9-11 Passengers

I looked through the posts on this part of ATS and didn't see these questions asked at all. If it was already brought up in another topic I am sorry and please feel free to remove this topic, well you feel free to any way, lmao... but i encourage you to.

My questions to all of you are;

1) What happened to the passengers aboard the flights?
2) If the government was going to plan an attack on itself, how come they chose explosives in the buildings? It just seems to obvious.
3) Washington D.C. is a pretty crowded place, tourists and such, how come the government would lie about the type of plane that hit the pentagon, I mean at least 15 people HAD to have seen something?
4) Was the point of 9-11 to win support for the war in Afghanstan or in Iraq? and WHY?


Any replies appreciated.

Originally posted by raas32

1) What happened to the passengers aboard the flights?

Unknown

2) If the government was going to plan an attack on itself, how come they chose explosives in the buildings? It just seems to obvious.

The government vastly underestimated the intelligence and ingenuity of the public, in particular the power of the internet.

3) Washington D.C. is a pretty crowded place, tourists and such, how come the government would lie about the type of plane that hit the pentagon, I mean at least 15 people HAD to have seen something?

See answer to question no. 2.

4) Was the point of 9-11 to win support for the war in Afghanstan or in Iraq? and WHY?

1. Insure and secure the passage of the Patriot Act.
2. The Taliban had stopped the flow of drugs in Afghanistan due to their
religion. Specifically drugs are not allowed by the Kuran. Also they were
burning the poppy fields. This was calamatious to the world drug trade in
which the U.S., U.K. and others share. After the U.S. secured Afghanistan
the drug trade soared 2500%.
3 Was the opening salvo for the NWO.
4. Set the stage for the invasion of Iraq.

The answer is that it was a real event and the discrepancies shown are phenomena you would expect out of real events.

Also, there is power to be gained by turning you against your own government. I'm not saying you should have full-faith in the government - but the government is what keeps your country going and so does your involvement with it. If people can't trust their government enough to accomplish the routine tasks that need be done to ensure the survival of a country - then the country will fail and colapse - shortly after descend into civil war as groups strive to obtain power and control.

There are those who will go through hell, high water, and give up their first born in order to distrust their government even when it's not convenient. It's the only way they know how to live. It's easier to blame an ambiguous domestic identity that you are more familiar with rather than an alien identity that behaves in ways that you cannot fathom. The problem is easier to solve it is domestic - it can be reached, and dealt with from home.

It's adapted out of fear, out of a quest for power, out of confusion, and by the power of 'bandwaggon'.

Different people have different reasons.

Remember that your government is comprised of people who live not unlike yourself in many ways - and whose needs out of life are, essentially, the same. Don't forget that the Government is not a single entity or unified conscious that does nothing but think up ways to keep you 'in check'.

Ironically - fear of our government will put us in that situation.

Originally posted by Aim64C

The answer is that it was a real event and the discrepancies shown are phenomena you would expect out of real events.

Maybe. But I'll put my faith in the Grand Jury system who will eventually indict several high ranking government officials on murder, conspiracy, fraud, non feasance in office, malfeasance in office, making false statements, abuse of power, undue influence and conflict of interest to cite just a few of the charges to be made. I'll trust the jury to make the decision based on the evidence you claim as 'phenomena'.

Originally posted by raas32

1) What happened to the passengers aboard the flights?

They died in the attacks.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by raas32

1) What happened to the passengers aboard the flights?

They died in the attacks.

Yes just as the thousands that the TERRORISTS tried to kill again last nite. Gee Howard these " pesky fake" terrorists sure are a hassle. Let me guess it is really the Gov doing this. Because the "truthers' were getting to close to the truth. They need a diversion to scare every one from getting colser. I can hear the CT hog wash now. What say you Howie?

While reading the local paper this morning, I stumbled on an item about Airbus prepairing their planes for cell-phone use in flight. While reading this, suddenly the phone-calls from the passangers of the hijacked planes on 9-11 came to mind. I would link the story, but it's in dutch. I have however found another item in English after a quick google.

