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: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Restricted does no mean guarded, it means restricted.


If you do any research you will find that restricted airspace is normally also guarded.

911exposed.org...
The P-56 is a section of prohibited air space that extends 17 miles in all directions from the Washington Monument. Advancing toward this air space activates air defenses from a joint FAA/Secret Service radar and air traffic control at Langley, VA.




posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 

You first claimed an unarmed Tomahawk did it. What could be wrong with that? The guidance system is for a fixed target, so the plane would have to be stationary with known coordinates. No Tomahawk.
Surface to air missiles can be fired from Navy ships except that there doesn't seem to be much ocean near Shanksville. Air to air missiles are usually too small to be kinetic weapons. If we allow the AA possibility, the problem is that you need an aircraft to do the shooting and no matter what kinetic weapon is used, pieces of airplane come off and the plane breaks up. No aircraft was seen shooting, no parts were found other than those from the crash site and downwind, down flightpath. The other thing about missiles is that they leave really obvious smoke trails. No one claimed to see smoke trails. It seems we are down to cannon fire from an aircraft or ground unit. The same problems as before exist. If there is enough power to bring down an aircraft, there are pieces coming off on the way down. Automatic cannons also tend to make noise and aircraft cannons scatter empty casings along the attack flight path.
If it was a shootdown, where is the evidence?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


The claim was "most guarded...in the world." You have no way of knowing that.
It is "most restricted in the nation" by general acclaim. It is now well guarded but was less so in 2001.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Your whole reply is based on nothing but misread interpretations of my post. Until you stop putting claims in my mouth along with words that suit your argument, I'll no longer respond to anything you post direct to me.

Your post is full of rehtoric intended to incite an argument or attack based response. I told you already it won't work.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Below for those of you who don't know this is the reference for Tomahawk missiles in my other post. It hardly makes a claim to the use of such, only an attempt by me to cite the range of what matters instead of the range of the jets.

But as many who argue the OS story they tend to get their facts twisted and attempt to argue a point thats not there.



Many have dis-info'd on the range of fighter jets, actually its the range of their missiles that count. A play on words in the OS? Perhaps. Considering the accuracy of a Tomahawk is described as "pin point" by the maker, Hughes Missle Systems in Arizona. Range? 690 miles at 550mph.


"You first claimed an unarmed Tomahawk did it."- pteridine

Actually I did not and now your debunked! - mikelee



[edit on 9-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Fabled Enemies is a video that I think those of you who defend the OS should watch. Just a respectful suggestion by me.

Fabled Enemies



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Even though it's off topic, THIS:


The P-56 is a section of prohibited air space that extends 17 miles in all directions from the Washington Monument.


...which was brought from outside by Roger, hows how those who are misinformed can be completely misinformed by others.

And, thus...we get these silly arguments, based on people starting with garbage "information" and unwittingly believing it, then repeating it.

Look at this depiction of the P-56 Prohibited Area in DC (P-56A, and P-56B):

flightaware.com...


The circular one is surrounding the Naval Observatory (traditional Vice Presidential residence), and the larger one encompasses the Mall, from the Washington Monument, to the Lincoln Memorial, (with the WH in between) and then further East to the Capitol.

This is NOT top secret, it is NOT (well, was not) especially more protected, just because it's a Prohibited Area. (Prohibited Areas existed in many other places, in the USA. There's one in Dallas, TX now, over Bush Junior's home, for instance).


SO, the source claiming a "17-mile radius from the Washington Monument" to define P-56 s blatantly wrong, and this is but one example of the sort of terrible misinformation out there.

BTW, just HOW to you think airplanes arrive and depart National Airport??? Yup! They fly right by the P-56 areas....

Oh, and it's interesting to note, the P-56 areas only go up to 18,000. SOME Prohibited areas (military airspace, for example) go to infinity (well, really, 60,000 feet, the upper limit of defined "airspace").

So, understanding the difference between airspace that is controlled in various ways, due to restrictions that differ depending on the nature and activity and purpose is best left to the experts, NOT the armchair Googlers out there....




[edit on 9 January 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Adding comments for this post by the OP:

You have cited information that is current TODAY. The particular rules, the ones you accessed from the AOPA website, are pertininet now, the rules place in 2001 were less stringent, especially regarding the airspeed restriction of 230 knots.

(Normal rule is 250 Knots below 10,000 MSL, in the USA. However, there are OTHER metropolitan areas in the USA, and the World, with additional speed restrictions in place, and not just because of terrorism concerns; it has to do with other factors too).

Once again, full disclosure and understanding will help in misunderstanding those things that are irrelevant, and which lead to false assumptions, and keep the silliness repeating itself.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Below is the FAA interactive restricted airspace mapping site. Here you can add features to see where restricted airspace is.


