If MILITARY plane(s) were what flew into WTC, then how did the real plane(s), passengers perish?

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 03:05 AM
link   


I never really paid much attention to 9/11 conspiracies till Dec 2013. I have seen amazing footage that suggests alternative theories as to what supposedly happened, or how it happened.

Do keep an open mind to these theories, but the latest vid I glimpsed presents evidence/footage that non-commercial planes were flown into the towers, complete with witness testimonial as to the color of the planes being black, size of the planes being small (wouldnt it appear huge right above you).

So many questions, so much time to ponder them going yet still forward.




posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by gardener
 


I just saw a episode of the BBC's show Sherlock. And Sherlocks brother whom is a M16 Agent was trying thwart a terrorist attack by putting a bunch of dead bodies in a plane and remote piloting it to its destination but allowing the terrorist blow it up some how. His whole plan was to make it look like there was a terrorist attack so the terrorists would believe they completed there mission but no one actually died. Maybe Somthing similar went down in 2001? Just a thought I obviously cant prove any of this theory.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by gardener
 


Military airbases are large, have security and controlled access.

In addition to that, one 767 looks exactly the same as another once it's repainted or scrapped.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 04:10 AM
link   
What happened to the flights that were supposed to have crashed is beside the point. The point is that commercial passenger planes did not do the damage on 9/11.

For what it is worth though here are by two bobs worth: 1) The planes were filled with passengers who were all NSA employees and they were flown out of the country and dismantled there, the employees made their own way home. 2) They were flown out to the middle of the Atlantic and carefully landed on the water where they sank with all on board, perhaps they were gassed first.

Maybe the one that crashed in Maryland was filled with real people.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 06:07 AM
link   
After some research into the planes themselves there are a few things that stand out.

1. Experts say that the wings of a commercial 767 didn't have the integrity to penetrated the steel frame of the WTC, they should have sheered completely off on impact like you see in many other plane crashes.

2. Pilots have attempted to recreate the impacts via simulations and were unable to maintain control of the 767 while going above 500mph in low altitude in the specific pattern they flew, and the odds of actually hitting the towers dead on first try under those circumstances, twice, is like trying to shoot the dots off a dice from 100 yards while in a moving vehicle.

3. There were reports of a phone call from a Stewardess on one of the planes saying that the cabin was filling with gaseous fumes.

Lets not forget that 5 of the hijackers were trained at US military bases, Michael Springman head of the Visa Department in Saudi Arabia blew the whistle that he was ordered to allow the hijackers into the US, NORAD was ordered to stand down and the passports that the hijackers had on there bodies survived the crash, the fires, the collapse and were miraculously found the same day by FBI agents along with a van packed full with evidence and confessionals.

Case closed?
edit on 11-1-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   
I like the angle but why they dint paint the plane just like the commercial one they replace, in the planed operation from the 60s they knew they need to paint it exactly the same, and that was to be blown over the sea, new york is not exactly a barren place it has a few million potential witness. if this was planed with time why they cheap on some paint.
edit on 11-1-2014 by Indigent because: plane



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Thanks for starting this thread gardener.

I have often commented on the theory of military drones, because that's my theory too. Everything we have learned over the years points to it.

ETA:
As to what happened to the passengers, it's not a stretch to think that they were eliminated in cold blood when you know that it didn't seem to be a problem to murder almost 3000 people in the buildings that were hit.

I'll add some of my ideas about what may have happened to the passengers later in this thread.

soulwaxer
edit on 11-1-2014 by soulwaxer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Well Gardner, this should be an interesting thread to watch.

Of all the theories of what happened that day and all the wild or even insane reaching to making facts fit theories or theories fit facts, this is the one factor that is rarely, if ever, addressed.

First, FTR, I flatly and unconditionally reject the idea they were other than the aircraft which took off from the ciivlian airports, as recorded, and then crashed, as seen by millions. Personal opinion..and strongly held by my view of the facts and record of events.


Having said that, everyone has ideas on it, so for the concept of any of the 4 crashing having been other than one of the airliners? You're right.. something happened to plane loads of people. They absolutely were not seen again. It must be given logical explanation, or everything that spins off it is nothing but the most unsupported speculation. Unsupportable, perhaps...since without an explanation to this big block of the story? The rest is just assumptions building from empty space of timeline.

