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.

 

Rare Footage -- Flight 93 Shootdown Award

page: 11
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freaky_Animal
Wouldn't surprise me, the ruski's made some decent hardware.


Just too bad they could not aford to maintain them and had to srap them.




posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I guess it's bit O/T but relevant, so I'll post...

The Russians built a Concorde copy. Our guys knew they were being infiltrated, so planted duff plans that the Russians stole. The wing wasn't designed for high-g maneuvers, but was designed enough to look plausible.

The event that happened at the Paris airshow is actually still wide open to speculation. There were reports that a French aircraft was doing recon above, unknown to the pilots of the Russian Concordski, to study the canard wing (the little wing at the front of the aircraft).

The Concordski allegedly pitched up, saw they were going to collide with this unknown jet, and pitched down to avoid it. During that maneuver, they over-stressed the wing and it broke off.

Why the other jet was in the airspace is still unknown to this day, but it was there.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

Please read the NORAD protocol for airliners not responding.

It basically states that any plane off cource and not repsonding becomes a threat. It had nothing to do with who was on Flight 93.


This sounds interesting.

Could you provide links to the relevant documents containing the NORAD protocol?



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Could you provide links to the relevant documents containing the NORAD protocol?



Here you go, this is prior to 9/11. There were changes made after 9/11.

I think you will find number 1 interesting. Kind of shows that if the plane is considered a threat it can be shot down.

www.fas.org...

(1) Escort aircraft aircrews are informed of the reason for the
mission and complete an armament safety check;

(2) During the approach phase, escort aircraft aircrews are vectored
so as to approach the hijacked aircraft from the rear to avoid the possibility
of being observed;

(3) Escort aircraft aircrews are kept advised of the hijacked
aircraft's heading, altitude, speed and bearing, and range from the escort
aircraft;

(4) The intercept is planned so as to position the escort aircraft at
the same altitude, speed and heading of the hijacked aircraft at a point no
closer than minimum separation to the target. The fighters will roll out 5
nautical miles in the US or 10 nautical miles in Canada directly behind the
hijacked aircraft. (Note: Separation may be reduced to 5 nautical miles in
Canada with the approval of the Region Deputy Director for Operations);

(5) When the escort aircraft are 30 nautical miles from the hijacked
aircraft, positioning instructions are confirmed (for example, "ECHO GOLF 12,
WHEN CONTACT IS ESTABLISHED, APPROACH NO CLOSER THAN 5 NAUTICAL MILES DIRECTLY
BEHIND THE TARGET AND MAINTAIN SURVEILLANCE. REMAIN OUT OF SIGHT FROM THE
COCKPIT OR CABIN AND REPORT ALL ACTIONS OBSERVED."); and

(6) Aircrews advise the control facility when the hijacked aircraft
is detected on airborne radar and when visual contact is made.



After 9/11,

www.dtic.mil...



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


hey. i didn't post what is quoted as me posting. how did that happen?

oh, well. just for the record.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

It basically states that any plane off cource and not repsonding becomes a threat.


The document you linked to says nothing of the sort. It refers to the regulations of ''AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE OF HIJACKED AIRCRAFT.''


a. For the purpose of clarity and conciseness in this regulation, the
term "hijack" will cover situations in which aircraft control is seized in
order to go somewhere other than the scheduled destination and when an
aircraft is stolen or used without permission of the owner
and or Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or Transport Canada (TC) authorities.


There is no mention of loss of communication or deviation from course.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 




LaBTop,
This may seem off topic but it's not.....Aren't you a proponent of "no airplane" at the Pentagon?


No, I am not.
In fact I am a proponent of many airplanes at the Pentagon on 9/11, such as :

1. a plane that appeared to be a AA Boeing 757 ;

2. a C-130C which the USAF much too late admitted was there, but they declared it a simple C-130, not the sophisticated air/ground electronics jamming C-version which would be needed to jam the Pentagon defenses in case of a military deception ;

3. a white Doomsday plane with even more electronic warfare capabilities, spotted by several journalists at the White House, when it made a very unusual loop above it at low altitude (these 4 existing USAF planes tend to stay out of harms way, at high altitude, since there is no reason for such a plane at all to do a low altitude visual reconnaissance, that plane has top.spec. cameras on board and in pods under the wings), that loop seems to be planned to muddy the waters so observers later could be totally off-set by interviewers from the military who used strong psychological warfare techniques to plant disrupted false memories in the minds of the people they were able to interrogate;

