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.

 

So why would hijackers crash planes into the twin towers anyway?

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 



In my mind...either the terrorists knew the timing of the drills and used that, or the military knew the timing of the attack and used the drills scenario for the excuse to let terrorist succeed, which in the end we all must admit, played in to the hand of certain US interests.


Or, option 3 - the military conducting drills or exercises (which it does on a constant basis) had nothing to do with the response to the events that day. Which it didn't.



So nobody knew...not the military nor the terrorists about each others plans that day? Funny. Than it's a really really big coincidence, since...the london bombing also had a huuuuge concidence, similar to this one. I presume they also didn't know anything and just blindly picked the very same date, the very same location the very same scenario.

I must say...I'm blown away by sheer coincidences during some major historical events. If someone told me this story, and I wasn't aware of the event, I would have thought it's a hollywood script.




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
"So why would hijackers crash planes into the twin towers anyway?"

They wouldn't, and they didn't.

Which begs the question, who would have a motive and why?

I won't even bother consulting the hard-core conspiracy websites to answer this one.

We can state our case rather effectively just using Wiki:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from 1997 to 2006. It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4]

"New Pearl Harbor"

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[14]

Statement of Principles

PNAC's first public act was releasing a "Statement of Principles" on June 3, 1997, which was signed by both its members and a variety of other notable conservative politicians and journalists (see Signatories to Statement of Principles). The statement began by framing a series of questions, which the rest of the document proposes to answer:

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?[5]

In response to these questions, the PNAC states its aim to "remind America" of "lessons" learned from American history, drawing the following "four consequences" for America in 1997:

we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; [and]
we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

While "Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today," the "Statement of Principles" concludes, "it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."[5]

Operation Northwoods

en.wikipedia.org...

Operation Northwoods was a series of false-flag proposals that originated in 1962 within the United States government, and which the Kennedy administration rejected. [2] The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro.[3] One part of Operation Northwoods was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:

"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."

Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 





I'm talking about intercepting, which is standard procedure once the transponder goes off, and one does not need a chain of commands to come from the president to intercept "runaway" planes.

It was not standard back then and I'm not sure it's standard even today.

What is standard is to contact the plane via radio. But even today planes are not in constant contact with the ground. Remember the plane that overshot their city by 150 miles a couple years ago? I believe contact was attempted but no response. No fighters were scrambled as far as I know.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 



So nobody knew...not the military nor the terrorists about each others plans that day?

Nope.

Funny.

How so?

Than it's a really really big coincidence, since...the london bombing also had a huuuuge concidence, similar to this one.

Again, how so? The military is conducting training exercises and drills every day of the week. So why is such a coincidence that they were conducting traing exercises and drills that day? The Air Force conducts exercises that deal with air power, the Navy conducts exercises and drills that deal with naval power, etc.

I presume they also didn't know anything and just blindly picked the very same date, the very same location the very same scenario.

They didn't because that didn't happen. There were no exercises that day involving hijacked planes.

I must say...I'm blown away by sheer coincidences during some major historical events. If someone told me this story, and I wasn't aware of the event, I would have thought it's a hollywood script.

Well, a little knowledge will help you from being "blown away" so easily.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 

They did crash planes into the towers and you cannot prove otherwise.

A long post about how some agency thinks we need to remember our lessons from the past does not erase the plane debris found at the sites.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
I don't buy that.
Why the pilots training if you were just going to hijack for ransom or publicity?. In all the other hijackings the pilots did what they were told.


You do have a legitimate point, but then again we're not dealing with people who rationalize things all the way through. Back during the 1972 Munich Olympics the German gov't tried to pay off the Black September terrorists to leave the premises (they were understandably trying to improve their self image after that whole holocaust thing) and the terrorists flatly refused. They were there to promote their Jihad against Israel and they didn't care about money or even if they were killed themselves. These aren't people wo are after money. They're zealots who are pushing religious and political agendas. In that light, if the hired muscle were told that physically taking over the plane was part of whatever scheme they were told as a cover story they would have bought it. Just because they were intelligent and they were able to come up with that kind of plan it doesn't mean they weren't naive as hell.