I'll pop some popcorn and see how folks address this issue.... I'm genuinely curious to see anything beyond pure guesswork or 'the gov is evil so they musta killed 'em all'.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
The planes that were hijacked didn't have many passengers. The passengers from all of these planes could actually be in one plane. They switched off the transponders and didn't fly directly from A to B in a straight line. The planes could've been hijacked by agents, and then flown to a military airport. There, the planes could've been replaced with drones, and the passengers placed in one plane that was later shot down. But whatever happened, the planes didn't bring down those towers. Explosives (nano-thermite?) did. It was a well-prepared demolition.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Just so many problems with this thread,

Firstly the grey grainy blurred picture of flight with its so called "pod" has been debunked time and time again on ATS so I am not even going to bother going over all of that again. Also the KC=767 is another bit of crap that has also been debunked with some very simple Google fact checking showing that this particular model never took is first flight until 2005. So unless truthers are now factoring in time machines and just saying that this plane is a drone (when it is not) just to fit their ignorant agenda i think its safe to say this video is "debunked" before its even started.

Additionally.

All this crap about a grey, silver or black plane being saw by eye-witnesses. Something we see time and time again within the 9/11 truth movement using these eye-witnesses who were scared out of their wits thinking their home town was about to be invaded or something horrible as reliable witnesses. This means that a guy who was terrified standing a mile away and catches a glimpse of the plane hitting the tower and says it was "grey" or that he saw a "fighter-jet" somehow becomes reliable, I am sure if truthers would bother to look at the other side of the coin they would find other whiteness who saw a commercial airliner. I never quite get this, I watched it live on the news and i saw with my own eyes a commercial airliner hit that tower (or did they fake all the media coverage as well?).

The biggest problem i have with the video is that bit with John Lear talking about how they kicked of the wrong engine.

Reallllyyy.....

So they manage to get a plane that wont fly actually take its first flight until 4 years later turn it into a drone, somehow swap it with the real 175 fake all those dead passengers the phone calls and so on. Yet they can't get the engine right.

what a joke.

Whats a even bigger joke is how disrespectful these theories are to the dead by implication the video is saying that flight 175 never hit the second tower and therefore the 60 people killed on that plane never actually died on the plane. That means that Lee Hanson never actually got that last phone call with his son.

This type of video represents the worst the 9/11 truth movement has to offer, it is ignorant of the facts (KC-767), it is horribly illogical, it lacks any form critical thinking and at absolute worst it disrespects the dead with ignorance in pursing a dying agenda for some narcissistic desire to be proven "right" after over a decade of being proven "wrong" time and time again.
edit on 11-1-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by gardener
 


From the very beginning, information has been concealed from the public. The 9/11 commission itself had such a difficult time trying to get honest answers that they considered filing criminal charges.

In their own words, the commission was "set up to fail":


So while you ask a good question, "what happened to the passengers", we are left guessing due to the intentional lack of transparency.

But I'll advance a theory.

If we take a look at the false flag plot known as Operation Northwoods, the US government planned for just this contingency:


The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight."

Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs worked out a complex deception: An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CJA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases.

The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status.

The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a "May Day" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MiG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft, which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the U.S. what has happened to the aircraft instead of the U.S. trying to "sell" the incident.

Finally, there was a plan to "make it appear that Communist Cuban MiGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack." It was a particularly believable operation given the decade of shoot downs that had just taken place.

But how does this relate to 9/11?

Well, coincidentally on 9/11, a very similar situation to the one envisioned above seems to have taken place at Cleveland Hopkins Airport. Its described beginning at 10:58:

www.youtube.com...

So while it would be nice to give you a definitive answer, as I said earlier, due to the government's secrecy, we are left guessing...


reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


OtherSideOfTheCoin
All this crap about a grey, silver or black plane being saw by eye-witnesses. Something we see time and time again within the 9/11 truth movement.

IIRC, there were witnesses who claimed to have seen planes which contradict the OS. An alternative theory has to based on something.

At 9:10, the caller/witness says that the plane that hit the towers was not a commuter jet, that it did not have any windows:

www.youtube.com...

In this clip at :38, the witness to the Pentagon attack describes a small commuter plane:

www.youtube.com...

