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: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


911workinggroup.org...(redact)/5%20AWA%20212%20Chronology%20W-4009p%20AEA%20Operations%20Center%20Log.pdf

Page #3

At 1513 EDT bomb suspected in LAX parking lot.

At 1615 EDT SFO terminal evacuated.


Three airplanes originally destined for LAX were already down by no later than 0700 PDT. Very light passenger loads, most passengers either going to LA on business (check names and addresses of passenger, huh??) or going home, with cars in the parking lot, or arranging Super Shuttle, or something.

Any case, ETA for AAL 11 was 1059, AAL 77 was 1038, UAL 175 1116, UAL 93 1114.

Think anyone watched the news, from home, before going to the airport???

Called the airline, from home, before going to the airport???

Straws, all straws.....




posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SPreston
 


911workinggroup.org...(redact)/5%20AWA%20212%20Chronology%20W-4009p%20AEA%20Operations%20Center%20Log.pdf

Page #3

At 1513 EDT bomb suspected in LAX parking lot.

At 1615 EDT SFO terminal evacuated.


Three airplanes originally destined for LAX were already down by no later than 0700 PDT. Very light passenger loads, most passengers either going to LA on business (check names and addresses of passenger, huh??) or going home, with cars in the parking lot, or arranging Super Shuttle, or something.

Any case, ETA for AAL 11 was 1059, AAL 77 was 1038, UAL 175 1116, UAL 93 1114.

Think anyone watched the news, from home, before going to the airport???

Called the airline, from home, before going to the airport???

Straws, all straws.....


I am not even going to comment on you post.

I am just going to leave for everyone to see your post and judge for themselves if they think two people showing up at LAX is normal when supposedly more then 200 were missing.

D.Duck



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 


Try reading outside conspiracy sites, for a start. It's a big world....



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
First dust is the evidence, then it is measuring the density of the explosions with pictures and now it is because the families of those who were flying would not have known and did not show up


It is a 5-6 hour flight. Anyone expecting someone would have seen the news and would not be at the airport. The flight numbers were known. Why would you go to the airport?



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
First dust is the evidence, then it is measuring the density of the explosions with pictures and now it is because the families of those who were flying would not have known and did not show up


It is a 5-6 hour flight. Anyone expecting someone would have seen the news and would not be at the airport. The flight numbers were known. Why would you go to the airport?


Its pretty sad that you cant even figure out why people would want to go to the airport.

D.Duck



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Yes.Terrorists did blow up the twin towers but they were allowed to enter the us by the cia just to do that.The cia new all the plans of the teorrists and were going to allow them to enter the us to attack the twin towers.So why would the cia allow terrorists to kill thousands of americans and destroy many buildings.Its quite simple.The cia used that attack to cover there own attack on the pentagon.The cia arranged all this just to destroy a office of the us navy at the pentagon and blame it on terrorists.The cia used a missle to attack the pentagon.If a jet had hit the pentagon it would have done alot more damage than we seen on tv.What of the other two planes.Once the cia new the office was destroyed they shot down thoses two remaining jets.The twin towers were rigged with exsplosives also to make the damgage more much worst.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by GORGANTHIUM
 


GORGAN, a missile???


Despite dozens of eyewitnesses, pictures of the debris on the outside, DNA positive matches for all the passengers and crew of AAL 77, a missile?

What about all of the airplane debris INSIDE?

Photos of Plane Wreckage



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by GORGANTHIUM
 


The obvious question to you now would be: Why does the CIA need to destroy one little office in the pentagon?

As for the damage,

Are you serious? That whole side of the building was gutted, and it's a monstrous structure.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


I found a composite image, to represent visually how the damage to that particular structure could be feasible, when considering the B757:



Probably won't allay any doubters, because if one has their mind made up, well...

However, since it is historically known how the Pentagon was built, with its massive concrete 'bunker-like' facade, it certainly would react differently than, saw, the WTC Towers, and their relatively thin steel pieces.

I'm reminded of how the Empire State Building withstood its encounter with an airplane:


1945 plane crash

At 9:40 a.m. on Saturday, July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber, piloted in thick fog by Lieutenant Colonel William Franklin Smith, Jr., crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building, between the 79th and 80th floors, where the offices of the National Catholic Welfare Council were located.


A moment to jump out, here --- do you think if the Interwebs existed in 1945 there would be a 'Conspiracy Theory' about the impact into the National Catholic Welfare Council location?!? (rhetorical)

Moving on:

One engine shot through the side opposite the impact and flew as far as the next block where it landed on the roof of a nearby building, starting a fire that destroyed a penthouse. The other engine and part of the landing gear plummeted down an elevator shaft.
_______

.... 14 people were killed in the incident. Elevator operator Betty Lou Oliver survived a plunge of 75 stories inside an elevator, which still stands as the Guinness World Record for the longest survived elevator fall recorded.

Photo of Damage
Source

This happened in July. FOG!!?? In July?? MUST have been a conspiracy!!!



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by GORGANTHIUM
 


The obvious question to you now would be: Why does the CIA need to destroy one little office in the pentagon?