4. a white LearJet type CIA plane which stayed in the air all day, even was intercepted by 2 of the jets who accompanied and protected Airforce One when it returned to Washington after 17:00 hrs, with GWB and company aboard, about 80 miles away from Andrews AFB ;

5. a military type, green colored helicopter, which was reported in the first minutes before and after the event at the Pentagon as come flying from the Potomac side to the west wall heliport side, and was initially reported to have crashed there.


Search the huge thread by Catherder, in the 60th to 90th pages, and you will find me posting at that date/year, that I thought that an airplane hit the Pentagon, then find the first post (by me) on top of page 200 which was part of many posts of mine on page 99; in which posts you can read the full officially recorded story of the pilots who did protect Washington DC during the day and then were ordered to meet Airforce One in mid air, and protect it on its last lap to Andrews AFB.
And their report how they were send up by an air-controller to intercept a possible thread to AF-One flying higher but quite near to it, when AF-One was nearing the Capital.
The reason I posted the full official report excerpt in that many posts, was my experience that these kind of official reports tended to disappear very quickly from the Web when 9/11 "cleaners" found out later that sensitive info was in fact part of such reports.
The most interesting note from that intercept :
That white LearJet had been airborne ALL day already. That can only be a CIA plane, since we know they have several from these planes in posession, and are the only ones except military flights who whould have had clearance to stay airborne after all planes were ordered to land as soon as they could in the early morning. US airspace was empty after noon, except for military planes and these CIA planes, and Airforce One.

Btw, the white LearJet spotted by several witnesses at Shanksville was owned by Warren Buffet ( killtown.911review.org... , killtown.911review.org... ) ,
who organized a top CEO's meeting at Offutt AFB in the morning of 9/11, and what happened? GWB in AF-One fled to that same AFB where all these military-industrial CEO's were gathered on 9/11, and stayed there all day.
Aren't you a tidbit curious what these people talked about with GWB?

Next, I started to read the very convincing eyewitnesses reports by CIT, and Craig Ranke slowly but steadfast brings more and more convincing reasons and eyewitnesses before us, who all together implicate a huge military deception played on the whole world on 9/11 and at the Pentagon.

Thus, now I'm not so convinced anymore that the official story for the Pentagon event is the right one.

It is a petty, that CIT didn't just offer the eyewitness accounts, and then let the ATS populace start to theorize them self what consequences a north of CITGO gas station must have for the official explanation.
That would have spared them a lot of illogical aggressive behavior from some very erratic opponents.
And I don't doubt, that the majority of ATS 9/11 forum readers would have come to the same conclusion, inevitably.

I, at least, do now have a much stronger conviction that the whole Pentagon event was a military deception, no doubt needed to immensely increase the military budget, and bring the US populace and also that from their allies in a state of unquestionable patriotism, making them ripe for all the draconian laws introduced directly after 9/11.

So, in fact I once believed, based on the plane parts shown on military websites, photographed by solely military photographers (btw, no videos from inside, AFAIK), that a plane hit the Pentagon.

At the moment, based on the hard work of CIT and Pilots for Truth, I believe that the Pentagon event was a massive deception by the military, thus I don't believe their photos anymore.
I expect more evidence to be unearthed shortly, which makes it totally impossible for anyone with a sane mind, to hold on to the official flight 77 impact at the west wall of the Pentagon on 9/11.

There are of course many holes to be filled with ultimate truth for details of that event, but the stronger the evidence for a north of CITGO pass by, which subsequently makes it totally unbelievable, no, impossible, that those light poles were hit by flight 77 before it crashed in the Pentagon west wall, the more obviously it becomes that we have been lied to by the usual subjects, who have been proved to have lied to us already on many other events.
Iraqi WMD come to mind, first, then "no one ever anticipated that passenger planes could be used to attack US landmarks, then Karl Rove with all his damn lies, Scooter Libby, etcetera infinitum.