So there is a basis for these claims.
edit on 11-1-2014 by gladtobehere because: additional information



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Opertation Northwoods

Wikipedia



Operation Northwoods was a series of false flag proposals that originated within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals, which called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit perceived acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere, were rejected by the Kennedy administration.[2]
At the time of the proposal, Cuba had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts.[3] To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended 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 operation recommended developing a "Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".
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 authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. According to currently released documentation, none of the operations became active under the auspices of the Operation Northwoods proposals.


They couldn't do it under the Kennedy administration, but under the Bush administration?...

soulwaxer
edit on 11-1-2014 by soulwaxer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
It isn't up to the "Truthers" to explain away the deaths or missing peoples, the burden of proving the truth falls upon those perpetuating the official story.

Who have done a bang up job so far!


Peace.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


Operation NorthWoods is another joke.

The document never actually talked about any action which would actually kill any Americans it was all about targeting Cubans (have you even read it?) and they released it before 9/11. That's the bit I really dont get, truthers talk about Northwoods like it was the blue print for 9/11, if that was true they why ever make that public?

It was also written almost 40 years before 9/11, really, thats what truthers are using cold war era military plans that where shelved at the time as some kind of evidence in their 9/11 "truth!. It was even dismissed by McNamara years later as "stupid", I think he had a point in more ways than one.

sigh....

same crap different thread....
edit on 11-1-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
dp
edit on 11-1-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


Operation NorthWoods is another joke.

The document never actually talked about any action which would actually kill any Americans it was all about targeting Cubans (have you even read it?) and they released it before 9/11. That's the bit I really dont get, truthers talk about Northwoods like it was the blue print for 9/11, if that was true they why ever make that public?

It was also written almost 40 years before 9/11, really, thats what truthers are using cold war era military plans that where shelved at the time as some kind of evidence in their 9/11 "truth!. It was even dismissed by McNamara years later as "stupid", I think he had a point in more ways than one.

sigh....

same crap different thread....
edit on 11-1-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

Have you read it?

I don't talk about Northwoods being the blue print for 911... I only point it out because there are a lot of elements in it that make a SIMILAR scenario not only plausible, but likely when you take all the other facts into account.

soulwaxer



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by QUANTUMGR4V17Y
 





It isn't up to the "Truthers" to explain away the deaths or missing peoples, the burden of proving the truth falls upon those perpetuating the official story.


Actually, it is up to the truther's to prove the official story is wrong.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 





Have you read it?


yes, yes i have, are you avoiding the question?



I only point it out because there are a lot of elements in it that make a SIMILAR scenario not only plausible, but likely when you take all the other facts into account.


Nope... in no way does that document or the history of it represent any kind of evidence that such a scenario is plausible or even likely in anyway today or back in 2001. It was a plan thought up during the Cold war 40 years before 9/11 when the world was a very different place and even then it was rejected at thee highest levels.

It should not be part of the 9/11 debate in my view.

it is a distraction, it always has been, nothing more.
edit on 11-1-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by gardener
 


To weave a narrative where all of the planes were not the supposed airliners requires a far more elaborate scheme than if the standard view is taken as fact. After all, what is to be gained by disposing of the supposed airliners, crew and passengers--and the terrorists--and substituting remotely controlled aircraft? It makes no sense and vastly, vastly complicates the logistics, timelines and other situations of a complex action.

To me, those going off on various tangents that they were remotely controlled craft and ignoring the slew of true facts, is a clever way that some forces, with willing gullibility and ignorance from some quarters, are using all manner of manufactured side stories to avoid the plain facts that one of our "allies" was directly involved and/or had clear, advanced knowledge of the plan. Given the people in charge of Washington and powerful, influential circles around those people, we can surmise that we were allowed a modern Pearl Harbor. As with Pearl Harbor, the bare facts speak volumes, the excuses or rigged explanations of those facts should be mere footnotes.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   

DocScurlock
reply to post by gardener
 


I just saw a episode of the BBC's show Sherlock. And Sherlocks brother whom is a M16 Agent was trying thwart a terrorist attack by putting a bunch of dead bodies in a plane and remote piloting it to its destination but allowing the terrorist blow it up some how. His whole plan was to make it look like there was a terrorist attack so the terrorists would believe they completed there mission but no one actually died. Maybe Somthing similar went down in 2001? Just a thought I obviously cant prove any of this theory.



Sounds like the movie Millennium.

www.imdb.com...





new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join