Pentagon - Other than an aircraft theory - Where are the passengers at then?

reply to post by buster2010


What many laypeople and those who are just well, lets say inexperienced realize that in military and their related circles, the language consisting of using the word "missile" for a variety of airborne and or flying object is very common. This video is nothing more than a slip of tounge and little else.

His body labguage after saying it and his expression and tone does not indicate he said something he shouldn't have.

reply to post by buster2010


In my interpretation of this, I feel that the plane was not shot down. I do believe that the order was given to shoot it down, but the passengers brought it down before the fighters arrived to carry out the order.

Originally posted by Humint1
reply to post by buster2010

 

What many laypeople and those who are just well, lets say inexperienced realize that in military and their related circles, the language consisting of using the word "missile" for a variety of airborne and or flying object is very common. This video is nothing more than a slip of tongue and little else.

His body language after saying it and his expression and tone does not indicate he said something he shouldn't have.

You know the whole time I was in the military every time someone said missile they meant missile. As far as Flight 93 goes it was shot down planes that crash into the ground do not spread debris over an area of almost three miles. The only way this could have happened is that the plane came apart in the air.

reply to post by buster2010


There was an article that apparently has been wiped as I can't find any reference to it at all, about a General, I want to say a Canadian one, that slipped and said he scrambled the jets that shot it down. Of course, I can't find it, so i can't source this or name the person, or validate any of it. If anyone can shed light on this please do.

Witnesses saw that plane break up in the air, spreading debris all over.

reply to post by Humint1

An MVA vs the crash of an airliner going at 500+ is vastly different. The "where's the blood" question is (no offense to you but its just the truth of the matter here) is an ignorant one as the environment variables almost promise that no blood would acutally be left behind.

The few pictures I saw were of people picking up rather small aircraft parts off the lawn. THAT is what I base my question on.

The Laws of physics say if you stop something going THAT fast by smacking it into a building AND the plane comes apart, then the human body should too.

this is my 2 cents as far as where the bodies are well how many feet with shoes still attached have been washing up on shores of canada question 2 now i know when i was in the military army i was an air traffic controller 3 tears i was told that military adds some kind of an additive to there aircraft fuel to keep it from exploding or catching fire now does the civilian aircraft also add this to there fuel if so what countrys what airlines whats the name of the additive thanks for listening to my rant and peace be with you all

reply to post by agentblue


one theory is that the passengers got gased on board the plans, and then disposed of. it made sense that that could of happened...im sure someone knows. just have to back research this most unfortunate matter. one way or the other god bless!

Nevermind....this topic brings out the stupidity in people. It is out of sheer morbid curiousity that I click on to any 911 thread and I always regret it.

Originally posted by phfaty
remember the canopy draped fuselage supposedly of the plane? When I saw this, my mind immediately went into security mode by instinct. Why would you want to drape something that huge in canopy if people were already told that it was an airplane? Next, was the fact that there seemed to be all sorts of people running around and tainting what I thought was a crime scene. Remember that crime scenes are usually marked off and people prevented from going onto the crime scene and tainting the evidence. And lastly, the report that immediately after the event at the Pentagon, FBI agents confiscated video from a security camera. Why would you confiscate security camera footage when you were already told that an airplane flew into the pentagon? All these three things add up to a huge sum of deception. The whole pentagon part of the 9/11 attacks alone smell of a huge high level type psychological deception designed to confuse and mislead people's minds.

I think whoever was behind the attacks had high level knowledge of how the human mind works and how to psychologically exploit it just like the JFK assassin.

People look for conspiracies becuse our brains are wired to see faces in the clouds. I reject that our government did this based solely on my belief that my government would not kill all of those people that had tickets and then fake a crash into the pentagon. That's absurdly immoral and illogical too. If government planned it then the last thing they would do is overcomplicate their job. The fact that 9/11 is so vastly complicated means it COULD NOT have been a conspiracy. If it were, it wouldn't have been so messy and complicated. A real conspirator doesn't take chances like that.

The very fact that there're so many viewpoints on 9/11 proves to me it's not a conspiracy. If it were in fact a conspiracy then either: a) we would know b) we wouldn't know and the whole issue would be dead. The fact that the issue is NOT dead and no one knows for sure is proof it's not a conspiracy. It looks too much like an unplanned event - which is filled with turbulence. People will continue to see mother mary and ufos because we're hardwired to see BS in the turbulence. It's the reason for religion and people needing meaning in life and conspiracy theories and fear and so on.