It is clear by now that the US and world populace is held hostage by a group of low-life, lying scum, and that no one yet, has come up with a valid line of defense against these inhumane beings.
All these new laws have just one objective:
To stop any recurrence of the landslide resistance needed like it happened at last during that idiotic Vietnam war.
Just as we learn from history, so do these scumbags.

In my opinion, there is just ONE lightning fast solution :

EVERY concerned citizen on earth must retract all their savings from all their bank accounts, since the banks and their policies are clearly the root of all evil.
No military or political power without the backing of those banks.
It will solve all problems in a weeks time.

Lo and behold, isn't that exactly what we are witnessing lately?
Is there a struggle between Good and Evil happening just now, and shouldn't we give a helping hand to the Good side, by a run on the banks, and not believing the wicked propaganda that such a move would destruct the whole world?

You can't destruct all real estate and other property and hardware in the whole world, it will still have its intrinsic value, and such a global move will force all governments to declare all currency printed by civilians like the Federal Reserve Bank worthless, and print new money, backed by their governments, who will be swiftly controlled again by the real owners, their own CITIZENS, after voting in new and honest representatives.

Let's ROLL (-up the banks).

[edit on 15/7/08 by LaBTop]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


On page 9 of this thread you laid out your theory of "swapping planes" in radar black out locations. If I follow you, this is the jist of the plan.... The real airliners get diverted while in the radar gap areas, and replacement, remote controlled aircraft take their place to be crashed into the pre-selected targets. Maybe the folks on the airliners were paid off for their silence, or maybe they were terminated, doesn't really matter which for the purposes of this thought excercise.

You futher suggest that UA93 or the UA93 doppleganger (not sure which you really mean) was shot down because it was delayed so long for takeoff it fell outside the timing/planning window.

But the most important thing here is your belief that the 9/11 false flag plan involved 4 real aircraft (remote controlled replacements for the commercial airliners) that were to be crashed into high visibility targets.

Do I have that right?

Now....CITs theory absolutely demands no airplane crashed into the Pentagon...It is entirely predicated on pre-planted explosives to imitate the damage that would have been caused by an airplane on a specific trajectory (south of Citgo over the light poles).

If the 9/11 conspirators were using real airplanes (remote controlled stand-ins for the commercial flights) there would have been absolutely no reason to plant evidence, stage fallen light poles, or anything else that indicated a certain approach path to the Pentagon. They would have just crashed the actual commercial airplane look-alike into the building? Right?

You indicate in the following quote from another post in this thread that you you think Shanksville may have been the same type of stage event as the Pentagon.


It is even remotely possible, that the same trick has been played on the world audience, clustered to their TV's, as at the Pentagon, where we now see more CIT evidence of a north of Citgo flightpath, which totally nullifies the officially promoted south of Citgo flight path, including the officially downed light poles, and the official damage path inside the Pentagon, in line with the downed light poles. A north of Citgo flying airliner could never ever have downed any of these light poles.
In that case, all the 9/11 official explanations are plain old lies.

So, perhaps the same trick was played at Shanksville, with a dive down of Flight 93, and a fly-over of the "impact" crater spot, and a disappearance of 93 flying low, under the radar, to another airport. While the drone or the Wardhog caused the crater, by means of physical impact, or use of explosives or rockets.


If the Pentagon was a staged fly-over, what happend to the remote controlled stand in "crash planes"?

LabTop, I like your style and appreciate the cerebral debate. So many others seem to be incapable of looking at all sides of this issue and just spew the same rhetoric over and over again in the belief it will become the truth.

I agree with you that 9/11 was a conspiracy. However I don't understand why you and the others need to cling to these impossibly complex deceptions. You are trying to blend 4-5 different conspiracy strageies together to come up with one plan/conspiracy that fits no AA77 at Pentagon, No UA 93 at Shanksville, Clearly seen airplanes in NY, apparent CD at WTC all together and it just keeps getting more and more complex.

How about this?

9/11 was a false flag designed to advance certain military, economic, and geo-political goals and it was pulled of like this:

Upper level US officials knew of the planned terrorist attack and let it happen, or upper level and secret components of the US government retained Arab martyrs (for a hefty price to paid to their families or straight to BinLaden) to hijack and crash the airplanes just as it appeared?

What say you?

