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.


What Happened to the Planes? 911 and Logic

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 09:57 AM

You are quite right that it is completely illogical to hi-jack 4 passenger planes only to disappear them and substitute them with other flying vehicles to simulate those very same planes. Only in trutherdom can that absurd additional complexity make any sense and there is not a shred of evidence to support it.
reply to post by Alfie1

Oh for goodness' sake. What part of Operation Northwoods do you not understand?

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 09:59 AM
reply to post by elmoastro

That is a lot of waffle to avoid answering the OP's question. What happened to the planes ?

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Morg234

You are quite right that it is completely illogical to hi-jack 4 passenger planes only to disappear them and substitute them with other flying vehicles to simulate those very same planes. Only in trutherdom can that absurd additional complexity make any sense and there is not a shred of evidence to support it.
reply to post by Alfie1

Oh for goodness' sake. What part of Operation Northwoods do you not understand?

I am unfamiliar with Operation Northwoods. I'm going to google it and see what I get, but if you could share any input it would be greatfully appreciated.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Morg234

You are quite right that it is completely illogical to hi-jack 4 passenger planes only to disappear them and substitute them with other flying vehicles to simulate those very same planes. Only in trutherdom can that absurd additional complexity make any sense and there is not a shred of evidence to support it.
reply to post by Alfie1

Oh for goodness' sake. What part of Operation Northwoods do you not understand?

The whole point of the suggested substitution in the rejected Operation Northwoods plan was to fake an aircrash but with no-one getting hurt.

Are you saying no 9/11 passengers got hurt ?

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:15 AM
reply to post by Alfie1

The planes are irrelevant if bigger questions overshadow. First, you aren't supposed to figure it out. It's the nature of a con.

If the OP wants to speculate, then look at places like Marana - Pinal Park, any of the military air bases. It's not hard to create a scenario of either real people/planes or the appearance of the same.

Barksdale AFB had nukes ready for unauthorized transport. It was stopped. Nearly every airman involved has died. What does this have to do with 9/11? It's all the same game.

Try looking up manifest lists or take a look at vicsim data. If any part of 9/11 is a charade then the planes/passenger question is nearly irrelevant as it could be manufactured or scenario-driven as stated in previous posts.

The world isn't always what you think it to be in terms of personal and group understanding. It's only through perspective and shedding of belief structure that some things become understood.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:28 AM
One thing noone really talks about is how 2 of the planes actually crossed paths directly on top of Stewart air force base. What are the chances of that? I believe the base was privitized right before 911. . Been a while since I read about it so my info could be off just a bit. Just another amazing coincidence.
edit on 7-4-2012 by mayabong because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:00 PM

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Just to satisfy my curiosity and yours.......................

And here is a great page...........and a load of info

Notice size of Aircraft (to scale) to wall. Mmmm? Notice altitude of Aircraft to get it in at that angle.......Mmmm? Bull Sh

edit on 6-4-2012 by CaptainBeno because: (no reason given)

Good picture, except the 'plane' entered at ground level. That means that the engines which were under the wings, had to have scraped the ground while incoming. The lawn was pristine right afterwards with no scrape marks, and there's no way a plane that large under full power could fly at that speed at sea level, the air is too dense. It's frame would disintegrate.

I appreciate everyone's curiosity but why are you here asking random questions? Go over to the websites that have already answered all these questions and thousands more; Pilots for 9-11 Truth, Scholars for 9-11 Truth, etc.

Just to sweeten the mystery, there's a lot of evidence that many of the alleged victims never existed; their names not on the Social Security Death list, the only 'tributes' on CNN and other tribute websites being from people saying, 'I never knew you but...' rather than family members, the fact that the planes supposedly took off only 1/4 full, the distinct possibility that two of the planes never took off at all, the fact that all four planes were not officially 'decommissioned' until years later, that pilots with thousands of hours of flying experience say there is no way the Pentagon plane could have been flown in that manner, and that no inexperienced pilot could have hit the Towers dead-on like that.... the fact that Bush resisted an investigation for almost 2 years, then stipulated that his testimony along with Cheney's would be not under oath, with no recordings, and together...

