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.

 

Why not strike the White House first?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Yes -- you could easily add this as "what are the odds" item. What are the odds that if terrorists where serious about attacking the US that they would aim for a couple buildings in the NY and the pentagon when the best targets would be congress and the white house? Why not fly the four planes at those two targets or one of those two targets to maximize the chances of success? Of course, if it was a real event and not a staged event that would have been their choice.




posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReelView
Yes -- you could easily add this as "what are the odds" item. What are the odds that if terrorists where serious about attacking the US that they would aim for a couple buildings in the NY and the pentagon when the best targets would be congress and the white house? Why not fly the four planes at those two targets or one of those two targets to maximize the chances of success? Of course, if it was a real event and not a staged event that would have been their choice.


They already went after the towers and failed. This proved that they could bring them down and attack the US financial system, at will.

You assume that everything went as planned for the attackers. How do you know that the Pentagon wasn't a secondary target for that aircraft and that the Pentagon and Shanksville planes weren't originally destined for the Capitol and the Whitehouse?

Four planes at separate targets had the best chance of hitting something important without overkill. Four planes going after the same target would waste attackers if they all hit it and after the first, there was a chance that a target would have been defended. The attackers didn't know how much time they had and were probably not skilled enough to arrange a time-on-target, anyway. As it was, three out of four hit and caused serious damage. Fortunately, there weren't more on that day.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by ReelView
Yes -- you could easily add this as "what are the odds" item. What are the odds that if terrorists where serious about attacking the US that they would aim for a couple buildings in the NY and the pentagon when the best targets would be congress and the white house? Why not fly the four planes at those two targets or one of those two targets to maximize the chances of success? Of course, if it was a real event and not a staged event that would have been their choice.


They already went after the towers and failed. This proved that they could bring them down and attack the US financial system, at will.

You assume that everything went as planned for the attackers. How do you know that the Pentagon wasn't a secondary target for that aircraft and that the Pentagon and Shanksville planes weren't originally destined for the Capitol and the Whitehouse?

Four planes at separate targets had the best chance of hitting something important without overkill. Four planes going after the same target would waste attackers if they all hit it and after the first, there was a chance that a target would have been defended. The attackers didn't know how much time they had and were probably not skilled enough to arrange a time-on-target, anyway. As it was, three out of four hit and caused serious damage. Fortunately, there weren't more on that day.




Yeah but they sure took the LONG way to their targets. They could've easily went out from JFK and been close to the Towers. It seems they knew they would have all that time in the Air.

The objection that Security at JFK is better is meaningless since there really at that point was nothing to suspect them of! Also how does one prove that airport was more secure?

IF anything, they would feel less secure in the Air for the length of time they were!

Also why not dive-bomb the Pentagon? I would assume there would be more chance of hitting the ground the way the supposed plane went in?



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Why Not Strike The White House First?


Flight 93 was delayed

8:01 a.m. Flight 93 was delayed for 41 minutes on the runway in Newark, finally taking off at 8:42.

Flight 11 out of Logan airport in Boston was scheduled to depart at about 7:40 AM. It actaully took off at 7:59.

IF you look at the original times:

Flight 11: 7:40

Flight 93: 8:01

Flight 175: 7:58

Flight 77: 8:10

They were all scheduled to depart within minutes of each other. (30 minute max between flight 77 and flight 11)



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I thought terror attacks were Quantum based and not physical based. For this reason the attacks upon the World Trade Centers were successful sub-atomic attacks first, then you saw the physical result. The sub-atomic attacks up the Pentagon were partially successful, and you saw the partial success manifest itself on 9/11.

The sub-atomic attacks upon the White House, however, failed miserably and that is why the fourth plane never arrived at its speculated target. What we see and can measure is just a representation of something else that is the source. The White House's true sub-atomic source is a [snip] powerhouse and the attack upon it was obviously stopped dead in its tracks.


The sub-atomic source for the Dollar too is as strong as the foundations of the world and defeats all attacks upon it. Ask a terrorist he'll tell you.



Mod Edit - Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 23-8-2009 by elevatedone]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by 2PacSade
 


I hear what you are saying, but the Whitehouse would have been a smaller target to smack into, plus there was a good chance the President wouldn't even be there. The Capitol makes more sense as you stand a better chance of hitting, Plus taking out more government figures. I also gotta think that the Whitehouse is on OBL's short list of "todo" targets.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
There is some information the government was not open about:

The timing.

Also, Tuesday is the slowest flying day. So WHOEVER did it, was trying to minimize casualties. They didn't have to pick thos specific flights to time when the buildings were only partially occupied.


I think the day and time were picked primarily because it was the slowest flying day and time. The hijackers cased out the routes prior to the attack. The fewer people on board a flight, the easier it would be to take over. To be honest they weren't that concerned with the number of casualties, just striking the targets with the best chance of success. Regardless if 10,000 died, the result would have been the same, it's not like we would have been anymore pissed off, we had already reached our threshold.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
If I was a terrorist, I wouldn't strike civilians, because that would go against my cause and turn the whole world against me.

Instead, I would fly a plane into the pentagon, white house, congress, or the statue of liberty. Those are symbols of America.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


It does make more sense to attack the building that houses Congress. But why attack the Capitol building when key conspirators of the crime also happen to be as of yet some unnamed Senator or Representative? I am sure that Biden or Levin or Lieberman or Murtha didn't want to risk becoming a casualty in their own wicked plot. Not that any of those fine men would actually ally themselves with terrorists and try and overthrow the government.