[edit on 7/15/2008 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 7/15/2008 by darkbluesky]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
At last someone again, who understands that we still, for the most part, are thinking out loud, since we have so little real, trustworthy evidence left at hand.
Evidence not directly from the new non-Arabic suspects, but cross referenced evidence, from too many liable sources to be suspect anymore.

This is a quick answer now, I'm gonna contemplate much deeper on your proposals afterwards, which will cost me an hour or so.

I have looked for a firm reason why the planners would have chosen the south of Citgo damage path, ever since the first CIT appearance of contradictory eyewitnesses.
In my opinion, there's only one, and just one very strong reason, corroborated by reports and Pentagon witnesses and floor plans :

The main hidden goal of the Pentagon attack were a few offices, laying in precisely ONLY that S-of-Citgo damage path, namely the Navy ONI offices, and the Army Accounting offices, and their main-frames with all the data in it. And probably a few other Military Intelligence offices, indicated on several maps.
Remember, the Pentagon very quickly announced that there was no backup of these data, and they expected to need up to 7 years to reconcile that data, if ever possible to retract it ever.

The "Rumsfeld 9/10 Trillions" investigations, were the real target.
So. they HAD to fake that damage path, and fake a lot of "eyewitness" accounts.

Its was a crazy attack path, and there should have occurred immediate crashing down of the "plane" when it really would have hit those light poles.

Besides, there is also the crazy attack angle of 52°, which directly put me on full alert when I saw it online. Huge parts of the "plane" would have bounced off that strong, lately reinforced west wall, with very thick and strong office and stairway walls 90° in the direct "impact" path of entry.

I once posted a photograph of the US cruise-missile attack on the villa of Slobodan Milosevitch, the former Serbian president, compared to the early photo of the "impact" hole at the Pentagon.
They were literally identical, with the same upper-floor part dangling down from the ceiling in the middle of the impact hole.

Note : search in this forum with : LaBTOP ONI , for much more of my posts and links to the Trillions missing from the Pentagon budget in the years before 9/11, and the reason why the ONI (Office of Navy Intelligence) had to be stopped in their screening of the 9/11 events.

Now I'm gonna look deeper in your post, and you can bite on this one.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
I have looked for a firm reason why the planners would have chosen the south of Citgo damage path, ever since the first CIT appearance of contradictory eyewitnesses.
In my opinion, there's only one, and just one very strong reason, corroborated by reports and Pentagon witnesses and floor plans :

The main hidden goal of the Pentagon attack were a few offices, laying in precisely ONLY that S-of-Citgo damage path, namely the Navy ONI offices, and the Army Accounting offices, and their main-frames with all the data in it. And probably a few other Military Intelligence offices, indicated on several maps.
Remember, the Pentagon very quickly announced that there was no backup of these data, and they expected to need up to 7 years to reconcile that data, if ever possible to retract it ever.



This is at odds with your remote controlled plane theory. The set up of the south of Citgo approach indicates no real airplane!

I concede that there seem to be numerous reasons to have targeted the Pentagon, but was it targeted with an airplane or not? You are arguing here it was not, If it was not, why were airplanes used in the other locations? Your Shanksville theory mandates airplanes. You need to reconcile these inconsistencies.

I haven't read your work on all the bizzare connections and oddities surrounding the event but I'm familiar with many of them, recognize their significance, and have suggested to others, many times, that this is where their efforts should be focused...not on flight paths, fake phone calls, north or south of Citgo, demands for pictures of airplane parts, melting steel..bla bla bla....



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
For clarity's sake, I will use your whole post, and fill in my comments with the use of Italics-text, here it is :

On page 9 of this thread you laid out your theory of "swapping planes" in radar black out locations.

To be precise, it's not my theory, but from Pilots for Truth. I think they introduced some very good research on that subject. It seems not remotely possible, but quite possible.

If I follow you, this is the jist of the plan.... The real airliners get diverted while in the radar gap areas, and replacement, remote controlled aircraft take their place to be crashed into the pre-selected targets. Maybe the folks on the airliners were paid off for their silence, or maybe they were terminated, doesn't really matter which for the purposes of this thought excercise.

