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.

 

Pentagon Anti Aircraft and 911 truth video

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

careful, you are falling into his "trap".... You can see through that like it is a lokout "tower". Probably not AA.


What trap? I'm just asking questions as to what you mean by a white box on the roof of the White House. But yes its not some box hiding a SAM or AAA. Its meant for the Secret Service Counter Sniper teams.




posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
No Chance i was a sniper myself and the last thing a sniper wants is to be in a big white box shouting "hey look at me in this big white box im a sniper" obviously looking at that picture the sniper would not need to be covert due to the other bodies up there.

If for a AA weapon as i pictured above sure the white box would need some netting window for the Electro Optical Sight to be able to perform. Trust me the last thing a sniper would do is sit in a box like that.

And anyway what good would a sniper be with his 7.62 weapon against a commercial aircraft



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesaint
No Chance i was a sniper myself and the last thing a sniper wants is to be in a big white box shouting "hey look at me in this big white box im a sniper" obviously looking at that picture the sniper would not need to be covert due to the other bodies up there.


Whoever says it needs to have snipers in the box? Could just be a watchtower for other Secret Service members.





And anyway what good would a sniper be with his 7.62 weapon against a commercial aircraft


Theres a reason why they are called countersniper team. Its meant for that. Not as a SAM team.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by thesaint
No Chance i was a sniper myself and the last thing a sniper wants is to be in a big white box shouting "hey look at me in this big white box im a sniper" obviously looking at that picture the sniper would not need to be covert due to the other bodies up there.


Whoever says it needs to have snipers in the box? Could just be a watchtower for other Secret Service members.





And anyway what good would a sniper be with his 7.62 weapon against a commercial aircraft


Theres a reason why they are called countersniper team. Its meant for that. Not as a SAM team.


I didnt say they were SAM teams and out of all the snipers in the world the very thought of any sniper sitting in that box that it could be a counter sniper is worrying for the US SS i must say . If thats the case they must have had their training at Toys R US or something.

Also there is no need for Secret Service to have a watchtower they have blatantly in that picture got men and tripod cameras on full view so some of them sitting in a box defeats the object greatly



[edit on 13-9-2006 by thesaint]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
double post!!!!!

[edit on 13-9-2006 by thesaint]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
What trap?


Siorry... lack of a better word hence the "".



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
thats a very good documentary, everytime my minds made up something on this changes it...brilliant. Though the evidence to back up anything really is none to say that they are all coincidences is to be blatantly ignorant.



Deny Ignorance


[edit on 13-9-2006 by marcopolo]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by marcopolo
thats a very good documentary, everytime my minds made up something on this changes it...brilliant. Though the evidence to back up anything really is none to say that they are all coincidences is to be blatantly ignorant.



Deny Ignorance


[edit on 13-9-2006 by marcopolo]


glad you like it, although at 90 minutes its a bit long but worth it



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Well I tried asking a friends dad if the pentagon had an AA system and he said they are not visible by walking around out side, and left it at the pentagon is a very secure building.

I imagine the entire DC area is protected by AA systems, sitting out in the middle of nowhere, where civilians don't wander around. After 9/11 AA guns where set up not next to, or even on top of important buildings, but off the sides of highways miles away. I think they where made visible at that point so that civilians felt more secure.

I was in DC at the side of the pentagon that got hit on 9/11 in June of 2001, there where no AA guns visible that I remember or any sign of security for that matter.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
What everyone is forgetting is that while the Pentagon is where the Joint Chiefs, NMCC and all are located, in event of an attack NORAD takes charge of things. The Pentagon was expected to be destroyed in the nuclear attack on the US, because Washington was such a choice target.

As far as the Pac-3 launcher, have you seen a Pac-3 system?


That's not the easiest thing in the world to hide. You can't disguise the radar as a trailer or have large amounts of metal around it, or it doesn't function nearly as well.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Intense video. You'll be the life of the party when someone brings up 911 at your next social!

Can ya hear yourself say pyroclastic flow!?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Ever hear of the no-fly zone? AAA batteries are often more dangerous to people on the ground then aircraft. While not widely advertised I'm fairly certain that there are SAM sites around DC. The Patriot SAM can reach out very quickly to take out aircraft out along distance from it's launch point. These are the last line of defense as they were during the Gulf War. If the airliner(?) that struck the Pentagon had been shot down over a large populated area, there may have been an even greater loss of life. An 757 sized aircraft striking anything at 400kts is the equivalent kinetic energy of about 4000 lbs+ high explosive, not to mention the ensuing fire caused by the remaining jet fuel.
Basically, 32 gallons of petroleum based fuel has the same chemical energy of one pound of high explosive. It was a fuel fertiliser bomb that took the face off the Murro Bldg in OKC and it was parked away from the building. During the Gulf War 1, I can testify that an inert 2000lb laser guided bomb were used to destroy a target that were parked next to a sensitive area such as a hospital. When I saw the video of the 2nd plane hitting the WTC I was surprised that it didn't knock the building down right then. Just think of it as 70 ton wrecking ball.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What everyone is forgetting is that while the Pentagon is where the Joint Chiefs, NMCC and all are located, in event of an attack NORAD takes charge of things. The Pentagon was expected to be destroyed in the nuclear attack on the US, because Washington was such a choice target.