FAA Restricted Airspace Interactive Map



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


OK you did not. You used it as a bad example because you know nothing about this sort of thing and haven't bothered to learn about the key element of your theory. This is not surprising when you must search for support for a predetermined conclusion.
I explained to you why an unarmed missile wouldn't work. You can't rebut.
Your fantasy is unsupportable.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 





I explained to you why an unarmed missile wouldn't work.


And I provided an official Department of Defense Missile website that says it CAN BE done.

I reckon the DoD is wrong also according to you as well.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


What you provided was a link to the star wars antimissile program. Others and I explained to you why a kinetic energy weapon like those in the link would not be used due to operational suitability, of all things. Further, no matter what weapon was used, as I and others also explained, there would be a debris trail from the impact.
If you want a shootdown of any kind, you'll have to deal with debris scatter from impact. Any missile hit would leave debris from impact. Cannon fire would leave debris from impact.

No aircraft debris from impact was found. No missile track was seen and no missile parts were found. No cannon fire was heard, no aircraft cannon casings were found, no cannon impact on the landscape was found or reported.

This shootdown theory doesn't seem to have much going for it, does it?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I've already laid out my opinion regarding missiles. Two debris locals, proof that missiles do not have to be armed in order to be used.

I'm no longer replying to any of your frivolous posts.


**Ignore list updated**


[edit on 9-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I 100% agree with you that TODAY that sector is more guarded than compared to 2001. But that sector in 2001 was still a guarded one although much less so, it was nevertheless for the sake of discussion, still guarded.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 

You are really confused about this stuff. The second debris locale is downwind and down flightpath from the impact. If there were a shootdown, there would be debris along the flightpath before the impact point.
No evidence. No shootdown.

[edit on 1/9/2010 by pteridine]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Wonder how the Mayor of NYC knew the WTC towers were coming down?
Source: WNBC

Operational Suitability perhaps.



On Tuesday, members of a 911 truth activist group confronted former Mayor Rudy Giuliani at a New York fundraiser about the fall of the World Trade Center. "How come people in the buildings weren't notified?" asked one member of the group. "And how can you sleep at night?" Giuliani's politely-phrased response, caught by WNBC newscameras filming the event, was "I didn't know that the towers were going to collapse." That response contradicts remarks the former New York City mayor made about being warned about the collapse during a phone interview with onetime ABC anchor Peter Jennings on September 11, 2001, as shown in a transcript WNBC obtained from the Giuliani 2008 campaign.

Giuliani told Jennings, "I--I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us."



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Thought this was very interesting.

Interesting



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
"If it was a shootdown, where is the evidence?

Aside from a couple of photos of rusted airplane pieces, there is no physical evidence of a large commercial airliner crashing at the Shanksville site.

"This shootdown theory doesn't seem to have much going for it, does it?"

Agreed. Just like the "let's roll" fairy tale, both versions appear to be fictional accounts. In essence, when you start to scrape crap, you find more crap underneath.

"And, thus...we get these silly arguments, based on people starting with garbage "information" and unwittingly believing it, then repeating it."

Agreed. And the mainstream media was the one who got the ball rolling with redundant garbage information on 9/11, brainwashing the public into unwittingly believing and repeating their rubbish.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


And in the same context, one can say we have people who believe in the 911 Commission Report (OS) and equally post & spread it's contents that states the familiar tale of what happened on 911. It to sounds as if it does not have much going for it either. It was presented as "information" under an official cloak that once one begins to peer behind it, seems just as impossible to me as well as many, many others as any missile proposal.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   
And thats an excellent question there. Where is the evidence? Indeed!

Because if we had it we wouldn't be here discussing missiles and other very plausible scenarios that might sound off to some but to others like myself who know the government involvment regarding 911 extends well into Israel and Saudi Arabia. Including back to the early oil days of the Bush's when Bin Laden and his family gave financial backing to George Bush for his business dealings, and then when Bush's father HW became involved in dealings & business ventures with the Bin Ladens that still exist to this very day, it makes one wonder alot.

My posts are no more outlandish than the OS itself and what I find really disturbing is that the American people have become so sheepish that they'll accept anything presented to them by their government without questions, without scruitny simply because they cannot accept that there may very well be another more sinister explanation for what really caused 911.

I really don't care what anyone on here thinks about me but I do care about the victims who left behind loved ones and are now disgraced by self serving politicians and covert types who think they got away with this. I'll NEVER stop asking questions and tossing out more plausible proposals about what might have happened on 911 because the OS is just a Congress approved version of what they want people to believe happened. When we know better.

corrected spelling

[edit on 10-1-2010 by mikelee]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join