Plane maker Airbus reported progress in plans to enable passengers to use mobile phones in flight, beginning in 2006. Test equipment aboard an Airbus A320 plane demonstrated that mobile phones can be used without interfering with navigation systems, according to Airbus.

findarticles.com...

Some questions came to mind. How could the passangers have called, when the system to do this is just now becomming available? Can someone explail this to me please? At what altitude where the phone-calls made? Is it still possible to have good reception?

I ca make 2 quick conclusions out of this:

1. (if impossible to phone): They are seriously lieing to us! Something smells fishy!

2. (if possible to phone): Are they realy recording every cell-phone call ever made by every American? They have to get the calls somewhere, or are just by chance only those calls recorded (quite a coincidence)? If this is so, then we can allso conclude that they are recording every cell-phone call of every American has been recorded even before 9-11.

It makes me wonder...

While reading the local paper this morning, I stumbled on an item about Airbus prepairing their planes for cell-phone use in flight. While reading this, suddenly the phone-calls from the passangers of the hijacked planes on 9-11 came to mind. I would link the story, but it's in dutch. I have however found another item in English after a quick google.

Except they didn't use cellphones, it was the airphones installed on the planes themselves.

ok, didn't think of that, makes sence

How many phones are there useally in those jet-liners? How many phone-calls have been made?

*edit: aren't those phones located in the corridor, wouldn't the terrorist have seen these people use the phone?

[edit on 10/8/2006 by KrisFromGenk]

First off - it's Air Bus....... second off - you can make cellphone calls from an airplane, easily. Early fears were that it would play hell with the navigational equipment, obviously. Basically it would cause the autopilot to go berzerk - in theory and plausibility. No one wanted to risk it. It wouldn't cause catastrophic failure by any means.

But when terrorists have the controls of your flight and you have no idea what's coming next..... fears over whether or not it will screw up the navigation system take a back-burner.

Honestly - I'm more concerned about the durn things giving me brain cancer or Lukemia in my left leg (pocket where I usually keep my phone). But you can correlate anything to cancer anymore.... hell - this computer monitor is probably microwaving my entire upper body!!!

As far as the altitude - OH YEAH..... you'll get better reception in a plane than you will anywhere else. Unobstructed Line of Sight (LOS for future refference), as well as the ability to catch reverberations off of the Ionosphere. Most commercial jets never reach farther than 8 miles above ground level. That's well within the range of a tower.

Any phone calls made to government officials or organizations are recorded for quality assurance purposes - many corporations as well. Families might have taped what could be their last conversation with their loved one.

That, and phone companies might possibly record phone conversations. Although that is stretching it a bit.

Johnlear - don't play dignitary on me. We both know each other's intents and you know what you sew for yourself.

I'd like to share a song written and performed by Evanescence entitled "Everybody's Fool"

"Without the mask
where will you hide?
Can't find yourself
lost in your lies.

I know the truth now
I know who you are
And I don't love you
Anymore and

Never was and
Never will be
You don't know
how you've betrayed me

Somehow you've got
everybody fooled

Never was and
Never will be
You're not real and
you can't save me

Somehow, now you're
everybody's fool!"

I find it rather fitting, don't you?

Alas, what power one gains when the numbers emass behind a common fear. What better common fear is there than an ambiguous entity comprised of humans?

The true essence of evil is not the climactic act - but rather the direction one's life takes afterwards.

Originally posted by Aim64C

As far as the altitude - OH YEAH..... you'll get better reception in a plane than you will anywhere else. Unobstructed Line of Sight (LOS for future refference), as well as the ability to catch reverberations off of the Ionosphere. Most commercial jets never reach farther than 8 miles above ground level. That's well within the range of a tower.

This function of cellphones was disabled years ago by covering the antennas so that the signal could not be picked up by someone in an airplane. The reason was that from an airplane one cellphone signal could tie up many cells at the same time which disabled them for use by someone else.

I'd like to share a song.

Please don't, I can't stand vocals. Even if they are about me. Thanks for the thought anyway.

They died in the attacks.


yes I know, but I have heard some rumors about this board that suggest that the WTC were not hit with AA flights. That they were hit with military jets or something that could cause an explosion. My question is, Where's the passengers if it wasnt the AA flights?

