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: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Hey SteveR

I was wondering if there was some explanation for this statement by Donald Rumsfeld?

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

Source

Just sayin......




posted on May, 2 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyR
 


Thanks for that. I haven't seen that before. I would say, quite often the word missile is used to describe an object used in a collision. Using a plane as a missile, would be the context here.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Yeah I suppose so, but it does seem more like a Freudian slip


Thanks for the quick response Steve

Johnny

Sorry....back on topic, my bad.

[edit on 5/2/2008 by JohnnyR]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Just some thoughts on what could have happened, all of the planes could have been landed at a military base, one that is no longer being used, the people could have been told they were lucky to be off of those planes they had hi-jackers and bombs on them, the supposed hi-jackers taken away, they are in fact agents and part of the plan. Now there are just enough passengers off of the four planes to fill up one jet.

All of the passengers are told to leave all carry on luggage there including wallets and purses, thus they no longer have cell phones or credit cards to use to make calls. They are told that when they get to their new destination where everything will be took care of their belongings will be returned to them once everything has been checked for explosives, it is all for their safety they are told.

Then a plane is loaded with all of the passengers and flight 93 leaves and heads to Cleveland, Ohio, where they land, supposedly to be routed onto other flights, but that does not happen as soon as they land they are taken straight to an area and the airport is evacuated immediately due to a bomb report. There are reports of a flight 93 landing in Ohio and the airport being evacuated. here is a link to a discussion here at ATS and also the link to the outside report. www.abovetopsecret.com...

If it went down as I believe it might have done and all of the passengers made it safely to Cleveland I don't think they made it any further, I do not for one minute believe any of them are alive or lived very long after getting to the airport. JMO


I came up with this scenario after reading an account by a woman who talked about something very similar happening to her on this day, she seemed to feel it was related to the incidents of what happened that day, when I read it I believed as she did, but later I thought perhaps for some reason they had elected not to doom this flight and let the passengers go.

I have always thought there was supposed to be a third flight hit the WTC 7, but maybe due to time, the flight left too late or whatever it was scrubbed and did not happen, that's why WTC7 had to be brought down it was already filled with explosives and that's why they did not want to leave it standing to be brought down later, because there was too much chance of discovery of the building being filled with explosives. JMO

Anyway I read this account on a website a few days after 911 happened it was a website set up for people to write about their feeling and where they were on that day, I bookmarked and have since lost it when my computer crashed. At the time I read it, my mind was far from thinking our government might have had any part in it, later much later when I did start to think that way I remembered this woman's accout of that day and how frightened she was at landing at a strange military airport and being forced to leave her belongings on the ground and waiting around and then finally being allowed to leave.



[edit on 2-5-2008 by goose]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Here's a nice Freudian slip. Rumsfeld is just so good at these.

www.youtube.com...

"Shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."

It amazes me the things these criminals got away with.

Oh and yea, sending all the passengers to a gas chanmber, or excecuting them is a WHOLE lot worse then crashing a plane they are on into the side of a skyscraper.

Personally, I rather have the bullet to the head.

That argument before....forgot who made it still has me chuckling.

Like our government is evil, but they aren't THAT evil.

Well Trust me....they are more Evil than you can possibly imagine.

Don't you understand these people have no conscience, no morals? They only care about one thing and that is furthering their agenda, and becomeing more and more powerful. Their ultimate goal is world domination; and they will do things that would make you question humanity, and what are the depths of evil, with these people, nothing is taboo, or immoral, as long as it furthers their agenda.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
There's only one fact i know for sure.
Chenney let that plane hit the pentagon- Irrefutable fact!
There is testimony by Norm Mineta to prove this.
That is enough for me to say they probably let the planes hit the towers too.
For me that is enough of a reason for treason charges and a fireing squad.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Funny how they were able to move so quickly on this but unable to respond in any effective way when Katrina hit. Makes one wonder.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by goose
 


Hey Goose,
Very interesting theory. It makes a lot of sense, the only thing I think might of happened is they loaded the passengers onto the last plane 93 ( i think was its number) and that is the one that got shot down over the field in Pen.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
If its all a hoax, they sure did do a good job on the audio clips!

