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.

 

Empty Plane Theory

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


The speed of sound in dry air at sea-level pressure and 20 °C, 768MPH, Mach 1 by definition.

They weren't anywhere near mach 1, and yes they were dawdling... 0 out of 4 planes were intercepted*.



*There is the possibility that the shanksville plane was shot down, a few witnesses heard an explosion before the impact, and there were jets seen in the area.




posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
What is the point of this thread? It clearly is not to have a discussion since the OP has his mind made up and refuses to listen to anything posted that does not agree with him. Even if the post involves logic and/or facts.

P.S.- I knew multiple people who were killed on the planes through various jobs I have had.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by revolutionphase1
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Isnt it strange how you can accept a faked plane crash through a TV show, yet be in denial of a conspiracy once a real plane crash occurs? My theory stands-there were ZERO "innocent-Americans" on board. Its un-fair to say only one plane had passengers heroic enough to "crash it" prior to hitting its target. That idea only builds the illusion.


I can accept a fake plane crash on a tv show because its.. uh... a tv show....

And besides, even LOST has less plot holes in it regarding the faked Oceanic 815 than does this theory. Im not a denying there isnt some sort of validity to 9/11 conspiracies... I just tend to gravitate to those that involve professors from BYU researching the super thermite found at ground zero



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by revolutionphase1

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by richierich931
 



Transcript of cockpit voice recorder from Flight 93

files.findlaw.com...


Nice find
What a load of bull that transcript is


So is that simply denial based on your preconceived beliefs, or do you have any form of actual evidence that invalidates the recording? The psychology of you guys fascinates me.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


"Allah is Great" doesnt work for me.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by backwherewestarted
What is the point of this thread? It clearly is not to have a discussion since the OP has his mind made up and refuses to listen to anything posted that does not agree with him. Even if the post involves logic and/or facts.

P.S.- I knew multiple people who were killed on the planes through various jobs I have had.


If you would like to keep this topic going, what are the names of these so-called people you knew on-board?
Let's look em up.
edit on 3-2-2012 by revolutionphase1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ICanThink
reply to post by Alfie1
 


So nobody heard the recording, just the transcript?
Is an axe standard tool on a plane?
Is it possible to brake in into cockpit with it?
How much time left till the target?

If I were them, I would try to accomplish my mission. Heading the plane into ground is stupid.


As it said in the link I gave you the recording was played to the jury at the Moussauoi trial. The FBI have also played it for relatives of UA 93 passengers.

I see thedman has already answered your question about an axe. I am quite sure that pre 9/11 an axe would have dealt with most cockpit doors but it was in the cockpit with the hi-jackers.

If the target was in Washington, as seems most likely, there was another 127 miles to go.

I am sure the terrorists would have dearly wanted to complete their mission but it wasn't an option for them. It appears that their guy in the cabin had already been killed or disabled by the passengers and they were on the point of breaking in. You can get a flavour from this sentence, in Arabic on the recording, " They want to get in here, Hold, hold from the inside, Hold from the inside, Hold.".



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by richierich931
 


According to pilots the F 15's reached Mach 1.2

Now who are going to believe ... The pilots or conspiracy loons?


03:56:39 LT COLONEL "DUFF", PILOT, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us. And, and Nasty even called me on the, radio and said, Duff, you're super. I said yeah, I know. You know, don't worry about it.

03:56:51 MAJOR "NASTY", PILOT AIR NATIONAL GUARD
I was kind of wondering why he going so fast. We really didn't have verbal authorization to go supersonic.

03:56:58 CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS
(VO) The fighters are hurtling toward New York at mach 1.2, nearly 900 mile per hour. They are 153 miles from the World Trade Center.

03:57:08 LT COLONEL "DUFF", PILOT, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
I just wanted to get there quickly.

03:57:10 MAJOR "NASTY", PILOT AIR NATIONAL GUARD
We're going as fast as we could.


At that time nobody knew the intentions of the hijackers, The shootdown orders would not come until 10:10 Am
by which time all the planes had crashed.

What were they supposed to do? Shootdown the plane over Manhattan?

Brillant logic at work here



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by revolutionphase1
 


I know which report you got that from! I read it myself!



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by revolutionphase1
reply to post by Varemia
 


"Allah is Great" doesnt work for me.


That really is a pathetic response; simple unthinking denial because it doesn't fit your theories.

Well the cockpit voice recorder and its recording exists so I suppose we are meant to infer that you are calling it fake. One of so many calls of "fake", whenever inconvenient evidence is encountered.