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Aim64C

As far as the altitude - OH YEAH..... you'll get better reception in a plane than you will anywhere else. Unobstructed Line of Sight (LOS for future refference), as well as the ability to catch reverberations off of the Ionosphere. Most commercial jets never reach farther than 8 miles above ground level. That's well within the range of a tower.

This function of cellphones was disabled years ago by covering the antennas so that the signal could not be picked up by someone in an airplane. The reason was that from an airplane one cellphone signal could tie up many cells at the same time which disabled them for use by someone else.

Almost correct.
It is true that the antennas are optomized for tower to ground reception, but radio waves still bounce off of stuff and go all over the place, including straight up into the stratosphere. Two examples: One of my coworkers had his pager go off during Boeing flight tests at cruise altitude. I've been able to use my cell phone way up on Mt. Raineer, miles above sea level and miles from any cell tower.

There's really no reason you couldn't make a cell call from an airplane, except that (1) old analog phones did bad things to unshielded avionics (2) those phones are still legal to own and use (3) shielding breaks down sometimes, (4) the FAA (or JAA, CAA, etc depending upon your country) is notoriously cautious about these things and made a regulation that you couldn't use them, and (5) the previously mentioned multi-cell lockup thingy made the cell companies nervous, so they asked for and got regulations banning cell phones at altitude.

Regarding #1 above, in the past, we have had videogames, laptop computers and all kinds of leaky electonics stuff screw with the avionics. I have to assume that our newer planes (and Airbus as well) must be immune to these problems, because you never hear about them anymore. Might have something to do with the transition from analog controls to digital ones.

As for what happened to the passengers, well, they died when their hijacked airplanes ran into stuff. I can't find the memorial email our management sent out, but I think we lost 2 or 3 Boeing employees or retirees in 9/11. Here's a link to one victim I found on the net:
www.larchmontchronicle.com...

-Boenoid

This is about the 100th ATS thread that brings up cell phone use from aircraft. It has been categorically proven that cell phones can work from aircraft. Even the majority of CTs agree on this.

The drug trade soared 2500%? Any chance of a link to this information?

Question 1:

I believe all the passengers died in the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, World Trade Centers 1 and 2 and the one that fell from the sky in Pennsylvannia. It would be too inconvientient to do anything otherwise. For support of an inside job, destroy the bodies with the crash, it's rather simplistic and involves no other questionable matter.

I do have critical view of the Flight 93 deal and the cell phone calls (NOT WHETHER THEY WERE POSSIBLE OR NOT) but rather the timelines of the calls (demonstrated on some 9/11 conspiracy theorist sites) and the nature of the call (how words were said). Very unusual.

But I believe they all died on the aircraft, it's the EASIEST and MOST CONVENIENT way of doing anything for that nature.

Question 2:

The Pentagon is an odd issue, I can't understand how a 757's nose (especially) could penetrate that far into the Pentagon after the rennovations took place. Not to say that I believe it was a missle or something else but there had to be some sort of assistance. Aluminum alloys and the radar equipment in the front of the plane ARE NOT enough to cause a puncture wound that deep through that type of reinforced building material.

Question 3:

I'm very on the fence with the Pentagon issue but I believe it was a 757, less stuff to coverup. I'd like to have more videos released of what hit the Pentagon though, just sort of a satisfaction.

Question 4:

I believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by bigger business to give us a stronger control over global affairs, which in the end will end up biting us back in the butt, but it happens.

Originally posted by Willard856
The drug trade soared 2500%? Any chance of a link to this information?

The Taliban banned opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan in late 1997.

By February 2001, production had reduced by 98%.

Following the fall of the Taliban regime, the areas controlled by the Northern Alliance resumed opium production and by 2004 production was 87% of the world's opium supply.

Poppy production hit a record high since the fall of the Taliban government.

Source

Originally posted by Willard856

The drug trade soared 2500%? Any chance of a link to this information?

Yes. Check 'Secret Black Budget Expenditures Soar after Afghan Invasion". Or google "Afghan Drug Trade Up".