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.

 

Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 





If you believe our military was so incompetent as to be unable to intercept a single one of those airliners with all the time they had, then you've obviously never served


It is not a matter of incompetance. It is a matter of unpreparedness. We did not train for, nor did we ever prepare for intercepting hostile aircraft within our own airspace. And when our fighters did launch, they followed SOP to the letter, they proceeded to their ADIZ intercept points which were located offshore. Everyone likes to mention Payne Stewart like there is some sort of comparision to be made, when there really isnt. The four airliners on 9/11 turned off their transponders, which made them just one more blip on a screen filled with them, in addition, they left their respective altitudes to make detection that much harder. Payne's IFF remained on, his aircraft at altitude and it STILL took an hour to get F-16s into a position to intercept. I am still not sure where you get this idea that there was this large amount of time available to intercept these planes.

Then the cute part...its "obvious" I have never served and you ask for my credentials.

I currently have 21 years in as a member of the United States military, split between the Navy and the Air Force. I spent the majority of the 90s watching the politicians we elect, gut our defenses and apply ridiculous rules that further hamstrung us. That cost us dearly that day. Since 9/11, I have spent a few years away from home for various deployments. The unit I am assigned to now, was scrambled on 9/11/01, they put F-16s into the air to fly CAP over the Midwest that day, and we have performed air defense duties several times since then. And before you ask, 2A372...if you truly were a crew chief...that should not be too hard for you to figure out.




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


By choice? Which part? Not keeping fully armed aircraft on alert? Thats not a "choice", its called a lack of funding.

Yes, they were running exercises that day. We run them all the time. Does not mean that everyone takes them seriously.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Griff
 


By choice? Which part? Not keeping fully armed aircraft on alert? Thats not a "choice", its called a lack of funding.

Yes, they were running exercises that day. We run them all the time. Does not mean that everyone takes them seriously.


Look like we need to find the master mind that ordered the hijack
on the day of practice.

Guess all that is needed is to read the papers, like the day JFK
had his planed route laid out.

I think the planning took more than that.
An Osama agent must have watched for the practice sessions
and gave the OK.
Thats what happen.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by apacheman
 





If you believe our military was so incompetent as to be unable to intercept a single one of those airliners with all the time they had, then you've obviously never served


It is not a matter of incompetance. It is a matter of unpreparedness. We did not train for, nor did we ever prepare for intercepting hostile aircraft within our own airspace. And when our fighters did launch, they followed SOP to the letter, they proceeded to their ADIZ intercept points which were located offshore...

The unit I am assigned to now, was scrambled on 9/11/01, they put F-16s into the air to fly CAP over the Midwest that day, and we have performed air defense duties several times since then. And before you ask, 2A372...if you truly were a crew chief...that should not be too hard for you to figure out.



Avionics, eh? J43171C here.

What on earth do you mean "we didn't train for hijackings"? There was on ongoing exercise training for precisely that scenario when it occurred. I forget the ops name but it was a regular affair for several years prior to 9/11.

As far as the Payne Stewart incident goes:

"The Learjet had departed Orlando, Florida at 9:19 a.m., bound for Texas. The FAA says controllers lost contact with it at 9:44 a.m. [Washington Post, 10/26/1999] , but according to a later report by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) the plane first failed to respond to air traffic control at 9:33 a.m., after which the controller repeatedly tried to make contact for the next 4 1/2 minutes, without success. [National Transportation Safety Board, 11/28/2000] NORAD’s Southeast Air Defense Sector was notified of the emergency at 9:55 a.m. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 459] At 10:08 a.m., two F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida that were on a routine training mission had been asked by the FAA to intercept the Learjet, but never reached it (fuel issues?). At about 10:52 a.m., a fighter from Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, was directed to within 9 miles of it, and at around 11:00 a.m. began a visual inspection of the plane."

