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.
Norad used to pride itself on it proven track record of intercept speed. Up until that day it was something close to 7 minutes, I believe, from the time a “problem” occurs on a flight. Many flights are routinely intercepted all year long and 2001 was no exception to that rule.
The only day that didn’t occur was Sept. 11th 2001. But the “hijackers” wouldn’t have known this (unless of course…) and they would have had to anticipate that after two planes had struck the towers after being hijacked, they would have armed company up there tailing them in a matter of minutes.
In fact, why did they wait at all? They near D.C. when they took off and the departure time was already delayed to start with. All they would have to have done was take over the plane once they got to cruising altitude, turn the plane south to D.C. and they would have struck there target just minutes after the towers were hit. But for some reason, the “hijackers” waited over 35 minutes before they took over the plane.
Why would they risk all that time in the air, coming back from Ohio? They must have known they would be shot down… if they were terrorists with box cutters that is.
However, if “the terrorists” knew that multiple national security drills would be taking place that day and that NORAD rules had been changed in June of 2001 that kept NORAD commanders from giving the “intercept and engage” order, perhaps they would have known they had more time.
Perhaps, in that case, they would have known they had just enough time to circle around on a long exposed “hijacked” flight just long enough for both towers to “collapse” just as they made it back to downtown Manhattan.
And that is exactly why they waited so long. They were waiting for a clear path to Building 7.
Flight 93 was shot down. Period. The debris field 6 miles from the crash site proves it beyond any reasonable doubt. Also there were several eye witnesses at the scene who testified to hearing loud “booms” and THEN looking up to see Flight 93 still in the air and struggling to stay in the air
Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Wonderer2012
I agree with your idea that the flight was headed to WTC7. The BBC obviously thought it had already happened. The building has obvious charges going off all through it right before it went down. Do to this fact, they had to still bring it down, so that no one found the bombs...
Flight 93 did not crash at Shanksville though... It made a 20 ft hole?? lol ok.
Maybe the earth swallowed it?
I have a feeling one wake-up pilot had the chance to separate the war games from the real life scenario and shot down one of the planes.
Either that or they had some simple little issue like an oil pump failure and had to move to plan B; dumping plane scraps and parts from carglo planes and a missile or two.
Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by boncho
Think about it like this boncho.
Bombs were placed in all three towers.
They needed bombs knowing that planes would never get the job done.
Then they needed planes knowing that Americans would never believe terrorists had that much time to run around placing bombs everywhere.
Then they lose their cover, ie flight 93. Remember rummy slipping up and saying that the plane was shot down?
The bombs however are obviously already on site.
Now what??
Wait till my FBI goes in there and hope you can control all of them?
Or
Blow it?edit on 5/16/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Wonderer2012
I think the slip of the tongue from Rumsfeld was no slip of the tongue at all. I think he is reading directly from a script.
The reason he would be made to say that is to cover-up the sloppy job they did at making it seem like the plane crashed.
Basically, its a cover story to a cover story... If you don't buy the plane crash then you buy it being shot down - neither of which actually happened.
The plane was shot down by an Air Force guy (in my view)
Still hungover buddy, or what?
Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Bleeeeep
How do you believe the no plane dis-info?
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Monkeygod333
I have a feeling one wake-up pilot had the chance to separate the war games from the real life scenario and shot down one of the planes.
Either that or they had some simple little issue like an oil pump failure and had to move to plan B; dumping plane scraps and parts from carglo planes and a missile or two.
Wow, you'll believe all that, plus that WTC7 was rigged with explosives, but for some reason you won't believe someone would hijack a plane.
Originally posted by underduck
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Monkeygod333
I have a feeling one wake-up pilot had the chance to separate the war games from the real life scenario and shot down one of the planes.
Either that or they had some simple little issue like an oil pump failure and had to move to plan B; dumping plane scraps and parts from carglo planes and a missile or two.
Wow, you'll believe all that, plus that WTC7 was rigged with explosives, but for some reason you won't believe someone would hijack a plane.
I dont think the issue is believing that someone would hijack a plane. It is that a building could be pulverized to dust because of a plane or in building 7's case some isolated fires.