You have the audio of them taking over the cockpit, the voices of the regular pilots yelling "Get out of here get out of here!", then you heard them struggling, then you hear a stewardess screaming, and then something happens to her, im not sure if she just 'shuts up' as they demand of if he killed her. He says, "see? all quiet now" or somethin to that effect, the female voice is no longer heard.

You hear the hijacker speaking to the rest of the plane over the plane's intercom. Various frantic phone calls are made from the plane that supposedly went down in a struggle in PA. Their relatives informed them on the phone that the other plane(s) had hit the towers, and that the plane they were on was likely going to be used for the same thing.

These telephone calls were recorded weve all heard them, whether they be fake or real..

Then, to top it off, the sound clip from the cockpit, towards the end of the audio clip, you hear a bunch of banging and slamming, and something like one of the hijackers make a statement about "theyre going to get in" or were trying to, at which point the hijackers got notably more excited, the plane started reportedly doing barrel rolls, and then crashed inverted.

Do I think they brought it down because of the heroic crew, in that PA Field? Big surprise .. NO!

I think they shot it down. The hijackers were *shock* real! even Bin Laden was seen in video clips praising the attacks. The attackers themselves released clips of them at al-qaida camps, chilling with big bin laden in pakistan or afghanistan?

I think the planes that hit the trade center towers were real, with people inside. I think they were hijacked and crashed into the towers, its not as hard as you may think, once elevated, simply pick and steer downward toward your target, kamikaze style. I know its not that simple, but at a relatively low speed, at a relatively low altitude to start with, the plane could easily glide right into the side of one of those towers, easily.

The reason i think the PA plane was shot down was because it was the only one that hadn't crashed into a building yet. They claim a plane hit the Pentagon and the one in PA was going for the White House. Okay, lets believe this. However, if the Pentagon attack was fake, while the WTT attack was real (the Pentagon attack was almost an hour after the WTT attacks, plenty of time to get things in place for a fake attack), then what would the point be of shooting down this plane in PA, heading for the White House?

Wait a second .. the plane couldnt be heading for the white house if the entire washington dc portion of the attack was staged. This is perplexing ..its as if .. the plane was never there to begin with, the PA plane, lol. Weve got the phone calls .. the missing people .. the hole in the ground, but no point?

And also, various government officials mentioned various times that a plane was shot down, as if they slipped up and never corrected themselves. Guliani did it, Rumsfeld did it, and Cheney did it.

I am confused. I think they shot down the PA plane, but I dont think it was headed for the White House. But I do think it was hijacked. And I know this makes little sense.. because where in the hell would they have been going? lol.

[edit on 5/3/2008 by runetang]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213
Like our government is evil, but they aren't THAT evil.

Well Trust me....they are more Evil than you can possibly imagine.


"evil" is all in the eye of the beholder.

if you knew every bit of data ever to exist.
every event possible..

would you then still view any of it as evil?

how would you, personally define "evil"?

And how would you react to someone if they thought your actions were "evil" under their current belief paradigm?

Have you ever bought a product made in china?
how can you be sure that you were not directly supporting the act of someone being forced into slavery without pay, abused daily by their superiors, by buying the products?

Would not that be evil to the individual who had to slave for you?
you.. buying their product?
or.. out of sight out of mind?

You're being part of something that someone else thinks is "evil" .. just by enjoying the life that you live.

no-one is innocent.


you have to get all "deep and philosophical" to actually see the mechanics at work here..
and only at that point.. do i think you can make an informed decision as to what is "evil" and what is "good".

it's all from your point of reference, and ... assumptions.

-

the people on those planes could have been evacuated and taken somewhere safe.

they could have been mowed down via machine gun fire.

we don't know.

but which of those things would have been "evil".. do we knee-jerk react and say "evil!".. or do we take a cold hard look at what might be something that we have no idea about, the intricacies and layers upon layers of phenomena that this might have had to have happened because of?

-



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 


I remember hearing numerous reports of one of the last phone calls made from Flight 93, from a older male passenger hiding in the restroom. It was made moments before the "crash" to Somerset Rescue, he must've dialed 911? Anyway, this passenger reported smoke filling the cabin, which would certainly lead one to believe it was hit during a shoot down. But this account hasn't been as highly publicized as the other phone calls from passengers.
Anybody else remember this?



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Breifne
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 lift factor can probably be controlled with down elavator input assuming the acceleration was not too great. I think the real issue is that in theory no plane can fly at 400mph at such a low altitude and not disintegrate; for example the wings detaching and the plane being uncontrollable.

