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.

 

Amazing and Horrific Claims re 911 Never Before Heard

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by muddyhoop
 

Come on lets get with the program, where are these remote control planes? Didnt find a stitch of plane at any of the supposed targets. Maybe those people were shown fake videos like the rest of us and they instead were manipulated into thinking they did it. I say this is another red herring to pull folks off the path.




posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Hi There,

I was unaware of there being a tv show using a scenario part of which became actual reality 6 months later. The fact that the show also used terminology that became buzz words after the attack is to my mind staggeringly coincidental.

Now don't get me wrong, all I'm doing in my speculation here, is to draw many many threads together to conceptualize a visual tapestry whose image presents a plausible hypothesis.

On the day of 9/11, 2001, 4 commercial airliners were hijacked and were sought to be used against particular targets. Only two of the hijacked planes were documented by cameras to hit their targets, these were of course American Airlines flight 11 flown into WTC North Tower, and United Airlines Flight 175 which was flown into WTC South Tower. The other two planes, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 93 whose targets were the Pentagon, and either the United States Capitol or the Whitehouse respectively, are subject to immense speculation.

American Airlines Flight 77 is officially stated as being the plane that hit the Pentagon, yet there is no undoubtable evidence that a plane was what actually hit the building. All CCTV footage that would (should) prove this to be true was confiscated not long after the attack, and although official photographs were released allegedly depicting the plane hitting the Pentagon, they do not aid in any way to substantiate the official stance. No actual plane of the size of Flight 77 can be discerned in the photographs. No other CCTV footage showing different angles of the attack upon the Pentagon have been forthcoming (well, not that I'm aware of).

This is an unfortunate state of affairs, as it allows for theorists to speculate against the official stance. Why will the FBI not allow other CCTV footage to be disclosed, particularly if such footage would prove beyond doubt that a plane of Flight 77's size did in fact hit the Pentagon? Only two possible (and plausible) explanations arise: 1) none of the other CCTV cameras were able to capture the event; and 2) no plane the size of Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? As for United Airlines Flight 93, no visual documentation is extant of it being 'deliberately' flown into a field near Shanksville...all evidence, official and otherwise is ancedotal.

The official stance on Flight 93 is that the plane was deliberately flown into the ground once the hijackers realised that the passengers and crew were about to overpower them, thereby thwarting their plan to fly the plane into some designated target. Thus, this deliberation on the part of the hijackers to fly the plane into the ground was the 'cause' of the crash, and the end of Flight 93? Circumstantial evidence and post-crash theorising does not agree with this official postulate.

The lack of physical evidence at the actual crash site does not allow for agreement that Flight 93 hit the ground there fully intact. If anything, the spread of the plane's debris over a wide area points to a 'in-flight' cause to why it hit the ground in that particular place. For the debris to have been scattered over such a wide area, it would have required that parts of the plane had already detached from the plane prior to hitting the ground...what could cause this?

Only two possibilities come to mind: 1) stress upon the plane during manoeuvres; and 2) an explosion occurred to the plane before impact? I should think that the latter is the more plausible scenario to explain the debris scatter of the plane.

From photographs of the crash site, it clearly shows that the plane hit the ground at a steep (almost vertical) angle. The crater created by the nose cone shows indentations either side of the crater where the wings would have been. Now, a plane nose-diving at high speed almost vertically into the ground would not allow for the scattering of debris over such a wide area. All momentum for the plane (if fully intact at this point) would push all parts into the ground at or near to the point of impact. Not even the explosion that followed impact would scatter heavy debris such as an engine core some 2000ft away from the point of impact.

Furthermore, they were in fact several debris fields scattered within a radius of 3 to 6 miles of the crash site. None of this evidence points to a fully 'intact' plane hitting the ground; in fact, it points to only the bulk of the plane hitting the ground at the main crash site, but that parts of it had detached from the plane whilst it was in the air?

The only explanation for what might have caused an explosion aboard the plane is ultimately that it was shot down! Flight 93 was forcibly brought down by a missile attack sanctioned by the authorities, clearing the pilot of the jet fighter of any accountability. Somewhere in the US is a pilot who knows himself to be the person whom brought down Flight 93?

Is it possible (and plausible) that elements within the US government are culpable in the events that transpired on 9/11? I believe to this question we must acknowledge a resounding 'YES'! The subterfuge and obsfucation that followed the events, the various cover-ups and lack of evidence (especially for the Pentagon attack) must by necessity arouse suspicion. These events became the 'causus belli' for the 'war on terror'; further lies and manipulation of intelligence data also became the excuses for the Iraq conflict, leading to the immense profitability for elements within the US government and associates.

