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.

 

Let's kill the Pentagon Missile attack once and for all.

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I just heard a reporter state that Hurricane Frances sounds just like a jet plane flying over. Get the word out! Hurricane Frances is a Bush administration plot to destroy the Florida electorate (and the President's brother, in the process) just in time for the November election. The strong winds are the result of hundreds of "cloaked" jet aircraft hovering over the coast of Florida.




posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
Would you ever refer to something that contained living people in it as a missile? For me the very idea that he would have been talking about an aircraft with real people on it is almost sick.
A airplane, a vehicle that carries live people.
A missile, an inanimate machine that generally blows things up.
.


For all intensive purposes the terrorist turned them into guided missiles. Its a sick idea and it was hatched in the minds of the terrorist.

You would just be describing how sick terrorist used planes that carried people. They did indeed turn those planes into guided missiles there is no way to sugar coat it.

Missile
n.
An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile.

Yup sounds like they turned those planes into weapons the second they planed to use them as weapons

[edit on 4-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Here are my thoughts on 9/11 in general:

What also gets me is the Cell Phone calls, especially on Flight 93.



FAA headquarters had by this time established an open line of communication with the Command Center at Herndon and instructed it to poll all the Centers about suspect aircraft. The Command Center executed the request and, a minute later, Cleveland Center reported that "United 93 may have a bomb on board." That was the information Command Center relayed to FAA headquarters at 9:34 a.m. Between 9:34 a.m. and 9:38 a.m., the controller observed United 93 climbing to 40,700 feet and immediately moved several aircraft out of its way. The controller continued to try to contact United 93, and asked whether the pilot could confirm that he had been hijacked. There was no response. Then, at 9:39, a fifth radio transmission came over the radio frequency from United 93




That according to foxnews.com's timeline. Fox News


Now, the 9/11 report says the following:




The Report confirms that passengers started placing calls with cell and air phones shortly after 9.32am, four minutes after the Report's confirmation of the plane's attitude of 35,000 feet. These cell calls started some 9 minutes before the Cleveland Center lost United 93,s transponder signal



The only noted drop in altitude was a 700 feet drop at 9:28.

4 minutes later, the first cell phone calls began. The transponder data was not lost until 9 minutes after the first cell phone call, meaning any major drop in altitude would probably have been noted in the 9/11 report.

I suggest you read this data: Cell Phone Altitude Test

According to this test, the probability of a cell phone call going through at 32,000 feet on a plane with much thinner skin than a Boeing is .006%. The probably of mulitple cell phone calls going through is borderline impossible.


Also, a thing to note in the data:



For example if a cell (area serviced by a given cellsite) were a mile in diameter, the aircraft would be in it for one to eight seconds. Before a cellphone call can go through, the device must complete an electronic "handshake" with the cellsite servicing the call. This handshake can hardly be completed in eight seconds. When the aircraft comes into the next cell, the call must be "handed off" to the new cellsite. This process also absorbs seconds of time. Together, the two requirements for a successful and continuous call would appear to absorb too much time for a speaking [connection to be established. Sooner or later, the call is "dropped."


[edit on 4-9-2004 by Cutwolf]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Have you flown on a plane in the last decade? they have cell phones built into the back of the seat in front of you. It's called "Airfone."



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Have you flown on a plane in the last decade? they have cell phones built into the back of the seat in front of you. It's called "Airfone."




All the reports I've read about Flight 93 specifically mention cell phones.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by Cutwolf]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:46 AM
link   
There is only one way to kill this once and for all: there must be evidence that supports only one explanation.

Early in this thread I thought we had established that there is no evidence that it actually was flight 77 hit the Pentagon. There is only evidence that some craft hit the pentagon (read the earlier posts if you don't understand why).

We discussed the problems with the eye witnesses and that the proper way to use eye-witness accounts is to have them state in their own words exactly what they saw. No paraphrasing by the news, no "my brother-in-law saw the whole thing."

What we need is video evidence, photo evidence, hard evidence (actual airplane parts) to show that it only could have been flight 77 and nothing else.

Otherwise we continue to go around in circles where everyone uses the inconclusive evidence to try to prove their own theories. And the evidence we have is consistent with both flight 77 and something else hitting the Pentagon.

Inconsistencies are not evidence. Simulations are not evidence. "Eye-witness" accounts from news reports are not evidence. Explantions by the government and\or experts are not evidence.

We need evidence to put this thing to rest. All other investigations of disasters like this have thorough and meticulous procedures to produce evidence that only supports one explanation (or at least they try to get to that point).



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by piboy
Explantions by the government and\or experts are not evidence.


Well, if you're going to rule out government explanations you're going to have to rule out all investigations of aircraft accidents, since it is the NTSB that investigates all aircraft accidents. Very few airplane crashes are caught on video. The remains of the passnegers were recovered from the site. I just don't know what you expect, except points galore for a subject you will never find an acceptable explanation for.

