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.

 

Evidence of Planes Hitting Towers - Not UA/AA

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Last time I checked, "weedwhacker" wasn't listed on FAA.gov

Ever wonder how autopilot stayed on during those hi-jackings?


Wanna swim with some big boys? Try pulling your games over at P4T
with REAL aviation experts.




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I've never understood this confusion or aspect of the plane identities.

If one is to assert that this was an inside job, which I do subscribe to because it IS THE MOST PLAUSIBLE SCENARIO GIVEN THE EVIDENCE, why would they NOT use planes able to be easily identified as UA/AA?

Why, if there is a massive conspiracy controlled by government, would they use anything that could cast massive doubts and create a wealth of evidence showing that they are to blame?

In an event such as this, why wouldn't they use existing planes? And if they couldn't, why wouldn't they create two new planes able to be clearly identified as passenger airliners by the thousands (and ultimately later millions) of witnesses to what happened?

If people want to prove what we all suspect, forget about pointless details like this. Focus on where the money went, who gained from this (Put Options anyone?), who seemingly knew in advance, who was protected, who assisted in a cover up...

That is where the evidence is.

The fact is, it seems several people knew before this happened that they could make some money. And those people who made decisions based on apparent prior knowledge should be brought to justice. How did they know? Who told them? Who the hell are they even?


To me, that one, single, minute aspect alone is enough to tell me without a moment of doubt that government officials at the highest level knew this was going to happen, they either allowed it or planned it. If that were not the case, why have those who benefited financially from obvious prior knowledge not been investigated?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Last time I checked, "weedwhacker" wasn't listed on FAA.gov

Ever wonder how autopilot stayed on during those hi-jackings?


Wanna swim with some big boys? Try pulling your games over at P4T
with REAL aviation experts.


I'll ask again on this thread since you were unable to answer on the other thread.

Could you let us know to what criteria you measure your "expertise" to?

And, does that "expertise" include knowledge of standard published departures from a military air field?

One more - does that "expertise" include knowledge of restricting departures because of "rush hour traffic" into a field 10 miles away where flight separation (from aircraft on a departure from ADW and aircraft on approach to DCA) would be at least 3,000+ feet (and increasing) with the one departing aircraft climbing and with the other arriving aircraft descending?

Thanks. I still don't know where your claims of "expertise" come from based on your team's rather alarming ignorance of basic aviation tenets.

I know its fashionable (and necessary) for your side to manufacture your own flight standards in order to maintain your stories - else your entire gig would blow up, and what would you do with 500 P4T hats and logo'ed nighties? - but you can't expect anyone else to go along.

ETA: Please don't fall back on Cap't Bob's old "See our member list!!!!" I have and I see fools like John Lear and Shelton Lankford and the others - not impressive in the least. Doesn't *anyone* on your "list" know about standard departures?

[edit on 7-9-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


There is no proof to back up their claims.

If they used such aircraft, they should be able to produce the FDR's,
and serial numbers to support their story.

The hijackings never happened. Hijackers are still alive. People with
the same name and face have popped up alive.

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

nothing has been presented to positively ID the official aircraft to this date.



Wreckage on top of WTC5






N612UA cn 21873/41




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Wow, one piece of something with letters that could be part of a tail number!

Something like the planted debris at the Pentagon where a plane never hit?

Do you have anything official to support your theory? you know, like a
report from the NTSB with serial numbers of the parts found, etc.?

I have a news link that says your hi-jackers never made the trip, along
with all the other evidence. Try reading the link some time.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


That must be the BBC sept. 23 2001 article right?
Do you really want me to post the BBC retraction of that article.
Can you find me some believable evidence dated after Sept 23 that has not been retracted?

Did you notice the difference in the paint sheen on the fuselage panel that contains the aft exit and 2 windows on N612UA? That's unique to this plane and it's on the debris.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by waypastvne]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Please post the retraction, I have not read such a thing.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 

It's at the bottom of the page of the link you posted. Didn't you read your link?



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Didn't you see the FBI page which still shows the guy's face?

Are they retracting the spelling of the name, but still claim he's alive?



That's pretty confusing.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


There is no proof to back up their claims.

If they used such aircraft, they should be able to produce the FDR's,
and serial numbers to support their story.

The hijackings never happened. Hijackers are still alive. People with
the same name and face have popped up alive.

news.bbc.co.uk...



Again, if any government is going to claim that two passenger airliners have been flown into a building, you'd think they would at least use easily identifiable planes that suit this story.

How hard or expensive would it be (considering everything else that presumably required such immense financial support and planning) to use real passenger planes, or at least make the ones you're going to use look like passenger planes?

If the planes that hit those buildings were not passenger planes, and if there is clear evidence that they were not, it suggests that the government were not a part of this, and that a military force conducted this attack against American people.
It also suggests that they did so without the concern that they would be discovered.

If it was CIA, or a black-ops aspect of government, and they used planes able to be identified as military, the American government has covered it up.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand what the suggestion is here. None of this is making sense from a "government conspiracy" viewpoint.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 



Ever wonder how autopilot stayed on during those hi-jackings?


No. Why should I? What do YOU know that I don't??

