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.

 

Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job w/video

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

www.prisonplanet.com...
In comparing the stand down of air defense on 9/11 and what should have occurred according to standard operating procedure, he quickly concluded on the very afternoon of the attacks that they could represent nothing other than an inside job


THATS his evidence???


All we ever seem to see from alex jones is sensationalistic headlines, backed up by....utter fluff.


[edit on 15-12-2006 by Nygdan]




posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
having debunked this fellow who hasnt worked air traffic in over 25 years, i do want to add a little side note:

i in no way meant to demean any of the patco guys who were fired in 81. i know many of them personally (one of my closest friends and mentors is one), and respect their decision to strike, although i disagree with that decision, as it was against federal law for them to do so. many have since been rehired into the faa, joined the military as controllers, or work in contract atc facilities. this particular guy, however, had not worked air traffic in over 20 years at the time of 9/11....and it is quite obvious to me that he is using the public's general lack of knowledge of how the system works to promote his personal beliefs.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

He did not work at Boston Center when 9/11 occurred


so what good is he? his opinion is still speculative theory. until you have someone who was directly involved saying that it was true, everyone else's opinion is WORTHLESS.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
And you can bet the Jones site won't have any of this information updating it. Good job Snafu77! Hopefully you get the WAT award for that insightful, well reasoned, and actual 'insiders' explanation!



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I like the report from this controller, about how they thought flight 77 was a military plane.


At the Dulles tower, O'Brien saw the TV pictures from New York and headed back to her post to help other planes quickly land.
"We started moving the planes as quickly as we could," she says. "Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed . . . I had literally a blip and nothing more."
O'Brien asked the controller sitting next to her, Tom Howell, if he saw it too.
"I said, `Oh my God, it looks like he's headed to the White House,'" recalls Howell. "I was yelling . . . `We've got a target headed right for the White House!'"
At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol.
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."




[edit on 15-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
kill us all pleaesee god i hate work



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I like the report from this controller, about how they thought flight 77 was a military plane.



"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."


What is your source? I believe that was altered to fit an agenda. (not blaming you Ultima, just your source.)



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I like the report from this controller, about how they thought flight 77 was a military plane.



"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."


What is your source? I believe that was altered to fit an agenda. (not blaming you Ultima, just your source.)


Here are 2 sources.

www.ratical.org...
www.cooperativeresearch.org...


kix

posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Seeing that WATs are given very lightly lately I might add some things that bothe r me and I thin a member such as Snafu77 who has knoledge can answer:

Care to tell us since when there was a highkacking to Cuba prior to 9/11?
Care to tell us when was the last time 4 planes went "missing" "highjacked" prior to 9/11.
Sine you are located in DC can you explain why if all the world saw a jet crash into WTC and then another 15 minutes later.... nobody did nothing on the pentagon one? ah yes I know you said it your procedures were DOING NOTHING...now I get it...there is no conspiracy!... just a bunch of Idiots who let 2000+ people die by the hands of a dozen other idiots who took lessons in a flight simulator....

yeah... everything fits perfectly



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix
Seeing that WATs are given very lightly lately I might add some things that bothe r me and I thin a member such as Snafu77 who has knoledge can answer


no need to get an attitude about the whole situation. the rest of your post is rather jumbled, but i will attempt to answer your questions the best i can.



Care to tell us since when there was a highkacking to Cuba prior to 9/11?


i realize from your initial sarcastic manner, that you will not believe anything i say, so here are just the first three hits from a google search of "hijack to cuba."

Man accused of hijack to Cuba in '80 arrested

Hijacked to Cuba

ARTICLES ABOUT HIJACKING

that last page has articles about four or five separate hijackings where the hijacker wanted to go to cuba.



Care to tell us when was the last time 4 planes went "missing" "highjacked" prior to 9/11.


umm, if you go back and reread my post, you will find that you misunderstood. i said that as far as i know, that had never happened.....which is why we werent trained to deal with that scenario.



