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.
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
NORAD is the key. If it could be logically explained why it took so long for the fighters to be scrambled and to intercept the errent aircraft, much doubt and speculation would be put to rest. Until those questions are answered specifically, the conspiracies and doubts will rage.
Originally posted by COOL HAND
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
One need only look at the amount of time from when NORAD was officially informed, to when planes were in the air to answer that.
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Go study the Payne Stewart incident. You might then grasp the established protocol.
But wait, I know, you won't. and please don't waste bandwidth telling me why you don't have to.
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Originally posted by Pisky
When Payne Stewart's plane left its flight trajectory, military jets were quickly scrambled to find out what was going on.
Are we therefore supposed to believe that four passenger aircraft can do the same with no military presence whatsoever (except possibly flight 93).
Bollocks.
Excellent point, Pisky. Just study Stewart's case. NORAD was stood down.
9-11 was a false flag operation.
Study Operation Northwoods. It's an excellent starting point.
April 30, 2001
In his new expos� of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled �Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba� was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake �Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,� including �sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),� faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a �Remember the Maine� incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods �may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.�
www.gwu.edu...
I am not a civil engineer
Originally posted by Muaddib
I am not a civil engineer
That's the only anwser I need. Are you going to lecture us next in any other topic you have no experience or reliable knowledge about?
Originally posted by Muaddib
I am not a civil engineer
That's the only anwser I need. Are you going to lecture us next in any other topic you have no experience or reliable knowledge about?
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Originally posted by Muaddib
I am not a civil engineer
That's the only anwser I need. Are you going to lecture us next in any other topic you have no experience or reliable knowledge about?
You don't need to be in the field to hold an opinion. I am neither a doctor nor a woman, but I still reserve judgement on abortion. Neither of which matter.
You don't need to be in the field to hold an opinion. I am neither a doctor nor a woman, but I still reserve judgement on abortion. Neither of which matter.
Originally posted by Facefirst
I have yet to see any concrete, irrefutable shred of convincing evidence that the 911 attacks were beyond what they were.
Bomb blasts heard? Could have been anything.
Originally posted by billybob
probably just a repeating chili blast, yeah? new york gastriodemolition?
Originally posted by Muaddib
You are all trying to present this information as the truth, so i have to say it does matter.
There is a difference between saying an opinion and presenting opinions/wild allegations as truth.
A skyscrapper is not like a tree, where if you cut it in one side the tree will fall sideways. The physics involved in the construction of skyscrapers make it so they only collapse mostly on themselves and not sideways.
Skyscrapers are actually designed as a net of steel beams, where if there is one part of it becomes weak, still the rest of the net will hold and if it falls, it will fall on itself, not sideways.
In order for the twin towers to have fallen sideways, because of its base, which was 208 feet at one side, the top of the tower would have to bend over 100 feet to one side to move its center of gravity, and because of the way these skyscrapers are built, before that happens it falls on itself because of buckling columns, which make skyscrapers collapse on themselves before they tip over.
I already explained about backdrafts, as the above rooms in the twin towers were burning, and consuming all of the air, when one section of the floor gives way, the fire from the top absorbs the air from the room below it and makes an explotion. Also there are bound to be janitor closets in skyscrapers, and janitor rooms have a lot of flammable chemicals that will "explode." I am not sure if there were any gas lines in the Twin towers, but those can explode pretty loud too when there is a big fire.
Here is a good site if you want to inform yourselves about this.
"NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?
Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over."
Excerpt taken from.
www.pbs.org...
Sat Apr 03, 2004 Ah, finally I have a blog for all those interested people. Pretty much I will be covering my music, my political views, and my life. So let me let you in on the basics. I am a Real Estate agent in Virginia. I am married and have two boys. Connor (3) and Jack (8 months). I do ATS and write music in my spare time.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Oh really? not according to what you say here.
blogs.abovetopsecret.com...
There is a difference between being a real state agent and an Engineer.
You might know a thing or two about buildings since you sell real state, but you are not an expert, I have worked in construction and know a thing or two about buildings, but I know I am not a civil engineer, I am only a computer and electronic engineer.
As for reserving judgement on the issue, you can think what you want, but i am tired of people posting misinformation and wild allegations as if they were true.
[Edited on 24-4-2004 by Muaddib]
First of all I was not lecturing just giving my opinion, nor was I pretending to be an expert at any time, second, it does not take a civil engineer to know that when things are off balance they normally fall usually to one side or the other, but not implode as the WTC did.