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: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



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

So physics didn't exist until Newton came along? Must have been real intertesting back then.

Since it is grade school physics

You realize, of course, that they don't teach physics in grade school, right?

....there isn't much to do repeat the same old obvious against obviously stupid lies.

How would you know? You don't listen or read anything!

Our engineering schools can't build a collapsing model after TEN YEARS. Soon to be ELEVEN.

Actually, they can. They just don't. Know why? Because they are filled with engineers. Who understand how the physical world works without having to assemble toys.

They would have to explain why they didn't solve it in ONE.

Uh, solve what?




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
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)

It's just really hard to believe that the os'ers are still lying through their teeth about the drills as if we were idiots....

9/11 Truth: NORAD Running 9/11 "Drills" ON and DURING 9/11

www.youtube.com...

NORAD practice for 9/11 style attacks 2 years prior

www.youtube.com...

Multiple War Games Were Being Conducted on 9/11/01

911research.wtc7.net...
edit on 4-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Yeah...I'm highly suspicious of hoopers intentions. I have seen him a few times delibertely posting false info.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

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.


This is bait and switch. Nowhere in Rumsfeld's statement did he say "something of that detail", nor did he mention anything of any detail. All he said is that something would happen in a year's time that would remind people why we have a military. Guess what- Even now after ten years we're STILL reminded why we need a military. North Korea is flinging missile all over the place and threatening to instigate war in every other public statement and Somali pirates have turned that whole coast of Africa into a no man's land.

Please point out how a single thing I just said was incorrect.



"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.


So when that happens, the FAA was still obligated to try to contact the craft to find out why the transponder was turned off, weren't they? The FAA was still obligated to notify NORAD, weren't they? The interceptors still needed authorization from the president for any shoot down order, weren't they? Incompetent officers down lower in the chain of command who were timid about ordering fighters to shoot down civilian aircraft would still cop out in their duties to relay those orders, wouldn't they?

You have not given a reason for why the wargames would have had an impact on that in any appreciable way.



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.


How do you know this? My understanding is that interceptors were scrambled from the sites they came from (Langley and Otis) because those bases were the ones assigned to cover the airports the hijacked planes came from (Logan in Boston and Dulles in Virginia). How would the lack of wargames have changed these operating procedures, particularly when they didn't know what the hijackers were going to do yet?


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..


Well, if you can provide a reason for why the theory that the hired muscle might have been lied to by the organizers is demonstratably wrong, I'll listen to it. This is why I'm careful to stress that it's only a theory- I don't know either way.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
Yeah...I'm highly suspicious of hoopers intentions. I have seen him a few times delibertely posting false info.


No, I think you mean that you've seen me post info that you WISH were false.

Now please show me where there were drills on 9/11 that involved hijacked planes. Not before 9/11 and not after 9/11 but ON 9/11.

And not just drills or exercises - those are going on all the time so there is no strange concidence that they were going on on 9/11.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Surprised by the feedback so thanks for all replies thus far some really good posts I have enjoyed reading and welcome anyone's input here.

I will say quite few people seem to misunderstand the question as it's actually very specific so let me reiterate; what other reason would one crash planes into the towers except to take them down, and again to me it seems to make no sense historically (considering 1993). Consider the objective of 1993 was to take the towers down with a bomb in the basement. People are saying "well they knew in 93 they didn't pack enough explosives, so they decided to use planes that would pack a bigger punch" So if the objective of flying planes into the towers was to pack a bigger punch than 1993, wasn't the intention to take them down?

I hear a lot of people saying they hit the towers specifically 'because they hate America, they wanted to kill lots of people and that it's shocking'. Well surely you don't need such an elaborate plan to accomplish such terror or a death toll, flying planes into the towers isn't exactly logical. If their goal was simply this then there are plenty of other and more effective ways to do this.

My opinion currently is the only thing that really seems to make sense is there was an intention to take the buildings down, and the planes would serve either as an excuse for collapse, to shift the blame (false flag) for the collapse (the plane did it!) or to deliver a deadly payload to start fires, aid or initiate collapse. I can't see any other logical reason. What's funny is even the official story seems to support this same idea as quoted in previous posts by the resident debunkers, particularly concerning the links to 1993 that the plane was cherry picked for it's explosive potential. Yet at the same time we're also supposed to believe the collapse was purely an accident. One of the main reasons were lead to believe they choose the flights they did is because they had more 10x as much explosive energy of the 93 bomb, and the plotters researched and knew this, and were lead to believe by official sources that they had come back to finish the job from 1993. It seems to be a total contradiction in the main stream story itself.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Now please show me where there were drills on 9/11 that involved hijacked planes. Not before 9/11 and not after 9/11 but ON 9/11.

