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.

 

More questions of the OS - Operational Suitability

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


OK, well you've answered your own inquiry then.




posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


I didn't answer anything. I asked you to postulate what missiles were used and how they were launched.
I suggest that you do a bit of research on this topic before posting.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by mikelee
 


I didn't answer anything. I asked you to postulate what missiles were used and how they were launched.
I suggest that you do a bit of research on this topic before posting.


I would suggest that if you have any problems or issues with this thread or my answers that perhaps you find another to post in. Your postings are nothing but an obvious one way street to entertain your OS beliefs with no intent to broaden your understanding of what happened on 911.

This is a conspiracy website and not a website for those who wish to constantly promote the OS via means of malice ridden posts, suggestions and replys.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
The unfortunate fact remains, even if Flight 93 was hit by a missile of whatever sorts, there is no actual evidence supporting it. There are no tracks of debris "upwind" or along the flight path prior to the crash site. If any large pieces broke off they would have plummeted down and landed well before the plane impacted the ground. Even if there was a hole ripped into the fuselage, you would have a trail of debris well before the crash site, and you would have found papers and light debris fluttering down from "behind" the crash site in relation to the movement of the aircraft prior to impact. There were no such reports from anyone. What you did end up having is light debris being discovered DOWNWIND of the crash site and debris strewn in the direction of the aircraft's impact with the ground. This is more indictave of it crashing in one piece, from an intentional suicidal dive into the ground then being shot down by guns or missiles.

But here we have another can of worms that so many in the CT version of events that many in the "truth" movement tend to overlook, or ignore. Why the "shootdown"? Look at it logically. The gist of the 9/11 truth movement is that all the attacks were orchestrated by secret govt entities, and everything was "staged" and blah blah blah. Ok. So, the "OS" has four hijacked aircraft, three of which hit their targets, but the forth does not and crashes in a rural area. Now, apparently since Shanksville appears to be "staged" like a crash, the "OS" is that the brave passengers fought off the hijackers and caused it crash, making them heros. The CT version has some sort of "shootdown". Why the shootdown? It does not make any sense. Why? If the govt planned it all, why would they "shootdown" Flight 93 and then cover it up and say it was crash and create an elaborate hoax that the heros on the flight fought off the terrorists? Wouldnt it make more sense to just admit you shot down the plane? I see no LOGICAL purpose of a shootdown in the "truth" movement's version because it makes no damn sense. The resulting coverup would be a result of not trying to make a bad day worse. You just had a massive loss of life in NYC and DC. Would you want to admit that YOU just shot down an airliner that was hijacked? But then that means there WERE terrorist hijackers.

Of all the conspiracies the truth movement brings up, THIS one with flight 93 does not fit at all logically. The shootdown of the plane would mean there were terrorists and they WERE a threat. And that means the attacks in NYC and DC WERE real attacks. And the "truth" movement just shot itself in the foot. Unless you expect me to believe that Flight 93 was in fact "remote controlled" and no one was on board, and they somehow "lost control" with it and THATS why it had to be shot down. Well that still makes no sense because all they'd have to do is let the plane fly out of control until it lost its gas and crashed outta fuel wherever. And then THAT way the "OS" would be, the terrorist hijackers lost their way and ran out of fuel and crashed.

[edit on 1/9/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Your thread is lacking any rationale. A conspiracy theory has to have something more to it than "unknown forces did unknown things to bring down an airplane because I have a feeling that something else happened and everything wasn't explained to my satisfaction." Granted, this is the pattern of many threads, but that does not make them conspiracy theories either.
Try to tell a better story. The Tomahawk missile strike was entertaining, if nothing else.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Just my theory , not a truther theory,

The hijackers on that plane chickened out.

That explains why they ended up in Shanksville,

Real Target = WTC7

Explains why , for the first time a steel building fell, and why they had to

finish the job and take it down with only small fires inside, to hide the

set up in place,



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by mikelee
 


Your thread is lacking any rationale. A conspiracy theory has to have something more to it than "unknown forces did unknown things to bring down an airplane because I have a feeling that something else happened and everything wasn't explained to my satisfaction." Granted, this is the pattern of many threads, but that does not make them conspiracy theories either.
Try to tell a better story. The Tomahawk missile strike was entertaining, if nothing else.


How about this rational, Natural Forces brought it down, OS story.

If that was the case , Look out , Buildings Falling A., everywhere.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


Buuut, how the heck would the terrorists know which building was WTC7? It doesn't exactly stick out and make a nice target. but then why hit 7 to begin with? Why not the Chrysler Building, or Empire State, or Statue of Liberty?


EDIT to add: not trying to pick on you, because every "new idea" or conspiracy creates more questions that get more and more out of touch with reality and start to get so over complicated it doesnt make sense.

