Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Personal Theory on The Twin Towers Plane Pilots

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart

Originally posted by blackmetalmist

Originally posted by Shamatt

So, I was thinking about who would fly those planes into those buildings. Well, no one would volunteer for a job like that. Who else would have the skills to hit these buildings so accurately, and actually agree to do it?



I usually do not participate in the 9/11 threads because I truly do feel that terrorists did attack our country. However, I have to disagree with you on that sentence because there are countless of incidents where these terrorists attach themselves with bombs and calmly walk into a crowded place, road, etc and blow themselves up.That is what they do. They sacrifice themselves for their "cause".

And as someone pointed out, Japanase Kamikaze. There's always brainwashed people willing to die for their beliefs.


No they don't. They are drugged up, threatened and tortured into carrying out suicide bombings. Agents will torture their kids, their family etc. if they don't comply with carrying out suicide bombings. A good example is found here.

There are very few people willing to do such a thing so willingly.
edit on 11-9-2012 by Merlin Lawndart because: (no reason given)


I was thinking about this when describing in my previous post about my 'lowest risk, highest accuracy' theory.

Isn't it convenient that "everybody knows" about suicide bombers and kamikaze pilots when the real planners of 9/11 get together and decide to crash planes into buildings.

"Why, by George! Most of the psyops work is already done!!"

"Yes Gentlemen, think of it. When we do the deed and claim it was terrorists on a suicide mission who would not believe us?! Who would even question such a tale after years and years of news stories and History Channel episodes of suicide bombers and WWII pilots! It's beautiful. No one will be any the wiser. They will simply think it's inevitable that these types took their well worn strategy simply to the next level. No one will even question it..."


Cheers




posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 



Who isn't fully aware of suicide bombers or the Japanese kamikaze pilots?[/e

Poster made bald statement that nobody would willing fly plane into building

Then began rambling down the rabbit hole about how this proved that 911 planes were flown by remote control

Capacity for ignoring proven fact among the conspiracy types is well known trait - especially when pet
theory is threatened......

Had to point obvious facts.....



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Have you ever read the excellent Sci-Fi novel Ender's Game? The climax of the book is when Ender Wiggin, the main character, Does another simulation star battle with the other kids in his military school, only they find out that they are doing it for real. That's what this reminds me of, and I really like this theory.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by F4guy
 


Would a laser work on the towers? I feel like the reflection off the metal/glass would be difficult to compensate for. It definitely couldn't be a handheld laser. And anyway, none of this really explains the passengers, unless the theory is that the planes were programmed to fly with passengers on-board.


Yeah, a laser designator would work. It works great on shiny metal airplanes. It would take more than a handheld, unless you had really, really big hands. You could get enough out of an emitter about the size of an M-4.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
According to this source, the Boeing 757 and 767 are both capable of being controlled remotely. It´s a standard feature, but only on these two types of planes (at the time at least). The feature was there to enable NORAD to control the airplanes remotely in case of an emergency onboard.

Additionally, the software in both planes is very intelligent; it will not under any circumstance allow the pilot to fly the airplane in such a way that it would exceed 1.5 Gs, to protect the passengers and the plane itself. The only way the planes could pull off moves that would generate more than 1.5 G and override this security feature is when they are taken over by the remote control system.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
My theory? The palnes were holograms. witnessess did say they looked like military planes, and not passenger planes (no windows, etc) what if that's what they had on hand to "hologram"? The original passengers were removed from the planes and executed elsewhere. Bombs/ missles actually hit the towers.. Could have been launched from anywhere near the towers, pentagon etc.

Think about how there was no plane debris at the pentagon or in PA.

The phone calls from passengers to relatives could have been real in that they WERE hijacked to be taken to a place where they were executed, but NOT to be flown into the towers.

I have never beleived that planes actually hit any of the targets. Too much evidence that missles actually hit them all.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Nana2
 



Think about how there was no plane debris at the pentagon or in PA.

Then how do you explain the plane debris that was found at all the sites? How about the plane debris that was photographed and the photos entered into evidence in a court of law?



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Nana2
 



Think about how there was no plane debris at the pentagon or in PA.

Then how do you explain the plane debris that was found at all the sites? How about the plane debris that was photographed and the photos entered into evidence in a court of law?


I guess these are photos entered into evidence by the same government that swore there were WMD's in Iraq? Why focus on these little easily fakeable items when there are so many huge glaring inconsistencies in the story?



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
sometime prior to that fateful day i viewed a documentary on the discovery channel that showed off the technology that was being developed for automated flying systems on commercial airliners. They were testing and demonstrated the system from an airport in salt lake city (due to the extra degree of difficulty that the terrain posed to take offs and landings). From memory they controlled the aircraft with computers via Satellite. I don't remember much else or have any proof, just wanted to a share a tiny spark in my memory banks.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
One of the many issues I have with untrained people piloting these jets, is navigation to the targets. They were thousands of feet above their targets and hundreds of miles away. There are no sign posts pointing them toward the target. I don't see these people as having the capability of using the cockpit instrumentation to do it. That leaves visual ground observation as the means to navigate back to the target. I just don't see it happening.