Over and out.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Well, if you're going to rule out government explanations you're going to have to rule out all investigations of aircraft accidents, since it is the NTSB that investigates all aircraft accidents.


Sigh.

From: www.aviationlawcorp.com...



What Happens To The NTSB Report In Court?

NTSB probable cause determinations are not admissible in evidence!


and more...


Judge's have even a greater concern - if they were to simply show the jury the NTSB Report in all of its finality, juries would simply defer to the opinions of the federal investigators. Litigants would, in effect, be denied their right to a jury trial because the jury's prerogatives would be usurped by the findings of investigators who had investigated a particular accident.


Am I not getting through as to what evidence is? We need to publicly show irrefutable proof that it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. We need journalist reporting on the evidence retrieved from a slow, thorough excavation of the rubble. We need eye-witnesses to swear affidavits at to exactly what they saw. C'mon, they even do this on "Law & Order"!

more...


In order to enable the NTSB to determine the probable cause of accidents and improve aviation safety, its investigators are given more legal power than many governmental agencies. NTSB investigators have the right to interrogate witnesses on demand, inspect files, enter facilities and aircraft, examine the processes and computer data of any party involved in an air crash.


Do you remember this happening?

even more...


What Really Goes On In An NTSB Investigation?

In a major air crash investigation, each of the groups and parties involved, have daily meetings to review the ongoing developments in the investigation. Notes are taken, draft reports are discussed, and various theories as to the cause of the crash are explored.

Do you remember this happening?

still more...


What Is Included In An NTSB Report?

Field investigations result in a factual report, from which the investigator recommends a probable cause determination to the Board. The Board then reviews field investigation reports and votes to adopt, reject or modify the probable cause determination recommended by a Field Investigator.

When the NTSB approves a Field Investigator's Factual Report, their probable cause determination along with a summary of the relevant facts is published on a quarterly basis. You can find all such accidents by date and location in "Briefs of Accident" in the public dockets section of NTSB Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Major accident investigations led by NTSB "Go Teams" are more heavily documented.

uh, where is the flight 77 report? (And we are talking about the crash, not just flight path or how the terrorists go into the cockpit)

and finally...


Air Crash Investigation and Analysis Checklist

The following is an abbreviated list of information from all sources, which experienced aviation accident lawyers should know how to quickly obtain after a major accident, in order to assist a client with an independent investigation:

+ Airworthiness Directives Files
+ Service Bulletins and Letters and Instructions
+ TSOs
+Advisory Circulars and Other FAA Orders
+ General Aviation Inspection Aids
+ Patent Applications
+ Hazard Reports
+ Service Difficulty Reports
+ Malfunction Defect Reports
+ Overhaul and Maintenance Records
+ Annual or Periodic Inspection Records
+ Pilot, Airplane, Engine and Propeller Logbooks
+ Certified NWS Weather Data
+ FAA Facility Logs
+ FAA Aircraft Certification Files
+ FAA Airman License and Medical Files
+ FAA Airman Training Records
+ FAA Aircraft Title and Registration Records
+ TRACON Radar Raw Data generated by ARTS
+ NTAP Radar Raw data from the ARTCC
+ Flight Plans and Ship Logs
+ Investigative Reports of Federal, State, County and Municipal Law Enforcement, Emergency, Fire and
Rescue Agencies

+ Medical Reports (its amazing what is quoted in medical history taken by doctors)
+ Autopsy Reports
+ CAMI Toxicology Reports
+ Wreckage Scene Photos
+ Wreckage Pattern Videotapes
+ Airport Data
+ Navigational Charts
+ Instrument Approach Plates
+ Reports of similar accidents involving similar aircraft or components
+ NTSB and ICAO Safety Summaries and Recommendations
+ Tape Recordings of "all" communications relevant to the accident flight, (not just the usual 5 minutes before and 5 minutes after contact with the accident aircraft)


Does the NTSB's own descriptions of their own investigations sound like what was done for flight 77?


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Over and out.


You just mean "out", right? You are in the military, right?

[edit on 5-9-2004 by piboy]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Here it is: www.ntsb.gov...

Doh! I guess they aren't investigating it.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 01:54 AM
link   
www.ntsb.gov...

according to this report the investigation is open. I would suspect that much of these attacks are classified. At any rate, it is not usually a customary to issue a report prior to the completion of the investigation.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
www.ntsb.gov...

according to this report the investigation is open. I would suspect that much of these attacks are classified. At any rate, it is not usually a customary to issue a report prior to the completion of the investigation.


No. According to the NTSB they aren't doing the investigation! The FBI is! How will the FBI do the investigation? When do we get to see the evidence? We would see the evidence if the NTSB did the investigation.