My point is that an airborne aircraft was vectored to intercept within eight minutes of being ordered to do so. Also that in the immediate area were a minimum of three aircraft on training exercises. I'll leave out the other four aircraft involved in the episode as the could have been purpose-scrambled for it. Are you trying to say that budget cuts made it impossible on that day to have absolutely NO aircraft in the air, not a single routine training mission? Sorry, don't buy it. The Air Force was held on a leash to prevent it from interfering.

Anyway, this is a distraction from the point of the thread...I'll gladly debate this aspect of 9/11 elsewhere if you like.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by apacheman]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71



Really? How do you know there was nothing? NIST did not bother to test for explosives did they? Real scientists were not allowed access to the towers or WTC7 were they? Firefighters were immediately gag-ordered weren't they? They could not ship the steel out of country fast enough could they? Baby Bush blocked an investigation for a long time didn't he?
reply to post by SPreston
 


Bush funded the 9/11 commission which destroyed the US intel community and even gave then extra funding when they wanted to extend the investigation.



The 9-11 comission report is full of holes.

Over half the questions asked by the families were not answered.

Go to Google Video and search for "press for truth" and watch the film.

It is a REAL eye opener and 100% verified thus far.

If you still feel that the official story is iron clad after watching it
we will just have to agree to disagree.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 

Swampy, wants us to believe that the great master mind of 911 living in a cave had out smarted our trillion dollars security technology, our multi billion dollar military, our top gun pilots, all the airport security, was able to fly over our nuclear power plants, restricted air space, and was able to infiltrate our military top secret war games. LOL We can’t get any basic answers for all the above for seven years, even people in congress have tried. LOL But a man living in a CAVE four thousand miles away can! A man that wares a robe and sandals and walks with a stick can do all the above.

How did Bin Laden get the info about the war games? And I guess at the last min he was able to fly 19 highjackers to all the airport, just in time to highjack airplanes that where not even schedule to fly that day on 911. Where is the logic in the OS in all this, because common sense is lacking here. lol



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Everyone likes to mention Payne Stewart like there is some sort of comparision to be made, when there really isnt. The four airliners on 9/11 turned off their transponders, which made them just one more blip on a screen filled with them, in addition, they left their respective altitudes to make detection that much harder.


Would that not make them the blips with no corresponding transponder identification? Seems to me that should help them stand out among all the blips with transponders still on. Am I wrong?



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intothepitwego

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Everyone likes to mention Payne Stewart like there is some sort of comparision to be made, when there really isnt. The four airliners on 9/11 turned off their transponders, which made them just one more blip on a screen filled with them, in addition, they left their respective altitudes to make detection that much harder.


Would that not make them the blips with no corresponding transponder identification? Seems to me that should help them stand out among all the blips with transponders still on. Am I wrong?


Quite right, they should have stuck out like sore thumbs, if anyone had been allowed to look.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

By choice? Which part? Not keeping fully armed aircraft on alert? Thats not a "choice", its called a lack of funding.

Yes, they were running exercises that day. We run them all the time. Does not mean that everyone takes them seriously.


How can a multi-trillion $$$$$$$ defense system have a lack of funding for ordinary air ops? That is hogwash and you know it. Funding was cut to expensive new designs and redundant purchases. Rumsfeld had just announced the 2.3 Trillion $$$$ in missing funds (here) the day before on 9-10-2001 and the gluttonous Defense Department didn't even notice it was missing among their purchases of $$400 hammers and $$600 toilet seats and the expensive high ranking free junkets to the warm beaches in the Carribbean.

The air defenses which were supposed to be defending us were practicing in several war games the very exercises they neglected to protect us from. So how did 9-11-2001 exercises Global Guardian, "practice Armageddon" (here), Crown Vigilance (an Air Combat Command exercise), Apollo Guardian (a US Space Command exercise), and NORAD exercises Vigilant Guardian and Amalgam Warrior get their funding if there was a shortage of funding? And why was Global Guardian moved up from its scheduled October time to September 11th, and who ordered the rescheduling? Global Guardian was partially a computer network attack excercise and reportedly could shut down STRATCOM computer systems. Is that what they did to render America defenseless? Is that why the Generals deliberately lied to Congress later?