Do you even understand the A/P on the B757/767?

Oh...and "play my games" over at P4T? I've seen the less-than-impressive roster of "qualifications" over there...LMAO at the guy who's posted as "Left Seat - Cessna 152"


The three "big names" --- two mentioned above, he forgot 'Kip' Wittenberg, formerly of United --- are also less than impressive.

I've worked with quite a few wingnuts in my time. AND, have heard more than a few stories of the rather less stable types that were there before me.

Most were pretty harmless...they could fly, but were crazy in just about every other aspect. Before me, we had a Captain (this was in the 1970s) who would, I kid you not, drive in his convertible, full uniform, circling in front of the terminals at LAX, to pick up women. He would tie a string under his chin to keep his hat on in the wind! Took a while to get him fired, ALPA is a strong Union.

Guy who retired right after I got hired, used to talk to his dead father on the jumpseat, sitting behind him in the 747 cockpit. Oh, there are more...so, the "crew" at P4T?? Uh huh.....yeah, right.
________________________________________________


Originally posted by turbofan

If they used such aircraft, they should be able to produce the FDR's,
and serial numbers to support their story.


Sigh. That old canard??

You really AREN'T a pilot, are you? We have, and are able to analyze, TWO SSFDRs' data. Of course, IF the Towers had not collapsed, then we'd likely have two more as well.

The CVR from AA77 is said to be unrecoverable. Prove that's a lie.

"Serial Numbers"? That one is such a joke, you should understand why by now. Even if the exterior casing of the SSFDR was damaged to the point that the identifying marks on it were obliterated, the manufacturer still has record of the INTERNAL components, and THOSE would be verifiable from company records at time of manufacture.

Really, repeating stupid nonsense won't make it come true.

[edit on 8 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Something like the planted debris at the Pentagon where a plane never hit?


Do you have anything official to support your theory? you know, like witness statements, preferably from someone with at least a scintilla of credibility - which would exclude the PfT and CIT crowds since I have yet to see any evidence of their self-proclaimed "expertise", especially if they claim "expertise" now in "Knowledge of Evidence Planting Without Evidence Of Such".

[edit on 8-9-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Are you aware that picture 2.jpg does not line up with the red markings
on the tail section of the 757 you posted in 5.jpg?

Notice the paint markings on the last window which embark on the contour;
these are several inches above on the tail section shown in your last photo.



That piece does not belong to that plane...or at least no the area you highlighted.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I'm sorry, I just don't understand what the suggestion is here. None of this is making sense from a "government conspiracy" viewpoint.


DING! DING! DING! And we have a winner!

By now it's patently clear that the conspiracy people are NOT devoted to finding the truth. They're out to prove that some secret gov't conspiracy is afoot, regardless of what the truth actually is, and they really don't care how convoluted or ridiculous the conspiracy sounds, just as long as a conspiracy exists in some form or another.

So far, the gov't apparently used hijacked passenger aircraft to cover up secretly planted controlled demolitions in a heavily occupied building, which really weren't controlled demolitions, but super thermite, and they really weren't hijacked passenger aircraft, but Air force bombers. They likewise flew a cruise missile into the Pentagon and planted fake wreckage all over the place to get people to believe it was a passenger aircraft. This of course was to instigate a war in Iraq by framing Afghanistan. I *would* mention that others think that laser beams from outer space destroyed the towers and still others think there weren't any aircraft at all, but that would sound silly.

Am I the only one who thinks the secret conspirators pulling the strings behind these plots must all be complete retards, to be coming up with such intricate and insanely complex conspiracies that are really accomplishing nothing? WTF would anyone bother to go through all the trouble of faking a crash site in Shanksville, only to turn around and cover up the crash site they faked, anyway?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
"Go ask some of your P4T friends if they've ever heard of "METHODIKAL".

As far as I have been able to tell no one has heard of it. I have searched for it for weeks now and other than a posted Operations Manual it does not appear. There seems to be no "Common Strategy" that actually instructs the flight crews on the FACT that "Any hijacking may constitute an immediate threat to loss of life of the crewmembers and passengers." and that crewmembers shall be prepared to fight to the death to stop someone from taking control of the aircraft.

If such a common strategy exists I haven't found it. There is some information along the lines of that in the operations for aircraft that carry hazardous material. (Yeah it is not just those trucks and trains but hazmat is flying around over your head too)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Last time I checked, "weedwhacker" wasn't listed on FAA.gov

Ever wonder how autopilot stayed on during those hi-jackings?


Wanna swim with some big boys? Try pulling your games over at P4T
with REAL aviation experts.


Tino? No way...this is the writings of Boobert Balsamo.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by turbofan
Last time I checked, "weedwhacker" wasn't listed on FAA.gov

Ever wonder how autopilot stayed on during those hi-jackings?


Wanna swim with some big boys? Try pulling your games over at P4T
with REAL aviation experts.


Tino? No way...this is the writings of Boobert Balsamo.


To be fair this was posted in '09 when Balsamo looked like merely another rank-and-file "just asking questions" merchant, as opposed to a full blown, wince-inducing embarrasment.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 
the video is gone



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join