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.
Originally posted by ldunquist
reply to post by GoldenFleece
Well, certainly its within the government's power to do that, but in that scenario, they are letting the passengers go. Where is the value in that? Isn't the first thing they would do would be to call someone to pick them up at the airbase? Wouldn't someone question what the hell they were doing there instead of being on the plane that was just shot down over Cuba?
Former Cleveland Mayor Reported Flight 93 Landed at Cleveland Airport on 9/11 and Flight 175 in Vicinity. Cincinnati WCPO-TV Cover-ups Why Account Removed From Web Site
State sponsored U.S. media ignores story, leaving 'internet hounds' to smell out the truth behind what really happened to the passengers on the doomed flights.
11 Nov 2005
By Greg Szymanski
On the morning of 9/11 a Cincinnati television station ran a little-known story saying that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland International Airport instead of crashing in Pennsylvania as claimed in the official government story.
Reporters at WCPO Channel 9 quoted then Cleveland Mayor Michael R. White as saying that “a Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing due to a bomb threat.” The airplane landed safely and was moved to a secure location and evacuated.
The early morning report went on to say United Airlines verified the plane as Flight 93, but was also deeply concerned about another jetliner in the vicinity, Flight 175, flying from Boston to Los Angeles.
Also included in the little-known news report was a comment from United CEO, James Goodwin, who said, “The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved. United Airlines is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights.”
Former Mayor White, as well as United and WCPO, could not be reached for comment, but the evidence still remains, even though it was suspiciously removed from the television’s web site in June 2004 in and around the time of the 9/11 Commission hearings.
With the evidence trail getting colder and colder, the obvious still must be asked: if Flight 175 slammed into the South Tower and Flight 93 was downed over Pennsylvania like the government contends, why was Mayor White saying both planes were in or in the vicinity of Cleveland?
The answer to this question remains a mystery four years later since the 9/11 Commission and the FBI never thoroughly investigated the news report or former Mayor White’s statement...
Originally posted by Raytracer
So the real question is: Who profited the most?
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Originally posted by Raytracer
So the real question is: Who profited the most?
Always the most pertinent question.
Last I heard, after six years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the "profits" were more than $3 TRILLION dollars, not to mention vast reductions in freedoms, civil liberties and privacy from the "PATRIOT" and "Military Commissions Acts", with no end in sight.
[edit on 11-1-2009 by GoldenFleece]
The problem is first we have to agree on what really happened that day,
then once we are sure there was no plane hitting the pentagon we can start discussing where the airliner went.
As of now, asking what happened to the plane is useless because we can't even agree on some basic points.
If someone tries to answer that it's going to spiral into speculation extremely quickly, with no proof but personal beliefs.
So what is it? Official story or official "slip up"?
What we know for sure is: someone had the resources to pull off the attacks, and someone profited big time.
Was it a terrorist in a cave or an inside job?
So the real question is: Who profited the most?
Originally posted by Chadwickus
And how can three buildings be gutted and weakened then rigged with hundreds of explosives without anyone noticing?
Originally posted by Raytracer
So the real question is: Who profited the most?
Originally posted by fleabit
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Originally posted by Raytracer
So the real question is: Who profited the most?
Always the most pertinent question.
Last I heard, after six years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the "profits" were more than $3 TRILLION dollars, with no end in sight. Andnot to mention vast reductions in freedoms, civil liberties and privacy from the "PATRIOT" and "Military Commissions Acts."
After decades of needing much less to go to war over, why do people think they really needed to knock down that many buildings to justify it? Heck, flying a plane into the Empire State Building along would have done it.
Even if I bought any of this conspiracy theory, common sense tells me there would be no point to doing that much damage and murder to our own, just in an attempt to justify a war. We went to war on flimsy and non-confirmed accusations of WMD. We really needed to do a massively complex plan to try to justify another?
VASTLY reduced freedoms? What vast measures are you talking about? Has 99.5% of the American public been affected by this reduction in freedoms? I'd say not.
Worst I personally encountered is more stringent security at airports, which we should have done years ago regardless. Many countries have armed soldiers at their airports, and check ALL baggage. We have such light security as to be almost laughable.
If you use common sense, none of these conspiracy theories make sense. It's overkill in the extreme, and I can't imagine any team of intelligence agencies actually discussing these sort of plans and taking it seriously at all.
"Yes sir, we plan to fly a plane over the Pentagon at the moment an explosion will be set off, and in the confusion following, we'll have agents plant bodies and wreckage in the mere minutes that follows, and chop down light poles for added effect. We think in the aftermath of the explosion, no one will notice a jumbo jet flying away." Please. If you think about these items prior to them happening.. in the planning stages.. they are ludicrous in the extreme.
Code-named "Operation Northwoods", the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing they needed to launch their war.
Why not set a single dirty bomb off? I can think of dozens of ways to reduce casualties, have MUCH less room for error, while still fully pinning the blame on terrorists in an excuse to go to war.
But no.. they supposedly carried out a MASSIVELY complex plan, that requires perfection on ALL ends (and supposedly worked, too), and then of the hundreds or even thousands of people involved.. not ONE confessed after!
And finally, between all the theories, there are massive differences! It's sort of hard to take any one of them seriously, when they vary so dramatically. A plane flew over the Pentagon.. there was no plane.. but a missile.. no missile or a plane.. was an explosion... and so on. Which is it?
Originally posted by NuclearPaul
People did notice. Big time. Unfortunately, at the time they were detonated though.
I'm sure the CIA would have been able to gain access to the buildings to do it.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Where's the massive documentation of a conspiracy against America. No one has come forward saying they were given instruction to do something treasonous. Where is the timeline, names, places, of The Plot.
That will never happen, so, we are wasting our time discussing it, I do not need to tell you why. You, and I, and everyone, in here know why.
so, we are wasting our time discussing it