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.

 

Outstanding Article, Best I have read yet..

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Hey Captain, did you actually read this thread at all? I started another 911 thread "Why are you researching 911", the idea was to maybe get you to bite there and reveal why you are here. My questions to you earlier in this thread and the way you have answered lead me to assumptions about what your doing here.

Please disspell them by answering the specific inqueries.



I don't read all the threads. The ones that I think may interest me.. i will read. If I have anything to add, I will post it.

What I don't typically respond to are "no-planers" "nukes" "space beam" "remote controlled planes" etc... all the Sci-Fi garbage is just that, and I believe most of those threads are teenagers having fun after school.
As you see the posts have dies down quite a bit in here. (Mods may be able to refute this)




posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
What I don't typically respond to are "no-planers" "nukes" "space beam" "remote controlled planes" etc... all the Sci-Fi garbage is just that, and I believe most of those threads are teenagers having fun after school.
As you see the posts have dies down quite a bit in here. (Mods may be able to refute this)


Well some of us have backgrounds in aviation and law enforcement and using common snese can see a lot of things wrong with the official story.

You might want to do a little more research in the subjects.

By the way their are several remote control sytems out and other companies like boeing are working on sytems to override the planes controls in a hijacking. Companies are also working on systems that will make the planes flight controls avoid objects in its path.

The British have a remote control sytem in a Tornado fighter that can take over control of a hijacked plane.

Israel was accused of crashing a plane using a remote control system.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
The HOME RUN system has been in use for years; they have had remote technology for a long time. There is NO OTHER alternative. None other makes any sense. Lets look for a moment at the logistics of taking over FOUR aircraft with small bladed weapons:

How much time does it take for a person to enter the cockpit? Lets assume that the doors were closed: that would be logical, the rules were clear, when no one was coming or going from the cockpit, the locked door was shut. Sure, maybe ONE plane had the bad luck of having a door open when the time to grab the planes came, but NOT ALL FOUR. That goes beyond the odds.

Next, look at how a person could actually use a small blade to enter the cockpit: What did they do, pick the locks or slash their way thru 3/4 of an inch of hard material? Hmm? How long would THAT take? Still, lets give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that SOMEHOW all four sets of highjackers, at least the ones not busy intimidating rugby players and military men with a small blade, were able to penetrate the cockpit.

Then what? Two pilots in each cockpit, each determined to retain control and save their lives and the passengers lives. There is NO WAY POSSIBLE for highjackers armed only with small blades to disable those men, remove them from that cramped space, and assume the controls, without at least ONE of the EIGHT pilots being able to flip the switch. Not possible.

No one could believe that. Too far out. Odds beyond belief. And to accomplish that feat FOUR times, with the possible exception of 93, which may have been done that way intentionally and not as an emergency measure to keep them from being intercepted; why should they worry about interceptions? They had total control of all the top level computers, as illustrated by the white plane with the nuke codes circling DC and warning Bushie Boy to fly away to Offut and brunch with Buffett and gang and not interfere with Dickies plan for neocon enrichment.

Anyway, back to the planes: Who among us can actually believe those odds? How could anyone accept that? Sorry, but there is no way. Is it any wonder that the government has NEVER gone into detail about the actual takeovers? No wonder? How could they get around these odds? How could they explain not ONE flight attendant, or pilot, activating an alarm despite the varying amount of times that MUST have been taken to accomplish the takeovers. Examine it. Can we believe that all four sets of highjackers performed exactly the same feats in exactly the same ways on all four flights and succeeded with 100% accuracy? What a plan!!

What is that plan? Has the official story told us? I don't think so. I don't think I have heard a detailed acoount of HOW the four cockpits were overwhelmed at the same time frame and with apparently NO RESISTANCE from anyone. Flt. 93 was the oddball flight and a puzzle, but the other three planes showed NO resistance, meek complaince and phony phone calls.

Remember Ted Olson? His wife supposedly called him ' collect ', and when that was shown to be impossible, them it was with a ' borrowed credit card ', because for some weird reason she forgot hers that day!! Imagine that!! Then the FBI showed NO RECORDS of any calls by number and could not state from which phone or from what number the alleged calls were made. It all stinks to death of treachery and we all know it.

When one looks at all the HUNDREDS of ' inexplicable anomalies ' associated with this event, it is not hard to see the whole thing with the right attitude, skeptical about anything the government says, and assuming that the worst is yet to come. Remember that the bad guys are at the top, the very top, and cannot be rooted out politically due to factors beyond this discussion, but real nonetheless.