Again, this is complete speculation based upon the possibility that they even did lie to their hired muscle as to what the real plan was. Unless one of the lower level goons left some clues behind, we'll probably never know.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 

They did crash planes into the towers and you cannot prove otherwise.


But WHO was THEY?

How did planes less than 200 tons result in the total destruction of towers over 400,000 tons?

psik



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


We'll almost certainly never know.


Unless we do something really revolutionary that's never been done in the history of investigation before. Like look at the physical evidence. It's on the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island.


Can you elaborate on how physical evidence at Fresh Kills can give us clues on what the hijackers were thinking? I'm not arguing the point, I just don't understand what information this will give us.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

You sound like a broken record.
It's clear the hijackers had a complete plan set for the buildings including the distribution of steel and concrete. That way they knew just where to hit the buildings to cause a complete collapse.

Since you do know the exterior steels properties why don't you show us how much energy was left after punching through exterior?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
"So why would hijackers crash planes into the twin towers anyway?"

They wouldn't, and they didn't.

Which begs the question, who would have a motive and why?

I won't even bother consulting the hard-core conspiracy websites to answer this one.



So in other words, you truthers actually ARE getting all your information from those damned fool conspiracy websites that are shovelling out this conspiracy noonsense to get people all paranoid over their own shadows. Despite all the eyewitness accounts, despite all the physical evidence of plane wreckage, and despite Islamic funamentalists hijackign aircraft and staging terrorist attacks against innocent civilians for decades, you refuse to believe any of that is true because "you consulted a conspiracy website somewhere".

I won't even bother to comment on how absurd it is. I'll simply say "thank you for proving I'm right".



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 

They did crash planes into the towers and you cannot prove otherwise.


But WHO was THEY?

How did planes less than 200 tons result in the total destruction of towers over 400,000 tons?

psik

They were manufactured in the same factory as the magic bullet and the magic jet fuel.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So in other words, you truthers actually ARE getting all your information from those damned fool conspiracy websites

No, I just demonstrated that I can provide more than enough motive using Wikipedia.

Readers, always beware when an OS'er says "in other words".... get out your cowpie shields....



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



How did planes less than 200 tons result in the total destruction of towers over 400,000 tons?

Its very well known that the plane weight to total tower destruction ratio is 1:3123 so everything works out.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
To destroy the Enron (and other incrimating) Documents. Plus Silverberg needed the insurance money.
edit on 4-5-2012 by VforVendettea because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2012 by VforVendettea because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So in other words, you truthers actually ARE getting all your information from those damned fool conspiracy websites

No, I just demonstrated that I can provide more than enough motive using Wikipedia.

Readers, always beware when an OS'er says "in other words".... get out your cowpie shields....


If that's the case then how are you able to recognize the (in your words) "hard core conspiracy web sites" from the mainstream conspiracy sites? To the general public they're all hard core, particularly the ones making up crap about "the planes really weren't hijacked planes".

BUSTED!
edit on 4-5-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


I must say...I read that it's standard procedure for aircraft that goes off course to scramble a jet to intercept. I've read many cases where it appears to be so. I don't know why they do it if it's not standard procedure. Maybe I can dig up some examples...



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 





No, I just demonstrated that I can provide more than enough motive using Wikipedia.

So Wiki is now a witness you can call in court?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Before 9/11, Al Qaida was repeatedly causing mischief throughout the world from the USS Cole bombing to the embassy bombings in Africa to even the first WTC bombing in 1993, so predicting that Al Qaida was going to launch another attack in a year's time was a given. In fact I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that in a year's time, there will be more trouble in the mideast between Israel and its neighbors, North Korea will threaten to start a war again, and at least one politician will be exposed as a liar. Is it really that "suspicious a coincidence" that I'd know this or is it simply a case that I'm predicting that someone who shows repetitive behavior wil keep doing it?

You do know that Al Qaida bombed two of our embassies in Africa before the 9/11 attack, right?