I also brought up later in my post, the possibility of no swapping at all, that a percentage of the passengers were insiders, and perhaps added by other, innocent specialists in the fields involved with the planning, which directly could have pointed out the flaws of the official story afterwards, who had to be eliminated since they were unreliable or dangerous after the event, see the many sites which offer us the list of passengers with their jobs at possibly involved companies with needed expertise, like remotely controlling airplanes and secret demolition techniques, like f.ex. Raytheon, NAIC etc.
The insiders group were then informed of totally different targets, in other towns, and were told that their presence in those planes was needed to gather in one place afterwards for the necessairy damage control. The innocent specialists group were then carefully misguided to join conferences, or whatever other clever reason to "force" them to accept tickets, unknowing why especially for those specific flights.
Since we are at the point where a great deal of ATS conspiracists are believing that "homies" instead of Arabs planned 9/11, then the concept of carefull decade long homegrown planning to let 9/11 mimicri an Al Quaida terrorist attack, is not so far-fetched anymore. Thus also not the in fact not so difficult faking of whole lifelines and identities by state sponsored agencies, to publish as victims afterwards.


You futher suggest that UA93 or the UA93 doppleganger (not sure which you really mean) was shot down because it was delayed so long for takeoff it fell outside the timing/planning window.
I mean, it could be each of them, in case of no swap, or swap.

But the most important thing here is your belief that the 9/11 false flag plan involved 4 real aircraft (remote controlled replacements for the commercial airliners) that were to be crashed into high visibility targets.

Do I have that right?

No, not exactly. I am still open for any other suggestion with high possibility value, if accompanied with strong corroborated evidence. So not my "belief", but still simply one of the few remaining possible scenarios which all fit in all the former and late evidence brought online or published.

Now....CITs theory absolutely demands no airplane crashed into the Pentagon...It is entirely predicated on pre-planted explosives to imitate the damage that would have been caused by an airplane on a specific trajectory (south of Citgo over the light poles).

They, CIT, strongly discard the eventual combined use of > Mach-3 cruise missiles, or even Pentagon defense shield rockets, which in my opinion would not be visible at all for the human eye or a simple security camera, traveling with that speed. Especially not on a bright,sunny day. Like 9/11 was. There was a very modern missile cruiser anchored in the bay where the Potomac leads to, on 9/11.
I still keep that scenario in mind, as a possible one.


If the 9/11 conspirators were using real airplanes (remote controlled stand-ins for the commercial flights) there would have been absolutely no reason to plant evidence, stage fallen light poles, or anything else that indicated a certain approach path to the Pentagon. They would have just crashed the actual commercial airplane look-alike into the building? Right?

No, see my above post about ONI and the Accounting offices for a strong possibility.

You indicate in the following quote from another post in this thread that you you think Shanksville may have been the same type of stage event as the Pentagon.


It is even remotely possible, that the same trick has been played on the world audience, clustered to their TV's, as at the Pentagon, where we now see more CIT evidence of a north of Citgo flightpath, which totally nullifies the officially promoted south of Citgo flight path, including the officially downed light poles, and the official damage path inside the Pentagon, in line with the downed light poles. A north of Citgo flying airliner could never ever have downed any of these light poles.
In that case, all the 9/11 official explanations are plain old lies.

So, perhaps the same trick was played at Shanksville, with a dive down of Flight 93, and a fly-over of the "impact" crater spot, and a disappearance of 93 flying low, under the radar, to another airport. While the drone or the Wardhog caused the crater, by means of physical impact, or use of explosives or rockets.



If the Pentagon was a staged fly-over, what happend to the remote controlled stand in "crash planes"?

Ahh, please see my reasoning a bit above, about possible no factual swapping of planes at all, just the story about planned swapping told to the insider "victims" aboard the real planes, who thought they were on normal planes to non-target destinies. And the planners had found much earlier already the same info about those radar black spots, far ahead of Pilots for Truth, btw. It would be more logical, to not swap, a lot less factors which can go wrong, the most simple scenario will be opted for, most of the time. But perhaps, here was opted for the complicated scenario, for yet unknown reasons. Fact is, ALL planes flew to black spots, and shortly after cut their transponders off, and veered from course.
I'm not hooked to one theory, I'm still open to others, or combinations of a few or many.
Need more INPUT, beep beep.(ET, the film).


