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 debunky
Footprint, huh?
research.unc.edu...
But we won't discuss your rambling
of course, because you said it was off limits.
I therefore will not mention that a boeing 757 costs 80 million dollars.
Little hint though: if you build strawmans, you are supposed to build them for the other side.
Anyway:
NPT has one problem besides being impossible: We didn't use real planes ... why?
Originally posted by rich23
People say that a jet going 500mph couldn't penetrate the outer skin of the towers.
Originally posted by rich23
I then thought about the other sites, not the WTC. And it was as soon as I started thinking about Shanksville that I started to really wonder.
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The first biggest problem with the NPT, before you actually get into the nitty gritty, is that is unnecessarily complicated, and nonsensical.
Lets pretend for a moment that we are the perps of 9/11, and are planning the operation.
unstable, unreliable, not fully tested and understood technologies that have a high probability of not only critical failure, but exposing the conspiracy,
or, would you use jetliners full of people,
That, to me, is the first stumbling block for the NPT. Before you even get to logistics, physical evidence, eyewitnesses, video footage, ect ect ect ect.
Originally posted by rich23
Do you see what I'm driving at with Shanksville?
Originally posted by rich23
Is the photo genuine? If so, does it show a fake explosion intended to be the crash?
Originally posted by rich23
I've seen enough links to make me think that the very obvious technical problems associated with it (holograms, sound, perfectly timed explosions) could have been worked through, and it would avoid the whole messy and dangerous business of flying real planes around.
Originally posted by rich23
I just can't quite make it all add up at the moment. Any help with the questions I've raised?
Originally posted by rich23
That's kind of what I'm doing. The difference is that I'm removing the assumption (which I had held) that the alternative means available is
unstable, unreliable, not fully tested and understood technologies that have a high probability of not only critical failure, but exposing the conspiracy,
Once you remove that assumption, things look a little different, and I've seen some links lately (can't drum them up now, sorry) that make me think that maybe that technology is available to a small group of people.
Did you ever see the video of the guy in the Predator-type invisibility suit? It looks like a video that the insurgents left running. A tank or apc comes into view and an IED goes off, but no harm done. Tnen... it's hard to tell what you're looking at but eventually a figure resolves itself as it climbs onto the vehicle. Very odd. And this is something that people have been working on, it's known, but there's no hint of something that successful.
So, kind of as a thought experiment I'm suspending that assumption.
As I understand it at this point there are quite a few options and I'm not wedded to any of these ideas at the moment myself.
First, yes, you have the airliners full of people. But then you have the possibility of making a switch in mid-air to a plane you've already prepared. That saves you the potential risk of exposure through installing Global Hawk in passenger planes. All you have to do is get the pilot to land somewhere.
And of course there are people who say the planes never took off, they weren't scheduled. I haven't done enough research on this to have an opinion but I'd rate it as low probability.
Why NOT use real planes?
The first reason that springs to mind is that it would be impossible for a skilled pilot to do it. I have to admit, it's pretty weak on its face and the guy who's pushing it is John Lear. I'm afraid that anyone who says it's easy on a flight simulator on their PC cuts no ice with me. I have no personal knowledge.
I guess if I get an answer to that question I'll get an answer as to whether John Lear is consciously part of a disinfo op.
I am suspending the idea that the technology involved in holograms wouldn't work, including all the tedious business of timing.
I guess the best reason I can come up with for not using real planes is that there are risks associated with having hunks of metal flying around at 550 knots. What if one of them had missed? What if it had hit another building which then conspicuously failed to collapse? That could have been embarrassing.
I know what you mean. As I say, I'm just thinking this one through, again... and I think I'm coming back to my original position, which is that NPT doesn't work, Sometimes it's good to recosider even the implausible, though. But I can't come up with any compelling reasons not to use real planes (though I suspect that the ones that hit the towers might not have been the ones that took off, for reasons I detailed earlier).
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_ElfI read a few posts a while ago that showed that a couple of the planes used in 9/11 had been grounded for quite some time before 9/11.
Everything I have seen on ATS and elsewhere leads me to believe said planes did take off. Most of those who claim differently either take old, confused reports or misread alot of things, as far as i can tell.
However, I know several pilots who say differently.
the Pentagon he just scratches his head.
The Pentagon, however, is a different story. Of course, i do believe flight 77 hit the pentagon, but I think that, given the witness descriptions of pre crash maneuvering, my guess is that was most possibly running by remote control.
Originally posted by rich23
And for this, too. I've seen enough of your posts to consider you a trustworthy souce...
Which is sad, because that means that Lear is almost certainly a witting disinfo agent. That's disappointing. I had thought that some of his claims were fed to him by people who were using him. But this is pretty unequivocal. I noticed that Pilots for 9/11 Truth don't make that claim, and that didn't sit right. On the other hand, you have to consider the idea that any of these organisations could be penetrated by gubmint agents. It sounds paranoid, but when you look at the history of independent UFO investigative agencies, it's very much a standard thing.