NO WAY that four planes get highjacked without one alarm being sent. That settles it: Can anyone come up with a rational excuse for that one? Is there anyone who believe that all the highjackers got lucky beyone odds or were so devastatingly efficient that with a boxcutter or two they could accomplish what we see? The cowering of many men? Many passengers we all know wopuld have overcome anyone with only a knife or such; no way would those people have sat back and perished while some jerks waved boxcutters around; a few guys could end it fast with only a few cuts at the worst.

It is apparent, clear that the whole thing was remotely highjacked and directed from the ground; that is the ONLY POSSIBLY way to square the facts.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
What I don't typically respond to are "no-planers" "nukes" "space beam" "remote controlled planes" etc... all the Sci-Fi garbage is just that,


Last dance CaptainObvious, my questions are as follows:

Do you subscribe to the "Incompetency Theory", meaning the official story of record?

Have you looked into the anthrax scare, and if so are you "skepticle" of the way it has seemingly been handled?



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
[

Last dance CaptainObvious, my questions are as follows:

Do you subscribe to the "Incompetency Theory", meaning the official story of record?

Have you looked into the anthrax scare, and if so are you "skepticle" of the way it has seemingly been handled?


I didn't look into the Anthrax conspiracy, when and if I do, I will be sure to let oyu know my thoughts.

The "incompetency theory".....
Bush is an incompetent leader of this country. IMO the worst President in History. 911 attacks happened on his watch. I hold him responsible. If Gore, Clinton, or Kerry were president I would feel the same. Certain threats were either ignored or not dealt with appropriatley. I feel the threats should have been taken more seriously. If that is incompetence, then yes I will subscribe somewhat to that theory.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 26-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Certain threats were either ignored or not dealt with appropriatley. I feel the threats should have been taken more seriously. If that is incompetence, then yes I will subscribe somewhat to that theory.


That is incompetence. Certain threats were ignored and some f-upped things happened.
Was anybody held accoutable for this "incompetence", you tell me.

The anthrax thing seems to always get swept under the rug, that bothers me. So when you get around to taking that one on with the same skeptisium(spelling?) that is your custom, I'll be watching.

Thanks, InfinityO'Reilly



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

The "incompetency theory".....
Bush is an incompetent leader of this country. IMO the worst President in History. 911 attacks happened on his watch. I hold him responsible. If Gore, Clinton, or Kerry were president I would feel the same. Certain threats were either ignored or not dealt with appropriatley. I feel the threats should have been taken more seriously. If that is incompetence, then yes I will subscribe somewhat to that theory.


So are you saying that the airlines, NORAD and all other agencies involved were incompetent too?

Hijakers were flagged a the airport as being a risk, they set off security scanners and were still aloud to get onthe planes.

If people in these agencies were so incompetent why was no one fired or punished. People at NORAD received prootions and awards when they failed to stop 4 planes.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ultima, was it illegal to bring a box cutter on an aircraft prior to 911?

As far as the Anthrax situation, I have read a little into it. There are many conspiracies that surround that. From what I have read from the FBI website. There is still an active investigation on going. It was not listed as a "COLD CASE" but as you know there hasnt been anyone charged.

Infinite... please let me know what info you have on this. I am interested in it. And YES...I will treat any conpsiracy with the appropriate skepticism. Thats was a REAL truth seeker does.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Ultima, was it illegal to bring a box cutter on an aircraft prior to 911?


No, but even before 9/11 if you were flagged by the system and set of scanners you would have been held for an interview, and most of time not making your flight.

To have most of the hijakers flagged by the system and several of them setting of the scanners its very odd to say the least that they all still made the flights.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


A believe some were held back for interviews. Don't qhote me though, I don't have a source handy.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
The ' highjacker ' patsies did not have ANY weapons on board, if they were ever on board at all. During the 60's, when many highjackings took place, many of them ending up in Cuba, it became almost impossible to get past the metal detectors with anything likley to be able to be used as a weapon. I know, I flew a lot during that timeframe.

In the 70's, it got worse, with dogs and such and more scrutiny. If the ' highjackers ' were pulled from line and gone over, there is NO WAY that they would have been able to carry any bladed weapons on board, including boxcutters.

Lets face it, what kind of self respecting highjacker would attempt to take an aircraft with a boxcutter? It is like a bank robber going into a bank with a knife and yelling " Robbery"!! He would be laughed at as he was hauled away. How many passengers does it take to disarm a couple of jerks with small blades? About a 3-1 ratio and there were many more than that available to get the job done on all the flights had the official story been true.

