It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If the government was in charge of 9/11 what's the deal with terror?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 09:03 PM

Originally posted by dgtempe
Ok, some people want all the attention, which is why they continually post and go against everybody.

I need someone to answer this question:


Since what hit was apparently a cargo plane,what did they do to flight 175?

Something similar to what happened to Jimmy Hoffa maybe? I mean, its fairly easy to kill people and get rid of their bodies so that nobody will ever find them.

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 10:12 PM
While Im not certain 911 was a hoax [ I am convinced about Oklahoma City], I suspect they crashed the planes in the Atlantic ocean. You remember the one stewardess from one of the wtc flights? She doesn't mention Manhatan or a city, she mentions being too low over the water. If you crash a plane correctly into the ocean it will virtually disintegrate.

Upon impact, the plane was shattered into millions of pieces and spread across the bottom of the sea.
If it is in deep enough water it will probably not be found for a century.

In the video 'Senator Mark Dayton, Norad Lied'

. . . Yet taped recordings of both NORAD and FAA both reportedly documented that the order to scramble was in response to an INACCURATE FAA REPORT that AMERICAN FLIGHT 11 had not hit the 1st World Trade Tower and was HEADED TO WASHINGTON.

Norad Commision Commander ordered his only 3 other planes on alert in Virginia to scramble, to fly north to Baltimore. Minutes later when he was told a plane was approaching Washington he learned the planes were flying EAST OVER THE ATLANTIC OCEAN.


posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 10:21 PM
Links to where your quotes came from would be helpful so we can see the context they are used.

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 10:27 PM
It is from another thead.
The first quote comes from about 2/3rds the way through
The second quote comes from about 1/3rd the way through

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 10:40 PM
Good video explaining the chaos surrounding 9-11. NORAD and FAA screwed up and miscommunicated, making the chance of intervention impossible, thats what I get from the video.

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 11:24 PM

Originally posted by slank
While Im not certain 911 was a hoax [ I am convinced about Oklahoma City], I suspect they crashed the planes in the Atlantic ocean. You remember the one stewardess from one of the wtc flights? She doesn't mention Manhatan or a city, she mentions being too low over the water. If you crash a plane correctly into the ocean it will virtually disintegrate

Very interesting. I will definately read about it. Thanks]

The plot thickens.

[edit on 19-8-2004 by dgtempe]

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 11:39 PM
I have heard a couple of good ideas on what possibly happened to the actual flight(s). One is that they were forced to land at a military base and then all boarded the flight that was later shot down/crashed in Pennsylvania. I think it's more likely they were crashed into the Atlantic.

I would be interested in some accounts by people that saw an unreported crash in the Atlantic or saw commercial flights land at a base. I'm sure nothing like that would ever surface unfortunately.

Let me stress something though. I think it's very important for all people researching the subject to pay attention to the footage and physical evidence rather than explain away the improbability of the possible reasons or the fate of the commercial airlines. There are so many things that we, the general population, don't know about, including technological capabilities of the government.

So, just because you cannot reason the cause of the coverup doesn't mean the physical evidence is an illusion.

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 11:40 PM
VIN - Vehicle Identification Number

If they landed the planes and painted over the old logos and stuff, would there be serial numbers throughout the plane that would still identify it as the original plane?

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 12:12 AM
Probably not the same planes, but good thinking.

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 12:28 AM
First SkiBum and I seem to share the same mindset/opinions.

Just because the people who set up sites like the ones listed here and for that matter the posters on ATS do not share the opinions of the mainstream does not mean that they cannot try and seek what they believe to be the truth for themselves.
I myself believe that there is something wrong with the explanation released by the US Government regarding the events leading up to and including the attacks of 911, am i a nut? Perhaps but it is my right to look at evidence in the public domain and express an opinion,to Deny Ignorance if you will,and if someone dissagrees with my ideas then i can respect that.
But to debunk and call people crazy because they dont agree with what you believe to be right Patriot is wrong and uncalled for.

I never called anyone a NUT, you are entitled to your opinion, thats what makes this world go round. Its good that you are exploring different ways this could have went down cause you are not comfortable with what you are being told. Vigilance is always good esp in the times we live in. Again I didnt call anyone crazy, laughable maybe but not crazy. I dont know how you blew what i said this much out of context. I was simply looking for solid proof by credible people to back up claims from all these various places, is all.

Secondly Janus, the links you posted were better than most but still absolutly nothing conclusive. The first one was the best but there was no conclusion, only said that more tests were to follow. I understand that you nor I are exprerts on this subject matter. I cannot speak for you, but I have immersed myself in aeronautics since i was a young kid (doesnt make me an expert but just via the knowledge i have gaind along the way i can dispute some bogus claims. I also have a background in engineering (not in civil) BUT, know a decent amount about, construction, fireproofing, trusses, and the melting point of steel, and the combustion temperatures of that jet fuel, pressure testing of concrete etc. which i fall back on any time somone makes these claims. If i thought somthing was suspicious in a related field that i knew nothing about, I would surely not make blind guesses as to what was happen and spread the to the world about how I am right, even if it LOOKED that way. Looks can be decieving.