Sine you are located in DC can you explain why if all the world saw a jet crash into WTC and then another 15 minutes later.... nobody did nothing on the pentagon one? ah yes I know you said it your procedures were DOING NOTHING...now I get it...there is no conspiracy!... just a bunch of Idiots who let 2000+ people die by the hands of a dozen other idiots who took lessons in a flight simulator....

yeah... everything fits perfectly


well, it's pretty obvious that nothing i say is going to convince you, so i guess all i will say is that, as previously noted, there was a lot of confusion in the skies that day....and once the transponders were turned off, it was pretty hard to locate the remaining aircraft. my understanding from talking to fellow controllers who actually worked those aircraft and/or fighters is that there was alot of confusion as to where the aircraft were and what they were doing. i would suggest you talk to valhall about it, as she is very knowledgable as to the transcripts of communications between the military and it's pilots.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
wait, so someone else posts a quote from a controller convinced it was a military aircraft because the way it was flying is "unsafe for a 757" and that makes sense to people?

raise your hands if you think that the hijackers CARED about flying safely

just becuase "experts" say a 757 wont do this or that simply means that a 757 pilot wouldnt do it becuase it would be dangerous to his passengers...doesnt mean the plane itself wont do it i would think.

btw snafu, great stuff



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix
Care to tell us since when there was a highkacking to Cuba prior to 9/11?



Im not an air traffic controller but I can tell you when I was a kid it seemed like Cuba was the premier hijacking destination. I know one of the many worries about air travel in the 70's was being hijacked to Cuba. I don't recall anything bad ever happening but it did create quite a stir at the time.


Edit to add: Does anyone recall the most recent WTC video that was filmed from a nearby apartment. That woman also said it looked like a Military aircraft. Isn't that strange though?

Pie





[edit on 15-12-2006 by ThePieMaN]



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
wait, so someone else posts a quote from a controller convinced it was a military aircraft because the way it was flying is "unsafe for a 757" and that makes sense to people?

raise your hands if you think that the hijackers CARED about flying safely

just becuase "experts" say a 757 wont do this or that simply means that a 757 pilot wouldnt do it becuase it would be dangerous to his passengers...doesnt mean the plane itself wont do it i would think.

btw snafu, great stuff


Well maybe if you knew anything about aircraft or how a plane flys you would know that it would be very difficult to fly a plane the size of a 757 at 500 mph feet off the fround while hitting obsticles like lightpoles and a generator, the plane would be getting damaged.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Am I the only one who noticed this, or am I just reading this incorrectly?

Dunkindonuts graced us with this hilarious paragraph:


Listen Agit8dChop stop deflecting the blame off of the US. Of course they knew, but how could you dismiss their part it in by saying that they just "knew" about it. A scenario like this could never be come up with Bush/Cheney, I have a feeling that the day the federal reserve was created. The plan's drawn up for the federal reserve were created when this plan to use the tower's to invade countries was created. This was a very slow plan which took years. They created the federal reserve to control our money since the beginning of the 1900's.


Ok, let me get this straight. When the powers that be created the Federal Reserve, in the early 1900's, they also devised the plan to crash commercial airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. So they decided to fly jets (that didn't exist at the time) belonging to major airlines (that didn't exist at the time) into the WTC and Pentagon (both of which didn't exist at the time) and blame it on a terrorist group (which didn't exist at the time) and their leader (who wasn't even born yet). They did all this so they could invade Iraq (which as a country didn't exist at the time) and overthrow Saddam Huessein (who wasn't yet born) so that we could control their vast oil reserves (which weren't discovered yet).

Well, you weren't kidding when you said "this was a very slow plan which took years." About 90 of them! And a Hell of a lot of accurate predictions! Believe me... if these guys were as smart and psychic as you give them credit for then none of us would even be suspecting a single thing!

I'm almost ready to vote you Way Above Top Secret just for making me laugh so hard by posting what you did, and with a serious face on, I assume! I apologize as the last thing I want to do is insult anyone on here and discourage polite discussion and debate... but you're either a few fries short of a Happy Meal or you just failed to mention the time machine that was used to plan 9/11 when you posted your theory.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Well maybe if you knew anything about aircraft or how a plane flys you would know that it would be very difficult to fly a plane the size of a 757 at 500 mph feet off the fround while hitting obsticles like lightpoles and a generator, the plane would be getting damaged.


sooo got a pilots license yourself then do ya? checked out on a 757 with a few hundred hours in model?

dont assume anything about me becuase i disagree with you.

see i wasnt going to play this game but since i seem to have it thrust upon me ill play.

IF you knew anything about physics YOU would know that things like light poles or a generator will do NOTHING to STOP a 757 flying at 500mph, YES the plane will get damaged but it is going to smile and keep on its merry way until it hits something with a LOT more mass...like say..oh i dunno. a reinforced building perhaps?

btw, who said that all of these "unsafe maneuvers" were only a few feet off the ground? i thought that the "impossible turn" was out over the city area? wow, guess i was wrong.


just seems another example of how people want "experts" but only if they agree with them. snafu IS an ATC and WAS on duty on 911 but since he doesnt agree with YOUR views he's disregarded. well you got the denial part of deny ignorance right

[edit on 15-12-2006 by Damocles]



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
IF you knew anything about physics YOU would know that things like light poles or a generator will do NOTHING to STOP a 757 flying at 500mph, YES the plane will get damaged but it is going to smile and keep on its merry way until it hits something with a LOT more mass...like say..oh i dunno. a reinforced building perhaps?
[edit on 15-12-2006 by Damocles]


As far as my background i was a Crew Chief in the Air Force, now i am a analysist with NSA in the Office of Weapons and Space.