Fear has been used to gain both subjugation and compliance of the population. Shredding of constituted liberties has helped to silence dissent and voices of opposition. The last eight years has seen the burglarizing of America's key systems of control...the military, the financial markets, the media, the judiciary, and the houses of the Senate and Congress. The theives are readying themselves to leave the premises with their ill-gotten gain and profit, leaving behind a country almost bankrupt, internationally criticised and revilled, and a bewildered and confused populace having to pick up the pieces and global reparations. How inconceivable it is that the burgulars should be allowed to get away with it all. That they should be allowed to smilingly say..."So long, and thanks for the fish!"

Best wishes



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   


From photographs of the crash site, it clearly shows that the plane hit the ground at a steep (almost vertical) angle. The crater created by the nose cone shows indentations either side of the crater where the wings would have been. Now, a plane nose-diving at high speed almost vertically into the ground would not allow for the scattering of debris over such a wide area. All momentum for the plane (if fully intact at this point) would push all parts into the ground at or near to the point of impact. Not even the explosion that followed impact would scatter heavy debris such as an engine core some 2000ft away from the point of impact.


Have to ask this. How many aircraft accidents have you helped investigate? Because from the assumptions made in your post, I would have to guess that the answer would be none.

Yes, a large chunk of one of the engines was found about 600 yards away from the crash site. However, since that chunk was found in line with the direction of travel of the airliner at time of impact, that would suggest that the engine was still attached to the airplane at time of impact. The only debris found at a distance greater than that, was lightweight debris that could be carried by the wind.

Since data from the flight recorders do not show a breakup of the plane, we can rule that out. Which leaves us with Flight 93 being shot down. So, leaves us with missiles or guns. Since there wasn't any anti aircraft emplacements in Pennsylvania we can rule that out. Leaves us with an air to air intercept.

So, using missiles, two choices..radar guided or heat seeking. Radar guided missile would have most likely hit the fuselage causing an explosion that would have scattered heavy debris over a wide area. That did not happen. A heat seeker, would have blasted one of the engines into a few thousand pieces, again, from the engines being found in rather large chunks, we know those did not get hit by a missile either. Brings us to the 20mm cannon that US fighters carry, IF it is actually loaded, (my unit only loads ours when the jets are going to a gunnery range). Normally ours are not loaded. However, absent an A-10 and its massive cannon and ammo drum, an F-16 could empty its whole ammo drum and not cause enough damage to an airliner to bring it down.

There is absolutely nothing about Flight 93's crashsite and debris pattern that would indicate anything other than the airliner being intact until impact. Any belief otherwise only shows a distinct lack of knowledge about the subject.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Hi There,


How many aircraft accidents have you helped investigate? Because from the assumptions made in your post, I would have to guess that the answer would be none.


Indeed you are right...I have never helped to investigate one single aircrash, nor did I participate in the investigation of Flight 93's crash. I should assume also, neither did you?

Your statement that a large chunk of engine was found in line with the direction of the travel, does not rule out that it wasn't attached to the plane on impact. If it were, and did come loose on impact, we should assume that it tore up the ground from the impact site to where it finally came to rest? Is such a line apparent in any of the photos of the crash site? Those I've looked at do not show such a line, not even a dotted course showing a series of impacts on the ground where it may have bounced to where it finally stopped. Unless of course it removed itself from the impact site to where it stopped in one single bound?


Since data from the flight recorders do not show a breakup of the plane...we can rule that out...Which leaves us with Flight 93 being shot down.


Nor does it discount it either, so we cannot rule it out. The actual flight recorders have not been released to the public, except transcripts put out by the FBI. The transcripts do not indicate that the passenger rebellion reached into the cockpit, and althought the commotion may have alarmed the hijackers, it would not have deterred them from finding a target in which to slam the plane. I agree that it leaves us with the probability that the plane was shot down or shot at!

In the NewYork Times a article appeard on October 16th, 2001, entitled 'We Have Some Planes' by Mathew L. Wald and Kevin Sack. This article cited responses to questions by major political figures. I apologise, but I'll have to give quotes...

The F-16s were in position over Washington in time to have intercepted the fourth plane hijacked, the one that crashed in a Pennsylvania forest. Asked if rules of engagement would have allowed the Air Force to shoot the plane down, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said yesterday: "I think it was pretty clear at that point that that airliner was not under the pilot's control and that it was heading to do major damage." He said any military intervention would have ultimately been the decision of President Bush.

Subsequently, on Meet the Press later that week Dick Cheney said Jets were up and had the OK to fire while Bush was in Florida. Before 9:30am or 9:45 at the latest..

