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.

 

Man killed in D.C. Metro crash ordered jets above Capitol on 9/11

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Man killed in D.C. Metro crash ordered jets above Capitol on 9/11


www.cnn.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former commanding general of the District of Columbia National Guard -- who ordered jets over the Capitol amid the September 11, 2001, terror attacks -- was among those killed in a transit train crash in Washington this week, authorities said Tuesday.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Ok so let the conspiracy theories commence...

What was he doing "Riding the Metro!"

Well to be honest lots of high ranking officials ride the metro...


What does this mean about the 9/11 conspiracy? Is someone upset he was able to scramble those jets?


Or is this simply what it looks like... a tragedy for this man and his family, and a loss for our country's defense...



www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 



Or is this simply what it looks like... a tragedy for this man and his family, and a loss for our country's defense...


Well, it is a tragic accident, he retired in 2008, and his wife, who was with him, was also killed.

AND, someone started this topic in the 9/11 forum already. However, I think they allow two threads....and you're really good at your threads!!
:


[edit on 6/23/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


A simple tragedy, no conspiracy here.

Now that I have stated that, I can't wait until this story hits the 9/11 conspiracy forums.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


A simple tragedy, no conspiracy here.

Now that I have stated that, I can't wait until this story hits the 9/11 conspiracy forums.



Perhaps ... but what about the Buffalo crash with the 9/11 widow ... or the man who was shot by the cops after saying 9/11 would happen.

sucking up and accepting the official story is NOT the way to respect the victims. i think there is something un-kosher going on here ....



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 



Now that I have stated that, I can't wait until this story hits the 9/11 conspiracy forums.


Already there!!!



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by jd140
 



Now that I have stated that, I can't wait until this story hits the 9/11 conspiracy forums.


Already there!!!


Wow I must be clarvoyiant or have ESPN.

Check the post above yours. They are going to take over this thread also.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 



Perhaps ... but what about the Buffalo crash with the 9/11 widow ...


Poorly trained/under trained pilots, Captain a marginal pilot anyways, in icing conditions, operating the airplane contrary to procedures, and on approach, so already low altitude for the landing.

Unless you want to suppose some 'grand plan' by outside forces to have set up all those factors, I call it an accident, and a co-incidence.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 



Perhaps ... but what about the Buffalo crash with the 9/11 widow ...


Poorly trained/under trained pilots, Captain a marginal pilot anyways, in icing conditions, operating the airplane contrary to procedures, and on approach, so already low altitude for the landing.

Unless you want to suppose some 'grand plan' by outside forces to have set up all those factors, I call it an accident, and a co-incidence.


You mean like, the government behind the government?

But yeah, it disgusts me to hear people say it is disrespectful to question who was responsible for 9/11, because that is EXACTLY what TPTB want you to say.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


:
:


That's the funniest post I've seen today!


Shoud add it to the 'Classic Quotes' thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 



Perhaps ... but what about the Buffalo crash with the 9/11 widow ...


Poorly trained/under trained pilots, Captain a marginal pilot anyways, in icing conditions, operating the airplane contrary to procedures, and on approach, so already low altitude for the landing.

Unless you want to suppose some 'grand plan' by outside forces to have set up all those factors, I call it an accident, and a co-incidence.


You mean like, the government behind the government?

But yeah, it disgusts me to hear people say it is disrespectful to question who was responsible for 9/11, because that is EXACTLY what TPTB want you to say.



There is a HUGE difference between questioning and making an assertion.

I do believe it is always respectful to question something, however it can very well be disrespectful in many cases to make an assertion about something which so many people lost their lives to. It can actually make your questioning that much harder...


I believe it was the Beatles who said "If you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao, your not going to make it with anyone anyhow"



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Nobody has said that.

Keep the 9/11 conspiracy stuff in the correct forum. I hear there is a thread about this same thing over there.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 



Perhaps ... but what about the Buffalo crash with the 9/11 widow ...


Poorly trained/under trained pilots, Captain a marginal pilot anyways, in icing conditions, operating the airplane contrary to procedures, and on approach, so already low altitude for the landing.

Unless you want to suppose some 'grand plan' by outside forces to have set up all those factors, I call it an accident, and a co-incidence.


You mean like, the government behind the government?