Fact is there are supposed to have been so many "fakes" in relation to 9/11 that an army of top flight scientists and technicians could not have accomplished them in years, let alone the less than 8 months from January 2001 when Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld took office. And it is not exactly obvious why all these scientists and technicians should be happy to help out in mass murder and then forever remain silent.

Just on this question of the cockpit voice recorder you obviously haven't considered the complexities. The cvr doesn't stand alone it interfaces with other evidence that also would have to have been faked. The flight data recorder indicates inputs to the aircraft controls which ties in with what is being said by the hi-jackers and I haven't yet seen any practical proposal for faking an FDR which records multiple functions of the plane per second.

In the cvr recording also are communications between UA 93 and Cleveland Air Traffic Control (inadvertently on the part of the hi-jacker who thought he was just addressing passengers) which tie up precisely with the ATC tapes. You can listen hear to the ATC tapes which mirror exactly the hi-jack pilots announcement of a bomb on board and Cleveland's attempts to contact the aircraft as on the cvr :-

www.youtube.com...

You will also note on the ATC tapes that other aircraft are involved in the exchanges and identified themselves. So, your simple denial of the cvr means the flight data recorder was faked in some unimaginable manner, the Air Traffic Control tapes were faked and their personnel are "in on it", and the captains of other aircraft in the vicinity must also be "in on it".



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
I see thedman has already answered your question about an axe. I am quite sure that pre 9/11 an axe would have dealt with most cockpit doors but it was in the cockpit with the hi-jackers.

If the target was in Washington, as seems most likely, there was another 127 miles to go.


Ah, so the passengers did not use an axe to open the cockpit door. How they could possible open it then?

127 miles can be covered in 15 minutes. Not that much.

So in the other 3 planes one terrorist controlled all the passengers and crew, and they did not want to regain control, because it was fine for them that the plane will land somewhere and the terrorist start to negotiate about money.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1


That really is a pathetic response;


Seriously. Are there *any* Truther responses that are not pathetic? The April Gallop law suit fiasco is back in the news which just serves to underscore how absolutely bat-poop crazy these people are.

Rock on.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ICanThink

Originally posted by Alfie1
I see thedman has already answered your question about an axe. I am quite sure that pre 9/11 an axe would have dealt with most cockpit doors but it was in the cockpit with the hi-jackers.

If the target was in Washington, as seems most likely, there was another 127 miles to go.


Ah, so the passengers did not use an axe to open the cockpit door. How they could possible open it then?

127 miles can be covered in 15 minutes. Not that much.

So in the other 3 planes one terrorist controlled all the passengers and crew, and they did not want to regain control, because it was fine for them that the plane will land somewhere and the terrorist start to negotiate about money.


That is really lame. 15 minutes or so is a very long time when you have angry desperate passengers smashing the door in and why does an axe have to be the sole essential tool for that ?

Until 9/11 the usual hi-jack procedure was to land somewhere and issue demands, everybody would have been aware of that so why risk getting the plane blown up. UA 93 was late taking off and the passengers became aware from various phone calls that planes had been flown into the WTC and that their fate would likely be the same.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
That is really lame. 15 minutes or so is a very long time when you have angry desperate passengers smashing the door in and why does an axe have to be the sole essential tool for that ?

Until 9/11 the usual hi-jack procedure was to land somewhere and issue demands, everybody would have been aware of that so why risk getting the plane blown up. UA 93 was late taking off and the passengers became aware from various phone calls that planes had been flown into the WTC and that their fate would likely be the same.


I do not know how hard is it to break the door, but I guess it must be quite protected. I do not think they keep something in the cabin that can be used as a weapon. Can you make a suggestion what could the passengers you to break the door?

"Usual hi-jack procedure" sounds a bit strange, as it is hard to predict terrorists. Using planes as weapons was already considered pre-9/11 (was it Rice who lied about it, I do not remember?..)
Anyway, the crew must have had instructions what to do in such case. Anyone has knowledge if there were instructions and what they were?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ICanThink
 


I don't think that pre 9/11 cockpit doors were anything special as regards security but someone like proudbird could tell you better.

As to what could the passengers have used to smash in the door, well in the film about UA 93 don't they use a refreshment trolley as a battering ram. Might have been; there are apparently sounds of breaking crockery or glass on the cockpit voice recorder close to the end. Or they might have just been kicking it in; no-one will ever know.

Guidance for dealing with hijacks pre 9/11 was apparently covered by the FAA approved "Common Strategy". Basically, don't make waves; which was not at all applicable to 9/11. It is described in this statement under "Common Strategy".

www.9-11commission.gov...



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ICanThink
 



I do not know how hard is it to break the door, but I guess it must be quite protected. I do not think they keep something in the cabin that can be used as a weapon.


