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.

 

Is this the real truth about the 9/11 planes

page: 14
53
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


You have been asked multiple times now to explain the logic behind using R/C planes. So far you and others continue to ignore this question. Furthermore you haven't even come close to explaining the narrative in the OP where the government left hundreds of loose ends by taking the passengers off these planes. I seriously want you to explain why the government would kill thousands of innocents die and then leave hundreds of direct eyewitnesses alive who could implicate them. I feel once again these questions will be ignored because you know there is no rational answers that support your narrative.




posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by DerekJR321
How do you know for a fact, 100% that those planes were not remote controlled? I'd sure like to see the damning evidence that they weren't.

You've got it backwards. Those with the notion that the planes were remote controlled are the ones that have to prove it. And they can't. They can say 'it's possible'. But they can't prove it happened. On the other hand, we have lists of the dead, which include the pilots who were REAL PEOPLE. The evidence is on the side of 'no remote control planes were used'.


Well.. I guess in that case I could provide you with what information I've been able to find. Take it upon yourself to choose if you believe it or not.


All 757/767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capabilities (ie: autopilot).

Jumbo jets can and HAVE been flown remotely. Here is an article where the Discovery Chanel crashed a 727 intentionally. It was flown via remote from a chase plane.

Article

The earliest remote test I was able to find was back on December 1, 1984, when a Boeing 720 took off from Edwards AFB and was flown remotely by a NASA pilot. Here is the video if you are interested.



But regardless of the facts that jumbo jets could be flown via remote.. it wouldn't have been the easiest way to do it. Want to know the easiest way? Auto pilot and a homing device. Plot a course, have it fly through the Trade Center. It wouldn't matter if the pilots were on the plane, or terrorists did or did not take control. AP can be locked out. The flight path can be locked in. A homing beacon on a certain floor can be targeted for accuracy (as was seen on the strike on the second tower.. the last minute corrections). A simple VOR beacon could have been placed on one of the impact floors.

On this next point, I am undecided of what I believe. Were the planes swapped for military equals? Both flights that hit the towers converged with other flights at one point in their travels. The flight that hit the first tower took the preferred northern route towards California. The second plane for some reason took the southern route, normally used for traffic out of Newark. Had the second flight used the northern route, there is a strong chance it would have been intercepted. There is also a strong chance it wouldn't have made its rendezvous with its swap craft (again.. assuming you believe they were swapped). Swapping for military grade 757/767 would explain why the planes were able to GREATLY exceed their operating specs (especially the 2nd flight). It would have also allowed for easier remote control. But again.. I don't know what to believe about that. Here is a great video that explains the flight tracks and what happened.




So.. do I believe someone was remotely piloting the planes? Not sure.. I tend to more believe they had an AP route set, with VOR navigation that took them both to their targets. The AP was locked out. It's interesting to learn about the floors that were hit, and what companies were there... and what they were involved in. It's amazing to me the amount of damage that was done in these attacks. No I'm not talking about the buildings falling. I'm talking about all the SEC documents investigating Enron and the likes? Gone in WTC7. The documents and evidence being investigated for the "missing $2 trillion"? Oh.. that was destroyed when the Pentagon was hit. Etc etc etc....

Do I have rock solid proof that planes were controlled into the buildings? Nope. But then again.. you, and others who believe the "official" story have no proof at all that 19 hijackers took these planes and piloted them into the buildings. Well.. no proof except for a magic passport and a phony video of two of the hijackers. But nothing that constitutes solid proof. Hell.. most of those "19 hijackers" have turned up alive and well to this day.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


You have been asked multiple times now to explain the logic behind using R/C planes. So far you and others continue to ignore this question. Furthermore you haven't even come close to explaining the narrative in the OP where the government left hundreds of loose ends by taking the passengers off these planes. I seriously want you to explain why the government would kill thousands of innocents die and then leave hundreds of direct eyewitnesses alive who could implicate them. I feel once again these questions will be ignored because you know there is no rational answers that support your narrative.


