no weapons were being brought aboard. I hope this is what you are seeling Ultima1.

johnrlott.tripod.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Taken from the same website, pay attention to the stuff in bold:


According to FAA officials, the rule required airlines to apply to the agency for their pilots to carry guns in cockpits and for the airlines to put pilots through an agency-approved firearms training course.

The aviation agency said, however, that throughout the life of the rule not a single U.S. air carrier took advantage of it, effectively rendering it "moot," according to one agency official.


"In the past, FAA regulations permitted pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit provided they completed an FAA-approved training program and were trained properly by the airlines," FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto told WND in a voice-mail message. "That was never put into effect because no requests for those training programs were ever made. …"

Takemoto said the newly created Transportation Security Administration is now responsible for deciding whether pilots can be armed. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act signed into law by President Bush Nov. 19, 2001, has a provision allowing pilots to be armed, but the law does not mandate that the right be granted.


Airline companies never utilized the training program to begin with.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Humm, if had read further you would have noticed that pilots were carrying guns
becaue of the mail and even though not all the planes carried mail at any given time. Pilots took their guns with them, we can be asured that not all pilots carried guns, but the government made sure that no guns were allowed on the day of 911.

What makes you so sure the information posted and I see that you have not given credit to the writer of the story, carries any weight. What the government prints and tells us is one thing. What it does are all that is another matter.
What you have is a quote written in the words of the writer, according to the FAA
no one applied. I bet if one would search there would be information to go against this information. Ultimat1 wanted to know where I got the information, it was too that person. Please cite your information location for a further checkup.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
To correct the misinformation in these psots...

1. A stinger missile will EASILY take down a jumbo jet... it has an EXPLOSIVE WARHEAD... it does not just "knock an engine off" unless the warhead is UNARMED. IF it is armed it will explode, shredding the wing (FUEL TANK) and the plane will probably explode into a fireball and go down. End of story.

2. IF you have enough distance it will lock in from the front. The engine is hot from either side from a thermal imaging/tracking standpoint.

3. The plane was supposedly 10 ft. off the ground on final "approach" to the pentagon, knocking off an engine and detonating the wing (at least would have sent it into the lawn (most likely outcome).



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
To correct the misinformation in these psots...

1. A stinger missile will EASILY take down a jumbo jet... it has an EXPLOSIVE WARHEAD... it does not just "knock an engine off" unless the warhead is UNARMED. IF it is armed it will explode, shredding the wing (FUEL TANK) and the plane will probably explode into a fireball and go down. End of story.

2. IF you have enough distance it will lock in from the front. The engine is hot from either side from a thermal imaging/tracking standpoint.

3. The plane was supposedly 10 ft. off the ground on final "approach" to the pentagon, knocking off an engine and detonating the wing (at least would have sent it into the lawn (most likely outcome).


1. Depends on many variables - including which parts would get hit specifically. Would the hit effects be large enough to influence seriously flight in the time remaining to impact? Remember that Concorde going down in flames? The damage (incl. destroyed engine and burning fuel) occured quite long before the impact, yet the plane was able to take off, fly a bit and then fall.

3. Based on what? Again, the plane was coming in at a high speed, and it takes sme time to influence the flight. Immediate fireballs aren't as common as in movies.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
Erm... Wasn't the exercise concerning an ACCIDENT?


Maybe that particular one.


On Oct. 24, there was a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro stop and a construction accident to name just some of the scenarios that were practiced to better prepare local agencies for real incidents.


source: www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Notice it says to name just SOME of the scenarios. Are you going to tell me that they could think of a plane "accidentally" crashing into the pentagon and a terrorist attack on the metro but they couldn't put 2 and 2 together and think maybe there could be a terrorist attack using a plane to crash into the pentagon? Boy, you guys really do think that our high officials are dumb don't you?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Concerns that terrorists may use airplanes as weapons may have existed in the intelligence community before September 11, 2001, but "to the best of my knowledge this kind of analysis ... actually was never briefed to us."


Source: www.cnn.com...

From Condaleeza "Liar" Rice herself. Read it again...."to the best of my knowledge". I used to like her until she flat out lied to the 9/11 commission. If you are National Security Advisor, you would have been briefed of this scenario IMO. If not, then this country is run by a whole lot of idiots.

The reason I know she's lying....the drills of 9/11. If they didn't think of this scenario, then why were they doing drills of the exact same scenario? Bullocks I say.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Boy, you guys really do think that our high officials are dumb don't you?


Neither they are omniscient and omnipotent. And every time in the history, even with best preparations, something got forgotten/was seen as implausible. So why suddenly the change?
For example: Before WWII there were elaborate plans on the actions of US fleet, for many scenarios like attack on Philippines etc... Yet, even though one training showed Pearl Harbor can be attacked by a carrier surprisingly enough, no plans for that occassion were made as it was percieved improbable. Until the Day of Infamy.
And this all with competent people in place, who were preparing forces for the beginning of the war.
The same goes to any large operation or to any emergency plans - for example in Prague, numerous critical situations concerning the subway were trained and plans made except one - the possibility the metro would get massively flooded. And right that happened.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Tuccy,

The reason I said that was because even I knew that there was a possibility of this happening pre 9/11. So, if I (a lonely civil engineer) can think of this scenario, then it's very plausible that they had thought about that scenario.....because that is their job to think of these scenarios. Are you trying to tell me that the producers of "The Lone Gunmen" could think of this but our officials couldn't? Again....Bullocks.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mondegreen
Humm, if had read further you would have noticed that pilots were carrying guns
becaue of the mail and even though not all the planes carried mail at any given time.


Postal inspectors have always carried guns. Postal employees are not airline pilots.


Pilots took their guns with them, we can be asured that not all pilots carried guns, but the government made sure that no guns were allowed on the day of 911.


Please cite the source that describes airline pilots being disarmed en masse the day of 9/11.


What makes you so sure the information posted and I see that you have not given credit to the writer of the story, carries any weight.


That's funny. The information posted is from the exact same article you are using to "prove" the disarming pilots theory (which I mentioned beforehand).


What the government prints and tells us is one thing. What it does are all that is another matter.


Obviously. But what's amusing is that you take part of an FAA statement to be true because it fits in with your theory, but when someone quotes other parts of the same statement that don't fit your theory, the article "cannot be trusted".


What you have is a quote written in the words of the writer, according to the FAA no one applied. I bet if one would search there would be information to go against this information. Ultimat1 wanted to know where I got the information, it was too that person. Please cite your information location for a further checkup.


As I said in that post, it is from the same article YOU posted earlier. Please pay attention.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join