As far as the binladen family being taken out of this country... well its publically known that the binladen family had 50+ kids (or somwhere around there) Osama was just one of them.... he was a outcast of that family. That fam being as big as it is, some settled in the US now since they are wealthy well connected ppl, and Bin Laden was their last name.. tell me you wouldnt drop a deuce in your pants if america just got attacked by your radical brother and ppl want vengence... of course you would want to be escorted out of the country with the quickness.

all you have to do is look at the frame by frame versions of the film shot by CNN, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc., all were shot from different angles, all show that the planes were armed aircraft, not commerical airliners. I have been asking for over 6 months for anyone to show that the films were fake. NO takers. As for a little bit of history....

Armed commercial aircraft.. Right. why because "you cant see the windows" or "its carrying a pod under it". The windows were probably all closed, because that usually protocal when a plane gets hijacked. The pod idea was discussed on another thread.. gota find it.. and logical conclusions yeilded that it was normal part of the aircrafts structure. WHY would they be armed? they could load the bays with explosives, WHY would they shoot a missle RIGHT into the building before hitting it? Furthermore, if you calim that these were military planes, WHAT KIND of military planes? Give me model numbers. Those look like civilian aircraft to me, and NOT military aircraft by any means. the fog of war can be very deceptive, make you see things that you dont. AND even IF the gov was gonna attack WTC you think theyd really do it with military aircraft.. you really think that you guys(the ppl claiming this) would be the first to notice it? You think that NO ONE in the city that saw the planes would think.. hmm WHY is a USAF plane crashing into the WTC...? THINK about it if the gov was planningthis.. or at least if I was the gov planning this and was gonna fake it like a hijacking ID AT LEAST USE CIVI PLANES... i think the gov can get their hands on 737's if they really wanted to it wouldnt be that hard. OK enough of that.

On to the next bizzaro fact.

-at least 3 camera angles recording a flash on the outside of the tower just before the nose of the 2nd plane hit
-1 camera recording a flash before the first plane hit the tower

Planes often have antenna extending from their nose a couple of feet. Also have oxygen rich canisters in the nose of the airplane..push the antenna into the cannesters at a high rate of speed and bam .. ive seen the "evidence" and the flash is AS the plane hits not moments before it hits. BIG difference.

No terrorists took credit for September 11th, that's another lie that has become "fact" because of our media. There is one video of Osama Bin Laden laughing about the attacks, but he doesn't say anything that would lead anyone to believe that Al Qaeda was responsible.

Im going to really trying to refrain from going apesh*it on that one... Didnt you see the video of OBL prasing the work, saying that even he didnt think the towers would come down that the were hoping for at most lots of loss of life and large fires. HOW ON EARTH can you make that claim... really the motto of this site is deny ignorance not promote it. How come no one else said anything about that.. you dont really believe that do you???


I dont wanna quote slanks whole post but what he said was again, not informed. We have got to understand that this fire in the WTC was NOT a normal fire. Let me put it this way. If i workd in the WTC and light a trash can on fire, that fire spread like crazy It still wouldnt burn half as hot as it was burning on 9/11. The intence heat from the jet fuel made the fire proofing on the support beams and trusses nonexistant. Building support beams by fire code, do not have to withstand that type of stress/temperature. When the planners were making the building they planned for a plane (of the 60-70s era) hitting it but not the intence heat that would result if a plane topped of with jet fuel would hit the towers. The temps of fires in that skyscraper link that slank posted due to conditions was no more than 1000F and thats a very liberal estimate. When you guys figure out at what temp industrial steel which was as thick as the WTC's starts to melt/twist/bend/giveway, nd what temp aircraft fires burn at ill be waiting here. Remember also to keep in mind the TONS of building above the fire zones that are weighing in on the stressed out steel. Furthermore the design of the WTC buildings since there were no main support beams running down the bulding (most of the structural static support was provided throgugh the innovative use of the buildings skin frame, and trusses) This was NOT the best platform for a fire of that magnitude. Should i keep going???

[edit on 20-8-2004 by RealisticPatriot]

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 12:36 AM
You still miss the point realistic patriot.


posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 12:43 AM
BECAUSE think about it. Im going to put you in the position of a Exec who is responsible for demolishing a building in the most econimical way possible. Option 1, drill holes in support beams, place high explosive charges in support beams , blow them in succession and watch the building implode. Option 2, right the whole building with jet fuel, (or fuel that would burn hot enough to weaken the support beams) and letter rip, ass blood and guts everywhere. Not to mention, you just used up a TON of precious jet fuel. TNT's a dime a dozen.

[edit on 20-8-2004 by RealisticPatriot]

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 02:16 AM
Listen RP, I respect and admire your enthusiasm, but I hate to inform you that you are wrong. Until you speak the arabic dialect that Bin Laden does, then you can't tell me what he said exactly. His point wasn't that they caused more damage than they had tried to, his point was that more damage was caused than he would have thought if planes hit the WTC towers. See, a little difference in context than we're led to believe, show that video to an arab who speaks the language, I found someone and they translated the point as though Bin Laden was surprised at the damage in general, not that they had been overly successful in a mission.

