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.

 

What happened to the people on the planes on 9/11?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
What I have come to believe is that the planes that the people boarded on 9/11 are not the same planes that were used to hit the World Trade Center or Pentagon.

1. The Hijackers of the Planes were not at a level capable of what was accomplished on 9.11. This is really the major evidence. Under pressure, we are supposed to believe Amateur Pilots were able to hit the target dead on like that?

"Hijacker Hani Hanjour moves from Florida to the San Francisco Bay area in California, staying with an unidentified family. He lives with them from late April to early September. For most of this time he takes English lessons in an intensive program requiring 30 hours of class time per week, at the ELS Language Center at Holy Names College in Oakland. He reportedly reaches a level of proficiency sufficient to “survive very well in the English language.” Yet in 2001, managers at an Arizona flight school will report him to the FAA at least five times, partly because they think his level of English is inadequate for him to keep his pilot’s license. Due to his poor English, it will take Hanjour five hours to complete an oral exam meant to last just two hours (see January-February 2001). At the end of this period, Hanjour enrolls on a rigorous one-year flight training program at the renowned Sierra Academy of Aeronautics, in Oakland. However, he only attends the 30-minute orientation class, on September 8, and then never returns. "

2. We all know that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. There were no imprints where wings should have been and there was no sign of a major plane in the wreckage inside. The 'plane' also happened to conveniently hit the vacated area of the Pentagon that was undergoing construction. There's also more things wrong but those are the major to me.

3. The 'plane' that crashed in the Field was missing. There was a charred area and a few scattered debris no larger then a small rock, but no plane. Someone had gotten there first.

4. They were conducting a simulation that morning of hijacked planes and had unmanned remote planes in the air. Successfully confusing air traffic control and the whole situation.

5. The WTC Buildings were shut down the weekend prior to 9/11 for 24-28 hours while their electrical system was updated or some nonsense like that. Admittedly, anyone and anything could have entered the buildings at that time. The man who blew the whistle on that was never asked for a statement from the 9.11 Commission. Wonder why.

6. Bomb Sniffing drugs were called off of patrolling around the area a few days prior to 9.11

7. One person in particular who called his mom used his full name and asked his mom if she believed him. was this a message?

What if we just used the 'Hijackers' as our cover, whilst we really flew unmanned planes filled with gas into those bomb filled buildings. I mean if youre gonna pull something like that off, you better really pull it off. Who would leave something to chance like human error in faulty Pilots?
I believe they were flown to an undisclosed location where they are still at today, or where they were killed in secret... Perhaps underground. I truly believe the people in those planes did not die on those planes that day. If we located them we could blow this thing wide open and save this Country and hopefully those lost people.
The air traffic control must have a lead as to what happened to those people. Or perhaps the answer is in one of the phone calls that was made. Someone, somewhere can follow the bread crumbs I just know it.




posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Dumbeddown,

Very good post. I agree that the planes used to strike targets were not the same ones that took off with passengers that day. Good points, however I disagree with this:


Originally posted by dumbeddown
2. We all know that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. There were no imprints where wings should have been and there was no sign of a major plane in the wreckage inside. The 'plane' also happened to conveniently hit the vacated area of the Pentagon that was undergoing construction.


Most people do not grasp the complexities of physics to understand a plane could of hit the Pentagon. First of all, the 757 is a considerably smaller plane than its counterparts. Second, on the point of impact the wing root broke off and bent backwards, following the fuselage through the hole created by the nose. Unlike the World Trade Center, the Pentagon walls are incredibly thick and resistant, there is no way the wings would of gone through in any visible way. Third, just as the Shanksville site I believe the area was 'pounced on' by federal agents and most wreckage removed. Fourth, if you believe in an 'inside job', the area undergoing construction was the most likely place to be hit to limit damage.

Thanks for the post, starred and flagged.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Given their recorded phonecalls whilst on the aircraft, they, well unfortunately, we know where they are!! There were a couple of Irish citizens on the second plane to hit the twin towers, and they have never been heard of since. I think recorded transcripts ended when the planes hit the towers. We heard their calls to their parents and loved ones in Ireland on 911, along with other callers.

However, there is the very important matter as discussed, the incompetence of the pilots to fly nevermind be expert kamikasis.

Furthermore, a plane the size of a 757 could not, given its pilot, direct that plane to hit such a ground level target!! The uplift would make the target impossible to hit at 400mph - nevermind the hole created. John Lear picked this out before.

The video of the aircraft hitting the Pentagon - well, no real evidence there. The Hotel across the road - video evidence taken and never returned - this would solve the mystery entire! Why the secrecy?

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone could answer your question correctly at this point. Big question marks as usual.

