It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Final Straw

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:28 AM
The final straw that broke the pilot,s back.

First off this is my opinion ONLY!! Let me digress for a moment..

After looking upon this topic from the beginning and discussing it in lengths with highly qualified pilots around the world it seems that NO-ONE has offered any evidence to back up that the Pentagon attack was successfully achieved by an amateur pilot flying an unfamiliar aircraft at an impossibly low level with zero casualties suffered by bystanders.

"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

No Shhhh, Sherlock!!!

It would be almost impossible to ascertain if it was a bomb planted as security cleanups would spirit any such evidence away faster than you could say ''Osama''
so unfortunately that course of investigation is not open to us....

Imagine this though..

You are one of the few experienced pilots in the USAF left on the ground due to the highly unlikely co-incidence of a drill regarding the very same scenario that has just transpired..

1)You get reports of the first hijacking(which is a high alert in itself warranting scramble)
2)You may in fact query the lack of command for an interception
3)You are now receiving reports of further hijackings and must now be aware that something very unnusual is taking place
4)You are finally scrambled as the first impact has occurred..

Wouldn,t you be a little anxious and want to take down the other planes as it is now SCREAMINGLY obvious what is happening/going to happen regarding the other hijacked planes.

At having a top speed imposed upon you that would make it impossible to reach the second WTC plane??Angry???

What about feeling furious at the denial of an interception request after the second impact regarding the remaining planes??

Maybe outraged/hysterical at an order to take down a plane where it seems that the passengers are about to break through into one planes cockpit and have a VERY small chance(but a chance nontheless) or regaining control?

Where would you go to vent your anger??
The very top of the command chain maybe??
The Pentagon??

It,s pretty obvious that an overwhelming betrayal by the command chain you have worked years for is going to leave you with a complete loss of purpose and a sense of futility..Both depressive states which have cost numerous cases of suicide..

Again I must repeat.This is my point of view solely..


posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:39 AM
In 1997 Clinton Admin changed the rules of interception for specifically Missile attacks upon the US.

Robert Bell, senior director for defense policy and arms control at the National Security Council (1997 quote)

‘in this PDD we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning—to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence’. Bell pointed out that while the United States has always had the “technical capability” to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. “Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating,”

Before Bush and Cheney transferred shoot-down power from NORAD, Clinton was already neutralising the Military defense system.

but Secret Service were ramping it up in response;

missile attack on presidential limo

I always wondered why the Secret Service left Bush in the school for 15 mins (or whatever time) and didnt whisk him out of there immediately. Now it is a little clearer…. they were worried about missile attacks on the presidential car.

Is this why NORAD stood down? Cheney was following procedure by allowing the missiles to hit their targets.

Rumsfeld 2001

Here we’re talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center

NORAD, the Military, the Administration do not want to admit that it was/is National Security policy to allow missiles to hit their targets.

So as a brief conclusion;

No pilot would be upset or outraged because since 1997 it was standard military procedure to allow missiles to hit their targets.

Within all the lies by the Bush Admin and Neo-cons it is a common line of

hijacked jets hit the buildings

Why is this aspect of the official story being accepted as truth when accepting military response, the NORAD tapes, Rumsfelds quote it is much more plausible that missiles were used on 9/11 and thus the STAND DOWN order and thus the silence.

Everything was done to procedure on that day.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by debate]

[edit on 21-9-2006 by debate]


log in