I'm curious how many ATS users still believe the official story, page 4

posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 04:07 PM

link

Originally posted by Essedarius
By "there" and "everywhere" I assume you mean "PrisonPlanet.com" and "ConspiracyClub.com."

The official story is the biggest conspiracy theory.

1. 19 people who could barely fly. Hijack 4 planes and fly them like experts.

2. Several of them flagged at the airport and setting off securty scanners, and stll let get on the planes.

3. Beating NORADS defenses.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Essedarius

posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 04:32 PM

link

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. 19 people who could barely fly.

Why do you think they couldn't fly? Where did you get their flight training history? (Not attacking...a sincere question.)

Hijack 4 planes and fly them like experts.

To be accurate, experts usually land their planes. The hijackers flew the planes like insane terrorists.

Several of them flagged at the airport and setting off securty scanners, and stll let get on the planes.

So the CIA took care of NORAD, the FAA, and security at the Twin Towers...but couldn't best airport security?

Beating NORADS defenses.

Incompetence does not equal intention.

While it does seem unlikely that our air defense would be so dreadfully unprepared for an attack, it is more unlikely (in my opinion) that many members of NORAD and the FAA were convinced to forsake their countrymen and allow them to be murdered by unmanned military aircraft piloted via remote control by the CIA.

Unisol

posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 04:36 PM

link

well i dont know but new york is a big city and big target for terorists.
shouldnt they be f-16's at the first sign of a big plane fliyng out of his course?
couse when a plane outers his course and heads for two big buildgings...cmon obvious
maybe it happend too fast
and still if they attack the plane it will crash and still make many casualties

[edit on 29/3/07 by Unisol]

Damocles

posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 05:02 PM

link

thing is, and you raise a good point, they WONT shoot down over a city, but in all of the highjacking in the whole world, can anyone tell me of one that didnt end in "take me to (insert city here)" where they landed then were either arrested or killed? anyone?

when in the history of highjackings was any airliner ever aimed at a building? (please no one mention the cesna some guy "highjacked" and aimed at the whitehouse, thats not an airliner)

werent most flight crews always taught to comply with highjackers cuz for the most part most of the passengers always got released safely in the end?

so why would we shoot down a highjacked airliner? (im willing to believe flt 93 was shot down. why wont the govt admit this? cuz "lets roll" makes such a damn good HOOAH! story for the public and makes the passengers on 93 heros instead of victems. if it was shot down, id just as soon not know. but thats just me. )

and arent norads assetts trained on the oceans etc? how many norad stations monitor the interior of the US. norad exists to protect us from other nation states trying to get long range bombers in or from finding a way past our subs to get an aircraft carrier within striking range.

tis the faa's job to monitor airliners, not norads. if the faa drps the ball talking to norad how is that norads fault?

these are honest questions based on what i know. if what i know is faulty, im willing to accept that.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Damocles]

hikix

posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 05:13 PM

link

NORAD ... 'Protects North America from air attacks' (except on September 11th)

ULTIMA1

posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 05:25 PM

link

Originally posted by Essedarius
Why do you think they couldn't fly? Where did you get their flight training history? (Not attacking...a sincere question.)

To be accurate, experts usually land their planes. The hijackers flew the planes like insane terrorists.

So the CIA took care of NORAD, the FAA, and security at the Twin Towers...but couldn't best airport security?

Incompetence does not equal intention.

1. Becasue they were barely able to get pilot certification, some of them failed a lot of basic flight training.

2. But the made a lot of experienced manuevers, even air trafiic controllers thought flight 77 was a military plane because of speed and things they did.

3. Well how did the terrorist who were flagged and set of scanners still aloud toget on the plane ?

4. If they were so incompetent why was no 1 punished or fired, the people at NORAD involved were promoted.

ULTIMA1

posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 05:32 PM

link

when in the history of highjackings was any airliner ever aimed at a building? (please no one mention the cesna some guy "highjacked" and aimed at the whitehouse, thats not an airliner)

werent most flight crews always taught to comply with highjackers cuz for the most part most of the passengers always got released safely in the end
[edit on 29-3-2007 by Damocles]

Thier have been casese of planes used as weapons, as far back as the mid 90's.

www.globalsecurity.org...

The first major wake-up call occurred in 1994, when terrorists planned on blowing up a dozen US commercial aircraft over the Pacific Ocean. This was thwarted by an accidental fire in the apartment where the bombs were being constructed. The second major wake-up call occurred in 1995 when terrorists planned on crashing an airliner into the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Only quick and decisive action by French commandos prevented this disaster. There were also additional indicators.

Protocol is to go along with the hijackers but not to turn control of your plane over to the terrorist as is supposidly what happened on flight 77 since the flight attendent stated onthe phone that the pilots and crew where taken to the back of the plane.

Damocles

posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Thier have been casese of planes used as weapons, as far back as the mid 90's.

well, there were PLANS to use them as weapons, but it never actually happened and most people didnt even know of these situations. so to me its not a suprise that everyone stood there with their mouths open going "OMIGOD" when it actually did happen.

Protocol is to go along with the hijackers but not to turn control of your plane over to the terrorist as is supposidly what happened on flight 77 since the flight attendent stated onthe phone that the pilots and crew where taken to the back of the plane.

and this is yet another of the reasons why things dont all fit so well when i look at the whole picture. its these little things that make me keep an open mind about what happened and dont blindly follow the official story to the letter.

Paul3

posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link

If anyone really wants to see a smoking gun all they have to do is watch Pandora's Black Box Chapter 2 . You can find it at YouTube, sorry no link. Its about flt. 77 that they say hit the Pentagon. Its about 1hr.

Fushiante

posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link

im not familiar with the theroy you all are talking about, but from what i can see here it seems interesting... can anyone explain to me this theroy in greater detail?

Essedarius

posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link

Originally posted by Fushiante
... can anyone explain to me this theroy in greater detail?

That's a mouthful, friend.

Hit wikipedia and search "9/11 Conspiracies."

ULTIMA1

posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link

Originally posted by Damocles
well, there were PLANS to use them as weapons, but it never actually happened and most people didnt even know of these situations. so to me its not a suprise that everyone stood there with their mouths open going "OMIGOD" when it actually did happen.

The plane was hijacked to crash into the Eiffel Tower but the military stopped it in time. Actually the FAA was aware of these and other plans to use aircraft and weapons.

i160.photobucket.com...

i160.photobucket.com...

golddragnet

posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link

Originally posted by hikix
I am curious how many ATS users still believe the official story

I still believe the official story is BS

Muppetus Galacticus

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 02:34 AM
link

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Protocol is to go along with the hijackers but not to turn control of your plane over to the terrorist as is supposidly what happened on flight 77 since the flight attendent stated onthe phone that the pilots and crew where taken to the back of the plane.

Could human nature have not just kicked in if people would have been killed on the spot if they did not comply?

ULTIMA1

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
Could human nature have not just kicked in if people would have been killed on the spot if they did not comply?

Well the pilot of flight 77 was a Vietnam vet, and his family and friends have stated that he would not have given up his plane without a fight.

VicRH

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 06:04 AM
link

The official story is a whitewash.

infinityoreilly

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link

Has all the evidence been relaesed? Until then there is no "official" story!

ULTIMA1

posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
Has all the evidence been relaesed? Until then there is no "official" story!

Then what are people using to debate the people that are looking for the truth with ?

Essedarius

posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Then what are people using to debate the people that are looking for the truth with ?

Logic.

ULTIMA1

posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link

Originally posted by Essedarius
Logic.

Well not very good logic if they do not have any facts or evidence to support it.