And a military newspaper reported in March 2001 that Global Guardian was scheduled for October 2001. If this is correct, then some time after March, the exercise must have been rescheduled for early September. Furthermore, there may be another important facet to Global Guardian. A 1998 Defense Department newsletter reported that for several years Stratcom had been incorporating a computer network attack (CNA) into Global Guardian. The attack involved Stratcom “red team” members and other organizations acting as enemy agents, and included attempts to penetrate the Command using the Internet and a “bad” insider who had access to a key command and control system. The attackers “war dialed” the phones to tie them up and sent faxes to numerous fax machines throughout the Command. They also claimed they were able to shut down Stratcom’s systems. Reportedly, Stratcom planned to increase the level of computer network attack in future Global Guardian exercises.

It is not currently known if a computer attack was incorporated into Global Guardian in 2001 or what its possible effects on the country’s air defense system would have been if such an attack was part of the exercise.


September 10, 2001: Rumsfeld Announces Defense Department Cannot Track $2.3 Trillion in Transactions

In a speech to the Department of Defense, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announces that the Department of Defense “cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.” CBS later calculates that 25 percent of the yearly defense budget is unaccounted for, and quotes a long-time defense budget analyst: “[Their] numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year.” Coverage of this rather shocking story is nearly nonexistent given the events of the next day. [US Department of Defense, 9/10/2001; CBS News, 1/29/2002] In April 2002 it will be revealed that $1.1 trillion of the missing money comes from the 2000 fiscal year. Auditors won’t even quantify how much money is missing from fiscal year 2001, causing “some [to] fear it’s worse” than 2000. The Department of the Army will state that it won’t publish a stand-alone financial statement for 2001 because of “the loss of financial-management personnel sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.” [Insight, 4/29/2002] This $1.1 trillion plus unknown additional amounts continues to remain unaccounted for, and auditors say it may take eight years of reorganization before a proper accounting can be done.




[edit on 1/16/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


First, I posed the 93 question because you stated you were in the Air Force and know of such things. I was not derailing my own thread, I was opening dialogue with you. There is no need to be such a schmuck about it. We were not prepared for 9/11. Our country can train all it wants but they are excercises generally for something that will never happen. You were in the service and should know that. We had our pants down on 9/11 and only got one plane. Also, did you ever think that maybe the go day was 9/11 because of prior knowledge of the anti terror training we had that day to cause confusion?

ANOK, I am not giving the official story, I am explaining what I feel happened. The fact that it is not what you feel happened is what drives your negativity in this subject. You asked me a direct question and I answered it. I could care less if yo believe it, as that is not what I am here to do. This thread ASKED questions it did not state facts.

Sorry if I have the balls to stand up to you truthers who think there were explosives and magical triggers and state " there was a problem" since WTC 7 came down hours later. Those answers are so vague and transparent it is obvious that you have no answers. Fine, move on.

It is your job to try to prove, with evidence your case, or it is nothing but a thin theory of what happened. I wanted to try, once again, to find out where you are coming from with the whole WTC conspiracy. You again proved to be close minded and arrogant. I have not attacked anyone but I will defend myself.

You see, I think that it is a coverup for the fact we shot down 93. That is misdirection. Do you think that the government is not out there right now, or on these boards, trying to propogate the idea of explosives, that NIST is nothing and that the government WAS behind 9/11. So please do not tell me that I do not believe in conspiracy and walk blindly to the drums of my nation. They do not want to know that 93 was shot out of the sky or have you research into Flight 587 a little more.

Thanks also for all the you tube links. I have watched them and to me it is brainless propaganda. There are some points made but they are so thin. It is all assumption and "I believe" or "I think".

