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.

 

Why the planes?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   
This is the one thing that I have yet to settle in my mind.

Why fly an airliner into a building that is already rigged with explosives?

If one were a religious fanatic I can see how this can be plausible but we can not entertain that theory, can we?

According to the self proclaimed "truthers", Islamic fanatics played no part in the dreadful day of 911.

Think about it.

You have the towers rigged with explosives. From the self proclaimed "truthers" the airliners that crashed into the buildings played no role in their ultimate collapse. No, it was a demolition job.

If I was a terrorist and had the towers so completely rigged with explosives that I knew that they were going to come down the last thing on my mind would be....."hey, let's fly some jetliners into them as well."

No, I would just pull the switch.

No one escapes.

10's of thousands dead in a blink of an eye.

No camera would catch it. One moment the towers are there and the next they are gone. Total mind (censored) on the American people. But that did not happen.

Why?

Mod Edit: Removed all caps title




[edit on 27-7-2009 by Gemwolf]




posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   
The gov would have a very hard time blaming anyone if they just flipped the switch and BOOM now wouldn't they

We all know 911 was an excuse to go to war and take peoples freedoms away .

Say if there were really terrorists flying the planes , they would have to be in on it to , or maybe they didn't know there were already explosives there in the buildings , they in place just in case .
Maybe the plains were remote controlled ?
Whether terrorists were involved or not to me is missing the point .
Those terrorist groups were setup by the US in the first place .
The bigger picture is the US will do anything to manipulate and get its own way ...


[edit on 27-7-2009 by Takka]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Takka
We all know 911 was an excuse to go to war and take peoples freedoms away .


Yeah, but I think his/her point is why use planes. Why not just say terrorists blew up the buildings? That would have still got the public's support to go to war.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Use your brains people, how are the terrorists gonna plant bombs in a building with thousands of people inside with out being caught

not to mention they are bomb sniffing dogs all over NYC



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Takka
The gov would have a very hard time blaming anyone if they just flipped the switch and BOOM now wouldn't they



No, they wouldn't. They would have a much harder time explaining the whole hijacked airplane thing.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Mark_Amy
 


Its easier to explain this way I think . Planes flying into buildings .
Imo it would be hard to imagine terrorists climbing up and down the towers setting explosives with out anyone wondering whats going on .

If government workers were walking around doing it on the sly , when not many people are around , then there would probably be no questions asked ...

who really knows though ...

[edit on 27-7-2009 by Takka]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by QweeQwa
They would have a much harder time explaining the whole hijacked airplane thing.


Apparently not



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Takka


If government workers were walking around doing it on the sly , when not many people are around , then there would probably be no questions asked ...

who really knows though ...

[edit on 27-7-2009 by Takka]


That is a mighty big if. If you are going to make such an outrageous claim you should at least back it up, but you haven't.

If I was a carpenter....



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by QweeQwa
 


Well, the perps did just that, they just blew up the towers but they made some videos "Hollywood Style" that showed us something completely different.

Kind of "Wag the dog" style.

Maybe they wacked the south tower with a missile, I don't know because I wasn't there, I was home looking at FAKE pictures on live broadcast.

D.Duck



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Well, I never understood why, if it was a total inside job, why so much was done on taht day. Why ALL the planes? Why the tower AND the Pentagon AND the Shanksville plane? Why use planes at all or use JUST planes and no buildings? Why not just bomb the buildings an not use planes?

I can figure out why so much was done that day, IF it was the government. I think a single bombing would have been enough to scare us. It makes a little more sense that if a certain group of terrorists tried to topple the Towers at one time (1993), and needed to up the power in order to carry out that mission (use planes next time) than the government organizing all that.

I doubt one branch of government can organize a summer barbecue!



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Also, i think its a statement of intent.

Blowing up bombs is one thing.

But taking something as brilliant as a plane and turning it into a weapon is a very bold statement.

Not only are you not safe on the ground, you are not safe in the air either!

It also caused panic in airports for long after.

And apparently some poeple made alot of money from "put-options" on the stock market beause of the fall in airline prices etc.

There are many reasons.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Why the planes ?

Flying the planes into the buildings were used to portray an image of an air attack and was necessary in creating the shock and awe effects of the overall psy-ops or Psychological Operations of 9/11.
This well televised event which conveniently transpired on a perfectly clear and sunny day was used to create a deep psychological impression and instill fear upon all whom viewed it, which it was obviously extremely effective at.

