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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
If i remember corectly,when that small plane got lost a few months ago over DC.They said and showed on the news AA guns and secret service with shoulder anti aircraft missiles on top of the white house.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by icyblue]




posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Note the date on this photo.

www.maxho.com...



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I have always said that the Pentagon was not "UNDEFENDED" as many here claim as that would be flat out retarded...

And yet Richard Clarke, in his book "Against All Enemies", said this:


The Secret Service and Customs had teamed up in Atlanta to provide some rudimentary air defense against an aircraft flying into the Olympic Stadium. They did so again during the subsequent National Security Special Events and they agreed to create a permanent air defense unit to protect Washington. Unfortunately, those two federal law enforcement agencies were housed in the Treasury Department and its leadership did not want to pay for such a mission or run the liability risks of shooting down the wrong aircraft. Treasury nixed the air defense unit, and my attempts within the White House to overrule them came to naught. The idea of aircraft attacking in Washington seemed remote to many people and the risks of shooting down aircraft in a city were thought to be far too high. Moreover, the opponents of our plan argued, the Air Force could always scramble fighter aircraft to protect Washington if there were a problem. On occasions when aircraft were hijacked (and in one case when we erroneously believed a Northwest flight had been seized), the Air Force did intercept the airliners with fighter jets. We succeeded only in getting Secret Service the permission to continue to examine air defense options, including the possibility of placing missile units near the White House. Most people who heard about our efforts to create some air defense system in case terrorists tried to fly aircraft into the Capitol, the White House, or the Pentagon simply thought we were nuts.


If there was an air defence system then it seems Clarke doesn't know about it.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Okay right [brainwave] so their is an airport close enough to the Pentagon for planes to be routinely/regularly flying over it? the whole AA batteries thing seems a bit redundant (even though I believe their must be some sort stationed there) because of the civilian passenger planes being so close all the time their would be chaos if one of these was to become active and shoot down one, so to be fair their is a problem with this AA response from the get-go.

oh and what about the Patriot missile system ? (someone showed a photo of something very similar calling it the PAC 3, maybe thats the proper name sorry if it is.)



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


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.



Your point? AA systems do not acccidentally or automatically fire at anything.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Your point? AA systems do not acccidentally or automatically fire at anything.


Of course not, some one has to control it. Who?

Who makes the decision to shoot or not to shoot? A sergeant? A general? The Secretary of Defense? The President? Who?

With the airport in close proximity, you would likely only have a few seconds to react.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Your point? AA systems do not acccidentally or automatically fire at anything.


Of course not, some one has to control it. Who?

Who makes the decision to shoot or not to shoot? A sergeant? A general? The Secretary of Defense? The President? Who?

With the airport in close proximity, you would likely only have a few seconds to react.


I recall reading that shooting down a commercial jet liner is a Presidential decision. Source? Do not remember, it is a quote from Cheney regarding who authorized a possible shoot down of flight 77 IIRC.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesaint
Tell me about it. After serving in the UK Military i know for a fact that even some of the most seemingly mundane buildings in our country are defended and i could only imagine the US with its military might would be doing better than us


You must be kidding...they must have kept the mundane buildings defended and left the important ones devoid of anything that could stop a paper airplane...



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Why would we have defended the pentagon. The U.S. felt that it is so well protected that we have no need for fixed anti-missle, of AA fixtures. Look at the way Russia has AA all over the country, does the US? I dont think so.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Who makes the decision to shoot or not to shoot? A sergeant? A general? The Secretary of Defense? The President? Who?


The person assigned to that post that is responcible for making that decision. Please dont use the same lame excuses tht Donald Rummsfeld made days after 911.



With the airport in close proximity, you would likely only have a few seconds to react.


A few seconds?!? Both towers burning and flight 77 makes it obvious nearly 40 minutes before it strikes that it has been hijacked. It then makes a B-line for D.C. and you say seconds to react? What kind of worthless spin is that?

Hell they had time for some guy to make it there with a handheld AA via taxi cab!



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Thinking that the U.S wouldn't have any kind of defense system to guard the petagon or white house is really propesterous. Great post and video find



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I think a general could make the decision to shoot down a known hostile even without the presidents backing wouldn't they? The pentagon should always have a general on hand to make decisions like that.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revelmonk
Thinking that the U.S wouldn't have any kind of defense system to guard the petagon or white house is really propesterous. Great post and video find


O really? How about the 1994 plane crash into the White House? Wheres the White House's SAM system?