I also have difficulty believing that 19 people were able to circumvent detection in four different airports, on the same day, carrying box cutters. But that's off topic I suppose.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Nana2
 



Think about how there was no plane debris at the pentagon or in PA.

Then how do you explain the plane debris that was found at all the sites? How about the plane debris that was photographed and the photos entered into evidence in a court of law?


"Plane debris" is easily explainable. It could have been placed in the buildings well before the event.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart

Originally posted by blackmetalmist

Originally posted by Shamatt

So, I was thinking about who would fly those planes into those buildings. Well, no one would volunteer for a job like that. Who else would have the skills to hit these buildings so accurately, and actually agree to do it?



I usually do not participate in the 9/11 threads because I truly do feel that terrorists did attack our country. However, I have to disagree with you on that sentence because there are countless of incidents where these terrorists attach themselves with bombs and calmly walk into a crowded place, road, etc and blow themselves up.That is what they do. They sacrifice themselves for their "cause".

And as someone pointed out, Japanase Kamikaze. There's always brainwashed people willing to die for their beliefs.


No they don't. They are drugged up, threatened and tortured into carrying out suicide bombings. Agents will torture their kids, their family etc. if they don't comply with carrying out suicide bombings. A good example is found here.

There are very few people willing to do such a thing so willingly.
edit on 11-9-2012 by Merlin Lawndart because: (no reason given)


While i dont disagree that SOME are ushered into doing such thing because of threats, etc, there are countless others who do it out of their own will. We have all sorts of people who starve themselves for a cause, tie themselves to a tree to save the rainforest and others who endure harsh conditions for causes the truly believe in (wether it be positive or negative). The human mind is unstoppable sometimes and when you get into your head to do something, you will do it. Even if you give up your life. Its been seen time and time again in history. Women and children being the trend in the Middle East, no one suspects them and thus carry out these suicide bombings in the name of their cause. My friend got blown into pieces in Afghanistan by one of these Taliban rushing out to him and his troops only fueled by anger.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamatt
 



Why focus on these little easily fakeable items when there are so many huge glaring inconsistencies in the story?

Because the unilateral declaration of items being "fakeable" is the huge glaring inconsistency in the conspiracies. It's the product of circular logic.

"We know they lied because they are in on 'it' and we know they are in on 'it' because they lied".



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Yes, exactly. Plane debris that was shown on pictures at the Pentagon site only showed small pieces of aluminium, that survived the impact somehow, but where were the titanium engine parts? Disintegrated!?
edit on 12/9/2012 by RationalDespair because: typos



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shamatt
 



Why focus on these little easily fakeable items when there are so many huge glaring inconsistencies in the story?

Because the unilateral declaration of items being "fakeable" is the huge glaring inconsistency in the conspiracies. It's the product of circular logic.

"We know they lied because they are in on 'it' and we know they are in on 'it' because they lied".


See, now you are just putting words into my mouth. My logic is not circular. We all know that things are able to be fake. Like 'evidence' of WMD's - So we have proof they can lie to us. I am saying it is possible evidence relating to 9-11 is also fake. Your only argument against that is 'circular logic'. You will have to do better than that!



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by RationalDespair
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Yes, exactly. Plane debris that was shown on pictures at the Pentagon site only showed small pieces of aluminium, that survived the impact somehow, but where were the titanium engine parts? Disintegrated!?
edit on 12/9/2012 by RationalDespair because: typos


I never really touched upon what happened at the Pentagon but something crossed my mind yesterday. In the first moments of the Pentagon crash you had several news reporters saying there was no sign of a plane crash here, meanwhile all these pictures of debris on the lawn turned up. Thought it was kind of weird especially since pieces of this magnitude showed up:





posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamatt
 



You will have to do better than that!

Actually, I am doing pretty well, conspiracy wise. The conspiracists, however, are going to really need to step up their game soon. Declaring that something can be faked as a reason to doubt any presented fact is extremely weak.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 



In the first moments of the Pentagon crash you had several news reporters saying there was no sign of a plane crash here,

Well consider that most of the early reports were being given from the vantage point of the nearby highways and considering that Flight 77 crashed INTO the building it's not suprising that there would be little easily distinguishable evidence of the plane from a distance. Not very weird.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by homervb
 



In the first moments of the Pentagon crash you had several news reporters saying there was no sign of a plane crash here,

Well consider that most of the early reports were being given from the vantage point of the nearby highways and considering that Flight 77 crashed INTO the building it's not suprising that there would be little easily distinguishable evidence of the plane from a distance. Not very weird.


It's off topic I suppose, but explain why the wake turbulence from a craft flying in excess of 500mph didn't overturn cars on the freeway adjacent to the Pentagon. Why did it not damage the lawn in front of the building or cause other damage on the ground during the approach?



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 



It's off topic I suppose, but explain why the wake turbulence from a craft flying in excess of 500mph didn't overturn cars on the freeway adjacent to the Pentagon. Why did it not damage the lawn in front of the building or cause other damage on the ground during the approach?

Please prove that it should have. The burden is yours, not mine. You think the turbulence should have overturned cars and ripped up the sod then you are obligated to produce some facts that support that theory.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join