I think I'm with the flyover people on this. I'm surprised you think the plane hit the Pentagon, actually. I agree on the remote control thing, there's no way the hijackers had enough skill to pull it off.
I think the Pentagon was a different game plan from the start. Newly reinforced wall or no, I don't think the people who organised this wanted to risk unplanned damage to the Pentagon, so if you're going to use a real plane then you're looking at a flyover. And the interviews Craig Ranke did with the two policemen who were at the Citgo station were pretty convincing. They both agreed that the plane passed over to their left as you look toward the Pentagon, which makes a nonsense of the alleged impact and penetration of the building, which would require the plane to come from a completely different direction.
I don't think the hijackers thought they were going to die, necessarily. The fact that they couldn't be bothered to learn to fly suggests that they might have known they wouldn't have to. They were being run by the CIA, and I think they'd been fed some script to run through. Then at some point they realise they're going to hit a building...
About the level of technology involved. The thing that made me put that argument on hold was seeing a link to a 1996 project specification about producing holographic sound for military applications. I'm very much of the opinion that what we get to see is generally a generation behind the cutting edge.
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I am one of the few who believe that flight 77 (or something the right size and shape) did indeed strike the Pentagon. I base this on many eyewitness accounts, physical evidence
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I am one of the few who believe that flight 77 (or something the right size and shape) did indeed strike the Pentagon.
Ahhh! Finally! Someone else has reached a probable scenario to explain the hijackers, one which I tend to hold onto.
"...they could have been told they were simply hijacking the plane, thinking they were going to land somewhere and make demands, only to discover the planes started flying with minds of their own.
Originally posted by rich23
You make a pretty good case, but I'm left with pictures of that tiny hole and the "hello golfers" lawn where the plane should have crashed.
I know what you mean about people seeing the plane flying away but from what I remember it's towards the river and there might even be a handy landing strip. I might be filling that bit in. It's a toughie.
If you haven't already, google video Webster Tarpley's lecture on 9/11 being the key to avoiding WWIII. You've got details of all the exercises and the groups who are actually running the terrorists. Some are real terrorists, but I think our hijackers are a bunch of slackers whose only real function is to get on a plane at a given time (and of course leave some Korans around).
If you haven't read Daniel Hopsicker (he of Mad Cow Morning News)'s stuff on Atta, that gets into his visits to the air base to get coke, and the German guy who was his CIA handler.
(See, to me these two guys have done really vital work on the various aspects of this thing, and when that little #### Fintan Dunne slandered them as disinfo, that marked him out for me. I'd say COINTELPRO for sure.)
So when you've seen the Webster Tarpley lecture, you're then really set up to watch Core of Corruption. If you've seen it already, watch it again after the Tarpley. It makes a lot of pieces fall into place.
This is why the whistleblowers who talk about giving visas to terrorists in places like Saudi Arabia and elsewhere are so important.
Tarpley points out that you have to have someone running interference for the terrorists while they're setting themselves up in the US. Hence all the blocking of investigations into, for example, Atta.
The fact that they didn't bother learning to land points most obviously to a suicide mission. However, if some of the people know beforehand that it's a game and they won't have to actually fly... that works, too.
Hopsicker interviewed Atta's girlfriend and she talks about the last night, and a farewell drink and coke binge with Wolfgang (?) the German CIA contact. (Who, incidentally, turns up in the Pacific some months later, is arrested and gets out by saying he's with the CIA.) It seemed like he knew he wasn't coming back but I'd have to see the interview again to try to gauge whether or not he thought that was because he'd be dead.
As to the identity of the hijackers... that is a whole can of worms. I'm not sure what CCTV footage exists of all of them, I've seen one or two pictures.
I've only seen the grainy pictures at Bangor airport. That wasx it. Every airport had video cameras of some sort back then....so where are the stills from Logan, Newark, and Dulles airports?
Questions, questions....
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I need more solid, credible evidence than just a couple of photos.
you have to assume massively advanced technology that deals with not only issues of appearance and sound, but also the timing of explosions in the Towers. (Unless you assume something like a cruise missile with hologram technology was used).
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I need more solid, credible evidence than just a couple of photos.
Solid, credible evidence is having plane parts, seats, luggage, bodies, etc. being shown in these pictures. We do not have any of the solid, credible evidence. Therefore, the lack of 200,000 pounds of plane debris can only equal lack of a plane.
Just because there's a couple witnesses that said they saw some bodies still strapped in the seats, doesn't mean it actually happened. Where's the photos? Where's the couple-hundred other seats?
Sorry, but solid, credible evidence to a jetliner striking the building is missing. I'm not going to take a few peoples' words for it. Brig. Gen. Stubblebine says there's no way a large jetliner could have crashed into the Pentagon and made the damage we see. Now there's a thread that was just posted today of professional pilots that are saying they can't even do the maneuvers that we were told happened on 9/11. Then there's Jamie McIntyre from CNN that reported on 9/11 just after the crash that from his close-up inspection, there was no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
Believe what you will, but every single piece of evidence suggests that no large jetliner struck the Pentagon and nowhere near enough evidence to even suggest that one did.
[edit on 15-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]