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.

 

An Opportunity for CIT and P4T

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 




Of all the alternate 9-11 Conspiracy Theories, the Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory with the alleged 19 'hijackers' defeating the multi-Trillion dollar US Military defense system is the most ludicrous of all.


Just for clarification, do you live in the US or are you just recently living here? Because I don't know where you are getting this idea from that our defense system is so grand to be able to defend from a threat from inside our border.
This is not Iran, or North Korea, the USSR, Berlin 1943, or Baghdad circa 1992. We don't have rings of AA sites surrounding ever major city, and SAM sites just itching to fire on any hapless aircraft (civilian or military) that happens to not be transmitting the proper IFF signal. Nor were we on DEFCON 2 or 1 alert, where we had fighters on standby ready to intercept within 5 minutes of notification of a threat. We do not use NORAD to track aircraft already in our borders, but to track enemy bombers/fighters flying towards our country from outside US airspace. They don't track commercial aircraft in our airspace. That's the FAA's job. Had the flights originated from outside the US airspace, say, flying in from Europe and were hijacked over the Atlantic, we may have been able to scramble fighters and intercept the planes as they crossed into US airspace.

And what were our anti-hijacking practices that would have been able to stop the terrorists from doing so? Obviously you underestimate them. I would have loved to have seen you on one of those flights right after they just slit a woman's throat, warned they have a bomb on board, and then killed the pilot and co-pilot. What would you have done to stop them? Its so easy to be a big man when you have yet to experience the terror of a hijacking and murder right in front of your eyes. Once they take control, you are at their mercy. So what then? Its quite pathetic how you belittle the terrorists and make them appear harmless and dimwitted. How hard is it to hijack an aircraft with four or five people and knives? I suggest you study all of the hijackings that have taken place in history of aviation, and marvel how some were done with less. All it takes is a small determined band to wreck havoc. I can even give you a list of such incidents.

en.wikipedia.org...

One man hijacked a 737 in 2006
en.wikipedia.org...
with nothing more than his force and claim of a bomb. NO weapons. How can that be? Your naivety is great.




posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Because I don't know where you are getting this idea from that our defense system is so grand to be able to defend from a threat from inside our border.


I hope the terrorists don't read this.


This is not Iran, or North Korea, the USSR, Berlin 1943, or Baghdad circa 1992. We don't have rings of AA sites surrounding ever major city, and SAM sites just itching to fire on any hapless aircraft (civilian or military) that happens to not be transmitting the proper IFF signal. Nor were we on DEFCON 2 or 1 alert, where we had fighters on standby ready to intercept within 5 minutes of notification of a threat. We do not use NORAD to track aircraft already in our borders, but to track enemy bombers/fighters flying towards our country from outside US airspace. They don't track commercial aircraft in our airspace. That's the FAA's job. Had the flights originated from outside the US airspace, say, flying in from Europe and were hijacked over the Atlantic, we may have been able to scramble fighters and intercept the planes as they crossed into US airspace.


My question is: What has been done since 9/11 to improve this?

Or are we sitting like ducks on a pond the next time it happens again?


How hard is it to hijack an aircraft with four or five people and knives? I suggest you study all of the hijackings that have taken place in history of aviation, and marvel how some were done with less. All it takes is a small determined band to wreck havoc. I can even give you a list of such incidents.


Again. What measures have taken place to fix this problem?

I doubt the government can claim incompetence again can they?

[edit on 10/15/2008 by Griff]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Let's look at this Flyover garbage again. One of many points raised here is the non existent witnesses to this maneuver. Ranke & Co have yet to find one witness of the plane leaving the area. This alone is very important. Most of you have seen this video I am posting here.

It shows TAP AirBus A310 making some pretty cool maneuvers. I ask that you watch this video and pay attention to the plane, the sounds, and the banking. Then tell me how not one single person was witness to this incredible feat.

Before you start about "it was not an airbus." Keep in mind the physical characteristics of the plane are similar.

AIRBUS:

Length: 153 Ft.
Wingspan: 144 ft
Height: 52 ft.