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Revelmonk
O really? How about the 1994 plane crash into the White House? Wheres the White House's SAM system?


Can't tell you, but you ae comparing apples to oranges...

A "suprise" vs. knowing it is inbound for 40 minutes.
A low, slow flying Cessna with no heat signature.
A normal day vs. an hour of terrorist attacks



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Can't tell you, but you ae comparing apples to oranges...



O really, it seems to me we have a no fly zone around the White House called P-56 long before 9/11. But it seems to me that even with no fly zone, the plane just waltz in and crash in the White House. You can't tell me because you have no explanation. No aaa guns, no SAMS firing in the air, plane goes in and crash the White House. All the Secret Service agents on the roof could do was stare in horror.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
O really, it seems to me we have a no fly zone around the White House called P-56 long before 9/11. But it seems to me that even with no fly zone, the plane just waltz in and crash in the White House. You can't tell me because you have no explanation. No aaa guns, no SAMS firing in the air, plane goes in and crash the White House. All the Secret Service agents on the roof could do was stare in horror.


What is more dangerous... a wayward lightweight Cessna hitting a reinforced building OR firing SAMs at the wayward lightweight aircraft? Flight 77 was supposedly known to be hijacked for quite sometime before entering the airspace around the Pentagon and was a known threat, a VERY real well known threat at that point. The cessna was not.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
What is more dangerous... a wayward lightweight Cessna hitting a reinforced building OR firing SAMs at the wayward lightweight aircraft? Flight 77 was supposedly known to be hijacked for quite sometime before entering the airspace around the Pentagon


That's why those planes flying around and not being intercepted makes zero sense considering the resouces available to do that. One theory I came across is that Flight 77 went out to sea and was shot down as it tried to take out the carrier George Washington. What hit the pentagon was a small regional jet doctored up to look like AA flight 77. True I don't know but the evidence does not support the official story.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Considering that most of the CARRIER CREW doesn't know where they are at any given time, I can't see using a 757 to take out a carrier. I don't know where this theory came from, but it's one of the more bizzare ones I've heard. Between the AEGIS, and the CIWS close in defenses, the carrier wouldn't have had trouble taking out the plane.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Firing SAMs at a large jet is almost irrelivant for two reason:

1) IR will track on the enging, leaving the plane intact and able to glide in.

2) Given the choice a person of military type bearing will voluntarly take the hit rather than crash the plane onto a crowded suburban neighborhood.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
From the Cold war until now, America has deployed missile defense systems throughout the US. From what I can gather there might have been missile defenses
on or around the pentagon or there might not have been. Finding that answer at this late date is really going to he a hard nut too crack. However, we must assume that on 911 there should have been with all the information about highjacked planes coming into the spy network.
I am at a lost or words to imply if this is the truth, but there is no information that there were not batteries at standby, thus is born another conspiracy to seek an answer too.


archives.cnn.com...
In 1962, 82 Army National Guard units manned Nike Ajax air defense batteries in 15 states and the District of Columbia, according to a spokesman for the North American Aerospace Defense Command.

That exercise, dubbed Clear Skies II, was to involve 300 people and was designed to test the ability of small, portable air defenses to provide protection for key Washington installations.

Now the deployment is part of Operation Noble Eagle, the mission to protect the United States, which includes the combat air patrols over major U.S. cities.
The Pentagon says for "security and deterrent" reason it will not discuss the exact location of the air defense sites, but one Army Avenger missile system can be seen outside the Pentagon.

Others were visible at Bolling Air Force Base and Fort McNair in Washington.

The Avenger system is a portable Stinger missile launcher mounted on a Humvee. It is capable of firing eight Stinger missiles at one time.

userwww.sfsu.edu...
By 1974 there were no longer any acceptable excuses for the continued deployment of the Nike system. Captain Roy Raat, the commanding officer at Nike site SF-88 expressed his assumption to a local newspaper when he said:

The Department of Defense has decided that there is no longer a serious threat to CONUS from manned aircraft. The real threat is from intercontinental ballistic missiles, and that job is beyond the capabilities of the Nike Hercules missile.[36]

C:\New Folder\Complete 911 Timeline Bush's actions on 9-11.htm
President Bush has just spent the night at Colony Beach and Tennis Resort on Longboat Key, Florida. Surface-to-air missiles have been placed on the roof of the resort (it is not known if this was typical of presidential security before 9/11, or if this was related to increased terror warnings). [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02].

When Bush was at the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort he had surface -to-air missile protection. Did the pentagon not have the same type of protection.






top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join