There was a plot years before to use remote planes to be destroyed and blame the Cubans. The logic would be if it was a planned event by the government, you are not going to get anyone to volunteer for their deaths so the government can use the event to rip off the American people, commit genocide in the Middle East, and destroy our nation.

There are plenty of videos that talk about this plan that was rejected by Kennedy. The media was johnny on the spot with a guy who came on immediately to tell the "story" which is what the government has continued to press. Many fireman heard multiple explosions. The debris turned into dust. Where is all the plastic office stuff, desks, etc.. There is even video of a steel beam disintegrating and blowing away as dust. If the fires were so hot to melt steel how is a woman standing in that hole waiting her death? No, this does not add up, and something else happened than what the government wants us to believe.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


You have been asked multiple times now to explain the logic behind using R/C planes. So far you and others continue to ignore this question. Furthermore you haven't even come close to explaining the narrative in the OP where the government left hundreds of loose ends by taking the passengers off these planes. I seriously want you to explain why the government would kill thousands of innocents die and then leave hundreds of direct eyewitnesses alive who could implicate them. I feel once again these questions will be ignored because you know there is no rational answers that support your narrative.


The logic? I assume you are another believer of the "official" version? IMO it is the ONLY logical conclusion considering the actual pilots I am sure didn't do it and those untrained so called terrorists sure as heck didn't pull this off.

When are you or any other poster going to post the proof that they were all capable of executing these flight maneuvers? You can't, none of you can yet you keep repeating it was simply the terrorists like we have been told.


The govt doesn't kill every witness to anything that is questionable however it is very well known that they do in fact threaten people's lives if they open their mouths.

My answers are much more rational than saying 100% of the official version is the truth.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 

By "experts" are you referring to NIST and FEMA?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 

911research.wtc7.net is down as well.

Has some good info on NIST's different theories.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


Excellent info......That is the first I have ever read that type of auto pilot control was possible and I believe that is definitely a possibility for what took place.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
For all the posters that keep repeating over and over how none of the planes could have been remote controlled, you are basically admitting that you believe the official story. I suggest you go back and read this thread a few times then come back and tell us, no PROVE to us that those terrorists possessed the knowledge and training to fly those planes like that.

post by Blue_Jay33
 



There is not a shred of evidence that any 9/11 plane was remote controlled. There were phone calls from all 4 flights speaking of hi-jacking, knives, box-cutters, mace, threats of bombs, stabbings etc. Not to mention that hi-jackers themselves were recorded when addressing passengers (not realising they were broadcasting) and by the cockpit voice recorder of UA 93.

So far as the competence of the terrorist pilots goes there were 3 who had commercial pilots licences ( Atta, Shehhi, and Hanjour ). The 4th, Jarrah, had a private pilots licence. None of them had to take off or land, fly through bad weather or anything taxing. It was a beautiful clear day and they just had to steer into 3 of the largest buildings on the planet. UA 93 flying themselves into the ground.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 




So.. do I believe someone was remotely piloting the planes? Not sure.. I tend to more believe they had an AP route set, with VOR navigation that took them both to their targets.

Hense the reason that 'cavemen' could fly modern aircraft. They merely spun the dials to the city they wanted. Then took over from the computer long enough to crash into a building.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 




By "experts" are you referring to NIST and FEMA?

Engineers from all over the world.
Pilots from all over the world.
Demo crews from all over the world.

How is it the government (or who ever) is able to shut the mouths of all these experts in all the different fields from all the industrial worlds?
Why haven't the 'experts' in Iran spoken up?
Why didn't Chavez's experts speak up?

And yet a couple of punks named Snowden and Manning are able to release thousands of secret documents????
Is there only two rogue people on the entire planet willing to go against the US?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by DerekJR321
 




So.. do I believe someone was remotely piloting the planes? Not sure.. I tend to more believe they had an AP route set, with VOR navigation that took them both to their targets.