Remember folks, Opinions are like cornholes, everybody has one.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 





Show me, with proof , please, how the events of 9/11 could possibly have so many one-offs: the only skyscrapers to fall from fire, the only time the Air Force, Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard all had no aircraft in the air at the same time or were so far away as to be useless (on an antiterrorist exercise in Alaska/Canada, no less!!!), an antihijacking exercise placing spoof targerts on radar at precisely the time required to allow this to happen, every SOP ignored; especially show me the physics that adequately describes what occurred without internal demolition.

Finally, explain to me why a terrorist bent on maximizing damage flew right over the very best target he could hope for, twice even, without a second thought. I'm referring to the nuclear plant that was overflown twice. Any terrorist with two brain cells to click together would see this as a vastly better cost/benefit ratio, more neatly dovetailing with their stated goals.



First paragraph - I answered this in my last post and the reply to ANOK. The only failure was frist the Airline and then the FAA taking so long to get the information to the military. By the time we were able to scramble and try to find a target, the only one left was 93 which was late taking off. To me, The FAA and United screwed us. Look up Mineta. He and Cheney ordered 93 down and it was. If you were USAF I would think you would know this.

Second, the target was the WTC so they would fall into each other, just like they tried with a single bomb in 93. Hitting a reactor is not a solid death bringer. One plane hit from the North, the other the south. Do you see the logistics?

I have always thought that it was genius that they launched the op that day. You see, everyone was in place. They needed the right day and they waited. Also, this was not an operation masterminded by a guy in a cave. HE was not even the person who thought of it, he just gave a nod to the operation.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
By choice? Which part? Not keeping fully armed aircraft on alert? Thats not a "choice", its called a lack of funding.


No, I meant this part of what you say:


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I spent the majority of the 90s watching the politicians we elect, gut our defenses and apply ridiculous rules that further hamstrung us. That cost us dearly that day.


My belief is that if this was a set-up/conspiracy, that the gutting of our defenses would be part of it.

Remember, whoever pulled it off was working on the plan since 1993 (the 90's).


Yes, they were running exercises that day. We run them all the time. Does not mean that everyone takes them seriously.


I hope you guys take them a little more seriously now though?

[edit on 1/16/2009 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
At this point its going to be very hard to prove Inside Job to anyone that doesn't already know it. It is very sad that black ops can trick so many so easily using the "Big Lie" tactic that essentially means the bigger the lie the harder it is for people to believe it is one. Same thing happened with Kennedy we know it wasn't a magic bullet but people still argue for it.

On the other hand people who work for the gov't blog squads you guys are pathetic human beings who will in the end suffer first in the face of the tyranny that will come, simply because you know too much and are too close to the evil. So watch your back nwo will whack you first.

In 1962 Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer proposed a False Flag operation know infamously as Operation Northwoods, that involved destroying a drone unmanned plane(this is 1962 people). "Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

This is how things work everyone, despite your want to flex your e-peen online and be smartasses. People argue about hurting the families of the 9/11 victims well i also care about the families of those dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan in wars that without 9/11 would never have happened.

9/11 will be exposed fully one day as the final nail in the coffin of the once great usa and with the collapse of the last world super power we will be one step closer to a NWO.

Operation Northwoods



3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms: a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.


Now for the handicapped out there that still deny there is a NWO and its just something father Bush said years ago here is a video of Henry Kissinger mentioning it just last week on the floor of the NY stock exchange.
Kissinger on Obama and the NWO

Everything is so obvious you have to hand it to the NWO they have made us so utterly proud of being idiots we almost deserve tyranny.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Northwoods was an idea that never made it to the presidents desk. It also was to use unmanned drones. There is no talk of killing innocent US civilians. That is what happened in 9/11. over 3000 innocent people were killed who were just going to work. Northwoods talks of a fake evacuation and no passengers. There were passengers and flight crews on 9/11.

9/11 was no nail in the NWO coffin. However, bringing back the clintons surely will be in 2009. Now back to the post....

Can anyone answer the second question the OP had in the first post? What was used and where is the evidence of explosives(physical not video)? I just want to know? I know and have read of some DARPA research that might be up your alley but no one comments on such.