And yes, they do provide information as they (NTSB) do their investigation. That is their SOP.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
BTW, im sure you all know the pentagon has surface to air missiles in it, to defend from air attacks.


I have wondered this many times.

For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis almost 40 years ago, armed missile launchers will be protecting the nation's capital by day's end Tuesday -- a precaution that comes amid a heightened alert status on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

Apparently they say no. They put these there on the first anniversary.



I would just like to say that although it may seem farfetched given the amount of eyewhitnesses, it is still odd that there is not one image of that plane and that the only footage contains a strange looking object. It's wierd. Why the supression of evidence just like in al other areas of the offical 9/11 investigation. I am willing to accept peoples testimonies that they saw a plane, but one still has yet to be found. It needs to be seen and proven. Deny ignorance and all that.

The offical story is far fetched. you guys know this. Something is quite clearly not right about all of this.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Actually if you want to know the truth, there were no passengers on the plane and it was being flown remotley by ET's based on the secret space base on my anus.

GEEZ.............IT WAS A PLANE!



LOL! That is about the closest thing to reality in this thread (other than a couple people in here who actually do some research outside of the normal conspiracy theory sites)... An acquaintence of mine (I can't really call him a friend, we've only worked on a couple different small projects together) from Oracle was near the naval offices, with 2 people from work, and they ALL saw the plane, they ALL heard the plane, and they ALL saw the plane hit.

Oh wait, sorry, he was probably abducted by those aliens from EdsAnus and brainwashed. My bad.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder
An acquaintence of mine (I can't really call him a friend, we've only worked on a couple different small projects together) from Oracle was near the naval offices, with 2 people from work, and they ALL saw the plane, they ALL heard the plane, and they ALL saw the plane hit.


Get them to tell exactly what they saw in a sworn affidavit and I am willing to listen.

Wait... an aquaintance of yours? was with two other guys? and he said they all saw everything?

Well I'm convinced



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Have you flown on a plane in the last decade? they have cell phones built into the back of the seat in front of you. It's called "Airfone."




All the reports I've read about Flight 93 specifically mention cell phones.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by Cutwolf]


He is right, there was a celphone call to the 911 center by a guy on flight 93 which escapes my mind at this minute, but he got ahold of the westmorland county 911 center a county over from where the plane crashed. so I would suspect they were using tipical cell phones. The only reason I havent said the other calls is I dont believe they are real.




THE 911 CALL. At 9:58 a.m., roughly eight minutes before impact, a 911 emergency dispatcher in neighboring Westmoreland County took a call from a frantic passenger who said he was locked in the bathroom of Flight 93 and that the plane had been hijacked. The caller said there had been an explosion aboard the plane and there was white smoke. Authorities have never explained the report, and the 911 tape itself was immediately confiscated by the FBI.


democrats.com...
another link
www.cnn.com...

and the only reason I know this call is real, and know 911 if prefabercated is I know this call came cause the news station i was listening to was local, they mentioned the 911 call and was going to talk to the cornator at the 911 center, but never did for obvious reasons.

[edit on 5-9-2004 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Why FBI stole the security camera videos of Sheraton Hotel and pentangon's gas station? If this videos only show a plane why we can't see those videos?



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by piboy
Get them to tell exactly what they saw in a sworn affidavit and I am willing to listen.

Wait... an aquaintance of yours? was with two other guys? and he said they all saw everything?

Well I'm convinced


On here it really does not matter if you post facts or names, (do a search for Dan Creed, Oracle). The end result on this forum is: 9 times out of ten, whatever is the most off the wall, most impossible to prove (scientifically or reasonably) explaination, that one *must* be the true one.

indeed


[edit on 5-9-2004 by CatHerder]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 05:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: earthtone
However finding out what that object is is really important seeing as the government have all the other footage and the frames removed from this one.

that would be an admirable goal if it was correctthere are no frames removed from thisit is a security camera stream there are only at MAXIMUM 30 discrete pictures per second probably less than that considering placement and intended use...it is not like video there are no frames

originally posted by: earthtone
Also in the color video I would expect some of the red stripe of a 757 to show up in at least a few pixels. The tape is completely colorless, no clue of a red stripe.

Again, it is not tape these are discrete pictures one jpeg with a delay until the next one is takenit is not only possible for something flying at 500 to never be seen but probable. As for a stripe (if that isnt a truck in the distance or a bird closer up) with the picture so blurry, a small red stripe would more than likely not be identifiable.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Many people who have analysed the video claim that if the video has not had frames removed then that object would have to travelling at thousands of miles an hour. I am no good at maths so I couldn't relate to the sums that were done to back it up.

Don't you think if the object were captured at that second where it is conviniently behind the parking meter then you would see a trace of it as it passed from behind it. you see just as it is behind that and then the explosion happens with a trail of smoke left behind.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 07:16 AM
link   


At this speed there seems to a little jump from when it is behing the parking meter.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join