You want to know what really happened? Waterboard Cheney and Bush.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:20 PM
reply to post by smyleegrl

Well, here is what i believe...
flying aircraft did hit the building. I don't believe they were passenger jets, with people inside them.
2planes were not immediately decomissioned. Ithink 11/77 (but i have to go back and check)
Whatever hit Pentagon, was definitely not a passenger plane. But there are some smaller military remote aircraft
that could have been used, but definitely not a passenger plane. Same with 93.
there was not enough wreckage to equal a passenger plane. Military missile would be far easier to control than those big ol aircraft.
As for the passengers... this is something tha has always baffled me. From my 9 years of "research"

One or two of the flights were switched Northwoods style 1989 that landed in cleveland, and 175
One of the things curiously missing are families of the passengers. Not even shown going into a hotel to meet with airlines etc. Seems kinda fishy. I know there are people who believe in the voice morphing technology, but it seems quite a stretch
check out this blog

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:21 PM

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Monte-Carlo

One hijackers forced passengers to rear of plane - this part sustains less force than the front of the plane

Most of the passenger remains were found near exit hole in C Ring along with some of the heavier debris

Map of remains

Below: location of human remains. An exhibit from the Moussaoui trial. Blue ovals show flight 77 victims; orange ovals, Pentagon workers; black ovals, unidentified (there were also fatalities on the second floor).

Even at WTC found part of cockpit seat with human remains

The discovery of a foot and leg and a cockpit seat led to speculation that one of the pilots had been found, Goldberg said

Making conjecture based on personal opinion

Firefighters and rescue workers reported finding airline seats, including passengers

Interesting. There's a bunch of blue and yellow 'victim' markings in the same location as the 'punchout' upper left hand corner. In the photographs I've seen of that, there was nothing that looked like victims, seats or luggage showing in that location, only generalized building debris and the one too-small engine rotor. This while the ground was still running with water from firefighting operations.

It's also interesting that all the 'quoted' firefighters and rescue workers are never on camera, full name given so that you can find them years later and interview them. It always seems to be some guy named 'Williams' or 'Smith', no last name or rank given, and no way to verify.

One has to wonder why with all those people dying inside the building and others nearby in peril, with many wounded needing attention, the FBI had its people picking up aluminum chunks and confiscating all known video of the area? Interesting priorities. Why were the Pentagon roof missiles not engaged while the incoming did a loop past the building and then came around back towards it again?

In the end, what we have is this: Either with billions of dollars at their disposal, the nation's defense industry cannot even protect their own headquarters, the most heavily defended building on the planet, or we've been lied to... your tax dollars at work, either way.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:00 PM
I am fully aware of how decietful the government can be, I have seen some first hand with my journeys.

I dont not understand how you can say that because CNN is the only place where there are tributes on passengers from random people that that is proof they didnt exist. I have lost friends to war, you will not find a single tribute online as their families are very private. No pomp and circumstance for their funerals.

Planes with people took off, people watched planes go into the towers. It was filmed from multiple angles and proven to be accurate from different angles.

I know, film can be faked, but so can memories. If you take 5 people that see the same exact thing you will get 5 different descriptions of that event.

Maybe all these descrepancies that are used as proof that there is a conspiracy, are just that, descrepancies. Im sorry but I cant think of one time where something traumatic was going on that there wasnt false reporting, false information, or just plain confusion.

I do think there were lies, and I do think that there is more information that is not being let out (such as video from pentagon) but I think the true conspiracy here is the fact that so many people are busy trying to sort out descrepancies, that the government is getting away with something big under our nose.

As I said, military operations go on the premise of KISS (keep it simple stupid), and there are 10 ways (off the top of my head) I could of planned that to go off with the same outcome, less questions, and a hell of lot less moving peices depending on each other for the success of the mission.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:47 PM

Originally posted by cavscout11cav
Important military term for you folks...KISS (keep it simple stupid). The military strives for simplicity in operations. The more moving parts, the more problems.

This is one of the biggest issues I have with the conjecture about the planes being faked. If I was the evil government entity performing the conspiracy, I would use tried and true techniques of secretly coordinating the "terrorists," whom I would have been keeping tabs on while they got training in aircrafts, and then made sure they made it through the terminals at the airport to board the planes and succeed at their plan. Real planes mean no adverse speculation over the event. Leave it up to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists to invent things to obsess about though.

I personally think the government did aide in the attacks, but it was a very small part of the government, and the planes, damage, and collapses were all real (possibly unexpected).

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:09 PM
Fo anyone who believes that there should be huge pieces of airplane left over from an impact like we all saw into the buildings, you clearly have no grasp of how airplanes are built.

Airplanes are hollow. The wings are hollow, the fuselage is hollow. All the aluminum components that are riveted together have holes punched out of them to reduce weight. They are made with as little material as possible without sacrificing structural integrity. WHen one impacts the ground, the parts disintegrate easily because they are already full of holes.

Do you ever notice what is left when an airplane crashes? Engines and landing gear. That's because they are the only large parts that can't be made from aluminum.