Can a real pilot confirm this? I have been an avid flight simulator pilot for many years so I think I understand most of the basics.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by prevenge
the people on those planes could have been evacuated and taken somewhere safe.


Assuming 9-11 was an inside-job why would they leave incriminating evidence(the passengers) behind?! Do you fail to see that this makes no sense?



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by prevenge

"evil" is all in the eye of the beholder."



Wow! REALLY?!? I don't think that anyone on ATS knew that... plase don't nitpick BS like that... I think the dog down the street is evil cuz all it does is stand 10 feet away and bark at you... doesn't mean I think he's LITERALLY evil. Please just leave it to yourself... it really ruins what was turning out to be quite a decent thread so far. It's too much like trying to be P.C., and doesn't make you sound any smarter... just makes it sound like another person who took Philosophy 101. I mean, seriously, if you want to argue philisophical tidiness, we could argue that this whole event never took place except in our minds... but we aren't discussing philisophical debate, we are discussing the events of 9/11, and one person's obvious stated opinion shouldn't be drug into debate, and especially in such a drawn out post.

Now that I've added to that calamity...

On the idea that they reboarded the passengers on "Flight 93" or whatever... think about it... you are flying in a giant hollow sausage that is sealed tight to keep air pressure in at high altitudes, and from what I understand, the cockpit is completely sealed off from the rest of the plane in the case that there is excessive smoke, etc... the pilots are sealed off from the danger (I may be wrong on this... never asked about it directly, but I know some planes are designed this way).

If ya don't quite understand what I'm getting at, when you are in a plane, you are essentially inside an airtight container, that could easily be used as a gas chamber.

Anyone know where this "Flight 93" was headed to? Anywhere they could have time to cart bodies off without anyone peeping on them? That info would either support or scrap that idea pretty easily.

As well, I thought they determined that all the hijackers were actually alive?!? If they hoaxed that one, I must've missed out... just remember hearing that one was working at a small airport in Iraq as a mechanic or something, and can't remember what the rest were doing.

EDIT: Just reread a couple things... I'm confused now... 93 is the one that went down (allegedly) in PA? If that's so, then I guess they wouldn't have had to gas them... but you would think that people would've mentioned getting transfered to this flight somewhere... either way, my point is the same... you are essentially flying in an airtight gas chamber.


[edit on 3-5-2008 by Earthscum]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dumbeddown
 


I have come to the same conclusion, I think the planes were disguised. Although I do think a plane hit the Pentagon.

Now, the question "what happened to the passengers" doesn't have to be answered because we really don't know, but we can speculate.

The most simple explanation on that would be they were killed. Where? Probably after the plane landed in a secret location.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by scarlett1125
 


National security is always a bigger priority. Besides, removing plane wreckage is a little smaller scale of a job than cleaning up after Katrina, don't ya think?



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by dumbeddown
 


Do we have evidence of any remote control planes flying in NY and DC during the supposed training missions? Who is claiming that? I do remember reading about this somewhere but the source escapes me.

I think it is more probable that the original planes were indeed crashed into the targets with remote control and the passengers inside. Why bother complicate the scenario by landing these planes somewhere and killing the passengers discretly while another hypothetical set of military remote-controled planes do the actual colliding?!

Occams Razor. Usually the simplest answer is the correct answer.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
In other words, the planes were equipped with remote control features so that the operator, somewhere in NYC and DC, at some point took over and guided them into the towers and the pentagon respectively.

As to if there were any real pilots aboard is immatterial. The remote control could probably offset any pilot inputs therefore rending them useless.

This theory seems the most plausible to me. What do others think?



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Well, keeping the passengers onboard creates a uncertain element. Perhaps they could botch the operation somehow?

Everything so far has really suggested that there were two sets of planes, imo.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Technology these days can do anything. I remember reading in 1998 a magazine with an article showing a COMMERCIAL video software, able to take anyone's voice and make it say anything it wanted in any language, all it took was about 10 minutes of pre-recorded audio to study the voice.

IMO, the planes were remoted controlled. And the calls were enginnered. All people on board were killed with a deadly gas.

Shanksville, no plane crashed there, except if it was shot down by a fighter jet, which we don't know for sure.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join