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.

 

911 facts even Alex Jones doesn't discuss...

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   
i have a soft spot?? hmmm well i just defended a very good ATS member. I have soft spots for members who i respect and ECK is one of them.




posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by aware
Alex jones doesnt discuss this that im aware of...
The planes that norad sent to intercept the hijacked aircraft FLEW AT 1/3 THEIR TOP SPEED.
Do police do 40 Mph on the way to a Crime in progress.
Rip into that one Mods. Im interested to hear how you 'debunk' that.


Please provide a link to your information source.
Thankyou.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:08 PM
link   
You rude ignorant bastard.


Originally posted by mepatriot
You naysayers are expending an awful lot of energy debunking me for someone who is such a lousy researcher.. "Me thinks thou dost protest too much"

You come here, and make three points, the very first one immediately strikes an odd chord. Members then look into it further and it turns out to be completely incorrect, no HQ, no office, merely 200SF of floor space, almost certainly an equipment room, without even an operator. Thus the very first point you make is incorrect.

It looks as though you would rather people not look into your claims so much? Are you trying to encourage others to be ignorant so as to hide the weakness of your research?



We are now here to discuss the other elements of my original post on this thread.

The majority of the naysayer's unwillingness to move on to those other points should speak volumes to any new participant in this thread. The standard M.O. of those opposed to the truth is to attack the messenger who brings evidence or proof of a conspiracy as "unreliable" or "a poor researcher", etc. I'm flattered...


By this you are inferring that because so many people pointed out that your first point is flawed. This somehow means your other two points are strengthened? What sort of gutter logic is this.

Your other points have nothing behind them, just you making claims (the passenger lists has definitely been covered many times here, not sure about the 3rd). But either way, at the moment they are just words written by you with no evidence.

ATS did the research for you for your first point, it is now up to you to do your own research for the others before trying to push on.

If you go around making random claims and noone can be bothered pointing out the flaws in them, that does not mean that you are correct and can continue ranting on them. This is the kind of thing that really irritates me.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by aware
Alex jones doesnt discuss this that im aware of...
The planes that norad sent to intercept the hijacked aircraft FLEW AT 1/3 THEIR TOP SPEED.
Do police do 40 Mph on the way to a Crime in progress.
Rip into that one Mods. Im interested to hear how you 'debunk' that.



First off link to Alex Jones saying this?
Second, link to Alex Jones source information?
Third, did you find that information I mentioned to you onece before aware, on exactly the amount of fuel those intercept aircraft had or were maintained at? the consumption rates at varies speeds and altitudes and then as applied to their fuel loads?



seekerof



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by aware Alex jones doesnt discuss this that im aware of... The planes that norad sent to intercept the hijacked aircraft FLEW AT 1/3 THEIR TOP SPEED.
This was discussed here about two years ago. The conclusion from an expert was that there was no possible way (given the distance to cover, top speed, and take-off time) the interception craft would be able to cover the distance in time and prevent impact. And I think the reported speed was actually 1/3 less than top cruising speed, not 1/3 of top cruising speed. [Edited on 21-4-2004 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This was discussed here about two years ago. The conclusion from an expert was that there was no possible way (given the distance to cover, top speed, and take-off time) they interception craft would be able to prevent impact.


I guess this is one of those people who assumes that military aircraft can instantly transport themselves to any part of the world and be at max speed with a full load of fuel and ammunition?

I would love to be able to fly in one of those.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Finally, a post on something other than OS's stated purpose for finally allowing this thread to stick after multiple erasure and movements to non-active locations with ATS.

Go back and count, I bet 80% of the posts are direct attacks on me, rather than a discussion of the merits of my orignal post.

O.K. here's another tidbit for you.

The Portland Press Herald (PPH) of Portland, Maine posted a distant, grainy photo of two men, purportedly Mohammed Atta and Abdul-Aziz Alomari, coming though a checkpoint at the Portland Jetport at 5:45 AM on 9/11/01 before boarding a 19-seat puddle jumper enroute to Logan, before they reboarded on AA Flight 11.

Under the banner headline "Hijackers Boarded in Rush" (9-20-01) they quote a Jane Eisenberg (a local resident) thusly:

"They were walking quickly, just like you'd expect someone to walk if they were trying to catch a plane."

These were digital cameras at the Jetport, and so I was supicious as to why they would only give distant, grainy photos when they could have given sharp close-ups that would have allowed any causal observer to tell whether or not these were the same two men whose FBI still photos had been all over the TV News for days. Odd too, as the article says it was written to "help put to rest questions for Greater Portland residents" (this quote by extremely liberal, gun-grabbing, Michael Chitwood--Portland's then chief of police.)

Since the PPH used Jane as their eyewitness, I looked her up in the phone book and called her. She was quite brusque with me on the phone but did admit in no uncertain terms when asked that she COULD NOT POSITIVELY IDENTIFY THESE MEN AS THE SAME TWO WHOSE PHOTOS HAD BEEN ON TV FOR SOME TIME.

Now, if you were on a tiny plane like that, and you saw two Arabs board in a rush at the last minute, would you not at some point have gotten a good look at them?? That she was the PPH's lone eyewitness, compared with the intentional misuse of sharp imagery from those digital cameras, to me helps debunk the whole Abdul-Azziz and Alomari in Portland scenario as perhaps more government-developed cover story.

Your comments?



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot

3. The collapse of the Porty Authority offices on the 23rd floor well before the general collapse of the tower, and the need for Andy Desperedo's engine company to "tunnel their way through the debris" to rescue trapped workers on that level. This is also very likely where John O'Neill died that morning, and where voluminous records on gold-price fixing by Alan Greenspan were being stored.