Many years ago there was a plane crash (and I am going from memory, so I could have details wrong) - I think in Denver. It was a US Airways 737 that had a mechanical malfunction and crashed nose-first into a park, and the ground was muddy from recent rains. The plane hit the ground so hard that it buried itself in the mud, and there was not a lot of debris on the ground afterward.

I think that crash was due to the rudder actuator issue Boeing had with 737s that compelled them to redesign and retrofit all the 737s in service. Anyway - high-speed impact into the ground - little debris.

Edit: FOund it... United 585.

edit on 7-4-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by AwakeinNM

Wow, I must say that the crash site above looks similar to the one on 9-11. I know, the video above was a trial run, with military remote vehicles too.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 05:49 PM
reply to post by smyleegrl

You might get some insight by looking at this Youtube video.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:05 PM

Originally posted by watchitburn
But I have been a 1st responder at a jet crash, and I can tell you without a doubt in my mind. That the pentagon incident was no passenger aircraft.

Thank you ladies and gentleman..........goodnight!!!!!

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:01 PM
in response to the origional post, lets say for instance the majority of the material from the plane didnt blow out the other side..which it didnt really.commercial airplanes are constructed out of aluminium for the most part correct now isnt the melting point of that metal below steel? the skin ect. would have been nothing but a molten puddle of metal before the building collapsed and the engines built from steel,alum,titanium would have melted for the most part and the remainders would have been crushed bent twisted ect from the 600-800 ft worth of falling and smashing through / with the crumpling tower, also try and discern what is from the airplane and from the tower after 70+ floors of skyscraper have come crashing to the ground. anyone else feel where i am looking at this from????

and with the pentagon...if a cruise missile had indeed hit the pentagon wouldnt there be a more circular area of destruction? i dont know anything about the shape of the charge on it but wouldnt it...
edit on 7-4-2012 by xalaran because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:28 PM

Originally posted by smyleegrl
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PLANES? Where did the planes go, if they didn’t crash into the WTC, Shanksville, or the Pentagon? Did the planes fly to some unknown location where the passengers and crew were executed? If so, why?

A Boeing 767 was secured and painted up to look like a United Airlines jet. It had remote controls installed in it, courtesy of some NORAD types. Call that plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it parked at a military airfield for the moment. The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low that day. Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some of your own operatives in each flight, maybe.
After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut down. There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is this: Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. There is a national emergency. We are under terrorist attack. Turn off your transponders. Maintain radio silence. Here is your new flight plan. You will land at [name] military air base."
The pilots turn off the transponders. The FAA weenies lose the information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the altitude of the planes. Of course the planes can still be seen on conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now.
What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths? We'll never see the real records, for sure. But in the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes the other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that: As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude. The blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes. Alternately, a plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane. Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside the hive. The original planes proceed to the military airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips ...
That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I say, we'll never see the radar records so we won't know exactly.

A small remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives — a cruise missile, if you like — is flown into the first WTC tower. That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness saw.
The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like a United airlines passenger jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote control — without passengers — and crashed into the second tower. Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that.
Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower? Because the remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a big stubborn passenger jet. The operators brought the jet in on a tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns like the Queen Mary. They brought it in too fast and too close to do the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.

Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives — a cruise missile if you like — hits the Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77.
Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen. Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77. Reporters lie better than lawyers.
Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.
Flight 93 is taken aloft.
Flight 93 is shot down or bombed — makes no difference which. Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions. Easiest way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot in their front garden. No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.
The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was actually headed towards the White House but changed its course.
The trail is further confused by having The Washington Post wax lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane (Flight 77).
The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and artificial catfight issues, such as — did The Presidential Shrub really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat ...
So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up. The other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist somewhere, unless they were cut up up for scrap.

The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an airplane crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for most of them, it was the wrong crash. But that's as close to the truth as the news media likes to get anyway, so it works.

edit on 7-4-2012 by FoosM because:

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:02 PM
I believe that the planes that hit the WTC were real passenger planes, and so was the one that was shot down. But I don't think that is the case for the Pentagon and I don't know where that plane went. I wish we could see radar tracking of all the planes.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:06 PM
The planes were swallowed whole by the buildings, then vaporized. The gold in the basement of the WTC vaporized as well. The plane in Shanksville was swallowed whole by the earth.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:12 PM

Originally posted by RedGoneWILD
The planes were swallowed whole by the buildings, then vaporized. The gold in the basement of the WTC vaporized as well. The plane in Shanksville was swallowed whole by the earth.

Shanksville plane was shot down.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in