At 9:30 a.m., six minutes after receiving their orders from the
defense sector, code-named Huntress, three F-16's were airborne, according to the Norad timeline.

Then the pilots received the most surreal order of the awful
morning. "A person came on the radio," General Haugen said, "and identified themselves as being with the Secret Service and he said, `I want you to protect the White House at all costs.' "


Now a quote from Wolfowitz that appeared in the Washington Post September 14th, 2001...

"We were already tracking that plane that crashed in Pennsylvania," Wolfowitz said in an interview with public television's "Newshour with Jim Lehrer."

"I think it was the heroism of the passengers on board that brought it down but the Air Force was in a position to do so if we had to," Wolfowitz added.


This next piece appeard in the Nashua Telegraph 13th October, 2001...

The Nashua controllers have learned through discussions with other controllers that an F-16 fighter stayed in hot pursuit of another hijacked commercial airliner until it crashed in Pennsylvania, the employee said.

Although controllers don't have complete details of the Air Force's chase of the Boeing 757, they have learned the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet, the employee said.

"He must've seen the whole thing," the employee said of the F-16 pilot's view of United Flight 93's crash near Pittsburgh


Granted, none of these reports give any explicit indication that the pilot of the shadowing F-16 actually shot at the plane, or caused it to go into a dive...but, as already indicated, he had the all clear to do so if he deemed it necessary...thus, it remains implicit that he did.

So, the hijackers have two bones of contention to deal with, the passenger rebellion outside the cockpit, and the shadowing F-16 which was not going to allow him to get anywhere near a target. I would posit that the pilot of the F-16 shot at the plane using his gun firstly to deter or frighten the hijackers, and seeing that this did not work, fired a missile which dislodged an engine, keeling the plane into a nose-dive. This would explain the plane's impact site being a short distance back from where the dislodged engine finally came to rest.

The wind speed in that area on the day of the crash was clocked at 9mph, not strong enough to lift debris over a small mountain ridge and deposit it 1.5 miles from the impact, and this debris included body parts. Other debris was found up to 6 miles away from impact, including books. I do not know of any 9mph wind that can pick up a book and carry it 6 miles. This could only occur if something happend to the plane in flight.

If the pilot was ultimately the cause of Flight 93's downing, I am not apportioning any blame upon him. He did what he had to do to spare even greater loss of life on the ground. The passengers on Flight 93 were doomed the minute they left the ground...there was no way out for them. At least they went out fighting with a plan of hope. They will always be remembered for their stoicism and courage whilst facing certain death. For their remembrance the real truth should be told, it should be released so that a closure can be embraced by the families of the passengers...they deserve it.

Best wishes



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You know, I think we need to start a list of books/movies that "foresaw" 9/11.

"Escape from New York" Air Force One crashed into NYC skyscraper (WTC used as a glider landing spot)

"Storming Heaven" by Dale Brown, terrorist uses airliners as bombs, including an attempt to crash an airliner painted like AF1 into the White House.

"Debt of Honor" by Tom Clancy, pissed off suicidal Japanese airliner pilot crashes his 747 into the Capitol during a joint session of Congress.



You forgot to mention the guy who actually did crash a plane on the whitehouse lawn during Clinton's years.


Frank Eugene Corder seemed to know exactly how he wanted to die. Sometime before midnight on Sept. 11, he stole a single-engine plane from an airport north of Baltimore headed south to Washington, flew over the National Zoological Park and down to the Mall, probably using the Washington Monument as a beacon. As he neared the famed obelisk, he banked a tight U-turn over the Ellipse, came in low over the White House South Lawn, clipped a hedge, skidded across the green lawn that girds the South Portico and crashed into a wall two stories below the presidential bedroom. Corder was killed on impact.


Note the date. Another chilling coincidence?

"Flight of the Intruder"
By Michael Duffy/Washington;Nina Burleigh/Aberdeen and Hugh Sidey/Washington Monday, Sep. 26, 1994

www.time.com...


Geez, Im think we better arrest everyone involved with the movie and books for interrogation....


No, I think we should at least have fired those who screwed up their jobs and then lied about it. "No one could have imagined a plane being used as a missile" comes to mind. But, no, what happens, those who screwed up got promotions.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   


Your statement that a large chunk of engine was found in line with the direction of the travel, does not rule out that it wasn't attached to the plane on impact. If it were, and did come loose on impact, we should assume that it tore up the ground from the impact site to where it finally came to rest? Is such a line apparent in any of the photos of the crash site? Those I've looked at do not show such a line, not even a dotted course showing a series of impacts on the ground where it may have bounced to where it finally stopped. Unless of course it removed itself from the impact site to where it stopped in one single bound?