As for the damage,

Are you serious? That whole side of the building was gutted, and it's a monstrous structure.


Yeah, the pictures do no justice at all. When you actually see it with your own eyes, the damage was very large. The chunk of building that they took out was enormous.

I can imagine it is the same with the WTC site.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Lets say there was some certain infomation located in a office of the us navy commnications that had to be destroyed.The cia had no other way of getting hold of that infomation.The infomation involved details .locations and photos of a strange monolith object found off the coast of western canada under the sea by the us navy.Don;t ask me how i got that infomation.Just say a little birdy told me.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiveForever8
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.


Points taken.

But there is one that can not be denied. The death toll would have been at least 10+ fold had planes not been used.

[edit on 8/1/09 by QweeQwa]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman


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.


The image (wait, there would be no video image) of the towers standing tall one moment and then being completely gone in the next would have more of a psychological effect than planes crashing into them.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck


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.



I was not aware of that.

Can you back it with some respectable sources?



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
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.


You totally ignored my premise of the OP.

If the buildings are already rigged to collapse with well laid out explosives in a blink of an eye...then why the planes?

[edit on 8/1/09 by QweeQwa]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Airplanes were the most convenient, and easiest weapon of choice available.



No they were not!

Remember, the towers were already rigged with tons of perfectly placed explosives before the planes crashed.

Airplanes were not the "most convenient, and easiest weapon of choice available."

High explosives were. The proof of that is that they were planted well before the airlines crashed and the explosives were so well placed and designed they did not need the help of a plane.

So no, you are wrong.

Explosives planted inside of the building were the "most convenient, and easiest weapon of choice available."

[edit on 8/1/09 by QweeQwa]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71


If the government wanted to bring down the towers, they could have rolled in a few limos or Fed Ex trucks, untraceable, and it would have been a hell of alot easier than flying planes into the towers, waiting, and then hoping the TONS of thermite you planted works.


Exactly!

Also remember that these "bombs" were placed in such a well structured manor that it made it look like a controlled demolition.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull


Simple question for you...

Have you ever had a colleague, who at the same time is in all liklihood a close freind that you've worked with for several years threatened with death or harm? She'd be dead unless you did whatever the perpertrator wanted you to do?


Yes.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by seagull
 

I found a composite image, to represent visually how the damage to that particular structure could be feasible, when considering the B757:



Probably won't allay any doubters, because if one has their mind made up, well...


Sorry weedwhacker, but it still won't work. But thank you for verifying the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY Flight 77 flight path low and level inches above the lawn at 530 mph and into the Pentagon 1st floor area, as established within the official Pentagon Building Performance Report page 14, which jthomas denies even exists. Your little composite image works just fine. We don't quite understand the official story retelling reasoning of jthomas. But then we do not understand the religious faith beliefs of any of the duhbunkers do we?

weedwhacker's composite image verifying the official south 757 flight path


Your composite image above represents very well the official positioning of the official 757 aircraft. However that position above the lawn cannot possibly be attained from the actual aircraft postion Above the Naval Annex established with multiple eyewitness testimonies by the Center for Military History in 2001 and verified by videotaped interviews with the exact same eyewitnesses more recently.

As can be seen in my rendition below, the black aircraft image representing the approximate flight path from Over the Naval Annex totally misses the downed light poles included in the official account. This aircraft path would necessarily have to create a completely different damage path into the Pentagon interior. The 90 ton aircraft inertia would continue the path of wreckage along the same trajectory. It would have completely missied the alleged Exit Hole into A&E Drive by over a hundred feet emerging into A&E Drive at a completely different location.

There is no such damage path through the Pentagon.

The actual aircraft from Over the Naval Annex flying above the light poles in its path, as actually witnessed was much too high to possibly slide into the 1st floor without heavily damaging the building foundation. There is no evidence of a 90 ton aircraft impact into the building foundation. There is also no evidence of a 90 ton aircraft impact into the 3rd and 4th floor area, nor into the roof area.



No eyewitnesses can be found verifying the official south flight path. Whether they do not actually exist or whether they just do not wish to appear publicly repeating lies, remains to be established. Regardless, the extreme differences between the two flight paths should be known to all potential Pentagon eyewitnesses, and it seems curious that not one single official south flight path eyewitness has stepped forward to support the official account. Supportive official story investigators even headed to Arlington to specifically turn up such eyewitnesses and their journeys were in vain, ending in total failure.

This Military Industrial Complex supporter Purdue University simulation image agrees very well with your composite image above. However that particular position above the lawn is just not possible from an actual flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo.



This image below shows a comparison between the official south flight path down the hill through the light poles and low and level across the lawn inches above and into the 1st floor area, and an average combining of the eyewitness accounts of the actual Over the Naval Annex north flight path which flew North of the Citgo and high above the light poles in its path and high above the Pentagon 1st floor. The two flight paths are not compatible.

The 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is completely bogus and could not possibly have taken place as fantasized. The downed light poles had to have been staged because no aircraft flew in along that flight path to knock them down.





[edit on 8/1/09 by SPreston]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join