Hense the reason that 'cavemen' could fly modern aircraft. They merely spun the dials to the city they wanted. Then took over from the computer long enough to crash into a building.



A bit of button pushing would hav got them there.

JFK, Activate and execute on the Flight Management Computer, and LNAV/VNAV + autopilot on on the Mode Control Panel, then sit back and enjoy the flight.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The real truth of the 9/11 airplanes is ... they were airplanes. Fully loaded with fuel. Hijacked by 19 radical islamics. Flown into prearranged target buildings. (except for Shanksville that fell short because the passengers took it down before the Air Force could).

And I personally spoke with a cabbie in DC who watched the plane hit the pentagon. Lots of people saw it fly into the building. Lots of people saw the planes fly into the Trade Center as well.

That's the truth about the airplanes.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Sometimes a radical islamic extremist is just a radical islamic extremist.

The shoddy coverup kind of stuff comes afterwards. Bush secretly flying the Bin Laden family out of the US. The Israeli government may have caught wind of this ahead of time but let it happen so as to drag the USA into a war against the Muslims. That kind of thing.

But the planes? They were real. They crashed into the buildings. People died.

That's just the truth of it.


I agree with your opinion, but I don't think it would beyond our government to instigate 9/11.. secretly fund the Taliban and arrange for them to lure ignorant muslim radicals into doing these acts.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   


So all the civilians who witnessed the planes fly into the World Trade Center were all liars and deceivers? I myself watched the passenger plane fly into the second tower and I was deceiving myself? All the people who witnessed the plane fly into the pentagon were 'in on it' too? The cabbies? The pedestrians? All the people in Shanksville who saw the plane coming in low and at high speed, they are all liars and deceivers? Everyone was in on it, eh? Okay. BTW .. YES the planes that crashed that day were passenger planes. And YES the list of the dead is accurate. And YES those pilots I listed were flying and are dead.

I must have been on drugs yesterday because i dont remember ever stating that no planes hit the trade towers and that nobody witnessed any planes hitting the trade towers.....
And of course the list of passengers is accurate its pretty easy to get a flight manifest. So your telling me you have attended all of the passengers and crew of all the flights funerals and saw all their bodies in open caskets being buried personally? I somehow doubt that, and if you can and provide the proof of it then the possibility of them not being dead is still there. Its pretty easy for people to go "missing" these days.




Actually, we did. Everything has been debunked.

I'll explain it again because like I must have been on drugs yesterday things are kinda foggy. Im sure i explained it already though. In order to debunk something you need to provide counter evidence to support your counter argument. I dont remember seeing any counter evidence. Darn drugs....



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


If I were say concerned with World security like the NSA, CIA, Pentagon, US Military I would incorrectly believe that I needed to be able to wiretap and spy on all citizens without warrants, to be able to detain evil people without warrants and a whole host of things the misguided believe they need to keep the world stable. You could NEVER ever in a million years have gotten all the freedoms or values Americans hold dear removed without a huge event making it seem needed. As an agency concerned with world security I would stage an event so big that would allow me to change the fundemental rules of the constitution, allow spying, and taking americans data, even entering homes without warrants. All in the misguided name of security. As an agency employee I would freely be tricked into killing thousands of americans in New York, because my belief was that it was needed to impliment the beginning of a new Utopian world order. 10 years later when i realized i was misguided and it was a means to take control from the people that wasn't needed, I would keep my mouth shut realizing my deception killed people, and there was nothing I could do.

That's the real reason if 9/11 was an inside job it happened. Not for money (though that was a way to benefit all agencies involved with funds) but for power. Power is what people who have endless money really crave. Not money.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


To you and others who claim that the Pentagon was struck at just the place accountants were trying to track $2.3 trillion I should point out that this claim is just truther myth.

Most of the casualties within the Pentagon were in the Navy Command Centre.

Those killed who were accountants and bookkeepers were all Army and engaged on current Army accounts. No-one was beavering away after $2.3 trillion, which has been largely reconciled anyway since.