I don't think the true nature of the attack has been determined, but I am inclined to subscribe to the idea that to overthrow a government you'll need an inside man. Where better for the insider to hide than in the Congree. I watch a lot of starwars and that is where Palpatine hid; pay no attention to such silly things.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



You assume that everything went as planned for the attackers. How do you know that the Pentagon wasn't a secondary target for that aircraft and that the Pentagon and Shanksville planes weren't originally destined for the Capitol and the Whitehouse?


Now looks who is assuming!


The attackers didn't know how much time they had and were probably not skilled enough to arrange a time-on-target, anyway. As it was, three out of four hit and caused serious damage. Fortunately, there weren't more on that day.


There were no hijackers and YOU cannot prove they even existed, the FBI has been “caught” lying about the hijackers identities repeatedly and we all know they planted all of the evidences.

To believe that 19 unskilled pilots penetrate our defenses system and carried out four hijacking simultaneously without a hitch is a joke, in fact I personally find it impossible to say the lease.
This was carried out by our people they are the only ones that can penetrate our own national security and defenses system. FYI, there were no war games going on the east cost of the US on the morning of 911.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 





Yeah but they sure took the LONG way to their targets. They could've easily went out from JFK and been close to the Towers. It seems they knew they would have all that time in the Air.


Hijackers can not simply pick any flight - had specific set of parameters

Aircraft had to be Boeing 757/767 to simplify training for pilots

Had to be transcontinential flights with heavy fuel loads

Flights were in middle of week with light passenger loads - to make sure
hijackers could get seats in first class, Light load made it easier to
take over aircraft - fewer people to control

Flights had to take off from East Coast airports (Boston, NYC, Wash DC ,
Philly)

Had to leave close to 8AM to ensure timing with other flights

Picked out flights that meet criteria - 2 leaving from Boston, 1 from Wash
1 from Newark (aka NYC)

Dr George Friedman of STRATFOR intelligence service laid out all these
criteria in his book "AMERICAS SECRET WAR"

Check out this excerpt

[url=http://]http://books.google.com/books?id=Cz0qT-m1WdsC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA95&ots=mf-jepOpvX&dq=america+secret+war+hijacking&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html[ /url]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



There were no hijackers and YOU cannot prove they even existed...


Over and over again, the SSFDR data has been brought into these discussions. Why ignore it? It is not false, it's real. Shows BEYOND a doubt that Humans were in the cockpits of AA77 and UA93, changing autopilot and mode control panel settings.

Here, read this Study of Autopilot and Navigation Equipment usage on AA77 and UA93.


... the FBI has been “caught” lying about the hijackers identities repeatedly and we all know they planted all of the evidences.


Are you referring to the confusion in the early days, when men with IDENTICAL names were maistaken for the actual hijackers? Arab men, with the same name? Amazing!


To believe that 19 unskilled pilots penetrate our defenses system and carried out four hijacking simultaneously without a hitch is a joke...


Please! FOUR pilots!!! Why continue that old lie?? EACH pilot was licensed in the US, three had Commercial Certificates...do you realize how difficult it is to pass a Commercial Flight Test? You can look it up, if interested.

Why is the simultaneous nature of it so hard to believe? THAT was the point! Surprise element, and confusion.
____________________________________



[edit on 23 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


By picking a Long Flight there is more chance of interception. I am sure there are many flights from JFK that could fit that bill and have acheived what they wanted to achieve.

Also the Pentagon strike is odd, why not straight down into the building? It seems they were taking an awful risk with 3 of the planes. Longer paths, one that flew close to the ground and into the Pentagon etc.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


Probably harder to make a passenger plane to dive bomb like a world war II plane. Not to mention harder to adjust its flight while in a diving manuever.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by talisman
 


Probably harder to make a passenger plane to dive bomb like a world war II plane. Not to mention harder to adjust its flight while in a diving manuever.


But that is what happened in Shanksville correct?



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by timekiller92
 


It was an implosion....imo



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 





But that is what happened in Shanksville correct?


At Shanksville were not trying to hit anything except the ground...

Hijackers put plane into dive went became apparent passengers were
going to get into cockpit and kick their raghead ass



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 





By picking a Long Flight there is more chance of interception. I am sure there are many flights from JFK that could fit that bill and have acheived what they wanted to achieve


What do you mean by "long flight"? Hijackers were not simply sitting
there and enjoying scenery

Flights were hijacked minutes after takeoff, right after planes reached
cruising altitude and pilots relaxed.

American 11 - Take off 7:59 AM
Hijacked 8:14- 8:16 AM
Impact 8:46 AM

United 175 - Takeoff 8:14 AM
Hijack 8:42-8:46 AM
Impact 9:03 AM

American 77 - Takeoff 8:20 AM
Hijack 8:51-8:54 AM
Impact 9:37 AM

United 93 - Takeoff 8:42 AM
Hijack 9:28-9:30 AM
Impact 10:03 AM

Planes were hijacked within half hour after takeoff, exception being Flight
93 which was taked some 46 minutes after takeoff

Planes needed ti,e to climb out after takeoff to reach cruising altitude
where it was nice and calm and level .

What do you expect ? Hijackers to bolt up and run screaming down ailes
as plane takes off...



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


None of what you said changes the fact that a Flight out of JFK would be much less likely to be intercepted given the amount of time "in air." As you mentioned, the flights were hijacked very quick, into the flights. So the same applies.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by talisman
 





But that is what happened in Shanksville correct?


At Shanksville were not trying to hit anything except the ground...

Hijackers put plane into dive went became apparent passengers were
going to get into cockpit and kick their raghead ass


The point is this. That the pilot could have done the same with the Pentagon. The Pentagon is huge. Same thing applies. It makes much more sense then flying it "like a racing car" toward the building!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join