First it was not the entire engine, but the fan section which fits in front of
the engine. Second just because you don't see it any picture doesn't
mean it didn't happen - at a crash scene in my town saw a light from
landing gear thrown 75 yards before hitting a car. Plane was travelling
half the speed of Flight 95 when hit ground, didnt see any marks from it.

In terms of passenger revolt - we know passengers were attempting to
force cockpit door, hijackers were under orders to crash plane if not
able to reach target. Refer to new book SHADOW FACTORY by James
Bamford

You then go on to conjecture some elaborate scenario of F16 pilot
shooting at plane. Now why didn't pilot report it, much less ground
noticing ammunition was expended and guns fired.

So why are you attempting to fill in gaps with unproven speculation and onspiracy fantasies ?



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Hey guys,
Just a brief word on the whole "Flight into the ground" thing.
As a Canadian, I'm lucky to not have the emotional attachment to the attacks, which provides a certain amount of clarity of the event for me.

I found a couple of photos that I thought might contribute to the argument. I didn't take these obviously but I did think that it was incredibly interesting that the pilot or such would crash the plane into an existing geographic anomaly.



And of course...



If these images are correct, we now have to consider that perhaps the plane didn't actually crash at this location, but something else happened to it.

Food for thought, I'll try to find a better set of pictures. I had found some really good ones, but they are being evasive at the moment.
Thanks for reading
..Ex



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Hi There,

I'll provide a response to the last question first...


So why are you attempting to fill in gaps with unproven speculation and onspiracy fantasies?


I have already anticipated your question in the fifth paragraph of my first posting to this thread, I refer you to that.

Furthermore, allow me to bring you up to speed regarding the forum on which you have made a post. ATS (AboveTopSecret) is a conspiracy theorising forum. It allows for the matching of factual data with speculation in order to offer the plausible 'filling in' of the blanks. If you have read my first post higher up on the page, you will see as stark as the screen at which you stare, my admission that I was speculating. It is quite evident that in your rush to castigate my post, you missed the whole contextual meaning for the existence of ATS, which must've flown right over your head...how's that for speculation?
I wholeheartedly welcome rebuttals and criticism to my speculations, as long as the responses are respectful. What I won't accept is a derisory tone of questioning implying that I am something of a loon for speculating in the first place. I will therefore be replying to you in a similar tone, which with or without your sub-par discerning capacity is equally evidential. Now to dissemble the rest of your tripe.


First it was not the entire engine, but the fan section which fits in front of the engine.


Look at any of my posts and you will see that I have not stated anywhere in them that what they found was a 'whole' engine, but that I stated that they found an engine core some 2000ft away from the impact site. So I respectfully disagree with your own conjecture, because the fan section is not to my mind a 'core' section. By all means correct me on this, but the fan section is near the outer section of a engine, whilst the 'core' (by implication of the word) is 'inner', at the heart of the engine, and weighs up to a ton.


Secondly, just because you don't see it in any picture, doesn't mean it didn't happen: at a crash scene in my town, I saw a light from landing gear thrown 75 yards before hitting a car; the plane was travelling half the speed of Flight 95 when it hit the ground...didn't see any marks from it.


I agree with the first clause of your (corrected) paragraph (which by the way is speculation on your part). I do not know the weight differential between that of an engine's core and that of the light you allege to have seen flung from the landing gear of the crashing plane, but I am speculating that the engine core weighs more? You do not mention the type of surface the plane hit, other than that it was the ground...was it asphalt or grass, and did you specifically seek out potential marks the 'light' could've made prior to hitting the car? Specifics please...otherwise, your story is mere anecdotal speculation.


Regarding the passenger rebellion; we know they were attempting to force open the cockpit door, and that the hijackers were under orders to crash the plane if they were not able to reach the designated target. Refer to new book "SHADOW FACTORY" by James Bamford.


I am overwhelmed by the 'redundancy' of the latter paragraph quoted, it is bordering on the 'stating of the bleeding obvious'. All you are doing is parroting what I have already mentioned in my postings. I have come to the point now where I believe that you have not read my posts, but merely skimmed over them, alighting only on sections that piqued your umbrage.

Pray tell, why should I concern myself with James Bamford's new book "Shadow Factory" (ISBN-13: 9780385521321)? A book that concerns itself with the NSA; its annual regurgitation of approvement by a lacklustre congress; and its wholescale surveillance of the American population post 9/11. I believe I have already quoted factual sources regarding the passenger rebellion on Flight 93...it does not require ressurecting.


