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.

 

passengers on all flights

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I have been reading and reading and watching video's about 9/11 since I signed up on here. I have read on here and many other places that people think the planes were remote controlled and there were no passengers on the planes and such. Now if people really think there were no real people on these planes, then where did they go? I know this may sound like a dumb question but I really would like to know where these people could have gone. I have done many searches and cant find an answer to this. I may not be looking in the right place as there is a lot of information to read through. I know some of you may flame me for this question but I think it's a valid question since many people have mentioned there being no passengers on these planes.

Thanks.




posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
there area lot of theories on that. obviously we can only speculate on that.

if you made a research you should already know a little about it - watch the loose change 2nd edition (as far as I remember it was well presented there with the radar tracks and airports most probably to host the transit) for example.

you should know also about the idea of the operation they had for Cuba which most likely was implemented here - to destroy the planes full of agents over international sea and blame the Cubans to start the invasion (operation Northwoods I belive).

there are also a cases against us gov. started by the wife of one of the passengers who tried to find a families of the others on the plane and found it really difficult.

research a little more. cheers



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Why does this question keep popping up?

If they weren't on the planes, and still had to get rid of them, then they would just offload them and kill them. Maybe put them in an incenerator somewhere and make them part of the dessert.

"Where did the passengers go?", we are already assuming that 9/11 was a planned 'inside job'. So if they are willing to kill a couple thousand with explosives and planes...then why is it a stretch to assume that they killed a few more somewhere else?

If it wasn't a planned inside job...then those passengers died in a hijacking/collision.

Where is the problem?

I never understand how this issue of the passenger lives can be the one major stumbling block for people on the fence.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
hi.

In one of all the videos i have seen on the internet they gave an explanation on how they did. Do not remember the video, but it was a theory that they never left ground, they were taken to some place and so on..sorry cant help you any better.

In any case it should not be so difficult to trace this, but still it is open for discussion.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by spines
Why does this question keep popping up?

If they weren't on the planes, and still had to get rid of them, then they would just offload them and kill them. Maybe put them in an incenerator somewhere and make them part of the dessert.

"Where did the passengers go?", we are already assuming that 9/11 was a planned 'inside job'. So if they are willing to kill a couple thousand with explosives and planes...then why is it a stretch to assume that they killed a few more somewhere else?

If it wasn't a planned inside job...then those passengers died in a hijacking/collision.

Where is the problem?

I never understand how this issue of the passenger lives can be the one major stumbling block for people on the fence.


You know I am not all knowing about this! I only started reading about this a couple months ago. I do have a life and a job and cant spend every waking moment reading every and all documents on 9/11. I ASKED this because this is the one thing that stuck out to me for some reason. Yeah if they werent on the planes then more than likely the Govt had them killed in my opinion, but if you look I asked what OTHERS thought.

Also I never said I was on the fence. I have always believed from day one it was an inside job. I am entitled to ask what I want on here as is everyone else. Just because I dont know everything doesnt mean my question is any less important or whatever.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by czacza1
there area lot of theories on that. obviously we can only speculate on that.

if you made a research you should already know a little about it - watch the loose change 2nd edition (as far as I remember it was well presented there with the radar tracks and airports most probably to host the transit) for example.

you should know also about the idea of the operation they had for Cuba which most likely was implemented here - to destroy the planes full of agents over international sea and blame the Cubans to start the invasion (operation Northwoods I belive).

there are also a cases against us gov. started by the wife of one of the passengers who tried to find a families of the others on the plane and found it really difficult.

research a little more. cheers


I have done searches but I havent really seen this in anything. I dont have sound on my computer so I cant watch videos...grrrr! I have to read everything and I work 60 hrs a week so it makes it hard sometimes to read all the vast majority of material out. I will have to get Loose Change 2 on netflix if available. I will also look into the things you mentioned as well. Thanks!



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


no problem. and really the loose change you should start with. it is a great material on the begining. go and check also the AE911truth.com

take care



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


I think you should watch Screw Loose Change. This gives you the facts and points out the many flaws Dylan Avery and Company made.

Dylan admits of the errors in his film, yet still gives them out.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Hmmm... how about this for a theory?

Pakistan and Saudi intelligence operatives hijack several planes (under whatever orders made sense - but not a suicide mission)

The planes are then remote controlled into WTC 1 & 2 and The Pentagon.

Flight 93... I guess that just went wrong.

All passengers on board are killed, with the hijackers being the most surprised of all


There you have the remote control aspect of the conspiracy theory and the messy problem of the passengers covered

Just a thought...



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by czacza1
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


no problem. and really the loose change you should start with. it is a great material on the begining. go and check also the AE911truth.com

take care


I will have to check that out. You know in the many searches I have done I have not seen that site come up.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


I will try that one as well. Like i said I am new to really reading about any of this. I always thought something was off but wanted to know. Whenever I mentioned it to anyone I knew they looked at me funny so I didnt say anything until I came here. I have been reading as much as I can in this forum which has made me want to look more. Thanks!



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
Hmmm... how about this for a theory?

Pakistan and Saudi intelligence operatives hijack several planes (under whatever orders made sense - but not a suicide mission)

The planes are then remote controlled into WTC 1 & 2 and The Pentagon.

Flight 93... I guess that just went wrong.

All passengers on board are killed, with the hijackers being the most surprised of all


There you have the remote control aspect of the conspiracy theory and the messy problem of the passengers covered

Just a thought...



That sounds like an interesting theory too.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by czacza1
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


no problem. and really the loose change you should start with. it is a great material on the begining. go and check also the AE911truth.com

take care


I tried to go to that site and I am not sure if it's right or not. It just looks like a search engine. Is it a site for 9/11??



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


Here's an example of how difficult it is to convert an airline passenger jet to remote control. This was conducted to intentionally rip open the wing tanks, and test a fuel additive intended to (hopefully) suppress jet fuel fires.

As you can see, the pilot began to lose control in the last few seconds, but at least he hit the target....because they had set up a localizer and G/S (basically an Instrument Landing System) for him to follow to point-of-impact.

It is absolutely incredulous to think that there was anysort of similar electronic guidance into the Towers or the Pentagon....especially considering the reaction times needed at the speeds iinvolved.

As you can see, the Boeing in the video is at about 140-150 knots, tops.



Modern Military-grade UACVs are slow fliers too....and specifically designed from scratch for radio control.

[edit on 4/14/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver

Originally posted by czacza1
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


no problem. and really the loose change you should start with. it is a great material on the begining. go and check also the AE911truth.com

take care


I tried to go to that site and I am not sure if it's right or not. It just looks like a search engine. Is it a site for 9/11??


sorry, my bad. the correct web page adress below:

www.ae911truth.org...

greetings



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
edit: nevermind.

[edit on 4/15/0909 by spines]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


But the remote control mechanism might have been as simple as a switch to a pre-programmed autopilot



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


But the remote control mechanism might have been as simple as a switch to a pre-programmed autopilot



Well there are several ways to disconnect the autopilot and autothrottle on Boeing aircrafts.
Among them the disconnect bar and circuit brakers.

Would have been a lot easier on a fly by wire aircraft, but even then it would be serious amount of hardware involved.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by czacza1
 


Thanks! That's a very interesting site. I will be checking it out in more detail today when I have some time.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


1984? You have to be kidding. The technology did not improve between 1984 and 2001; 17 years?




new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join