And not just drills or exercises - those are going on all the time so there is no strange concidence that they were going on on 9/11.


Here's a Mother Lode for ya....

Webster Tarpley: THE FORTY-SIX EXERCISES AND DRILLS OF 9/11

www.truthjihad.com...

A couple of examples.....

SABOTAGE OF AIR DEFENSE AND SIMULATION OF MULTIPLE HIJACKINGS

A critical set of drills involves the suppression of air defense in the Boston to Washington DC corridor on that fateful morning. The overall impact of these drills and operations was to multiply the number of possible hijacked aircraft, and to radically diminish the number of interceptor aircraft available to deal with them. Vigilant Guardian, in particular, included real commercial and real military aircraft which were airborne and signaling that they were hijacked. In addition, a NORAD office was able to introduce injects or inputs – fake blips -- onto the radar screens at the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) at Griffiss AFB near Rome, New York. These were supposed to represent hijacked aircraft.

Some of the simulated hijacks were represented by false blips made to appear on FAA and NORAD radar screens as part of the exercises that have been discussed. Other hijacks would have been accounted for by the actual military aircraft which were playing the roles of hijacked aircraft in the drills. Blips and dummy hijacks combined to create an insuperable confusion. This would have made the predicament of any loyal air defense commanders even more difficult. In his book, Richard Clarke recalls being told by an official on the morning of 9/11, “we have reports of eleven aircraft off course or out of communication, maybe hijacked.” Clarke said he repeated this number, “Eleven.” (Clarke 4) But Colonel Robert Marr, commanding NEADS on 9/11, reported, “At one time I was told that across the nation there were some 29 different reports of hijackings.” USAF Major General Larry Arnold, for his part, claimed that 21 planes were reported hijacked. [13] In his book, Richard Clarke recalls being told by an official on the morning of 9/11, “we have reports of eleven aircraft off course or out of communication, maybe hijacked.” Clarke said he repeated this number, “Eleven.” (Clarke 4)

NORAD annual readiness drill: at Cheyenne Mountain bunker near Colorado Springs, Colorado, was happening on 9/11: NORAD was at “full ‘battle staff’ levels for a major annual exercise to test every facet of the organization.” This drill appears to coincide with Vigilant Guardian. [14] Were the false blips seen at NEADS generated here?

Operation Northern Watch, also ongoing on 9/11, represented actual air combat; not a drill; six fighters and 115 personnel had been sent from Langley AFB to Incirlik AFB, Turkey, to impose an illegal northern no-fly zone over northern Iraq.

Operation Southern Watch involved about 100 members of 174th Fighter Wing, New York Air National Guard, who had been deployed to Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, to impose the no-fly zone over southern Iraq, August-September 2001. In addition, “at the time of the 9/11 attacks, the 94th Fighter Squadron, which is stationed at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, is away on a 90-day combat deployment to Saudi Arabia for Operation Southern Watch, to enforce the no-fly zone over southern Iraq.” [15]

Vigilant Guardian: Air defense against hijacking. From what is known about Vigilant Guardian, it is clear that it closely mimicked the actual events of 9/11. Vigilant Guardian was thus the source of much confusion among the non-witting NORAD personnel. NORAD personnel were bewildered as to whether the reports they were getting represented fictitious events within the exercise, or whether they were dealing with a real emergency. (Aviation Week and Space Technology, June 3, 2002) This was a joint US-Canada exercise, and was designed to test the coordination of the two defense establishments. According to GlobalSecurity.org: “The VIGILANT GUARDIAN (VG) is a VIGILANT OVERVIEW Command Post Exercise (CPX) conducted in conjunction with USCINCSTRAT-sponsored GLOBAL GUARDIAN and USCINCSPACE-sponsored APOLLO GUARDIAN exercises. The exercise involves all HQ NORAD levels of command and is designed to exercise most aspects of the NORAD mission. One VG is scheduled each year and the length will vary depending on the exercise scenario and objectives.” [16] According to another source, “The planning for Vigilant Guardian Exercise-2001 probably began in 2000; and it was responding to a growing uneasiness of the US government and intelligence reports, world-wide – including NORAD – about plans for terrorist seizure of commercial air planes to be used as missiles against American targets.” [17]

Vigilant Guardian ranks among the four principal exercises held yearly by NORAD. Most of these exercises include a hijack scen
edit on 4-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
They are trying to scare the most warlike people on the planet in order to extend the power of Islam(As they see it) on the western world as a result of our intrusion into theirs.But they sure have enjoyed the cash.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
Anyone with any sense would have targeted military complexes.