757:

Length: 155 ft
Wing Span 125 ft
Height: 44 ft

Now please watch this brief clip and tell me exactly how this neat flyover "trick" was pulled off without a single witness.



[edit on 10/15/0808 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So far, I have provided AMPLE evidence of a 757 flight AA77 impacting into the Pentagon. Debris confirms the make of the aircraft model and the paint job marking ID it as an AA.

No, you haven't supplied any evidence that proves the identity of the plane, as being N644AA.

Your SINGLE picture does not have any information to confirm its authenticity.

So, once more:
You did not give me the name of the person who took the picture.
You did not give me the location of the photographer when the picture was taken.
You did not give me the location of the scrap metal when the picture was taken.
You did not give me a date for when the picture was taken.
You did not give me a time for when the picture was taken.

Your picture proves nothing.


Originally posted by GenRadek
We do not use NORAD to track aircraft already in our borders, but to track enemy bombers/fighters flying towards our country from outside US airspace. They don't track commercial aircraft in our airspace. That's the FAA's job.

Good. It's clear then, that the recent FAA video shows the alleged plane flying North of Citgo. I'm glad you're prepared to state that the FAA was tracking the plane!

[edit on 15-10-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   

posted by SPreston[/url]
Of all the alternate 9-11 Conspiracy Theories, the Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory with the alleged 19 'hijackers' defeating the multi-Trillion dollar US Military defense system is the most ludicrous of all.


posted by GenRadek
I would have loved to have seen you on one of those flights right after they just slit a woman's throat, warned they have a bomb on board, and then killed the pilot and co-pilot. What would you have done to stop them?

Of course since we know there were no hijackers on 9-11 nor any evidence whatsoever that even one hijacker boarded one of the four flights, this is only theoretical. If one of those puny little men had waved his teensy little box cutter at me, I would have punched him in the throat and placed his dead body behind a seat. Of course there would have been quite a few real men on the flight and likely a few real women plus the stewardesses, and they would probably have already taken care of all the hijackers with their bug stickers, before they ever got near me, saving the pilots from encountering a headache. Boxcutters are not really a very scary weapon. But like I was saying, there were no hijackers anyway. It was an Inside Job Attack on America with simulated hijackings much like the simulated hijackings NORAD was practicing at the very same time.



Do you have inside information that a woman's throat was slit, or did you see it in a boob tube propaganda cartoon? What would they have killed the pilots with? Filthy language? It would take hundreds of stabs with a puny box cutter for a pilot to bleed to death. While they were waiting for the 1st pilot in the doorway to die from bleeding, what would the other pilot be doing in the cockpit? Taking a coffee break? It was a simulation; there were no actual hijackings on 9-11 because not one of the eight pilots would have given up their cockpits to a few puny bozos wearing red bandanas and waving little toothpicks around in the air.

Sheesh. The sheeple are so gullible to believe all of the Bush Regime prepared scripts and BS. Those hijackings were no more real than the Weapons of Mass Destruction under Dubya's desk in the Oval Office. Wake up America before they do it to you again. Fool you once; shame on them. Fool you twice; shame on you.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Of course since we know there were no hijackers on 9-11 nor any evidence whatsoever that even one hijacker boarded one of the four flights, this is only theoretical.


Disingenuous statement #1



If one of those puny little men had waved his teensy little box cutter at me, I would have punched him in the throat and placed his dead body behind a seat.


Yeah?

Lets call this:

Egotistical statement #1



Of course there would have been quite a few real men on the flight and likely a few real women plus the stewardesses,


So Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, etc... they were not "REAL MEN?"


What would they have killed the pilots with? Filthy language? It would take hundreds of stabs with a puny box cutter for a pilot to bleed to death.


I tell you what. Take the puny box cutter, open the blade, and slide it with a good amount of force across your neck. Now, look at your wrist watch, stop watch ..whatever... Record how long it takes you to pass out.


The rest of your disgusting filth is typical loose change tripe that is for the most part dismissed here at ATS.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Avenger Stingers have been deployed in the days after 9/11 around the Pentagon and certain cities.
We have the CAPs over major US cities. So far, we have changed certain ways of dealing with aircraft and suspected hijackings, including faster response times to intercepts, and this has happened a few times when some pilots strayed into NO FLY zones over NYC or DC.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


No proof they were on board? Really? who said this? Alex Jones? Dylan "The Dumb Schmuck" Avery? And what proof of this? Because they said so? Heh.

