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.
quoted by seekerofYour 'exclusive' reports have the vectored intercept aircraft coming out from which bases? Fuel loads? Consumption rates? Distances? Length of time of intercept flights taking off from the time that the verification process and intercept orders were issued and transmitted to the inceptor bases?
as quoted by SkepticOverlord
How far from relaxed pilot not on alert, to flight-suit-ready in a fueled and armed fighter jet?
How far from startled air traffic control/NORAD to alerting the commander of the relaxed fighter pilot?
From a pure usability standpoint, it's much more effective to have a mega-thread focused on intense discussion of a singular topic, than dozens of short threads that skirt subordinate issues of that topic.
'
Originally posted by browha
Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
July 17, 1996. TWA 800 took off from JFK Airport on Wednesday evening, July 17, 1996, and exploded a few minutes later over the Atlantic Ocean, near Long Island. Swiss Air 111 took off from the same airport on Wednesday evening, 9/2,(9+2=11) 1998, and went down in flames into the Atlantic Ocean off the province of Nova Scotia, Canada. The number of weeks between these two accidents is exactly 111, the same as the Swiss Air flight number. Tuesday 9/11 2001
Anyway..
What relevance is the aircrash?
Originally posted by innkue
i'd just like to say google isnt a very good deep research tool. it only indexes popular sites, ie, sites which have been hit lots. this is obviously a narrowing cascade effect of information referencing. i'd recommend you seek other search tools to complement google.
as quoted by SkepticOverlord
How far from relaxed pilot not on alert, to flight-suit-ready in a fueled and armed fighter jet?
Originally posted by aware
What you really need to ask yourself is whats NORAD's explenation.
Originally posted by smirkley
Well I didnt read all nine pages, so this may be redundant, but did want to throw in a link...
www.tbtf.com...
CNN is listed, as the 110th floor resident. Although maybe not the actual 'HQ' as we all know that is in Atlanta. But a NY office maybe?
I never said anything has been concluded at all! Who's putting words in my mouth?!
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf Hence seekerof, why William is incoorect in is assumption that we have concluded anything.
Originally posted by mepatriot
RE: The lack of interceptors. That has been rehashed here on ATS aplenty. I DID NOT RAISE IT ON THIS THREAD, as this thread is for new 911 materials only.
Things can be added.
For what it's worth it is my firm belief.
Thats all any of us go on when we are with out proof.
Planted for what purpose. The 110th floor of the north tower is right under what was the most dense collection of transmission antennas in the north east. Certainly there was a need for a lot of floor space devoted to radio equipment and the like. Face it... your claim went from HQ, to NYC HQ, to NYC Office, to broom closet pretty quickly. 200 square feet is not an office.
Originally posted by mepatriot Remember too, the 200 SF thing could very easily be planted information.
It certainly has. You just deny it because it doesn't fit into your contrived story.
IMO, IT HAS NOT BEEN DEFINITIVELY SHOWN AS OF YET THAT CNN DID NOT HAVE A MAJOR OFFICE OF SOME SORT ON FLOOR 110.
Could have and should have certainly. The people in the seats at the controls at the time simply were unable to fathom this type of attack... we're unable to think that way. There are dozens upon dozens of issues of concern related to 9/11. I experienced the attacks first hand, and the weeks of aftermath here in NYC. Due to the unfortunate issues of far too many websites posting fallacies about the events, there are a lot of confused people looking down the wrong paths attempting to find some kernel of truth. The CNN closet on the 110th floor is not related to any kernel of truth. We viciously debunked your claims to lay open the very real possibility your research is incomplete and inaccurate. This is how real research and peer review happens. One line, often repeated throughout history, and made famous by a real conspiracy, rings true now, and into the future, "follow the money". (And one bizarre character from ATS about 9 months ago) There's no money to follow in the CNN closet on the 110th floor. There's no money to follow in the passenger manifest on the airlines. There's no money to follow in inaccurate numerology around the number 11. Time and time again, history has taught us one reliable fact about all conspiracies that end up being reality... the money trail tells the tale. If you want to expend your energies on this topic in a constructive way that may return results, learn from history and alter your angle of approach. If there is a conspiracy to be found, money will be involved, and the trail will lead you to your answers.
For what it's worth it is my firm belief that the Pentagon object could have been/should have been intercepted.
Yes. The intense thermal updrafts from the heat made it impossible. Not to mention the crowded roof surface didn't have a landing spot, and the smoke made it impossible to see with clarity. New York 1 (the local version of CNN here) ran a story on the pilots of two police helicopters who made repeated attempts to get close enough to lower rope ladder or a line. It just wasn't possible.
Originally posted by mepatriot Does know one have any information as to whether or not the folks involved in the 9/11 disaster could have tried to get out on the roof?