LabTop, I like your style and appreciate the cerebral debate. So many others seem to be incapable of looking at all sides of this issue and just spew the same rhetoric over and over again in the belief it will become the truth.

I agree with you that 9/11 was a conspiracy. However I don't understand why you and the others need to cling to these impossibly complex deceptions. You are trying to blend 4-5 different conspiracy strageies together to come up with one plan/conspiracy that fits no AA77 at Pentagon, No UA 93 at Shanksville, Clearly seen airplanes in NY, apparent CD at WTC all together and it just keeps getting more and more complex.

Pardon me, I think there was a plane, AA77 or a lookalike at the Pentagon, but if it went in, that's what we are contemplating now, with ever more strong corroborating evidence brought up by CIT and Pilots for Truth hinting to the opposite.
I also think there was a UA93 at or near Shanksvile, or a lookalike, but what went in or off in the soil, I still don't know for sure.
I think there were airplanes in New York, but what type exactly, and what was onboard, I have no firm evidence for, since I don't trust official evidence at all anymore.

And I made it very clear to all in this thread again, that I am 100% sure that three nearly identical in force, energy sources were present at the WTC sites, far too long before global collapse, and in the case of WTC7 far too big, compared to the following global collapse, that it could be any columns snapping before collapse. That WTC7 pre-collapse event was much bigger in recorded energy by the seismographs, than the following total collapse recorded. And the inevitable conclusion from that huge energy burst can only be an externally planted or introduced energy source, f. ex. explosives, or other unknown to us, devices.

It was already proved after the demolition of the still standing remains of the Oklahoma City Murrah building, that planted explosives detonating, were much better in activating seismographs, than the following total collapse of the mass of the remains.
Yes, everything points to an introductory group of explosions, followed by a starting collapse, and aided at mechanical floors by other huge explosions, which noise drawned in the overwhelming noise of the already collapsing top part of the buildings.
It's not complex at all, in fact it is a well known sequence of events in any demolition company.


How about this?

9/11 was a false flag designed to advance certain military, economic, and geo-political goals and it was pulled of like this:

Upper level US officials knew of the planned terrorist attack and let it happen, or upper level and secret components of the US government retained Arab martyrs (for a hefty price to paid to their families or straight to BinLaden) to hijack and crash the airplanes just as it appeared?

What say you?

I say, it appears you don't believe my thesis. Since you don't mention explosions at the WTC. Which you can't sweep together with the "let it happen" theory.
Want to debate me on my thesis, and its grave implications?

However, if you believe that I am right in telling everybody, that just already only in case of WTC 7, there were undeniable huge energy bursts going off long before (about 6 seconds) we could see the first visible proof of beginning collapse, the famous dent in the penthouse, and then it took another 8.2 seconds before initiation of the real total global collapse of WTC 7 started, (the famous perfectly horizontally sinking down of the roof line), in that case, how can you propose your "let it happen" scenario?
In that case, who was responsible for the demolition of WTC 7.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
There is no mention of loss of communication or deviation from course.


DAAAHHH, do i have to do all the research for you. Are you that immature? Do you need me to take you by the hand and lead you through the research? Do you need me to post the NORAD sites for you? Seems like i need to.

Please do research, there is no reason to be afraid of the truth.

911research.wtc7.net...

It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. 1 In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times.


[edit on 15-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
A short addendum to this :


If the 9/11 conspirators were using real airplanes (remote controlled stand-ins for the commercial flights) there would have been absolutely no reason to plant evidence, stage fallen light poles, or anything else that indicated a certain approach path to the Pentagon. They would have just crashed the actual commercial airplane look-alike into the building? Right?

No, see my above post about ONI and the Accounting offices for a strong possibility.


I think you gravely underestimate the importance of the ONI and the Accounting offices for the perpetrators. It's ALL ABOUT the MONEY !

The key-words are here : reliability of an illegal operation.

They had experience, a lot, with slamming cruise missiles into reinforced concrete and steel buildings, in many instances.
They even had the means afterwards, in Bosnia and Iraq, to scientifically investigate the impact trajectory and resulting damage.

And here comes the bummer :
They had zero cases to rely on of commercial airliners slamming into huge buildings at top speed. Little chance to try it in real time eather, without attention. Computer simulation comes to mind, but see the next line :

As a Planner, capable of using everything in the US arsenal, would you rely on an Unknown factor, or use thoroughly studied factors?