Are we to accept the fable that saya that strong American men allowed four airplanes to be taken with small blades? No way. The ' highjackers ' would have needed : Guns, bombs, gas masks, and knives if the official account is to be believed. yeah, sure. They were fall guys, part of the plot, disposable dummies to prop up a lie. I would not hesitate to resist a takeover of a plane I was on, to insure survival, and so would any other able bodied men. No way would we allow ourselves to be herded back into the rear of a plane by some scrawny Arabs with a boxcutter. No way.

The WORST thing that can happen if the passengers attacked the highjackers would be a few cuts, and with a boxcutter, not very bad opnes. Two men could disable anyone with a small blade easily; one grabs the guy and an arm and the other pummels and grabs the cutter away. 3 men would find it easy to do. But we all know that the planes were remotely taken; that is a fact. There is NO question about that. The proof? Here it is: Not ONE of EIGHT pilots and over a dozen crew members managed to trip the switch and alert the ground. The planes were taken INSTANTLY; that is the ONLY rational explanation for the total lack of any highjack alerts being sent. No way could the odds be that long and still be true, no way.

If one examines in DETAIL the liklihood of four sets of highjackers being able to violate the cockpits and haul eight trained and fighting pilots out of their seats before ONE of them could flip the switch, then there is no doubt; all the planes were remotely taken. There is NO other way.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


Can anyone tell me what its like to see someone get murdered? What if it were you that were up there (pre-911) You were told there was a bomb on the plane, you watched two people get murdered! Their throats slashed.

There is no way to know for 100% certainty what EXACTLY happened in cabins or the cockpits besides the REAL evidence that we have.

We can speculate all day and night. There is not one shread of evidence that suggests the planes were:

a. not there (holograms)
b. remote controlled
c. the pilots were wimps
d. insert whatever theory necessary.

If you do have a resonable hypothisis I would love to hear it.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
If you do have a resonable hypothisis I would love to hear it.


Well i do not think a Veitnam vet would be too afraid of guys with boxcutters.

Also if you were responsable for the lifes of the passengers (and your own life) are you just going to let someone come into the cockpit and take over without a fight ?





[edit on 30-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ultima...

1. the highjackers claimed to have bombs.
2. the was a report of possible mace
3. there was a recorded struggle that I have posted
4. He was a vietnam vet...so that means he belonged in the UFC?

I would just like to know, if you don't think this was possible. What do you THINK happened?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Ultima...

1. the highjackers claimed to have bombs.
2. the was a report of possible mace
3. there was a recorded struggle that I have posted
4. He was a vietnam vet...so that means he belonged in the UFC?

I would just like to know, if you don't think this was possible. What do you THINK happened?


1. I believe only the hijackers on 1 plane claimed to have bombs.

2. Oh so mace is going to keep you from fighting for your life and lives of the passnegers ?

4. No, it means he should not be so scared of 2 guys with boxcutters that he is going to let them cut his throat without a fight.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Mace in a cramped cockpity during a struggle to the death with s small blade? That wouldn't even make a Hollywood B grade movie. Mace gets on the people around it as well as the people it hits, believe me I know.

And REPORTS are not evidence or even likley. Someone said that the highjackers said that they had a bomb, one ONE flight, not even confirmed, and suddenly that is a LIKELY scenario? Please. The evidence says that boxcuters were all they had, and several of them were pulled from line and searched more thoroughly before boarding so it is LESS likley that they had ANY weapons than that they had MORE than what the official story suggests. Pilots are not weak kneed people and even if they thought that some flight attendant was being slaughtered, they would NEVER give up the controls; that is the holy grail to a pilot: They are repsponsible for the people on board and they would not give the plane up no matter how many people were being killed.

What they WOULD do is make a Mayday call!! Or trip the HIGHJACK ALERT!! But not ONE did among FOUR planes!! Do you really believe that in all FOUR cases, the highjackersd were able to intimidate the pilots into giving up the cockpits, or even by assaulting them, and yet there was not time for one pilot to yell in the mike to ATC or flip the switch and declare the alert? Do you believe that? Id so, how can you? It staggers the imagination to accept odds like that; no rational analysis could come up with any way to get around the fact that all FOUR cockpit invasions were INSTANT and 100% successful. That is too much.