IN fact , Look at the panic that flying Air Force One over NYC recently caused.

Speaking of planes, I'm somewhat of an aviation buff and flew most of my flight hours towards my private pilots license out of Plymouth airport on cape cod MA, which is right near Otis air force base where F-15s are based as part of the North American Air Defense Command or NORAD.

F-15s are capable of flying up to 3 times the speed of a commercial airliner. After 9/11 and having wtnessed the sheer and utter performance of these F-15 interceptors in flight I was really surprised that none of the F-15s based at Otis AFB were used to bring down any of the planes considering their proximity to NYC ?

Washington DC is protected by Langley AFB where F-15's are also based. Why no intercepts there ?

What happened on 9/11 2001 ? Did we just happen to catch both air bases sleeping on the Job that day ?



And finally, what a timely and interesting coincidence that our recent members handle "QweeQwa" , our resident 9/11 Commission story supporter happens to contain two instances of the letter Q, as in the NSA 9/11 disinformation organization the "Q group" ?



[edit on 27-7-2009 by nh_ee]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by QweeQwa
 



Convincing the general public that the terrorists had access to the buildings would be very difficult. It could also be that some of the hijakers were really islamic terrorists who didn't realize they had been "had."

Seeing the Towers hit by planes left an image in most people's minds that is very difficult to forget. They were really looking for that "Pearl Harbor Event" and I think this was it.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


The only reason no F-15 was in the air is because there were no flight 11,77,93 and 175 in the air, they were just blips on a radar screen.

Imagine what would have happened if the F-15 guys would have found out that there were no flights in the air,lol.

We were all looking at a "Movie" on 9/11 and the only ones who got played were most people of the world.


D.Duck

[edit on 27-7-2009 by D.Duck]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by QweeQwa
 


Why planes?

Planes are the safest way to travel. They also represent, in a way, the modern world and all, to the terrorists, that is wrong with the world. What better way to strike a blow? Use that very symbol against another symbol of all that is wrong with the world, the WTC.

It makes a twisted sort of sense.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
My thoughts about the planes from a terrorist perspective.

Why use hijacked planes at all? Instead send out operatives to small commuter airfields all across the US. The security is less intense on smaller air fields so we could get away with more...say ...loading up a small commuter jet with TNT. Much better than a fuel bomb. And we could steal a bunch of these in the middle of the night.

Then we shall take about ten of these mini jets and fly them into all sorts of things doing much more damage with ten planes loaded with TNT than we would do with four Hijacked commercial jets full of passengers that are not scared of box cutters.

But Osama was told how bush wanted it so it was done their way.

NOW My question is ...in the weeks after the attacks, How did they get the Anthrax out of American Bio labs to mail it to folks all across the US..

THAT is a real mystery to me.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by titorite]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Why use planes? well planes flew into the top almost which allowed for the lower X number of floors to be evacuated before they pull the switch. Alot of innocent people died that day and although i believe that our government was 100% responsible i dont believe they wanted to kill an excessive amount. with the people that tragically died that day, that was enough to complete their goals. any more would have been excessive.

option 2. They think we are stupid, and most of us are. If we saw those building go down because of a bom b that controlled we may have thought more of it. a few planes flying into it seems plausible to most people.

so why i dont know exactly i just have remnants of ideas that may be right



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Airplanes were the most convenient, and easiest weapon of choice available.

The terrorists took advantage of themindset at the time, regarding hijackings. The "common strategy" accepted and agreed upon by all involved, i.e., Airlines, ATC, FBI etc, was not very secret. AND it had no provisions for the suicidal hijacker scenario. This was simply not trained, at the airlines. Not EVER in my 23 years there.

The standard hijacker's "profile" was either an extortionist for money, or a political activist who would use hostages as bargaining chips for some political agenda, usually release from prison of compatriots somewhere.

There was the third option, the plain crazy whack-job, but they were actually the lest dangerous, since they were usually ill-prepared.

There were only TWO hijackings (one successful, one not) prior to 9/11 where the perps were suicidal. The PSA1771 in 1987, and the FedEx (don't remember flight number or year) in Memphis, TN. BOTH were disgruntled emplyees of the AIRLINE they hijacked. Guess they would fall into the category of crazy whack-jobs.

We viewed those incidents as total aberrations. One of the "common strategy" techniques, actually, was to attempt to play on the fears and ignorance of the hijackers, and their (assumed) lack of knowledge about flying, by creating false mechanical emergencies and the like. Playing on their fears of dying.