You then go on to conjecture some elaborate scenario of F16 pilot
shooting at plane. Now why didn't pilot report it, much less ground
noticing ammunition was expended and guns fired.


As an aside to our discussion, I would like to mention (only in passing) that your grammar is atrocious throughout your entire post. I know that posting to a forum is an informal enterprise, but we are on a international forum, and I should think that to aid international understanding, a modicum of grammatical dicipline should be exercised. You wouldn't want to falsely guide me in the misinterpretation of your meaning, nor to give me a misperception of your educational level...would you?


Evidently, you have a bee-in-your-bonnet regarding speculation, even though you are not adverse to using it yourself. Such a storm-in-a-teacup we'll let pass, but I must advise you that the following is speculation.

Whom is to say that the pilot of the F-16 did not declare or make known his intentions or actions with his chain of command? If you read the whole of my earlier postings you will see sources given that imply he was in contact with his chain of command at all times...surely, this goes without saying?

It is a plausible scenario (although not necessarily the true one) that the F-16 was ultimately the cause of the plane to nose-dive into the ground, through either the use of his gun or a missile. The chain of command would more than likely prefer to designate such action as being coded classified due to public temperament and outrage, should it be learned that the USAF shot down a civilian airliner, leading to the certain death of all passengers and crew on board.
The pilot's orders were quite explicit...'to protect the Whitehouse at all costs'. Such orders automatically expediated an effective death warrant upon all those aboard Flight 93. I feel it is not outrageous to speculate that the F-16 did cause Flight 93 to crash, but that the cause given to the public was the more acceptable scenario that passenger rebellion forced the hijackers to crash the plane. Due to the fact that the FBI will not release the actual recordings from the flight recorders, but have given only edited pieces of transcripts allegedly stating what happend, is it any wonder that speculation is rife?

Best wishes



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
There is absolutely nothing about Flight 93's crashsite and debris pattern that would indicate anything other than the airliner being intact until impact. Any belief otherwise only shows a distinct lack of knowledge about the subject.


I agree. I would like to get a serious answer from you on my next question if possible.

Could a C-130H that was equiped with electronics jamming be used to bring an airliner out of the sky? Thanks.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
No. The EC-130 is designed to disrupt communications, and television broadcasts. It has nothing on it that would disrupt a plane in flight and bring it down. It's used for psychological warfare.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Thanks Zaphod. Could it be used to confuse the hijackers and cause them to crash? Along with the passengers revolting and not having electronics working, I think it would be plausible. Would you agree?



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
There is absolutely nothing about Flight 93's crashsite and debris pattern that would indicate anything other than the airliner being intact until impact. Any belief otherwise only shows a distinct lack of knowledge about the subject.


I agree. I would like to get a serious answer from you on my next question if possible.

Could a C-130H that was equiped with electronics jamming be used to bring an airliner out of the sky? Thanks.


To the best of my knowledge ( I do not actually build the airliners) it is not possible for a jamming aircraft to knock another aircraft out of the sky. Shielded wiring is used to prevent spurious electronic signals for interferring with their normal operation.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Not with the electronics they carry. Even if they were able to jam or confuse the navigation system, they wouldn't be able to interfere with the flight controls because they were manual controls. As Swampfox said aircraft are built shielded to keep spurious outside interference from causing crashes. It would have required something that they didn't carry when I dealt with them for them to have caused Flight 93 to have crashed.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Very Interesting points on 9-11 and flights aside...

as for OP, I have to say I can't believe the story, even if remote controlled, the whole war games, people did not know thing... I feel quite certain we could get plenty of volunteers to follow orders and not need to stoop to such B movie plots to get someone to fly the planes remotely... many people would do it and never speak a word, simply no need for such a bizarre method.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


K. Thanks for explaining.



[edit on 10/19/2008 by Griff]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I respect those of you here that show aviation and tech knowledge........I have been part of aviation accident investigations as well as significant experience as a command pilot on jet aircraft.....

That being said, it is not the depth of the crater that matters in PA, it is the resulting wreckage, parts and body parts.....We have never been given access to that data or parts.....Why?.....

An aircraft of that size would create a debris field far larger than what we have been shown.........As had been said many times, where is the debris?

An alleged engine core or fan section is not valid.....We always required multiple debris parts with a part number assigned to the aircraft in question before the difficult step of identifying the specific aircraft.

It is all about "where is the physical evidence"..........show us the dna from the body parts, the damaged pieces of the aircraft (with part or serial numbers).

Why have ther been no followup interviews lately with alleged witnesses to the impacts?

From my humble experience, if you are presented with intimidating and obnoxious federal agents who hold a federal judicial seizure of assets order, you will usually agree to sign anything.........



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join