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: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48

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.


Just where is the "Most Heavily Guarded Airspace in the World" Sean? No one assumes the terrorists hit random targets. They hit or were planning to hit symbolic targets. What was WTC 7 a symbol of in the eyes of the world?
How did flight 93 come down? Missiles or passengers?

[edit on 1/9/2010 by pteridine]




posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Sean48
 


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]


I understand, but you mentioned that the terrorists would have known what was in WTC7. But terrorists usually choose targets that make a large significant target that would mean something to those attacked. Hitting the WTC Towers was a strike agianst a symbol of "financial power and prestige". Hitting the Pentagon was a symbol of hitting our "military power". That is how the terrorist picks his target. Hitting WTC7 would just be like, oh, they hit some other building, dont know what THAT was about.

Our "airspace" is guarded and defended agianst INCOMING threats from outside our airspace. This is not USA 1956 with hundreds of fighters on alert, gassed and ready for takeoff in 5 minutes. This 2001, and four jets were on standby.

[edit on 1/9/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I would "assume" the most heavily guarded would be the White House

and Pentagon.

WTC is a symbol of free enterprise, to the world.

The Government ran exercises of that very event , WTC , Pentagon.

Ask them why they would do that?

Shanksville , I don't know much about , I am more into PRE 911

events.

Why the Bush gov protected the terrorist inside the US , and did

everything to ensure 911 happened.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


They had scrambled , I believe 167 times in the year before , when planes

went off course, didn't respond to air traffic.

That day , I guess they had a BBQ, and said %@^ it.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Just where is the "Most Heavily Guarded Airspace in the World"?


Around the Capital and Wite House


What was WTC 7 a symbol of in the eyes of the world?


WTC7 was brought down to stop any more damage and fires from spreading.


How did flight 93 come down? Missiles or passengers?


There is chance that flight 93 was shot down.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 

Why would you assume that? If it was so heavily guarded, how did a small plane land on the Whitehouse lawn? This fallacy about "world's most heavily guarded airspace" is a staple for those that need it to be so for their theories. They must have "assumed" that it was true, also.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
For 93 (or 98 if you read the CIA doc) it makes sense that there was a shoot down of that flight. Why?

* Developing a passenger revolt story is more favorable than just saying "we shot down a commerical airliner over PA."

* This story would allow for the shoot down and subsequent crash. It also places blame on the terrorists thereby allowing command to escape any explanations as to why they shot it down AND public outrage of shooting down an airliner just to kill terrorists.

* As I stated before (in which some have twisted into other things) any missile can be shot at a target with no ordinance loaded into it. Its done for range practice everyday.

Look at the flight path of that airliner after it turned around. its heading straight for DC. I think explains more than some are willing to admit.

AND...if 3 other planes were able to reach their targets then why are we supposed to be led to think this one wouldn't have either?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
The airspace over DC IS the most guarded airspace in the nation. It has been cited as such on CBS news, NBC, ABC, 20/20, Discovery channel, PBS, Dateline and is readily availble for verification on any of the websites that issue pilot alerts & warnings.

This takes very little time to verify, if one has any intention at all of learning facts about 911.



ZDC FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS, WASHINGTON, DC. EFFECTIVE 0708300500 UTC UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO TITLE 14 CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS. THIS REPLACES FDC 7/0197 DUE TO CHANGE IN EFFECTIVE DATE/TIME. ALL VFR AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS WITHIN THE AIRSPACE BETWEEN 30 NMR AND 60 NMR OF 385134N/0770211W OR THE WASHINGTON /DCA/ VOR/DME, FROM THE SURFACE UP TO BUT NOT INCLUDING FL180, ARE RESTRICTED TO AN INDICATED AIRSPEED OF 230 KNOTS OR LESS, IF CAPABLE. IF UNABLE THE PILOT MUST CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE ATC FACILITY AND ADVISE THEM OF THE AIRCRAFT'S OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS PRIOR TO ENTERING THE 60 NMR OF THE WASHINGTON /DCA/ VOR/DME.



AOPA online

The last line= 60 Nautical Mile Restriction of the Washington DC/VOR/DME area.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Why would you assume that? If it was so heavily guarded, how did a small plane land on the Whitehouse lawn?


Probably because it was not considered a threat.


This fallacy about "world's most heavily guarded airspace" is a staple for those that need it to be so for their theories. They must have "assumed" that it was true, also.


Please do research before posting so you at least know what you are talking about.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 

It is generally accepted that the airliner was heading for DC. You still want to claim a missile without warhead shot down the plane but you can't come up with a type of missile, a launch platform, what the missile would have to hit to bring down a large commercial airliner, and why pieces weren't found where the aircraft was hit.

Try a few testable theories for yourself and see if any would work. Surprise us with a plausible scenario.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


What you show is that it is popularly claimed to be the most heavily RESTRICTED airspace in the NATION in 2010.

What was claimed is "guarded....in the World." Note the difference. Many large "No Tresspassing" signs are different from a small "Keep out" sign and a homicidal maniac with a shotgun.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by pteridine
Why would you assume that? If it was so heavily guarded, how did a small plane land on the Whitehouse lawn?


Probably because it was not considered a threat.


Are you are saying that the size of the aircraft was estimated at a distance and it was determined that if it had 1500 pounds of explosives aboard it would not do significant damage and could be ignored?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


If you would bother to do some research on your part rather than putting up some superficial argument to defend the OS, you could determine that also in 2001, this was the most restricted airspace.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Are you are saying that the size of the aircraft was estimated at a distance and it was determined that if it had 1500 pounds of explosives aboard it would not do significant damage and could be ignored?


I am stating an opinion, like you 1500 pounds of explosives.

At the time the plane could have not been considered a threat.

You can sit around all day an second guess what the plane was up to and what, if anything is was carrying.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
What you show is that it is popularly claimed to be the most heavily RESTRICTED airspace in the NATION in 2010.


I hope you know, or can look up that RESTRICTED means that its guarded.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 

Read what you are saying. You think that this "most guarded airspace in the world" would let a plane fly toward the Whitehouse and land on the lawn because it wasn't determined to be a threat. Everyone knew it would land on the lawn.
How guarded is that, again?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Everyone knew it would land on the lawn.


Thanks for proving my point. Eveyone knew what was going on and it might not have been considerd a threat.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


You need to go back and READ what I wrote respectfully because your assertions as to what I claimed and what I theorized are two entirely different things. Your attempts to provoke some form of angered response will not work, so stop trying to provoke one.

You are defending the OS position by simply saying anything I have posted is not possible. This "defense" wouldn't hold up in court and I'm not going to support it here with a response that would be, as evidenced by your previous posts, neverending. I have provided my opinion as to what I believe happened, on the other hand (your position) you are defending as a direct result of the contexts of your replys a stand of defense of the OS itself.

So how about proving to me, why the scenarios I have outlined aren't possible. So far neither you or the OS has come up with any tangible evidence supporting the official story.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


If you would read you would note that you claimed "most..guarded...in the world." Restricted does no mean guarded, it means restricted.
Try working on some of that research yourself. You still haven't come up with any plausible combinations of unarmed missiles and launch platforms for your theory.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Do some research and stop disputing what is a fact.

I'm done with that topic.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join