A Nail in the offical story! Sept 12th 1970 4 planes hijacked by Islamic Jihad!

reply to post by Peace Pipe


Here is a picture of a plane the dropped from the sky, now tell me the factor of destruction isn't considered in civilian aircraft!

587

reply to post by Miracle Man

If that is your opinion then you can have it, I just gave mine and you can do with it what you will. Just seems to me that you are reaching with yours.

I appreciate your view.

I was trying to share the fact that History has shown us all the things that made 911, before, yet they want us to believe they didn't know.

Which is anything but true!

reply to post by theability


It is an accident. Using your logic we could say that oil rigs are a weapon because of the destruction they are causing in the gulf right now.

reply to post by Peace Pipe


I believe my point is this, 9/11 hapened 31 years prior, with planes bound for NEW YORK with jihad hijackers with grenades.

IE weapons!

For them, The Bush ADMIN to say they didn't know is a bunch of spin.

They had already known this was possible. Planes Have been weapons since the day the were invented.

Its not new news, its old news, kamkazee pilots were a great example!

reply to post by theability


LOL, so Bush was supposed to remember a news story from 31 years ago in order to think a group of people would be crazy enough to hijack a plane and knowling kill themselves flying into that. Isnt that asking a bit much?

reply to post by Peace Pipe

LOL, so Bush was supposed to remember a news story from 31 years ago in order to think a group of people would be crazy enough to hijack a plane and knowling kill themselves flying into that. Isnt that asking a bit much?

I see your point ok I do. What I am offering is that the FAA hasn't forgot!

Like this, when a bomb were snuck on a flight in longmont colorado.

Flight 629

reply to post by theability


I understand your argument and I agree with it. Perhaps it is your use of hijackings or kamizazis to say, SEE THEY HAD TO HAVE KNOWN that reeks of hyperbole. They knew, as I stated, that there had been previous plans at hijacking and using the planes to fly into heritage sites (ie Eifel tower)...so yes, they DID know. Your ideas of blowing up empty planes in the desert and military attack craft crashing purposefully into opposing military craft still doesn't make your argument as stated in the headline.

ColoradoJens

reply to post by theability


Well I agree that maybe someone at the FAA may have remembered it, but it is way more complicated than that. That person has to have the power to make it an issue, and even if he does he is most likely going to be thought of as a raving lunatic if nothing happens.

reply to post by ColoradoJens


The use of the headline was because the hijackers in 1970 on sept 12th were headed to New York with grenades on board, obviosuly going to use the planes to be extra "munitions" for a big fireworks show for their movement right?

Spet 11th 2001 was not new, it obviously is a repeat!

That is why I used the headline...

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Most religious nut are not wired 100,000 dollars from Pakistani intelligence.

Actually, most hijackers are paid in some form of ransom, especially the religious nuts. The hijackings of the 70's and 80's actually play a larger role in what is going on today than most realize (9/11 aside). You'd be suprised how many "terrorist hijackers" have been traded in prisoner swaps and how many are free today.

ColoradoJens

reply to post by Peace Pipe

Well I agree that maybe someone at the FAA may have remembered it, but it is way more complicated than that..

You have me there...touche!

I was very upset when I found this out though if you can relate. That something of the sort 31 years happened about the same?!

[speculation here] If I was in the FAA I would have the history of the Worlds hijacking and flights bound or in the USA known to all in charge.

But I have to say, that is rather unrealistic. Even I am human.

reply to post by theability


Its all good. In your favor, I see your point about the similarities and they are a bit odd.. especially the 9.12

It is just that hindsight is always 20/20. How many times do you screw up and then like a day later you smack your forhead and say darn I should have known that.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

The use of the headline was because the hijackers in 1970 on sept 12th were headed to New York with grenades on board, obviosuly going to use the planes to be extra "munitions" for a big fireworks show for their movement right?

Spet 11th 2001 was not new, it obviously is a repeat!

That is why I used the headline...