If you recall your last flight (or remember to notice on the next one) when you use the lavatory....the doors to the lavs are made almost identically as the doors to the cockpits were (before 9/11. All U.S. airliners have been retro-fitted with far stronger doors since, although that program wasn't complete until several years after 9/11).

Yes, they were light-weight. There are any number of items in the cabin that could be used to "pound" on the earlier design doors. But, the Human foot and leg is actually quite powerfully effective, if you set your mind to it, and have sufficient strength.

The doors were merely a honeycomb fiberglass/composite inner core, with very thin sheets of aluminum covering, then a thin veneer of what is essentially vinyl wallpaper, to decorate and provide the color scheme per each airline's decorative look.

On 9/11 though, the cockpits were stormed when the doors were opened.....Flight Attendants have to open the door in order to bring food and beverage, and for other duties they have (there is a LogBook just for non-safety items in the cabin, where they can write up something that is broken or missing. This LogBook is stored in the cockpit).

Prior to 9/11, attention to such intrusions by force was lax.....it is understandable that they were taken by surprise so easily. As far as I know, there had not been a previous hijacking event (which are studied continually in refresher training) that occurred in this way previously.

On a side note, a personal experience just in 2008. By then, all U.S. airliners had been completely retro-fitted. And strict security protocols also added, and in place.

However, on a trip to Europe, I was a passenger on KLM, on an Airbus A320. It was morning, from London to Copenhagen, and the Flight Attendants were just as cavalier about the cockpit security as we used to be before 9/11. I was seated up near the front, and had a clear view as the Forward Flight Attendant was serving the pilots their breakfast and orange juice and coffee, about 20 minutes after take-off (also a typical time for that, in routine airline operations). She left the cockpit door wide open, and unattended for several minutes as she carried items in, returned to the galley and busied about, then carried more in on a second trip, until finally closing the door.

Such lax attitudes were common for the majority of the existence of the airline industry. To see it still happening, though, and on a respected and professionally-run airline was quite surprising....(don't give people any ideas.....I hesitated to even share this, but it needed to be said, I think.....)

Also, just found this article....a similar event occurred here in the USA. Amazing:

Pilot Bathroom Breaks: The Latest Air-Safety Issue?


In just three seconds, a hijacker could take over a plane. How? By waiting for the pilot to go to the bathroom.


That is yet another vulnerability that is a fact of life....and nature.

And:

On April 28, 2007, a passenger flying from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport to San Diego filed a complaint saying that the cockpit door was open for five minutes mid-flight, according to TSA records.

More recently, on May 3, 2010, a passenger flying between Columbus, Ohio, and St. Louis said the cockpit door was opened a minimum of five times during the flight.


So, there will be inattentiveness, regardless, since Humans are Human and fallible. Just hope there isn't a coincidence with a team of terrorists ready and willing to do it again, and are afforded the opportunity like those two examples above.

(With the complaints on file, those crews would certainly have had to have been investigated in some way)....




edit on Fri 3 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


yes if u havent noticed the whole media is basicly controlled by them
and ur excuse whitch is the same they come up with is the lamest excuse EVER really
if it was anticipated how could u report it before it came down?
how?
its bs
and there are many more things that dont add up but the goverment wont release the data on these weird stuf
that means i know enough
i usally dont respond to 9 11 threads so dont bother replying
there are simply to much people who will believe anything the goverment says
they probably deserve what is coming

and im not saying that there werent people in the plain i think there prob ably were
but i dont buy the official story
and 50 percent more actually of america also doesnt
but he believe whatever u want
edit on 3-2-2012 by thebestnr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Just because something is placed in front of you doesnt mean it has to be authentic.
You trust your pilot/goverment/doctor/dentist....anything they say...HAS to be true.
"Allah is great" makes you truley believe middle eastern people were on board.
Shanksville makes you believe passengers were on board.
Transcripts, victims and witnesses all make 9/11 seem like an attack from overseas.
All of the evidence could have easily been made-up. Not hard when your the one who prints the money.
Conspiracy website = conspiracy theories



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ICanThink
 



Ah, so the passengers did not use an axe to open the cockpit door. How they could possible open it then?


Thats because the axe is STOWED IN THE COCKPIT!

Difficult to use when behind a locked door or did you fail to consider that.....?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Remote controlled planes. War game hijacking and cruise missile exercises as cover. Someone was hacking the Faa and Norad. I think Ptech was the company. Not sure, but they are another Israeli company that was close to the hijackers not to mention the Israeli spies that lived doors down from Atta while the terrorists were training for their mission



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join