If you knew anything about aircraft you might know that other planes that have hit light poles have had thier wings sheared off, and that was a low takeoff speed, so what do you think happens when a wing hits something doing 500 mph.

The wings are only thin skin of aluminum, they can take some lateral (up and down movement) but they are not made to take hitting things.


Maybe you should look at these reports of wings being sheared off by hitting light poles or severe damage by birds hitting them.

www.lasvegassun.com...

...It clipped a light pole in the National Car Rental parking lot, 2,760 feet past the runway, shearing off 18 feet of the left wing, then brushed the roof of the Avis Rent A Car building. The engines stalled.


www.birdstrike.org...

Date: 22 February 1999
Aircraft: B-757-200
Airport: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Intl. (KY)
Phase of Flight: Take off (rotation)
Effect on Flight: Emergency landing
Damage: Both engines and wing
Wildlife Species: European starlings
Comments from Report: Number 2 engine was destroyed. Extensive damage to right wing. Massive clean-up of 400 birds. Cost of repairs at least $500,000. NTSB investigating.





[edit on 15-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 15-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   
well, with your backround you are quite qualified to have your opinions just as they are and admittedly do know more about aircraft than i would.

but the first case you link to, that plane was going to crash anyway. it was on take off and not at speed, and had other problems before it hit the lightpole. also the article doesnt say what happened to the light pole. its not like the plane hit the pole and stopped dead like a pinto hitting a tree at 40mph.

what im saying is that based on mass, speed the momentum of a plane headed towards the penatgon is going to hit the things in its way and keep going. physics is great like that. it wasnt all that far from where the light poles were sheared to the pentagon itself at 500mph and all our little tangent discussion has shown is that maybe those that say there 'should' have been more debris outside the penagon may have something



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
well, with your backround you are quite qualified to have your opinions just as they are and admittedly do know more about aircraft than i would.

but the first case you link to, that plane was going to crash anyway. it was on take off and not at speed, and had other problems before it hit the lightpole. also the article doesnt say what happened to the light pole. its not like the plane hit the pole and stopped dead like a pinto hitting a tree at 40mph.

what im saying is that based on mass, speed the momentum of a plane headed towards the penatgon is going to hit the things in its way and keep going. physics is great like that. it wasnt all that far from where the light poles were sheared to the pentagon itself at 500mph and all our little tangent discussion has shown is that maybe those that say there 'should' have been more debris outside the penagon may have something


The first case shows that a wing will shear off hitting a pole at low speed, so hitting several poles at 500 mph would do a lot of damage. Would the pilot be able to control the plane enough to keep it in the air let alone keep it aimed at a section of a building. I have seen no photos of debris around the poles.

If by chance the plane made it to the building with the wings intact they would have sheared off at the building. But we have no photos of wings or wing debris.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

The first case shows that a wing will shear off hitting a pole at low speed, so hitting several poles at 500 mph would do a lot of damage. Would the pilot be able to control the plane enough to keep it in the air let alone keep it aimed at a section of a building. I have seen no photos of debris around the poles.


that is based on an assumption though, you have to agree. with the way they are always changing the regs on safety, is it safe to assume that the basic lightpole is the same as it was almost 20 years ago? i know guardrails have changed so why not lightpoles? if todays lightpoles are designed to shear off at the base whereas 20 years they may not have been, the impact on the plane would be drastically different. can you agree with that?



If by chance the plane made it to the building with the wings intact they would have sheared off at the building. But we have no photos of wings or wing debris.



and that is why even though im skeptical about the no plane theories, i try to keep an open mind. sometimes i try harder than others but still...



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
that is based on an assumption though, you have to agree. with the way they are always changing the regs on safety, is it safe to assume that the basic lightpole is the same as it was almost 20 years ago? i know guardrails have changed so why not lightpoles? if todays lightpoles are designed to shear off at the base whereas 20 years they may not have been, the impact on the plane would be drastically different. can you agree with that?


Yes, but even if the light poles were made to shear off just the impact on the wings of hitting a pole at 500 mph would cause damage. Also thier was more then just 1 pole hit, thier was at least 5 poles hit.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join