The only thing I see wrong with this is that Sept 12 and 11th are different dates (if there is some significance) and that is simply your assumption that they would use the planes as "extra munitions" (ahem) along with (ahem) gernades. This wasn't a modus operandi used previously within the context of "terrorism", even as defined in the 70's. They wanted the world to hear their demands and they most certainly wanted to live, even if duplicitous.

ColoradoJens

ColoradoJens

reply to post by Peace Pipe

Its all good. In your favor, I see your point about the similarities and they are a bit odd.. especially the 9.12

It is just that hindsight is always 20/20. How many times do you screw up and then like a day later you smack your forhead and say darn I should have known that.

[smack I should have seen that]

For the most part, everyone makes mistakes I understand that , we are human...

yet these smiliarities are beyond denying.

"9/12 the day planes stood on the runway!" 31 years later!

I am definitely reaching on that one, but???

reply to post by ColoradoJens

The only thing I see wrong with this is that Sept 12 and 11th are different dates (if there is some significance) and that is simply your assumption that they would use the planes as "extra munitions" (ahem) along with (ahem) gernades. This wasn't a modus operandi used previously within the context of "terrorism", even as defined in the 70's. They wanted the world to hear their demands and they most certainly wanted to live, even if duplicitous.

ColoradoJens You are absolutely right with that I am reaching beyond!

The original point was that, there was the idea: That planes are weapons, and they Bush admin had to know.

From there I am engaging in highly speculative discussion with you and others.. So yes the grenade talk was a bit a hyperbole. forgive me?




[edit on 29-4-2010 by theability]

Originally posted by theability
So How could anyone close to the FAA or Counter-Terrorism have forgotten about Sept 6th 1970?

I bet alot of FAA secruity measures were implemented, but the Bush admin forgot??

A great point. I don't think they forgot.

So they suddenly started using armed air marshals after this? Where were they on 9/11, thirty years later?

You would think that planes would have cameras on them these days too, I mean, even buses do.

reply to post by NuclearPaul

So they suddenly started using armed air marshals after this? Where were they on 9/11, thirty years later?

You would think that planes would have cameras on them these days too, I mean, even buses do.

Such a great post!! I never thought about that, video cameras are on every bus!

Why not planes? That is an excellent point!

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by NuclearPaul

 

So they suddenly started using armed air marshals after this? Where were they on 9/11, thirty years later?

You would think that planes would have cameras on them these days too, I mean, even buses do.

Such a great post!! I never thought about that, video cameras are on every bus!

Why not planes? That is an excellent point!

Now that is an interesting thought. The only idea I can think of is there is not another location that can track the signal? If not, in light of all these other offenses recently, why not have cameras? I'm sure this has been discussed. Also, please don't see me as dismissive. I agree with you the whole shock of using planes as a weapon is absurd, I just think these examples are somewhat evident.

ColoradorapidsJens

This isn't a particularly obscure event. Certainly I've heard about it before and seen the ITV footage of the planes exploding as well.

If you read the sources you provide you'll see that it bears almost no resemblance to 9/11 either. Civilians released unharmed, hijackers not on a suicide mission, no attempt to use the planes as weapons.

If anything a study of this hijacking would make you far less likely to foil a 9/11 style attack because you would assume you were dealing with rational terrorists who don't want to murder people.

Indeed look at the reactions of the people on the 9/11 flights. They sat tight on all bar one because they knew about the kinds of hijackings that had occurred in the 70s and assumed cooperation was their best chance of survival. A quite understandable course of action.

bears no resemblance to 9/11...hmm

Pan American Flight 93 (type Boeing 747, serial 19656/34, registration N752PA, Clipper Fortune) was carrying 136 passengers and 17 crew. The flight was from Brussels, Belgium, to New York, with a stop in Amsterdam. The two hijackers bumped from the El Al flight boarded and hijacked this flight as a target of opportunity.

hmm flight 93 doesn't bear any similiarity at all....