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.

 

Did the U.S. mean to land the planes safely with remotes on 9/11 and got doublecrossed?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
i'm going to present this theory on 9/11 to the board...

My theory is that 9/11 was a botched FBI/CIA sting operations to catch the 19 hijackers in the act of hijacking the plane, and then use raytheon's remotes to land the planes safely after they were hijacked and arrest the terrorists (we have seen lately the FBI catching them in the act of planting fake bombs).

BUT, the israelis were infiltrating the intelligence agencies with their art students, so they knew we were planning on using the remotes to save the day and double crossed us by gaining control of the remotes and flying them by remote into the buildings. This part of double cross doesnt have to be played by the isreal intelligence or even anyone, maybe the remotes failed... but the FBI and U.S. government would never admit to botching such an operation and also they would never admit to being double crossed by anyone to the American people.

This would explain the apparent disconnect between Bush and the intelligence and a host of other things weird about 9/11.




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Also, raytheon employees were on some of the planes... maybe the passengers were there to ensure that the planes were hijacked and thought that the remotes were going to work... then when the remotes worked they could land the planes and present these terrorists as evidence we needed to go to war on terror.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Can somebody give me a good opinion on why this theory is right or wrong.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Nope it's not invisible and is interesting as a theory.

(Un)fortunately I have nothing to add


[edit on 25-9-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
In my view, there are too many signs that key officials within the government administration wanted a "new pearl harbor", complete with around 3000 deaths. Notice how the amount of deaths was almost exactly the same? I can't help but wonder if even the aproximate death count was planned.

Before anyone asks, I have no proof and in terms of evidence, I'd probably rely most heavily on the document from PNAC, but there's so many little things that, while by themselves may not seem so significant, add up to further reinforce my impression.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
A very interesting theory on the events of 9/11. Don't think many others would have inspected the events from this angle. Perhaps it was the Black Pope who double-crossed the US Government. (Black here literally refers to the colour of his robes, but the word also relates to his activities that are evil, underhanded and malicious.)


Originally posted by scott3x
In my view, there are too many signs that key officials within the government administration wanted a "new pearl harbor", complete with around 3000 deaths. Notice how the amount of deaths was almost exactly the same? I can't help but wonder if even the aproximate death count was planned.

Before anyone asks, I have no proof and in terms of evidence, I'd probably rely most heavily on the document from PNAC, but there's so many little things that, while by themselves may not seem so significant, add up to further reinforce my impression.


Have you seen that X-Files scene that predicts 9/11? I think that scene might be very close to the truth. But the guy in the scene emphasise that it is a small faction of the US government that let it happen. That would explain the confusion in communications between intelligence agencies and ignorance of most Government officials towards the events on that fateful day.

[edit on 25/9/2009 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
I've seen the fox movie from early 2001 that shows how they almost hit the buildings in NY because of remote... but i think this is what happened. This is the best theory i can come up with that explains all of 9/11's events that we can't explain but without the real details. I'm gonna take this model theory and go with it from now on.

The FBI always tries to entrap people and set them up, so why not put some employees of raytheon on a raytheon plane with raytheon remotes and then just let the terrorists walk into the trap (which would explain how they easily got on the planes), land the plane by overriding their controls and arrest them.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Interesting theory!

BTW, how did you manage to register and post a new topic all in one day? Nothing wrong with that...just curious.

Mark



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
i got 20 posts done in 1 day...

And i was looking at democratic underground's threads on 9/11 and raytheon and some stuff there is mindblowing in regards to this theory... even the meeting the isi before 9/11 could be that the isi was financing the terrorists in the same way that the FBI financed the guy in dallas or the guy in illinois recently... think they are helping them and then bam! remote teh plane down in a sting and arrest them. Makes perfect senes to me that 9/11 was a blown sting operation using remotes and if that can be proven or investigated further you'll see that everything fits into that theory if you try to with an open mind. Everything. Give it a chance sometime guys and see if all the pieces and confusion fit into this theory.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
i was wondering if maybe it was more like this:




posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
like if the employees were there trying to stop it on their own? Like the government wasn't expecting them to be on the flights but they made a personal choice to be a failsafe and it didn't work?



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 
It, is very close, to what he (Col. Donn de Grand Pre ) thinks happened.(that x file show)

www.the7thfire.com...



[edit on 26-9-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
You could definitely make a case for a mini nuke in a car bomb blowing up the world trade center on 9/11/01, so no CD? Still the pilots had no control over the planes.. that fits my theory... israel plants 3 mininukes and then takes over the remotes that were being used to capture the terrorists?



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
you might want to take a look at this lecture on 9/11 by Webster Tarpley,

It's quite long, so I'll break it down: there were many military exercises taking place that day, several of which involved terrorists flying planes into buildings. Able Danger had something to do with keeping an eye on the terrorists in this scenario. Someone within the Able Danger (or other codename as appropriate) camp was able to subvert the remote controls. My personal suspicion is that the reason the pilots (hah) did so little at flight school is that they knew the tricky stuff would be done for them. Whether they expected to die or not, I don't know.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join