Has anyone ever heard of this...link

[edit on 16-1-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
How did they find passport of one of the hijackers near the world trade centers?

How did they have the DNA of the highjackers to match with their bodies at the crash sites?

Why did Norad stand down?

Why did BBC news report on WTC 7 collapse even though it was still standing? Plenty of buildings were on fir that day why did they announce taht one was going to collapse before it did?

Why has NIST come up with like 4-5 different theories as to why Building 7 fell?

Why do you ask where the evidence of explosive devices are when you know full well all the debris was shipped to china for recycling almost instantly after the attack?

Why do you even start a thread when you aren't interested in truth you are just either ego driven and just post a 9/11 thread to get lots of responses or your a paid blogger either way i'm not wasting anymore of my time taking your bait.

Where is the evidence of controlled demolition? This is a thread that is not only soooo old and has been made 100000 times but its has been answered so many times that you would be benefited by using the ATS search function.

Or try google. The site is www.google.com it finds stuffs on the internets.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by adam_zapple
- What is the "path of most resistance" as it relates to this instance?

- What would be the "path of LEAST resistance"?


Path of MOST resistance would be the building itself, thousands of tons of construction steel bolted and welded together producing a solid structure. The path of LEAST resistance would the open air around it.


Are you suggesting that it should have followed what you have determined to be the "path of least resistance"? (The open air around the tower?)



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Beefcake
 


How did they find passport of one of the hijackers near the world trade centers? It was among debris and found blocks away. There was alot debris from 2 100 story towers that collapsed. How about the luggage that did not make the connecting flight for Mohammad Atta? The video of them at Logan after their earlier flight. ATM records.

How did they have the DNA of the highjackers to match with their bodies at the crash sites? BEcause there were remains that were identified by the FBI in a international agency cooperation.

Why did Norad stand down? They did not stand down. This is fallacy. Cheney ordered the flights shot down and the only one still in the air was 93. Look up Mineta.

Why did BBC news report on WTC 7 collapse even though it was still standing? Plenty of buildings were on fir that day why did they announce taht one was going to collapse before it did? There is NO timestamp on that video that is being shown. None. Directly from Alex jones own site it states


Although there is no clock or time stamp on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present, it is clear from the footage that the reporter is describing the collapse of WTC 7 while it clearly remains standing behind her in the live shot.

I will try to find the article but it stated that it was reported that it was going to collapse and that is why it was stated as such in the program. So could it be there was a misunderstanding in collapse and collapsing? also



At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[34] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[35] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[36][
This is a timeline of them knowing it would collapse.

Why has NIST come up with like 4-5 different theories as to why Building 7 fell? NIST respectfully looked at every theory that was presented including explosives. This may be why it took 7 years to complete. Have you ever looked at the plans for that building to see why it did collapse? It was a building built on top of another building. Just as the WTC was unique, so was WTC7.

Why do you ask where the evidence of explosive devices are when you know full well all the debris was shipped to china for recycling almost instantly after the attack? This is simply NOT True. There are tons of steel remaining in multiple locations including some rusting in a warehouse and field in middle America. 40000 lbs of it. China acquired some of the steel since it is the largest consumer of steel.


Also, why is it so hard to state HOW the demo was done. There is never a discussion on that. Nothing. Why not? Can anyone step up with a good idea of how it could have been done? I want to know if my theories are the same as some of yours. Is that so hard to understand?

Oh, and my NSA payments come once a month to post here and annoy truthers. You can find the job on Monster.com....

[edit on 16-1-2009 by esdad71]

[edit on 16-1-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Oh, and my NSA payments come once a month to post here and annoy truthers. You can find the job on Monster.com....


I'm sure they're not paying you nearly enough, because you're doing a damn fine job.


The answer about NIST was brilliant. Didn't they originally state that a big chunk of the building was missing? Were they just respectfully exploring that possibility, or was it their official stance?

Peace


[edit on 16-1-2009 by Dr Love]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to [

[edit on 16-1-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join