Every year, in the airline, all flight crew members undergo a few days of classroom refresher training, and hijackings are reviewed, and procedures practiced. NEVER did any of us expect such a daring, violent and ruthless commando-style approach, to the cockpit take-over and subsequent suicidal results --- although, in hindsight, after what we see so frequently lately, suicide bombers with explosives strapped to their own bodies, the lack of vision was short-sighted.

I wonder how this current conversation, today, regarding those events nearly eight years ago would be different, had United 93 not been delayed so long before takeoff at Newark?

UAL93 had a team of four, not five. They were young, nervous, and twitchy. They apparently did a poor job of crowd control, in monitoring the passengers' activities, since phone calls were made, and the events iin NYC were relayed, and the passengers were able to figure out the situation --- that it was NOT a normal hijacking. ALL of this because of (fortunately) the takeoff delay, and the ineptitude of the hijackers.

BECAUSE, if not for those circumstance, ANOTHER target would have been hit, and the target was obviously someplace in Washington, DC.

For anyone who has ever flown in to visit the city, and arrived at National Airport on a clear day, when they're landing to the South, you would know the view to your left, of the Mall and the monuments and historic buildings.

TWO are most prominent: The Washington Monument, of course; AND the Capitol Building. (The White House is actually quite difficult to spot, unless you know just where to look. However, it could have been UAL93's target, because of the symbolism. It's just, it is really quite small, rom the air).

The Capitol, though, is quite large and prominent, and easily spotted at the end of the National Mall.

Can anyone imagine how our discussion would be different, today, if UAL93 had impacted and destroyed the Capitol???



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 





Why use hijacked planes at all? Instead send out operatives to small commuter airfields all across the US. The security is less intense on smaller air fields so we could get away with more...say ...loading up a small commuter jet with TNT. Much better than a fuel bomb. And we could steal a bunch of these in the middle of the night.


Reason is that smaller plane would not do enough damage that a fully
fueled 767 weighing in at 350,000 lbs flying at 500 + mph would do

Reference other incidents

In 2002 a Rockwell Commander 112 hit Pirelli building in Milan Italy

en.wikipedia.org...

Or the 1945 Empire State Building incident when hit by B25

en.wikipedia.org...

The 1946 crash of Coast Guard aircraft into 70 Wall Street

While damaging building and starting fires, non of these incidents came close to threatening the structural integrity of the building. Simply
lacked the mass and speed as well as fuel load to ignite post impact fires

or more recent Cory Lidle incident in NYC or Charles Bishop in Tampa

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...(Tampa)

Both hit high raises with light aircraft causing moderate damage to building (as well as killing the aircraft occupants)

As for hijacking a corporate or commuter jet from airport - remember that
by hijacking aircraft in flight all the hard work of getting clearances and
taking off was done by the pilots. For all the conspiracy types complaining
that the hijackers couldn't fly worth a damn - you have just increased
the difficulty by several orders. The 911 hijackers had just to steer
the aircraft into the target, not take off and climb



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman


Reason is that smaller plane would not do enough damage that a fully
fueled 767 weighing in at 350,000 lbs flying at 500 + mph would do



Ok maybe your not smart enough to understand what TNT does.

TNT Is a stable explosive that is used by both Civilian and military forces to cause a hell of alot of destruction. A small plane fully loaded with TNT can cause a heck of alot more damage than Jet fuel.

Ask your superiors. Small plane full of TNT can do a hell of alot more damage than than jet fuel.

One more time to really let it sink in.

TNT can do more damage than jet fuel.


TNT is one of the most commonly used explosives for military and industrial applications. It is valued because of its insensitivity to shock and friction, which reduces the risk of accidental detonation. TNT melts at 80 °C (176 °F), far below the temperature at which it will spontaneously detonate, allowing it to be poured as well as safely combined with other explosives. TNT neither absorbs nor dissolves in water, which allows it to be used effectively in wet environments. Additionally, it is relatively stable when compared to other high explosives.


And now your a little less ignorant today.

Congratulations.

And as I said before. Security at smaller airports is much less intensive both back then and still today small air fields do not have half the safety precautions of a major airport. Using a bunch of small jets packed with TNT or the explosive of your choice would of made alot more sense than using just a plane by itself.



[edit on 27-7-2009 by titorite]




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join