Now as to the proof they WERE on board:
Passports and DNA and flight manifests, pictures from video cameras, the voices of the hijackers, the people that checked in the terrorists.



If one of those puny little men had waved his teensy little box cutter at me, I would have punched him in the throat and placed his dead body behind a seat. Of course there would have been quite a few real men on the flight and likely a few real women plus the stewardesses, and they would probably have already taken care of all the hijackers with their bug stickers, before they ever got near me, saving the pilots from encountering a headache. Boxcutters are not really a very scary weapon.


Really? wow! You must be some superman then! I wonder why the "manly men" passengers on these flights didnt do the same against ONE unarmed hijacker?

"2007: an Aeroflot Airbus A320 flying from Moscow to Geneva was hijacked by a drunk man in Prague and there released crew and passengers after he was arrested by the Czech Republic."

Heh, couldnt stop a drunk passenger from hijacking a plane? man oh man.

2007: an Air Mauritanie Boeing 737 flying from Nouakchott to Las Palmas with 87 passengers on board was hijacked by a man who wanted to fly to Paris, but the plane landed in an air base near Las Palmas and the hijacker, a Moroccan, was arrested.'
87 people couldnt stop 1 man? WTF happened there?

en.wikipedia.org...
2006: Turkish Airlines Flight 1476, flying from Tirana to Istanbul, was hijacked in Greek airspace. The aircraft, with 107 passengers and six crew on board, transmitted two coded hijack signals which were picked up by the Greek air force; the flight was intercepted by military aircraft and landed safely at Brindisi, Italy.

WOW! 107 passengers and 6 crew couldnt stop ONE guy from hijacking the plane? all he did was claimed there was one other on board that would detonate a bomb if his demands were not met. Why couldnt they just kick his ass as you would have?


[edit on 10/15/2008 by GenRadek]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Griff
 


Avenger Stingers have been deployed in the days after 9/11 around the Pentagon and certain cities.
We have the CAPs over major US cities.


Are we going to shoot (edit to add hijacked) passenger planes down over major US cities now? Wouldn't fully armed and ready fighter jets at every military air strip within the US be a smarter way to go? That way, we don't have to wait until the plane is within a stinger's reach and can shoot it down when we want to?

Also, how is the CAP an improvement since 9/11 when they have been around for 65 years?

www.cap.gov...


So far, we have changed certain ways of dealing with aircraft and suspected hijackings, including faster response times to intercepts, and this has happened a few times when some pilots strayed into NO FLY zones over NYC or DC.


I would think that having the transponders not being able to be turned off would have been my first thought. But, that's just me.


At any rate. Thanks for the response.

[edit on 10/15/2008 by Griff]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Sorry, I used the Air Force lingo: CAP as in Combat Air Patrol

This has been in place since 9/11 under Operation Noble Eagle. 24/7 CAP over major US cities. And yes, the directives have been changed to allow for shoot downs only after all other means of trying to get the aircraft safely to land or no communication is heard from the aircraft, are used up and its obviously a threat. This article is from 2004 but it does a good job of explaining the mission of Noble Eagle.
www.afa.org...

Also, there have been at lest 1500 incidents where jets were scrambled for possible threatening aircraft. Mostly, these were accidental incursions into restricted air spaces that were put in place after 9/11 as well. We do now have fighters on standby, but still no where near the readiness we had during the Cold War. Like I said, you'd need to be at DEFCON 2 or 1 for that to be.

As for the transponders, sure it can be turned off, but radar can still pick up the aircraft's blip, but without the information that is the purpose of the transponder.

I do believe the Avenger AA systems were a stop gap defense, more of a "just in case" if another jet got hijacked and aimed at another target on the ground. After all, if the jet was hijacked just after take off, or if a small plane just took off from any of the airfields and airports nearby and just made a beeline for its target, there still may not be enough time to intercept it. Don't forget, Regan Airport is right next to the Pentagon and its runway approach/departure path goes right over the Pentagon as well. Who is to say the plane won't take off, then slam into the building too? Its always a bit more complicated than just point and shoot.