But yeah, it disgusts me to hear people say it is disrespectful to question who was responsible for 9/11, because that is EXACTLY what TPTB want you to say.



There is a HUGE difference between questioning and making an assertion.

I do believe it is always respectful to question something, however it can very well be disrespectful in many cases to make an assertion about something which so many people lost their lives to. It can actually make your questioning that much harder...


I believe it was the Beatles who said "If you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao, your not going to make it with anyone anyhow"



Okay I see your point, but how exactly is it disrespectful to think there is more then just the evil terrorists behind these acts?

9/11 really is almost as mysterious today as it was when it first happened.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


If you feel it is worthy of being in that thread then go ahead. I would feel like I'm tooting my own horn if I did it.

Glad it made you laugh.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


I don't think the question you are posing is disrespectful at all...


As I mentioned, I believe all things should be able to be questioned... as long as we are asking questions, and not making assertions, I don't think anyone can see that as disrespectful... with one small exception...

When there are dead people involved with surviving family members... you should allow the mourning process to occur before beginning the questioning process... but that's just my opinion...



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Poorly trained/under trained pilots


That didn't stop Hani Hanjour from finding his target, now did it?

I'm not alleging some conspiracy in the Buffalo plane crash. I'm simply looking for consistency: Do poorly trained pilots accidentally crash airplanes or do they make impossible maneuvers to carry out masterful terrorist attacks against targets in one of the most heavily defended airspaces in the world?



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 



When there are dead people involved with surviving family members... you should allow the mourning process to occur before beginning the questioning process... but that's just my opinion...



Fair enough ... in that case tho, I think enough time has passed since 9/11 to question it. It was almost a decade ago.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
VP Joe Biden rides the metro when he goes home to Delaware. Ut, oh, Joe. You're next!
Better keep that trap shut.


Can you say, coincidence? Everytime a person dies in an accident it isn't a conspiracy, as much as I would like to think it is. Oh, never mind. My "hero", George Norry says "There are no coincidences." And I say, "Really? Prove it." And just to keep him from having to prove a negative, which I have been told is an impossible task, I ask him, "Prove all deaths are intended and predetermined."



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 



Do poorly trained pilots accidentally crash airplanes or do they make impossible maneuvers to carry out masterful terrorist attacks against targets in one of the most heavily defended airspaces in the world?


(checking.....checking......checking...to see which Forum I'm in.....)

Hmmm....nope, not in the 9/11 forum....

Ya know, Novus...it's difficult to explain in a Forum, but here goes: When I referred to the Colgan pilots I was talking about their inadequate training as to all of the features of an airplane that was fairly new to the company they worked for. Of course they had met all of the basic training requirements that the Airline company had required of them (even though the Captain had to repeat a few things in order to pass...this is actually common in the industry).

The Q-400 is a stretched version of a similar design...but it incorporates something called a 'stick-pusher' that activates when an impending stall is detected. The Airline curricula did not adequately demonstrate this feature to pilots training on the equipment. Added to the icing, and the Autopilot being engaged, when it was expressly forbidden in icing conditions, the wings' airflow was disrupted to cause a stall that caught the pilots off guard. Also, they were inattentive, and not focused on the task at hand. Had one of them been hand-flying, then they would have noticed the impending stall sooner. AND, the function of the 'stick-pusher' caused the Captain to panic, and do exactly the opposite of what he should have. He pulled back, against the 'pusher', and aggravated the stall. It precipitated the full stall, and subsequent roll over and dive.

Is that enough for ya?

As to "impossible maneuvers"?? I don't know how many hours you have, but even if zero I could put you in the seat of a full-motion Level D simulator and show you how to hit a building with ease.

Hey, since we're off topic, but it's after hours, so it's OK....if this guy could fly with no prior experience in a jet.....


AND, he even landed!!)... (with coaching, and the instructor doing the configuring)...but landing is the hardest part, and I daresay a more precise maneuver than simply steering into a building!!!





[edit on 6/24/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I don't care what forum this is in. 9/11 and bad pilots were brought up by previous posters, and I stuck to that part of the discussion. I'm very much on-topic.

You obviously have not looked much in to what exactly Hani Hanjour did, and I have no intention of doing your research for you, so I won't provide any information in my post. But just as a hint, I wasn't at all referring to him hitting the building.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join