Especially when your life depends on it.
High Treason is punishable by death.
All involved would option for staying alive with the highest possible chance.

There's your absolute reason.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Another addendum on this :


I haven't read your work on all the bizzare connections and oddities surrounding the event but I'm familiar with many of them, recognize their significance, and have suggested to others, many times, that this is where their efforts should be focused...not on flight paths, fake phone calls, north or south of Citgo, demands for pictures of airplane parts, melting steel..bla bla bla....


Weren't you the one I had a few pages of interesting opposition with, regarding your proposed possibility of a north of Citgo flying plane, eye-witnessed by CIT's interviewees, making a sharp S-turn past the Citgo, so it could thus fly coming north of Citgo, but still topple all those lightpoles on a south of Citgo flight path?

And didn't you retract your proposal as impossible, two times, after being offered all my arguments and drawings, photos and videos of banking airplanes? Which banking turned out to be impossible at the officially promoted airspeed of AA77. A pilot would have needed a few miles to make that possible, at that speed, at that close to the ground it would have slipped to the ground and crashed. Remember again?

And didn't I repeat all the time, that if you have at last the insight, that if those eyewitnesses from CIT don't lie, (lying which I discard as a too faint possibility, since all witnesses describe the same identical flightpath north of Citgo), you have to admit that there must have been a military deception played upon the whole world.

The only argument you could bring in for the downed light poles beside blowing them up and down by hidden explosives, would be a flock of cruise missiles with short wings, hitting those poles on their way in.
To me such hitting seems extraordinarily unreasonable, planners would have foreseen such occurrences, and lead the missiles in from a slightly higher angle of attack, and still opt for the blow-up of the poles, or pre-planting them shortly in advance. Cruise missiles can be pre-programmed with an exceptional level of preciseness.
Especially above such well known property.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

DAAAHHH, do i have to do all the research for you. Are you that immature? Do you need me to take you by the hand and lead you through the research? Do you need me to post the NORAD sites for you? Seems like i need to.


No Ultima, you do not have to do all of my research, no I'm not immature, know you do not need to hold my hand though you do not have few post NORAD sites. All you have to do

Please do research, there is no reason to be afraid of the truth.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DAAAHHH, do i have to do all the research for you. Are you that immature? Do you need me to take you by the hand and lead you through the research? Do you need me to post the NORAD sites for you? Seems like i need to.


No Ultima, you do not have to do all of my research, no I'm not immature, no you do not need to hold my hand, no you do not have to post NORAD sites. All you have to do is back up your claim that it is standard operating procedure for NORAD to launch fighters for an aircraft that is NORDO or if it has deviated from its course.




Please do research, there is no reason to be afraid of the truth.


I used your source for research and it doesn't provide any evidence of what you claim. In fact it does the opposite.


Today, any aircraft with radio problems is suspect, no problem routine. Fighter jets are scrambled to babysit suspect aircraft or "unknowns" three or four times a day. Before Sept. 11, that happened twice a week.

Last year, there were 425 unknowns -- pilots who didn't file or diverted from flight plans or used the wrong frequency. Jets were scrambled 129 times.



NORAD did not monitor domestic flights before September 11. They did monitor 7000 daily international flights flying through the ADIZ as well as performing drug interdiction along the southern border. How many of the 129 intercepts performed were due to loss of radio or deviation from course?



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

Weren't you the one I had a few pages of interesting opposition with, regarding your proposed possibility of a north of Citgo flying plane, eye-witnessed by CIT's interviewees, making a sharp S-turn past the Citgo, so it could thus fly coming north of Citgo, but still topple all those lightpoles on a south of Citgo flight path?


I'm responding out of order of your posts but will get to all of your questions.

The answer here is yes. I proposed a possible N of Citgo course with a hard starboard bank that would have come near the light poles. I long ago abandoned this argument.

I have instead focused on the lack of credibility of CITs witnesses based on conflicting observations, selective quoting by CIT, and selective assignment of significance of witness statements. i.e. two witnesses swear they saw the airplane impact the building but this is dismissed by CIT... BUT they cling to the same witnessess when they say the airplane appeared to pass N of Citgo....troublesome.