I have plenty more like this, but I'll wait to see if there is any response before posting more of these 911 zingers that you probably missed, even if you're in the loop of the "patriot community."



What info exactly do you have on this topic ? Seriously, I'd like to see it and read it, as I am currently waiting on some info from someone else on the same subject.
Please share this with us.

I personally don't believe that there were any other collapses or reasons for collapse other than two very large aircraft with Jet fuel hitting the buildings....



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
Now, if you were on a tiny plane like that, and you saw two Arabs board in a rush at the last minute, would you not at some point have gotten a good look at them?? That she was the PPH's lone eyewitness, compared with the intentional misuse of sharp imagery from those digital cameras, to me helps debunk the whole Abdul-Azziz and Alomari in Portland scenario as perhaps more government-developed cover story.

Your comments?



NO, I wouldn't have given it a second though.... as they were boarding this plane before the attacks correct ? Why would I assume that they are terrorist on thier way to do something wrong ?



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by aware
Alex jones doesnt discuss this that im aware of...
The planes that norad sent to intercept the hijacked aircraft FLEW AT 1/3 THEIR TOP SPEED.
Do police do 40 Mph on the way to a Crime in progress.
Rip into that one Mods. Im interested to hear how you 'debunk' that.



Would just like to point out.... It is very uncommon, in my experience, for planes to fly over mach 1 over cities, due to noise pollution. I'm sure accidents similar to these (e.g. stray aircraft) happen quite a lot without resulting in mass terrorism, and the pilots probably thought that it was the same again, hence not flying at full speed, as well as the noise pollution factor.

My 2 cents.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   
You mean to tell us that in the interval between the time the South Tower was struck (and we knew without a doubt that the first strike was no accident) and the time the Pentagon was hit that no interceptors could have gotten to the "plane" that hit the Pentagon?? Talk about the heighths of obsurdity!!!

How far is Andrews from the Pentagon at Mach II??



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I dont know the answer to this question, hence I am asking it, but how many planes does the US Air Force keep fully loaded, warmed up, ready to fly at that Air Base 24/7?
As well as that, they had only just ordered 'clear skies' (not sure on the exact phrase) and they may still have been waiting to see if this plane was a threat or not. I saw a documentary on this, and quite a few planes (around 10 maybe, not sure) werent landing and they were all 'intercepted'/radio-contacted.. There were quite a few. And I believe that there are some articles discussing the inadequency of the intercept system at the time.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot These were digital cameras at the Jetport, and so I was supicious as to why they would only give distant, grainy photos when they could have given sharp close-ups that would have allowed any causal observer to tell whether or not these were the same two men whose FBI still photos had been all over the TV News for days.
Probably not. Have you researched the technology of surveillance systems? Most of the time, especially with anything older than 5 years, or even current inexpensive systems, you're looking at video stills, recorded to VHS every 1-5 seconds depending on the system's set-up. Thus the cause for the grainy appearance.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot


How far is Andrews from the Pentagon at Mach II??



tee-hee, anyway, for a bit of a laugh, I'd just like to add that it's the same distance as it is at mach 1, mach 0.5, mach 0.1, and walking pace
teehee sorry just had to be done



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by browha
As well as that, they had only just ordered 'clear skies' (not sure on the exact phrase) and they may still have been waiting to see if this plane was a threat or not. I saw a documentary on this, and quite a few planes (around 10 maybe, not sure) werent landing and they were all 'intercepted'/radio-contacted.. There were quite a few. And I believe that there are some articles discussing the inadequency of the intercept system at the time.


There was alot of confusion that morning. Trying to figure out which planes were hijacked threats is not as easy as some would like to think.

You have to be VERY sure that the civilian airliner you are about to shoot down is a threat. Even with the cell phone calls coming in from the passengers, getting that info sorted and then sent down through the proper channels eventually to the interceptor pilots themsleves takes precious time.



.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot How far is Andrews from the Pentagon at Mach II??
How far from relaxed pilot not on alert, to flight-suit-ready in a fueled and armed fighter jet? How far from startled air traffic control/NORAD to alerting the commander of the relaxed fighter pilot? There are other factors of time at play here. During a time of non-alert, pilots are not at the ready.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   

How far is Andrews from the Pentagon at Mach II??


Enlighten us mepatriot, your the one who has supposedly researched this and had two videos released on 9/11...surely, you can enlighten us "deaf and dumb" people?
Your 'exclusive' reports have the vectored intercept aircraft coming out from which bases? Fuel loads? Consumption rates? Distances? Length of time of intercept flights taking off from the time that the verification process and intercept orders were issued and transmitted to the inceptor bases?



seekerof



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
My point exactly...
It's not like you're REALLY, not matter what the official doctrine is, expecting EACH AND EVERY warning to be a potential flying missile..
I seem to remember something about the air traffic controllers panicking as well... But alas, no hard proof



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   
edit


Please consult with myself or Simon Gray before posting content that advertises your products for sale.

[Edited on 21-4-2004 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
The entire "60-minutes" clip on Andy Desperedo is included in my video "The Plot Thickens" which you can find if you do an internet search with my name and/or the title of the other video "Unexplained Coincidences and Unanswered Questions." Both are available for a very low price--I think most are charging $5-7 over the internet, and I receive absolutely know compensation or even knowledge of those sales.

Much of the information on Greenspan and gold-price fixing was also contained at:

webmail6.juno.com...

The article is titled "Here is how the WTC/Pentagon crash bombing operation came about" by Dick Eastman from University of Phoenix on-line.




I'm going to go look for it...

but here's a point that several of us are trying to make...
you refuse to bring any of that information here. Where we all can see it... why is that ?

I'm not bashing you or trying to argue with you, I'm just trying to understand you...

You make these claims but fail to back them up.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join