I'll admit I can't say 100%, but like I say, it looks too much like turbulence to me. And the logic of it doesn't add up. So in sum I just cannnot see the conspiracy in 9/11. I just see a whole lotta mess.

reply to post by ANOK


wow... Delusional much?

OS supporters constantly lie, and contradict themselves.

At least we are basing our conclusions on facts of some sort, not complete assumptions and theories that are a product of Govt. mistrust....

It is amazing how much the kettle calls the pot black here on ATS.

Originally posted by michale357
this is my 2 cents as far as where the bodies are well how many feet with shoes still attached have been washing up on shores of canada question 2 now i know when i was in the military army i was an air traffic controller 3 tears i was told that military adds some kind of an additive to there aircraft fuel to keep it from exploding or catching fire now does the civilian aircraft also add this to there fuel if so what countrys what airlines whats the name of the additive thanks for listening to my rant and peace be with you all

No real offense: I know you're trying to help but non burning fuel is kinda' useless? aint it?

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by ANOK

 

wow... Delusional much?

OS supporters constantly lie, and contradict themselves.

At least we are basing our conclusions on facts of some sort, not complete assumptions and theories that are a product of Govt. mistrust....

It is amazing how much the kettle calls the pot black here on ATS.

Perhaps I'm wrong but didn't the 911comission members come forward and admit their work was"compromised"? YOU know little facts like the entire wtc building #7 which fell into its own footprint after catching fire ( no aircraft involved)?is not even in the final report? There 's a "fact" for ya' We can point to a 47 floor skyscraper that isn't thre any more...

"O.S conclusions ". based on those "facts"?
Some non o.s. theories are beyond ridiculous ;but some details of the o.s.also defy belief.

Originally posted by jonnywhite

Originally posted by phfaty
remember the canopy draped fuselage supposedly of the plane? When I saw this, my mind immediately went into security mode by instinct. Why would you want to drape something that huge in canopy if people were already told that it was an airplane? Next, was the fact that there seemed to be all sorts of people running around and tainting what I thought was a crime scene. Remember that crime scenes are usually marked off and people prevented from going onto the crime scene and tainting the evidence. And lastly, the report that immediately after the event at the Pentagon, FBI agents confiscated video from a security camera. Why would you confiscate security camera footage when you were already told that an airplane flew into the pentagon? All these three things add up to a huge sum of deception. The whole pentagon part of the 9/11 attacks alone smell of a huge high level type psychological deception designed to confuse and mislead people's minds.

I think whoever was behind the attacks had high level knowledge of how the human mind works and how to psychologically exploit it just like the JFK assassin.

People look for conspiracies becuse our brains are wired to see faces in the clouds. I reject that our government did this based solely on my belief that my government would not kill all of those people that had tickets and then fake a crash into the pentagon. That's absurdly immoral and illogical too. If government planned it then the last thing they would do is overcomplicate their job. The fact that 9/11 is so vastly complicated means it COULD NOT have been a conspiracy. If it were, it wouldn't have been so messy and complicated. A real conspirator doesn't take chances like that.

The very fact that there're so many viewpoints on 9/11 proves to me it's not a conspiracy. If it were in fact a conspiracy then either: a) we would know b) we wouldn't know and the whole issue would be dead. The fact that the issue is NOT dead and no one knows for sure is proof it's not a conspiracy. It looks too much like an unplanned event - which is filled with turbulence. People will continue to see mother mary and ufos because we're hardwired to see BS in the turbulence. It's the reason for religion and people needing meaning in life and conspiracy theories and fear and so on.

I'll admit I can't say 100%, but like I say, it looks too much like turbulence to me. And the logic of it doesn't add up. So in sum I just cannnot see the conspiracy in 9/11. I just see a whole lotta mess.

edit on 2-3-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

A whole lotta mess that sees two unstopped planes land in two massive buildings in the middle of NYC but which happen to bring them down without toppling over, and WT7--which contains loads of sensitive information falling by itself, and the crash at the Pentagon happening in the most convenient place which contains loads of sensitive information
And ALL of this fitting quite nicely the new TERRORIST insurance of millionaire owners of the Twin towers complex, AND the toxic dreams of the New American Century crazies (the governors)................? All un-planned huh??

yeah, sure

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield

At least we are basing our conclusions on facts of some sort, not complete assumptions and theories that are a product of Govt. mistrust....