CIT likes what their witnesses say when it supports CITs theory, they dismiss what they say when its in conflict.



The only argument you could bring in for the downed light poles beside blowing them up and down by hidden explosives, would be a flock of cruise missiles with short wings, hitting those poles on their way in.
To me such hitting seems extraordinarily unreasonable, planners would have foreseen such occurrences, and lead the missiles in from a slightly higher angle of attack, and still opt for the blow-up of the poles, or pre-planting them shortly in advance. Cruise missiles can be pre-programmed with an exceptional level of preciseness.
Especially above such well known property.


Now I'm getting more confused....no more remote controlled aircraft, no more strage light poles, but light poles brought down by a flock of cruise missles?

How is it we have no witnesses that saw a "flock" of cruise missles? From which aircraft were these cruise missles fired?

Now we have swapped aircraft (remote control stand - ins for commerial airliners), a fly over by an AA 757 look-alike (confirmed by CIT star witness LaGasse), staged light poles to povide "smoking gun evidence of an airplane on a S of Citgo course, one pole even "planted" on Lloyds taxi-cab just to make sure, a flock of cruise missiles, and a crap load of first responders who have not reported anything that indicated that something other than a 757 crashed at the pentagon?



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
NORAD did not monitor domestic flights before September 11. They did monitor 7000 daily international flights flying through the ADIZ as well as performing drug interdiction along the southern border. How many of the 129 intercepts performed were due to loss of radio or deviation from course?


My statement was that NORAD considers any plane that goes off course or loses contact a threat.

THAT IS WHY THEY SCRAMBLE JETS TO THEM.

I have proven that point. Please do research and read the rules of NORAD i have posted.

911research.wtc7.net...

It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. 1 In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times.



[edit on 16-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   
1. I am still contemplating.
Please count how many times I wrote that already, so why do you want me to pin down myself on just one exact theory?

2. All CIT witnesses have ONE very important observation in common :
they all swear to have seen the plane flying on a north of Citgo flight path.
And draw in nearly identical observed paths in copies of one overhead view of the Citgo and Pentagon.

This corroborated evidence by multiple interviewed (on camera) witnesses is all we need. I love to be able to see the body-language.
I am not further interested what the plane did afterwards.
(please NOTE carefully : IN FIRST INSTANCE ! )

Since that observation nullifies the logic of a plane hitting all the downed light poles.

We can concentrate on a fly-over or an impact much later, and that's the psychological mistake CIT made very early in their publishing already.
There was no need to finalize their witness statements with a self-made conclusion about impact,or no impact but fly-over instead.

The pure existence of a plane north of Citgo is far more important than what that plane did further on that path, f.ex. after the explosion at the west wall!

No plane observed south of Citgo means one immense important thing :
The light poles were staged.
Thus the rest is also staged, with near certainty.

Only very complicated theories could explain after the north of Citgo evidence, the officially pushed south of Citgo flight- and damage path inside the building.
Good luck anyone, in trying to come up with such theories.

The only remotely possible other theory would be the existence of two planes, one that downed the poles on its way in, and one which flew over the roof of the Pentagon.
Good luck anyone, to try to come up with a reason for that too.

EDIT :

How is it we have no witnesses that saw a "flock" of cruise missiles? From which aircraft were these cruise missiles fired?


Please re-read my last posts.
1. The human eye can't register a > Mach 3 flying "small" cruise missile.
Especially when there is a slow flying huge plane on stage too.
2. Told you already, there was a Missile Cruiser in the Potomac Bay or whatever name that anchor point has.

[edit on 16/7/08 by LaBTop]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:21 AM
link   
ok.....this is the second time i wrote anything on this site, but ive been reading the posts for a few years......

and i wanted to take my take on the citco security cams.....
all the "video that i seen of it in my opinion wasnt video at all.....they were gif images......parts of pictures weaved together to make a video like look....kinda like drawing stick figures on many sheets of paper, and shuffeling them to make it "move".

with this i think they took the security cam tape, clipped the images each half second, and seperated them in a paint shop deal......photo shopped the images so you do not see the "object" slamming into the pentagon, put the images back in order in a gif file format, and animated it......viola!

just a sceptical idea but it might not be far from the truth.




top topics



 
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join