Brei.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Breifne, you stated "We heard their calls to their parents and loved ones in Ireland on 911, along with other callers. "

Yes, but where did these phone calls actually take place and were they under distress when they made these calls, not from a Hijacker, but from a gun to the head? I mean, back in 1991 it wasnt possible to use cell phones at cruising altitude, right?
Also, there is a 20+minute recorded phone call from a Flight Attendant who seemed calm and collected the whole time - NO noise in the background when she describes a situation that they had been hijacked, there was a bomb threat and they evacuated people out of first class. Id have to listen to it again to remember the exact details, but I would expect babies/children to be crying in the background at the very least... dontcha think ?



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
back then most planes were equipped with air phones right? were any plane phones actually used? I seem to remember it being just cell phones.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
SteveR > "Most people do not grasp the complexities of physics to understand a plane could of hit the Pentagon."

No, admittedly I do not, but you give a good explanation for why there were no wing marks. What about no plane in the wreckage?



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dumbeddown
 


Dumbeddown, just like Shanksville - it was removed promptly. Enough pieces left over to see that a plane had hit... example:

www.aerospaceweb.org...

I'd like to add something about the misconception that manuevering is impossible at low altitude for various reasons.

This is the same plane that hit the Pentagon. Some low level flight footage:

youtube.com...

Again, a 757. Handling footage. Low level later in the video. Highspeed at the end:

youtube.com...

It doesn't require much of a stretch to imagine how this happened:

youtube.com...

That being said... we are veering off topic somewhat.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dumbeddown
 


Hi,

Yes, It was on the news here the phone call made by a woman from Cork and her young daughter to her family. It was heartrenching. Definately, I remember that call being aired 24 hours (approx) after 911.

''Yes, but where did these phone calls actually take place and were they under distress when they made these calls'': crying, distress, emotional wrecks with distressed voices and shouting in the background? Yes.

All I can tell you is what I heard - because they were the only Irish citizens on board I remember this clearly. The woman was 30 approx. good looking. blonde hair - I remember that. They showed pictures of her and her daughter after the crash.

As for the phones being used - I simply do not know.

What do think happened to them? I do agree (or try to understand) where you are coming from as a female onlooker through a New York apartment stated that it was a military plane that flew into the second tower.

P.s. It was 2001, not 1991.

Brei,



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Hi SteveR,

Do you believe that a 757, considering the pilots involved, could fly that thing, without lift, into a building such as the Pentagon and cause the damage it did to such a reinforced building? On speeding up, the plane would lift would it not?

An expert pilot, as a black ops. agent (if this were the case), would be, in a humanistic form, completely petrified at the thought of this task. No?

I just think this Pentagon issue is unexplainable until the Hotel video footage is released.

Brei.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Breifne
 


Brei,

I personally think only a computer could compensate for all the factors involved and hit the Pentagon with any reliable accuracy. The scenario may be faster and lower than the stunts in the videos I posted, but it is not impossible to manuever against thick air and uplifts.

Agreed on the footage. I'd like to see the Hotel video, but until it is released all we have is the security camera. Taking into account the fisheye lens distortion I do beleive it shows the 757.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Brei,

Do you think the taxi driver who saw the 757 fly overhead and into the Pentagon (forget his name) was a plant?



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
SteveR,

I just think that by visualising a plane that size 'floating' down towards a ground level target (without even touching the grass) and striking the base of the building then buldozing its way through 4 layers of strengthened material is impossible - odds must be mind boggliing!!

Brei



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


What about those on the highway that saw something else - the Hotel film must have! This is thee most important evidence. Was there not several vehicles and lamp posts damaged by the 'craft' on that highway?

Where are they?

Brei



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Just wondering, why hit the Pentagon when the twin towers are in ruin? Is that not enough?

Whats the point - reinforcement of terror - military are not involved etc?



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Breifne
 


Well, Brei, make sure you have watched the last video in this post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I think the simulation covers all aspects of a 757 hit pretty well.

As to your question, I would assume the more hits possible reinforces the feeling of vunerability. Remember there was a plane on the way to the White House as well. Why not use a plane for the Pentagon hit, too? Missile ideas seem incongruous to me.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
The 911 atrocities almost resonnate with the Roswell incident - why the full scale cover-up for something that was in everone's faces.

I do not believe that a missile hit the Pentagon. But until I see the video footage, it could have been anything. Brings us back to the thread - where are the passengers if this was a cover-up op?

Brei.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Removed from the original aircraft and shot? Your guess is as good as mine.


More research needs to be done in this area.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Well we have been told all the bodies (except for the hijackers) have been identified but the fact remains there is no evidence of the bodies being in any of the buildings.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


There was a BBC investigation into this a couple of years ago. Someone claimed that the plane landed at an airstrip close by, but the investigation scrubbed this due to lack of evidence.

I don't feel that the passengers were ferried off the planes due to my post earlier on the matter (I.e phone calls).

If the passengers were ferried off and shot, that would be the absolute lowest ebb for anyone. I cannot see this happen - too low.

Brei.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Hi Ultima,

Were the plane victims not part of the final count? - not including the hijackers is understandable, but the passengers! Notable!

Brei..



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join