I think the suspicious part in immediately (2 days) evacuating the Bin Ladens without interviewing them was kind of strange if the CIA thought that Osama was behind the attacks. I agree with you that they were probably in danger, but the McVeighs, nor the Dahmer's or any other convicted murderer's family has ever been escorted out of the country for fear of their safety, so that's not really a solid argument as to why we helped them leave. Maybe because they were close friends to the Bush family? That would make a little more sense, I think at least.

Regarding military aircraft, they use Boeing 767's too.
(Copied and pasted from

"Government, Military and VIP Airplanes: The same qualities that make Boeing jetliners the airplanes of choice for airlines around the world also are important in the airplane selection processes of governments, military organizations and specialized commercial operations. In addition to the Boeing Business Jet, Boeing Commercial Airplanes also offers its full range of models for these applications. Many of these are offered in partnership with the Boeing Integrated Defense Systems business unit.

For airborne reconnaissance, the 737 airplane serves as the platform for Airborne Early Warning & Control, and the 767 provides the platform for Airborne Warning and Control System, or AWACS aircraft.

Boeing has long been the industry leader in providing refueling capability to the world's air forces with the KC-135 (a 707 derivative) and the KC-10 (a DC-10 derivative). Today, the 767 is the platform for a new tanker that has been selected by Japan and Italy and is under consideration for purchase by the U.S. Air Force."

As far as the structure of the WTC towers, they most definitely had a CORE support structure! And FEMA said that most of the fuel probably burned off in the explosion and any remaining fires were fueled by office furniture, trash and other debris, not aviation fuel, so your buddies have a conflicting view with you.:

As far as temperatures that jet fuel burns and construction steel weakens and melts:

Aviation fuel burns at around 800 degrees F., but can reach up to 1,700 in optimum conditions (extremely oxygen rich environment)
Steel melts at around 2800 degrees

Follow the link below, then in the left side upper menu click on "About the WTC" under "911 Related" Then scroll down to see a good picture of the flash to the right of the nose and before the plane hit. Also, I would like to see a picture of a commercial Boeing with an antenna on the front of the nose.

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 02:41 AM
Oh yeah, call a demolition company and ask them how much it would cost to demolish a 1,500 ft. building, much less a 200 foot building, then look into the cost of aviation fuel. Professionally demolishing a building using explosive charges is much more expensive than buying 29,000 gallons of aviation fuel.

5 story building.....$165,000:

That's just one example, but google it, you'll find more, usually $20 per sq. foot.

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 02:50 AM
Maximum fuel capacity 757: 11,466 gallons

Into-plane fuel costs, which include delivery costs, jumped 23.4 percent in April to $1.18 per gallon, compared with 95 cents per gallon for the same month a year ago.

11,466 * 1.18 = $13,529.88

Im having some difficulty finding an invoice price for drilling, blasting and purchasing blasting supplies, but i find it very difficult to think that the cost of drilling and setting charges for several weeks would cost anything near that low.

Presumably the loading and hauling of debris would be essentially the same in either case.

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 03:27 AM
So what you are saying is the government is trying to save a few million dollars destroying a few buildings, by faking hijackings and killing 3000 people. Then the government is going to pay a 5 Billion dollar bailout to the airlines, pay the combined families invoved a few billion, spend billions upon billions on the insuing wars.

Hmmm makes sense to to me spend 500 billion to save 2 billion.

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 03:45 AM
If this about anything, then it's not money. Remeber that Bush planned to invade Afghanistan and Iraq all along. The patriot act could have been passed in no other climate. Creating a fued between the west and Arab nations will mean further conflict resulting in intervention resulting in control. Control over oil supplies for one.

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 04:23 AM
No one said this was engineered by the government to save money in the demolition of the buildings! RealisticPatriot said that demolishing a building using explosives was cheaper than using jet fuel to burn it down. It was an attempt to somehow say that jet fuel could bring down a building efficiently.


But, while we're at it, i was reading an article the other day, haven't been able to find it since, but the owner of the WTC towers, who purchased them about 6 months before the attacks, took out 2 terorrist attack policies on the towers and is currently in court b/c he's trying to get 7.8 billion from the insurance, on the basis that it was 2 attacks, and the insurance company is saying it was one attack, so he should get 3.9 billion. Either way, he'll make more than he paid for the towers, I thnk it was 3.2 billion.

If anyone has read that or a similar article, please post it, because I've been going crazy trying to find it.

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 05:44 AM

Someone copied and pasted most of it into this blog.

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 06:31 AM
I only say, it was impossible with today's technology to set up such demolition leaving no trace of it. Quite sure, that those massive buildings just couldn't collapse due to jetfuel. Tests using the original material from the WTC being reassambled , proved that jetfuel cannot do any damage to that steel structure.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in