If you have a look at this DoD report by the Inspector General (scroll down to "Executive Summary") you will see this :-

"The Army did not publish stand-alone financial statements for FY 2001 due to the loss of financial management personnel sustained during the Sept 11 terrorist attack."


www.dodig.mil...

So the effect of the attack was solely on Army stand-alone statements for FY 2001 but that information was anyway included in agency wide accounts. Nothing was lost and none of it had anything to do missing trillions.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
The only thing I'm certain of about the planes on 9/11 is that the "mystery plane" over DC was a government E4b, the Doomsday plane. I saw the footage that day and I also saw it later that afternoon as it flew in circles around Richmond, VA where I lived at the time.
All planes ordered to land and yet we see one big white plane doing lazy circles.
One of the first clues that all was not right with official accounts of the day.
edit on 2-8-2013 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mitsuskitzo
So your telling me you have attended all of the passengers and crew of all the flights funerals and saw all their bodies in open caskets being buried personally? I

So i guess you don't believe that humans went to the moon either, right? After all ... you weren't personally on board the Apollo rockets that went up there, so it must not have happened, even though all the other evidence says we did. There is no talking to this ... :shk: OUT.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
All planes ordered to land and yet we see one big white plane doing lazy circles.


Care to show the evidence that ALL planes, military as well as civilian were ordered to land?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by pinkbirdatabase
No plane. I repeat: NO AIRPLANE is able to fly horizontally below its half wingspan whatever the speed of that object might be.. It simply doesnt work because laws of physics wont allow that to happen.


Exactly what law of physics states that...

Ever seen this? it shows how silly your claim actually is!



Silly claim? Newton was silly, too?

en.m.wikipedia.org...(aircraft)


Ask any pilot you might meet about ground effect. There hardly is any ground effect above water, however, the pentagon is no tropical island. Secondly there are specially constructed airplanes existing that have certain wing angles to reduce ground effect (e.g. airboats). None of that is true for the plane hitting the pentagon.

You simply cannot fly a boeing or an airbus horizontally at an altitude below half wingspan. It does not work. Not at that high speed. It violates all laws of physics if you could ever do that. Neither manually nor remote controlled you could do that. This plane CANNOT fly horizontally above ground level below an altitude of half wingspan. If you can do that then we'd have to rewrite all so far known laws of physics. Ask any pilot you might know. Ground effect would always lift all planes above half wingspan if they flew at that speed. The CCTV shows the plane approaching horizontally. Where did it hit? In the 15th floor of the pentagon? That would be approximately the lowest altitude for that type of plane possible when it approaches horizontally as the CCTV shows us. It cannot approach any lower due to ground effect automatically lifting that plane. The angle of attack must be at least 15 degrees if that would be acceptable by laws of physics. Either the CCTV is fake or else the whole story is fake.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase
 


I told myself I was going to back out and stay out of this thread, but this is just so wrong it's not funny. Ground effect is not "half the wingspan of the plane" it's the full wingspan of the plane.


When an aircraft is flying at an altitude that is approximately at or below the same distance as the aircraft's wingspan or helicopter's rotor diameter, there is, depending on airfoil and aircraft design, an often noticeable ground effect. This is caused primarily by the ground interrupting the wingtip vortices and downwash behind the wing. When a wing is flown very close to the ground, wingtip vortices are unable to form effectively due to the obstruction of the ground. The result is lower induced drag, which increases the speed and lift of the aircraft.[3][4]

en.wikipedia.org...(aircraft)

To get through ground effect, you push forward on the control stick. It's that simple. If you couldn't fly below it, then explain this picture:




An F/A-18 Hornet (that is a C model) has a wingspan of 40 feet. That means according to what you said, they couldn't be doing that pass, because there's no way that they are over 40 feet there.

Or even better, here's a 757 making a very low pass.




Does that look like he's over 125 feet?



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join