Just like the 1993 bombing, 9/11 was a false flag attack.



I agree or at least a football stadium.
Surely if it was real terrorists, they wouldn`t have hung in the air for the time they did in fear of being shot down.
Unless they knew NORAD were busy that day.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 



Did NORAD conduct exercises or develop scenarios, PRIOR to September 11, 2001, to test a military reaction to an aircraft hijacking which appeared destined to result in a suicide crash into a high-value target? If so, identify the five exercises conducted on, or immediately prior to September 11, 2001; include dates, participants, scenario, and synopsis of exercise results.
General Myers. Prior to September 11, 2001, NORAD exercises were not designed to exercise or develop procedures to shoot down civilian airliners. Pre-September 11 exercises were designed to practice command
and control procedures, rules of engagement, external agency coordination and hijack shadow and/or escort procedures. The following five exercise hijack events included a suicide crash into a high-value target. Synopses of exercise results are not available. They were discarded in accordance with DOD directives.

No exercises being conducted on 9/11 involving hijaked commercial aircraft.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

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

- because they were batcrap crazy and wanted a fast-track ticket to an orgy filled 'paradise'.
- because they wanted to kill a bunch of Americans.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 





Well surely you don't need such an elaborate plan to accomplish such terror or a death toll, flying planes into the towers isn't exactly logical.

I find the plan to quite simple.

A few buddies and a couple of box cutters.
No explosives to deal with.
Nothing illegal on your person.
Passengers were like sheep back then.
And you are assured 100+ deaths no matter what.

This may be the heart of the conspiracy mindeds problem. It was sooo simple as to be too simple to work. Therefore it couldn't be true.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No exercises being conducted on 9/11 involving hijaked commercial aircraft.

*sigh*
Read my post again above. VIGILANT GUARDIAN included the hijack scenario of REAL COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT.

Still trying to bail out of the Titanic with a shot glass I see.....



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Insolubrious
 





Well surely you don't need such an elaborate plan to accomplish such terror or a death toll, flying planes into the towers isn't exactly logical.

I find the plan to quite simple.

A few buddies and a couple of box cutters.
No explosives to deal with.
Nothing illegal on your person.
Passengers were like sheep back then.
And you are assured 100+ deaths no matter what.

This may be the heart of the conspiracy mindeds problem. It was sooo simple as to be too simple to work. Therefore it couldn't be true.



Wow.
You make it sound so Simple.
So simple that OSer`s would believe that theory.

I`d say passengers are more like sheep now.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Believe what you will.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 




Surely if it was real terrorists, they wouldn`t have hung in the air for the time they did in fear of being shot down.

26 minutes from hijack to impact for the first plane. No one suspected their intentions would be a WTC impact so the amount of time is not important.

20 minutes for the second plane. But 4 of those minutes were before the first plane impacted. So we are left with 16 minutes to decide if the first impact was an accident due to pilot interference from the hijackers. Or was it an intentional crash by a hijacker. Since it had never occured before, I doubt TPTB thought it was intentional.

16 minutes is not long to get the passenger list and deduce there was islamic bad boys on each of the hijacked planes.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 



.....what other reason would one crash planes into the towers except to take them down....

The most obvious reason - they were big easy targets. Same thing with the Pentagon. These were some of the largest buildings on earth.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 




I`d say passengers are more like sheep now.

Recent examples suggest otherwise.

Remember the Jetblue pilot that lost his marbles a month ago? It was passengers that subdued him.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 



Wow.

Yep, thats all there was to it.

You make it sound so Simple.

It was. Devilishly simple.

So simple that OSer`s would believe that theory.

By "OS'ers" I assume you mean just about everyone on the planet Earth except you.

I`d say passengers are more like sheep now.

Really? Tell you what - next time you're flying jump suddenly into the aisle and yell "Allahu Akbar" and see how the "sheep" react.


Please don't.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I predick the sheep would react ba aa aa aadly.

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



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join