It is amazing how much the kettle calls the pot black here on ATS.

Really?

The whole government OS depends on a LOT of assumptions.

What assumptions have I made?

OSers claimed for years that there were pics of PASSENGERS in SEATS, sorry but there are NO pics with passengers in seats, just BODIES that cannot be identified by anybody here. If that is not lying then what is?
OSers will make up anything to support the OS. Remember it's the OS that is in question not 'truther' theories OK.
Lies are not going to expose the truth, so 'truthers' lying is pointless. Being wrong about something and repeating a known lie are two different things mate.

There is a thread, I forget which, but these pics were finally posted and the Passengers in seats hoax was revealed.

How many OS supporters have come here and claimed to be engineers, fire fighters, been at the pentagon or WTC, or new someone important who was, and found out to be liars? Trust me in the 7 years I've been on ATS debating this there has been a lot, and there are two posting right now I know lied about who they are. It's not hard to tell when someone is lying.

Originally posted by buster2010
You know the whole time I was in the military every time someone said missile they meant missile.

I was in the military also, 6 years in Naval Aviation as a jet engine mech (AD), and no plane was ever called a missile.

In fact missiles were not even called missiles, that's a very civilian term, it was always 'ordnance' whatever type it was. Loaded on planes by the ordnance crew, red shirts, or ordies.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by buster2010
You know the whole time I was in the military every time someone said missile they meant missile.

I was in the military also, 6 years in Naval Aviation as a jet engine mech (AD), and no plane was ever called a missile.

In fact missiles were not even called missiles, that's a very civilian term, it was always 'ordnance' whatever type it was. Loaded on planes by the ordnance crew, red shirts, or ordies.

I agree on the aircraft sidet ; but just for discussion( between you"'n" me): on the USAF "munitions maintenance side: "missile"s are called" missiles".. the difference? Missiles are guided and self propelled; "rockets"are not "guided internally": "ordinance" or dumb iron bombs; cannon rounds or gas generator ejector rack cartridges are neither.
forexample: "my system out of tech school was the ( Strategic air command) Boeing agm69A "SRAM" " Short Range Attack Missile" an air to ground solid fuel system for the FB111 & B52 G's'&H's
( 320th Munition maintenance sq'78-'82!"AMMO"!) "SRAM" IS probably well obsolete now or Atleast superceded by "sram II"
minuteman and titan " big missiles"(icbm'sare also obviously "missiles...
From a "ZOOMY":
cheers "swabby"

reply to post by 46ACE


Yes when you need to be specific, but in general it's just called ordnance, at least in the Nav.

But the point is made, no one calles a plane a missile, especially military personal.

BTW I was not a swabby, I was an Airdale.

reply to post by buster2010


I agree that flight 93 probably was shot down. And in my career in the military it used to be missile ment a missile. In today's lingo since around 2000, "missile" means either an actual missile OR anything airborne.

reply to post by buster2010


Okay, so what exactly was used to shoot down Flight 93? As of yet, NO ONE has been able to point out what weapon was used.

reply to post by 46ACE

Perhaps I'm wrong but didn't the 911comission members come forward and admit their work was"compromised"? YOU know little facts like the entire wtc building #7 which fell into its own footprint after catching fire ( no aircraft involved)?is not even in the final report? There 's a "fact" for ya' We can point to a 47 floor skyscraper that isn't thre any more...

And thank you for confirming that YOU are a bit lean when it comes to facts. WTC 7 caught fire AFTER WTC 1 collapsed into it, leaving a 20 story hole in the building in addition to many other smaller gashes. And when fell, it came apart, with part of it hitting the building at 30 West Broadway (damaging it so badly that it was torn down) and the rest of it fell TOWARDS what was left of the towers. Actions that don't happen when a building falls "into its own footprint".

In addition, WTC 7 wasnt mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, because the Commission was not an engineering investigation. It was charged with investigating the background, the events of the day, and how come we were so badly unprepared for such an attack. Not once was the Commission instructed to investigate the engineering aspects of the collapses.