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.

 

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

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Even with compartmentalization you are going to have a full conversion crew knowing they converted two planes, and you would have some engineers in on it in case there was a problem.




posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Even with compartmentalization you are going to have a full conversion crew knowing they converted two planes, and you would have some engineers in on it in case there was a problem.


I believe that if said conversation took place, it wasn't around 911, done years earlier and across the coast. Like built in CA 5 years before, maybe 1 year before said planes go across the coast to another base, crew doesn't think anything of it, they can get reassigned. Crew wouldn't think anything of it, they are too busy working on other things. Or told not to worry about it, maybe even signed NDAs saying they wont talk about.

Plenty of ways to keep something under wraps IMO



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


Engineers aren't stupid. They talk to each other about their programs all the time even with an NDA.

Then you have the group that painted them to match AA and UAL. It takes a pretty good size crew to paint something that size.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Since "UA 175", who's length and proportion doesn't seem to match the -222,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Given it's airspeed, in controlled flight (Vd + 90knots), an airspeed without precedent in aviation history, except on 9/11, must have been modified with hardened structures, including leading wing edges, and more powerful engines - your're right that it must have required a paint job with the UA livery, that much would have to be considered a known fact.

Who did it, where it was done, and why no one talked, is obviously an unknown. Maybe the paint crew either didn't know, or, were black-op spooks well aware of the implications of talking.. who knows.

But what you're offering, that it could not be done and kept secret, isn't a rebuttal of the facts and represents a strawman argument.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


Engineers aren't stupid. They talk to each other about their programs all the time even with an NDA.

Then you have the group that painted them to match AA and UAL. It takes a pretty good size crew to paint something that size.


The paint crew that paints planes all the time?? Why would this one be any different.... Military worker do their job when they are told and don't ask questions. They can be threatened with the UCMJ for anything they say and be put in the bridge, and trust me the UCMJ has just as many catch all charges as our law does. You can even be hit with the UCMJ plus the civilian side of the law.
And engineers fear for their live just as much as the next guy, even if they did figure it out, they are smart and see the pattern of people with legit info against OS are usually gone after word gets out they are going to blow the whistle..



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Sremmos80
The paint crew that paints planes all the time?? Why would this one be any different....


How often do you think the air force painters paint planes with civilian markings...


Military worker do their job when they are told and don't ask questions.


Where do you get that nonsense from?


They can be threatened with the UCMJ for anything they say and be put in the bridge,


Threatened with what exactly? Why would they be put on a bridge? any specific bridge, or does it have to be the Golden Gate bridge?



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


he meant the brig as in military prison, but if someone talked about something like that, or even hinted about heading in that direction of becoming a whistleblower over something like that, they would never see the brig.

You make a good point however that military paint crews aren't likely to be painting too many freshly modified 767's in the UA and AA livery.


edit on 23-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   

hellobruce

Sremmos80
The paint crew that paints planes all the time?? Why would this one be any different....


How often do you think the air force painters paint planes with civilian markings...


Military worker do their job when they are told and don't ask questions.


Where do you get that nonsense from?


They can be threatened with the UCMJ for anything they say and be put in the bridge,


Threatened with what exactly? Why would they be put on a bridge? any specific bridge, or does it have to be the Golden Gate bridge?


6 years marine corps, heard it a thousand times, do your job and don't as questions and don't talk about anything, lose ships sink ships

Do you know all things the military does? How may air stations have you been to and seen the everyday action that goes on?
You don't think some paint crew can be told they have been contracted by UA to paint a plane? Seen plenty of civilian planes in hangers.
Article 89 and 134 just of the top of my head they could be charged with, which can lead to demotion, restriction and pay cuts to almost 1/3 of what you get for up to 6 months if not longer.

And next time use the context of the sentence to figure out what word you are having a hard time with, its quite simple actually, usually the brain does it for you.
Obviously i meant brig and that is not hard to figure out but if you need to resort to that to prove a point than more power to you



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 05:54 PM
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)


Did any of you skeptics even bother watching this video?







It's about 5 hours long, but it goes into great detail, and exposes the main debunkers/skeptics theories as false. If you can watch that video in it's entirety, and still not be 100% convinced, then I applaud your stubbornness.

It does not, however, pretend to know what happened to the passengers if they were military drones though. I presume it wouldn't be much trouble to just execute them if you had no problem killing a couple thousand in the trade centers.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimithae
 


I agree, and truely it could be even simpler. Especially with the NSA's ability to monitor information probably even then. They wouldn't necessarily have to kill anyone.

Now granted this isn't the best source of information; I once saw a post secret post that more or less said "everyone thinks I'm dead since 9/11" and that was all it said. Now granted, this person could just be an asshole, but let's analyze that for a moment. If this person were really just trolling post secret. What would be the point? It's an annonymous submittal and very few people see it or comment on it in any publically visable way. The biggest reasons trolls troll, is attention, negative or postive, a troll wants attention or to get a laugh off the person they are trolling. An annonymous post is no way to garner attention or amuse yourself with reactions especially if it can't be discussed openly in a public forum. I don't know but would wager postsecret has a forum for posts. Is it possible this person was just trolling for attention on the post secret forums if that was the case but I just find it odd considering the limited audience.