As far as the Pac-3 launcher, have you seen a Pac-3 system?


That's not the easiest thing in the world to hide. You can't disguise the radar as a trailer or have large amounts of metal around it, or it doesn't function nearly as well.


What place on the surface of the planet would be immune to nuclear attack? I will buy that NORAD is picked because it's HQ is within a mountain, but this wasn't a nuclear strike. It was a plane flying into the Pentagon! Quite a different thing. . .

There's no lower level contingency plans for small scale attacks against this building? Against DC in general, like a previous poster stated, "in the hills"? I don't know if I buy that. . . I tend to think if you were to pull anything stupid around a place like this, you would be met with a quick & deadly response.

BUT- People just recently got shot in the Capitol building, and I'm sure they have strict security there also, so I guess anything's possible.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Sure, and during the Cold War, there were a huge number of armed fighters ready to launch to stop any threats. The biggest threat to the US was from the outside coming in, and when they entered the ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone) off the coast, or were detected coming through Canada, then the fighters would launch to intercept them. After the Cold War ended that force was downsized to the 14-21 that we had on 9/11.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Sure, and during the Cold War, there were a huge number of armed fighters ready to launch to stop any threats. The biggest threat to the US was from the outside coming in, and when they entered the ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone) off the coast, or were detected coming through Canada, then the fighters would launch to intercept them. After the Cold War ended that force was downsized to the 14-21 that we had on 9/11.


So your saying that there wasn't a contingency specifically from an attack that originates domestic?

I thought that there are strict guidlines for the FAA to hand off info about planes not responding to contact to NORAD. What good would it do to have this line of communication set up, and then not back it up with a contingency to thwart the threat of a smaller attack at key strategic "surface" locations like the Pentagon? It's not just the building, there are key people there also, ( Rummy ).


[edit on 13-9-2006 by 2PacSade]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Prior to 9/11 there were NO planes that were used as weapons after being hijacked. They were all landed somewhere, demands me, negotiations carried out, etc. Transponders were not shut down, tracking was easy, and the fighters knew where to be to intercept them if that was required. However, there were VERY few hijackings in the United States. One of the few (which wasn't even a hijacking really) that I can remember off the top of my head was a disgruntled airline employee who took the same flight as his former boss (after the employee was fired), went into the cockpit, killed both pilots and crashed the plane.

As far as not responding, there are transponder codes they can use to show radio out, and datalinks to the company they can use. And transponder failures are more common than you think. So it's not automatic that if a plane stops responding that they'll notify NORAD, UNLESS it's in or near an ADIZ or restricted airspace.

[edit on 9/13/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Prior to 9/11 there were NO planes that were used as weapons after being hijacked. They were all landed somewhere, demands me, negotiations carried out, etc. Transponders were not shut down, tracking was easy, and the fighters knew where to be to intercept them if that was required. However, there were VERY few hijackings in the United States. One of the few (which wasn't even a hijacking really) that I can remember off the top of my head was a disgruntled airline employee who took the same flight as his former boss (after the employee was fired), went into the cockpit, killed both pilots and crashed the plane.

As far as not responding, there are transponder codes they can use to show radio out, and datalinks to the company they can use. And transponder failures are more common than you think. So it's not automatic that if a plane stops responding that they'll notify NORAD, UNLESS it's in or near an ADIZ or restricted airspace.

[edit on 9/13/2006 by Zaphod58]


I'll buy that, but they also knew that one plane had been hijacked not from the transponder being deactivated, but from voice recordings.

Another question I have is why didn't any of the pilots initiate a message they had been hijacked. I understand there's a very quick way for the pilot to do this.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Sure they did, but that was what, an hour? Two? before the Pentagon was hit? IF that? There is a code that they can dial into the transponder, but it takes time to put it in. There's not a button they can hit to change it. You have to physically dial the numbers for the transponder to send to the radar.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I havent had the opportunity to see the video in question yet - im still at work.

However, in reference to the AA batteries; I would extrapolate that its quite possible that a defense system might not be located on or in the Pentagon, rather around it - possibly concealed in the ground or elsewhere local to the building. Forgive my ignorance, I am probably way off base with my assumptions, but I doubt we are privy to all of our governments defense capabilities. There might be systems in place that you cant google to take a look at and compare to the structures on the Pentagon. IMHO I would think the Pentagon would be protected from both ground and aerial attacks. I suppose the better question would be why wouldnt there be a defense system? Thanks in advance for not flamming the newbie



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   


Why is there a plane flying over the pentagon during the Phoenix Project recovery?

Because Ronald Reagan National Airport is a half mile away.

www.taner.net...

Note the end of runway 19 in the lower left hand corner of that picture.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join