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.
But there was a C-130 flying around the Pentagon and near Flight 93s crash site. So just because it was not seen at the towers does not mean it was not there.
Reagan Airport flight control instructs a military C-130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it. [New York Times,
Remarkably, this C-130 is the same C-130 that is 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside (see 10:08 a.m. September 11, 2001). [Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/2001; Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002] The pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, claims he took off around 9:30 a.m., planning to return to Minnesota after dropping supplies off in the Caribbean. He later describes his close encounter: “When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn’t seem to know anything.” O’Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane. “They told us to turn and follow that aircraft—in 20 plus years of flying, I’ve never been asked to do something like that.” [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002] The 9/11 Commission Reports that it is a C-130H and the pilot specifically identifies the hijacked plane as a 757. Seconds after impact, he reports, “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon,
There are quite a few videos of
1) Witnesses who saw the plane
2) different angles of the plane hitting.
And the people who question intelligence because we do not believe this extremely ridiculous story, thats all they have and in truth its Psych 101, when you doubt your own intelligence you tend to question others.
The fact point to an airplane, the is NO and I mean NO shred of evidence that planes did not hit.
I am not sure what Mr. Lears actual purpose is here on ATS to get such "Rock Star" treatment as he does.
But I have heard nothing but extremely ludicrous theories which are being told as fact
These are theories that are easily proved wrong,
and the fact that you actually think holograms were there as I watched it live on all televisions.
Why? Seems to be an awful lotta work doesn't it. A simple, spike of our drinking water where 1000's died or something that could ACTUALLY be covered up would have caused just as bad as a reaction, if this was needed to go to war or what ever reason the boogie man did this.
I am disappointed in the treatment ATS gives John Lear and to be honest it makes the people who do believe in truth, not want to post to this site and as you can see by the everly increasing ridiculousness of the threads here.
It makes ATS a not so welcome place for truth and science, where perhaps REAL conspiracies could be found, but are be swamped over by the ridiculous.
Can any say Disinformation?
A very disappointed person here =( I've been here for almost 4 years and have seen a great thing turn into a joke.
Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by ShiftTrio
The fact point to an airplane, the is NO and I mean NO shred of evidence that planes did not hit.
The facts are that there is no evidence that a plane hit. No remains of two 6 ton engine cores, no fuselage or wing parts, no center wing plank section, no vertical-horizontal stabilizer empennage parts. No oxygen bottles, no hydraulic cylinders, no wing spars, nothing that would indicate that a plane of any kind ever impacted the World Trade Center. So actually in regards to your statement there is NO shred of evidence that planes hit the World Trade Center, or the Pentagon or crashed at Shanksville. As far as the World Trade Center please show me one single piece of aircraft wreckage in the footprint of the building.
ok, no evidence that a plane hit except for the dozens of videos that SHOW a plane hitting the tower.
After the collapse of 110 floors right on top of each other, and the months of cleaning up.. how do you know there was no airplane wreckage that was cleaned up? Were you a rescue/cleanup worker? were you there to witness the cleanup workers removing all of the material from ground zero?
Am i asking you questions i already know the answer to?
Originally posted by may_be_true
My question is not how but why....
Why would some shadow operation which, by default would have had to given up on 5-10 thousand lives
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Even IF the broadcasts were manipulated it's a MAJOR fallacy to declare that it proves no planes were used.
[edit on 26-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]
Originally posted by Shadowflux
As much as I may respect Mr. Lear I feel the hologram theory is completely ludicrous. Everything I've read on the topic seems to follow the pattern of it being so secret no one knows of it yet so obvious everyone can tell. On the one hand they'd have us believe this technology is extremely advanced yet on the other they'd have us believe the perpetrators are idiots. I really think this is some sort of effort on the part of some group to confuse and distract us. This "theory" will also be perfect fodder for discrediting all of us.
I could probably go on forever listing the reasons it's total crap but seriously, wouldn't it just be easier to actually fly some planes into the buildings? All their arguments are pretty useless and unfounded and a lot of people are wasting their time arguing with these people.
Its perfectly possible (not to mention true) that planes did in fact hit the WTC that morning.
These people really do make me a bit angry and if I wasn't so against censorship I'd say they should all be banned.
Originally posted by thedman
Tin foiler are notorious for taking ordinary events and blowing them up
into some vast conspiracy.
Originally posted by 1337cshacker
I know the flights that supposedly went into the ground/hit pentagon landed in ohio.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
It was not Flight 93 that landed in Ohio, it was Delta Flight 1989. The ATCs got confused when 93 and 1989 flew close to each other.
John Lear: Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few building, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or 600 miles an hour.
Rob Balsamo: Yeah, as a matter of fact, one of our members, he was a 737 Check Airman. He was in the sim at the time on September 11 and right after it happened they tried to duplicate it in the simulator and they said they couldn't do it. They were trying to hit the Towers and they couldn't do it. ...
John Lear: Yeah, it would be an amazing feat of airmanship. ...
source
Originally posted by ShiftTrio
It makes ATS a not so welcome place for truth and science, where perhaps REAL conspiracies could be found, but are be swamped over by the ridiculous.
[edit on 26-9-2007 by ShiftTrio]