But let's think about the ramifications if the statement was true. That would imply that it was someone thought to have died as a result of 9/11. This would imply that they obviously aren't dead and that the people that knew them when they were thought to be alive no longer know that to be true. Which would mean they were probably either thought to be a passenger in a plane or a person in one of the buildings. In either case if they are alive and thought to be dead. Why?

My guess is some if not all of them aren't dead. Some are dead. The ones that wouldn't cooperate perhaps. However, some may yet live and are simply under an oath of secrecy lest harm come to them or their family. I love my country but I don't know if I'd sacrafice my family members for it if I had a choice; assuming I couldn't protect them.
edit on 23-1-2014 by GrimReaper86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   

DocScurlock
reply to post by gardener
 


Maybe Somthing similar went down in 2001? Just a thought I obviously cant prove any of this theory.


OR maybe, it was actually 19 terrorists who flew said planes into WTC. And they carried out the biggest attack on the most heavily secured nation on the planet.

The trouble with conspiracy theorists and 9/11 is that they keep making stuff up to suit their theories and keep changing their minds every other day. But not 1 of them can actually say what REALLY happened. I wonder why that is? Maybe boredom, lack of fulfillment, disillusioned or just it sounds better than what actually happened.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   

projectbane

DocScurlock
reply to post by gardener
 


Maybe Somthing similar went down in 2001? Just a thought I obviously cant prove any of this theory.


OR maybe, it was actually 19 terrorists who flew said planes into WTC. And they carried out the biggest attack on the most heavily secured nation on the planet.

The trouble with conspiracy theorists and 9/11 is that they keep making stuff up to suit their theories and keep changing their minds every other day. But not 1 of them can actually say what REALLY happened. I wonder why that is? Maybe boredom, lack of fulfillment, disillusioned or just it sounds better than what actually happened.


If you want to believe that 19 hijackers that couldn't fly the smallest planes out there but were able to make some of the best documented flight maneuvers that pros with 6000+ hours behind said planes would never dream to make feel free.

Can you explain why there has been FAR worse high rise fires that have not collapsed a building? Charred to the frame, but still standing. And that they fall at almost free fall speed with a documented 2.3 second free fall on 7? 110 stories in under 11 seconds....

Why does NIST not release what they found that caused the collapse of 7? If they proved it without any doubt what is there to hide?

How does the pentagon come away with only minor damage compared to the other buildings hit with a plane?

Where is the video, and last time i checked they keep a couple pointed at the pentagon, We get 1 video that you can't make heads or tails of and its been edited?


If it so cut and dry, why did the ones investigating hide so much?


Also you added that we are the most heavily guarded nation but yet 747 and 757 were allowed to fly run a mock in the nations in sector that protected the white house and the pentagon but yet only 1 plane has even the idea of a shoot down attached to it.

But that is explained away nicely with the war games that didn't get stopped and spent all the ammo and fuel of said fighters that would have intercepted them.

And tell me how much of a coincidence that all 3 buildings hit, were hit it areas that had recent renovations?


edit on rdThu, 23 Jan 2014 20:21:55 -0600America/Chicago120145580 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Sremmos80


Because how do personal belongings survive but black boxes and 6000 lb hunks of steel that are jet engines don't??
Why is there a debris field of over 8 miles if it was just a nosedive by brave passengers?


It may come as a surprise but, light objects like that are more likely to survive because they can do something called "float". During the impact, light materials get caught up in the updrafts of the fires and survive. This is not the first time. Check other high profile crashes of airliners. Clothes, shoes, magazines, letters, have survived serious catastrophes.



If it was shot down then why do almost all eye witnesses say that it had no damage on it?

It wasn't shot down. Hence, no issue there. It crashed.


Is that red bandanna designed to withstand extreme temperatures?

Tell me, is a plastic case with an American flag designed to survive the explosion and disintegration of a shuttle that was loaded with tons of liquid oxygen and hydrogen?



Why is there no fire where the wings, that would of had fuel in them, hit?

There was. It was mostly either burned off in the impact explosion or it was absorbed into the ground.



The passport has to be the greatest. In a guys pocket or shoot for the sake of argument he had it in the other hand out as he hijacked the plane.

Or it was in the carry on luggage. Anyways, there are MANY instances of personal items surviving such crashes.



Crashes it into a tower and creates fireballs that blast out all sides of the towers. What I am led to think is that said passport was in front of those fireballs somehow? To the point where there is barley a burn?

You forget that the plane is a hollow tube filled with air as well. All that air can blow items out from the inside of the aircraft on impact. Again, look up other aircrashes where this has happened.


And conveniently found by the police cheif with a not so great background that was nominated for a seat in the whitehouse for DHS but had to deny because of his stint in federal prison for, CONSPIRACY, but then went over to Iraq and had was the right hand man over there.
Some times, it comes down to dumb luck.