Men fighting for their lives would make the plane swerve or move for sure, it could not be totally smooth as the results Mr. Lear told us about show clearly; if you stop and think about what would have had to happen to make the official account true, it is staggering odds beyond belief at every turn. you would have to accept outrageous assumptions with zero evidence to get around this one.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


Evidence?
Ok, so where is your evidence that the plane was remote controlled? That there was no mace?..that there was no struggle? The the planes didn't exist? That all the phone calls were faked? That the terrorists DIDN'T claim to have a bomb? That the terrorists were on board without any weapons?

Speculate all you want. The phone calls, the recordings, etc all support the fact that the planes were highjacked.


Eyewitness, can I ask what you think happened in the cockpits? What happened to the pilots?



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I believe personally that all the pilots were unable to affect any controls after the Home Run system was implemented. It would assume ALL flight controls and the pilots would have sat there watching the whole thing unfold before them, unable to do a thing about it or call the ground.

think about it: Can you really believe that in all FOUR cases, not ONE pilot would have been able to open his mike and send a mayday to ATC? If a cockpit door was being kicked in, surely to God at least ONE pilot would have yelled a Mayday and told the ground. But all FOUR ' takings ' of the cockpits were so fast, so instantaneous, that not ONE pilot managed to radio a mesage, or to place the 4 digit code in the transp[onder alerting the ATC to a problem.

It that LIKELY? Reasonable? Not hardly. One time, maybe; four times in a row with 100% success rates? No way.And as Mr. Lear points out so well, the job of hauling the foulots bodies out of the cramped cockpits without making the planes veer off or show ANY signs of a problem are beyond astronomical. The planes showed to sudden movements at all, level flight. Are we to believe that in all FOUR cases, in a row, the pilots had the controls on auto, which would have been taken off as soon as a problem was noted, so the pilots could have performed evasive manuvers to throw the highjackers off their feet.

No, there are too many far out assumptions that have to be swallowed to accept the story that these supermen from Saudi Arabia were able to instantly kill eight pilots beofre even ONE could radio or squawk an alert. It is beyond reason. Occams Razor means that the simplest and most likley manner that these planes were taken was by remote control.The plane ( 93 ) that supposedly crashed in a field ( and left no debris or bodies) was in voice contant with Cleveland tower about 3 SECONDS before they had dead air and did not respond: Are we to believe that in the space of three seconds, the highjackers managed to: Penetrate the cockpit, kill or disable two pilots, haul their bodies from a cramped area, and drag them out, assume the controls and turn off the transponders? All in three seconds?

The pilot who had just spoken to Cleveland Tower would have yelled an aert had any breach of the cockpit taken place, as well as the other pilots on the other planes. There is NO WAY to explain INSTANTANEOUS takeovers EXCEPT by remote highjacking. Remember what Shrelock Holmes always said: Eliminate the impossible, and what remains is the truth, no matter how unlikley. It is impossible to believe that in all four cases the highjackers were able to pull off four aircraft takings without the planes showing any signs of deviation in their movement, and no alerts sent, and no radio messages. It happen instantly, and ONLY a remote taking can account for that.

Otherwise, you have to imagine supermen as highjackers, with many weapons. Pilots do NOT get intimidated into turing their air craft over to ANYONE no matter what they think is going on in the back: If the highjackers are wiling to kill flight attendants to make a point, they could very well kill the pilots also and crash the plane, so the pilots would NEVER have opened the door. I used to work as an armed courier for an armored car company, Wells Fargo, in Miami many years ago. There was a few primary rules: NEVER under any circumstances were we to open the back up for robbers, even if they took the driver and messenger hostage and threatened to kill them: The liklihood was great that they would kill the guard in the back as well, AND get the money. Better to keep safe and the money safe and risk the guys up front.

That limits the damage done, and that is the impetus in allsecurity operations, limit what a bad guy can do. NO pilot would have said : " Ok, you convinced us, just don't slit any more stewardesses throats and we will give you the aircraft and go quietly"> No way. Their first thought would be to radio an alert and then get on the ground as fat as possible.

So, what is more likely? Remote highjacking for sure. to believe otherwise means accepting a series of incredible odds and suppositions that make no sense given the results we see. Not ONE plane drops of rises or goes right or left? All four planes act as if there was no problem and no change of pilots. Taken together with all the OTHER hundreds of ' anomalies ' surrounding this event, one cannot help but conclude that the most likley scenario is remote taking.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Evidence?
Ok, so where is your evidence that the plane was remote controlled?


I have posted several sytems that could be used to remote control a plane. Also the 757 and 767 auto pilot can be programmed.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join