And you're welcome too!


[edit on 10/15/2008 by GenRadek]

[edit on 10/15/2008 by GenRadek]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
As for the transponders, sure it can be turned off, but radar can still pick up the aircraft's blip, but without the information that is the purpose of the transponder.


So, why do I keep hearing that they couldn't track the flights once the transponder was off? I have heard multiple times on here that 77 wasn't tracked until minutes before impact or something like that.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

So, why do I keep hearing that they couldn't track the flights once the transponder was off? I have heard multiple times on here that 77 wasn't tracked until minutes before impact or something like that.



You can always ask Labtop.

His thread dealing with the RADES data, etc got one of the awesomest smackdowns I've EVER seen.




posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Well as there must have been numerous radar blips on the screen, and when you turn off your transponder, the ground radar controler loses your altitude, speed, and tail number, plus other data needed for the controller to not make two planes crash into each other over a crowded air space. Without the transponder on, probably had a hell of a time trying to find the aircraft among all the other data.

Here is a little bit more info on the transponder:
www.public-action.com...

more info here on 9/11 and the transponders:
www.conspiracyscience.com...

hope these two help shed some more light on this for you.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


You seem to have a great inside scoop on the folks that worked at the pentagon. Could you please point me to the people in charge of security, (CCTV cameras specifically) I would love to put this thing to rest once and for all. Specific questions for this person would be, how manny cameras were looking at that side of the pentagon at that time? Did the people in charge misplace all that footage? Is there any reason why this footage is not being released to the citizens of the United States whos tax dollars pay your sallary? Most would have to admit that if this mystery footage was to appear showing a big plane full of people smacking into the pentagon, folding up into a 16' tube and going through 6 walls of reinforced concrete, there is no argument and more importantly, YOU are correct and just. Maybe one day this key information will surface. Untill then, your side of the story doesn't have enough glue to hold togeather. Nobody believes peoples testimony. People make mistakes. The camera never lies.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
showing a big plane full of people smacking into the pentagon, folding up into a 16' tube and going through 6 walls of reinforced concrete


The entrance hole was neither 16' in size, nor did the plane pass through 6 walls of reinforced concrete.

The lower portions of The Pentagon are a connected unit for the first 3 rings, and as such the plane passed through one heavily reinforced wall, several internal walls and a relatively lightweight external wall.

You would only have to do a tiny amount of research to find this out, count the windows: www.911myths.com...



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude


You seem to have a great inside scoop on the folks that worked at the pentagon. ....................................................

...............................snip...............The camera never lies.


The thing is sir, there is only a very small amount of people that want to see the deaths of human beings played over and over.

It does not matter if there is footage, you will not buy it. Your CIT leaders say that the footage that was released was doctored; therefor the cameras DO lie.

You see, there is not amount of evidence that will convince the conspiracy mind. You have made your decision. 911 was an inside job and you know it as a fact.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I can understand what you are saying, but I still don't get if you have 1000 blips on your screen and 4 are not showing the transponder data, what is the confusion? Obviously, those four are the ones that are hijacked. No?



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
The thing is sir, there is only a very small amount of people that want to see the deaths of human beings played over and over.


I don't agree with you. "Faces of Death" is a very popular movie.


You see, there is not amount of evidence that will convince the conspiracy mind. You have made your decision. 911 was an inside job and you know it as a fact.


Actually, it's the other way around. At least for me. I hand-waved away the conspiracies for a long time until I looked into it further. So, my mind was not made up (and still isn't).



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


I don't agree with you. "Faces of Death" is a very popular movie.


In the Faces of Death series, everything was staged (fake) except for the autopsy material.



Actually, it's the other way around. At least for me. I hand-waved away the conspiracies for a long time until I looked into it further. So, my mind was not made up (and still isn't).


Well, we are the opposite. I was a CT nut regarding 911. My hatred toward Bush fogged my better judgment. After putting that aside I was able to come to an educated decision.




top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join