Columbia and Challenger are not the same thing as what is be discussed so I don't see how it fits into your reasoning... Those are not associated with any Truth movement of 911...


No it was being stated how can such fragile things survive such catastrophic and violent incidents intact, and that it must mean it was planted. I merely stated that Columbia and Challenger both experienced even more severe stresses and forces, and had some fragile items survive that one would not have expected to survive. Surviving a break up and reentry in the atmosphere is not relevant to items surviving 9/11? Come now.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

GenRadek

Sremmos80


Because how do personal belongings survive but black boxes and 6000 lb hunks of steel that are jet engines don't??
Why is there a debris field of over 8 miles if it was just a nosedive by brave passengers?


It may come as a surprise but, light objects like that are more likely to survive because they can do something called "float". During the impact, light materials get caught up in the updrafts of the fires and survive. This is not the first time. Check other high profile crashes of airliners. Clothes, shoes, magazines, letters, have survived serious catastrophes.



If it was shot down then why do almost all eye witnesses say that it had no damage on it?

It wasn't shot down. Hence, no issue there. It crashed.


Is that red bandanna designed to withstand extreme temperatures?

Tell me, is a plastic case with an American flag designed to survive the explosion and disintegration of a shuttle that was loaded with tons of liquid oxygen and hydrogen?



Why is there no fire where the wings, that would of had fuel in them, hit?

There was. It was mostly either burned off in the impact explosion or it was absorbed into the ground.



The passport has to be the greatest. In a guys pocket or shoot for the sake of argument he had it in the other hand out as he hijacked the plane.

Or it was in the carry on luggage. Anyways, there are MANY instances of personal items surviving such crashes.



Crashes it into a tower and creates fireballs that blast out all sides of the towers. What I am led to think is that said passport was in front of those fireballs somehow? To the point where there is barley a burn?

You forget that the plane is a hollow tube filled with air as well. All that air can blow items out from the inside of the aircraft on impact. Again, look up other aircrashes where this has happened.


And conveniently found by the police cheif with a not so great background that was nominated for a seat in the whitehouse for DHS but had to deny because of his stint in federal prison for, CONSPIRACY, but then went over to Iraq and had was the right hand man over there.
Some times, it comes down to dumb luck.



Columbia and Challenger are not the same thing as what is be discussed so I don't see how it fits into your reasoning... Those are not associated with any Truth movement of 911...


No it was being stated how can such fragile things survive such catastrophic and violent incidents intact, and that it must mean it was planted. I merely stated that Columbia and Challenger both experienced even more severe stresses and forces, and had some fragile items survive that one would not have expected to survive. Surviving a break up and reentry in the atmosphere is not relevant to items surviving 9/11? Come now.





I`m sorry but you don't make any sense at all...........



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I did not see norrhwoods mentioned as blueprint to 911 but rather as an example to show to what lentghts an US government would go to provide a casus belli. One would have to be a mental midget to misunderstand that or be intentionally disruptive. Seen as you must have an IQ above room temperature I assume its the latter.


In the topic at hand why would there have been the need to replace the conventional planes with military ones when you can Autopilot an airliner from the ground? Would an unmodified airplane have been unable to penetrate the WTC? Whom made that claim?



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GrimReaper86
 


That would sound like the witness protection program.In that case,maybe they needed protection? They could have been told that if they don't play,they don't live.So here you go,you go in the program,keep your mouth shut.No contact with anyone you know or we'll get your family too.Intriguing,but frightening thought.Would I do it to protect my family? I would like to say NO I would blow the whistle and bring the whole thing down.In truth,I'm not sure if I could sacrifice my family like that.I would try to get word to them to GET OUT, then I would blow the whistle.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 


Pray tell, where do I not make sense?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by hellobruce
 


he meant the brig as in military prison, but if someone talked about something like that, or even hinted about heading in that direction of becoming a whistleblower over something like that, they would never see the brig.


You mean they would be killed? So there's another set of guys on top of this who go around killing people and they've never talked either?

Why don't they talk? Is it because they're frightened of getting killed? By another set of guys?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


The shadow government of the USA have committed plenty of evils, and often times we have found out much later.

Do you think the perps born of a troubled conscience are about to leak and have themselves condemned as monsters?

The whole premise that because no one's talked, that a monstrous conspiracy did not take place, isn't much of an argument in the face of the physical occurrence of the phenomenon under observation.

Incredulity isn't really an argument. You need to see that. It's a knee-jerk reaction, nothing more.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

JuniorDisco

NewAgeMan
reply to post by hellobruce
 


he meant the brig as in military prison, but if someone talked about something like that, or even hinted about heading in that direction of becoming a whistleblower over something like that, they would never see the brig.


You mean they would be killed? So there's another set of guys on top of this who go around killing people and they've never talked either?

Why don't they talk? Is it because they're frightened of getting killed? By another set of guys?


And that set of guys is afraid of being killed by yet another set of guys, who are afraid of getting killed by yet yet another set of guys....
The conspiracy theorists and their theories just get sillier and sillier as the money stream from the gullible dries up!



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join