Oh I am very well aware of that. But then again with all these apparent "intelligence failures", there's no way he would know something of that detail if he had no clue a terrorist attack was imminent that day.



All right, if you want to keep beating this dead horse, fine. Let's just pretend for the sake of argument that on 9/11 there were no wargames. How would this have led to any different outcome on 9/11? The hijackers still would have turned off the transponders, wouldn't they? Air traffic controlelrs still would have to pick them out from among the 3000 blips on the screen, wouldn't they? They would still be running around in circles tryign to find out how many planes were hijacked and where they were heading, wouldn't they? Interceptors would still be ordered to stay back and the president would still need to authorize any shoot down order, don't they?

So where is the massive impact these wargames are supposed to have had on the events of 9/11, exactly?


"When a transponder is turned off, several things happen to civilian (FAA) radar
screens that do not affect military radar. First, a small identifying symbol on the
blip on the controller’s radar screen goes out. Second, although the civilian ATC
still has the ability to track the aircraft in two dimensions, he or she is no longer
able to pinpoint its altitude. When an aircraft under
ATC control goes silent, the blip for that aircraft is instantaneously inserted in a
conspicuous manner on the screens of every other ATC in the region. Everybody
sees it." taken from Crossing The Rubicon.

Military radar can still fully track aircrafts when transponders are turned off. If there hadn't been all this confusion between the drills and real time, action could have been taken. The fighter who was out of the area running a drill (being directed by those behind the radar screen) could have been the fighter who was up in the air AT LEAST shadowing ONE of these aircrafts. And yeah, the chain of command for a shoot down is SO large that it wouldn't be able to be completed for all 4 hijackings but if there's fighters shadowing planes that are in direct line with the NYC skyline and Washington D.C., I'm pretty sure they'd take some initiative. There not just going to watch planes hit the White House/Capitol , The Pentagon, and the World Trade Center. If you really think that man, then I'm at a loss for words



Originally posted by GoodOlDave



You might be partially right. A number of years ao I actually heard a report that there was some speculation that not all the hijackers knew it was a suicide mission. There really only needed to be two pilots per plane who would have to know what was happening because the rest were there to act as muscle to make sure the passengers were cowed enough to stay put. Theoretically it could be possible that these henchmen might have been told it was a standard hijacking for ransom and were kept in the dark as to what the plan actually was.

We'll almost certainly never know.


So you can totally take into consideration something you heard & what a fellow OS troop heard but you can't take anything into consideration anything I've said...wow.. Oh..and btw..




www.msnbc.msn.com...

NBC News has obtained new images of Sept. 11 hijackers Mohammed Atta and Ziad Jarrah delivering what is apparently their last will and testament in Afghanistan on Jan. 18, 2000, as well as images of a rogue's gallery of other terrorists and senior al-Qaida leaders listening to a speech days earlier by Osama bin Laden at his Tarnak Farms compound in Afghanistan on Jan. 8, 2000.


They knew they were going to die. There is no debating whether they knew it was a suicide mission or not.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

You sound like a broken record.
It's clear the hijackers had a complete plan set for the buildings including the distribution of steel and concrete. That way they knew just where to hit the buildings to cause a complete collapse.

Since you do know the exterior steels properties why don't you show us how much energy was left after punching through exterior?


9/11 broke the 300 year old Newtonian Physics record alright.

Since it is grade school physics there isn't much to do repeat the same old obvious against obviously stupid lies. Our engineering schools can't build a collapsing model after TEN YEARS. Soon to be ELEVEN. They would have to explain why they didn't solve it in ONE.

psik



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





They didn't because that didn't happen. There were no exercises that day involving hijacked planes


really?

Norad exercize


I like the comment how it was only to test procedures....good testing it was. And good procedures also.

Please...please...don't quote how "it was for aircrafts originating from foreign airports" excuse 'cos it's pitiful. As if it matters from where the plane came...if it's on US air territory i don't see the difference.
edit on 4-5-2012 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join