[edit on 1/9/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


911 was a day of death , and of symbolism.

By hitting WTC7 , they hit all the agencies of the US at once , all the

alphabet agencies that represent the US .

Why didn't they hit the White House ?

There are other targets as well, but they didn't collapse on 911, WTC7 did.

edit, by the OS thoery , these guys are flying 757's, you don't think they

could recognize a 47 story building ?



[edit on 9-1-2010 by Sean48]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


You said: "How about this rational (sic), Natural Forces brought it down, OS story. If that was the case , Look out , Buildings Falling A., everywhere."

How does an airplane crash equate to buildings falling? Has anyone claimed "natural forces" brought the plane down? Two of the theories are shootdown and passenger revolt. There may be others, but death-rays-from-space types don't generate a big following.
Read Gen Radek's post above and then explain how a shootdown was necessary.
There also seems to be no evidence, direct or indirect, for a shootdown. If you have any, please bring it forward for all to see.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by mikelee
 


Your thread is lacking any rationale. A conspiracy theory has to have something more to it than "unknown forces did unknown things to bring down an airplane because I have a feeling that something else happened and everything wasn't explained to my satisfaction." Granted, this is the pattern of many threads, but that does not make them conspiracy theories either.
Try to tell a better story. The Tomahawk missile strike was entertaining, if nothing else.


The OS lacks rationale and its an official report as to supposedly what happened on 911. Many professionals have questioned it, other nations have questioned it including nations that are the US's allies, victims of 911 have questioned it and it is still being questioned today.

In the grand sum of it all, it don't matter what I think or post here. The only thing that does matter is that we keep on asking questions and challenging this bullsh** story that we were handed. Perhaps others may take comfort in the OS either because they are paid to support it, cannot bare to think outside of mainstream induced comfort zones or they just realize they can't do anything about it so why even bother.

While I DO respect your opinion & beliefs that you have obviously decided to take solice in regarding the OS, I do not. And I'll never believe it until solid evidence is brought forward, then presented that leaves absolutely no doubt as to what happened. Either way.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I did read the Gen's thread and responded to it.

Ray guns ?

Thats your opinion on how it happened ?

Because it's not a truther theory.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


But exactly how many "Regular Joes" in America knew what was in WTC7? As far as a majority of Americans, to them, WTC7 was just an office building thats part of the WTC complex. I didn't know and I'm pretty sure not too many people outside the US even knew what the WTC7 was about, what is its purpose, etc. You see? Starting a new "theory" begins to automatically bog down when looked at logically. It the "terrorists" wanted to make a statement, they could have hit the Capitol Building, the White House, Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge, Empire State, heck there is a list of much more powerful meaning targets than WTC7.
When the Twin Towers were hit, it was an attack agianst our financial sector AND our symbol of strength. If WTC7 was hit, i dont think people in NYC would be going, "OMG! They just hit the FBI/CIA/NSA/FEMA/etc Building!"

[edit on 1/9/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


Sean,

Thats a nice sig ya got there. And it's the TRUTH



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


The topic is flight 93 not WTC7. I do not subscribe to Judy's death ray theory.
Try reading the posts a little more carefully, if you can.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
The more research you do the more questions come up, the more the official story falls apart.

If you want to know the truth truth please join me in posting FOIA requests and e-mails to the agencies and companies involved.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Sean48
 


But exactly how many "Regular Joes" in America knew what was in WTC7? As far as a majority of Americans, to them, WTC7 was just an office building thats part of the WTC complex. I didn't know and I'm pretty sure not too many people outside the US even knew what the WTC7 was about, what is its purpose, etc. You see? Starting a new "theory" begins to automatically bog down when looked at logically. It the "terrorists" wanted to make a statement, they could have hit the Capitol Building, the White House, Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge, Empire State, heck there is a list of much more powerful meaning targets than WTC7.


Please my friend , its my thoughts only because you asked what the

plane was doing in Shanksville.

You credit them with defeating the Most Heavily Guarded Airspace in the

World. But you assume they hit random targets on that day?

These weren't regular joes , these guys had predetermined targets.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by Sean48]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
The 911 Commission Report is just that, a report. Its NOT an official disclosure of evidence.

Heck, I can write a report on what I believe happened on 911. Will everyone agree? Nope.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
There may be others, but death-rays-from-space types don't generate a big following.


You brought up Death Rays , not me.

Please read the post , your own included.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
What I think is more disturbing is the number of people who read what people like me post about what we think really happened then ask for "evidence", "proof" or "official sources" when those who worked on the 911 case in an official capacity can't even offer up the same "evidence", "proof" when asked of them by people such as myself.

If everyone thought we are just a bunch of conspiracy nuts, then produce the evidence collected to back up the OS then. Its that simple. They already admitted they go it so....

Where's it at then?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join