Is this the real truth about the 9/11 planes

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012

 

With regards to a mystery plane over the Pentagon, the only planes over the area at the time of impact were a C-130 that had launched out of Andrews on a routine flight home, and the E-4B that scrambled out of Andrews when it became clear what was happening. It had a full crew plus battle staff IIRC at the time of launch.

Zaphod, can you clear this up for me then. The Pentagon time for being penetrated is given as 9.37. However, Peter Jennings was reporting on the plane which we now know was the E-4B, (as anchor) at 9.41. The time for the South tower being hit was 9.03 and 34 minutes before the Pentagon was hit. The scramble time is given as 5 minutes and by the time it was seen around the Capital/Capitol building it was at a cruising height, in fact just a speck from the ground, and that takes a while. besides that, it was supposed to have taken off at 9.43 I would go that it was already part of operation Vigilant Guardian cancelled or otherwise, and already in the air.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Sorry but i have to butt in I cant take it anymore. First of all "Facts" dont necessarily mean that its true. "Facts" can be false. For instance: Its a fact that eye witnesses say they saw a plane hit the pentagon. While that statement is a fact weather or not a plane actually hit the pentagon is not determined. as the eyewitnesses could be dishonest. so facts are not always true. Continuing on........

We've debunked the statement that it was a missile that hit the pentagon.

No you didn't debunk it, all you stated was what you've been fed by known liars and decievers. There's evidence and even eyewitness testimony stating that they saw the plane pull up at the last minute.

We've debunked the statement about Enron documents.

Not quite you provided no evidence to the contrary. Op posted documentation.

We've debunked the statement about remote control instead of pilots flying the planes.

Nope wrong again...Again you only stated whats been spoon fed to you. Those planes weren't even AA passenger planes. Try again.

We've debunked the statement that the people are alive and having plastic surgery.

And you know this how? Do you have personal contact with her? Family? Friends? Are you her doctor? Mortician?

We've debunked the statement that the planes landed safely in Canada.

This I'm not sure about. You could be right you could be wrong. Still you provided no evidence to the contrary. You claim to want evidence but provide none yourself.

We've debunked the statement that there was no plane wreckage in the Pentagon debris.

This one always makes me laugh. No one has been able to logically explain how a 747 disintegrates into nothing after a crash. Was their some sort of acid filled in between the walls at the pentagon? further more yes there was some "wreckage/debris" if you want to call it that. If I recall correctly a turbine engine of the wrong size, make, and model for a 747 and a few shards of freshly painted tin foil that show no evidence of having been in a fire whatsoever. No scorching, no soot, not a scratch. Pretty amazing stuff they make planes out of these days. The rest of the plane disintegrates into nothingness but somehow those couple shards are left pristine. And then theres the video which shows an aircraft nowhere near the size and proportion of a 747. And the fire ball which coloration and smoke content is inconsistent with kerosine jet fuel.

We've debunked the statement that the Air Force shot down the Shanksville flight.

At this point I'm not so sure it was the Air Force. But it was shot down. That little depression in the earth is inconsistent with a intact 747 crashing to the ground. A cessna could have made that sized depression. Ive seen eyewitnesses say they saw an aircraft following the airliner. They described what it looked like. rear mounted engines and the wings in the back that go up like fins. Military style jet. only plane that looks like that is an A-10 warthog. Which is an army/marines aircraft if I'm not mistaken. I've only seen that video once since it came out. I've never been able to find it again like it disappeared. I wonder why.

So in closing you didn't debunk anything. The only thing you did was state facts that you think are true which in essence is your opinion. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion and your free to state it, but opinions do not debunk anything.

reply to post by TopsyTurvyOne


Read it more carefully. I said engine pylons aren't stressed for lateral G forces. The only aircraft that put any kind of lateral G load on the engines was Flight 93.

reply to post by smurfy


There were several that were airborne that were recalled. They had been heading to a bomb range and weren't armed for air to air.

reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012


Seriously? Have you even glanced at Langley? Langley is home to the First Fighter Wing, the largest F-15 wing in the world. They've since added F-22s, but they're still one of if not still the largest F-15 unit anywhere.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I meant that Langley had used F-15's mentioned in response to 9/11. Like I said provide links to back up your statement. My link states SPECIFICALLY that 2 F-15's from Otis and 3 F-16's from Langley were scrambled.

reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012


Your link is wrong. As soon as I can get off my phone I'll give all the quotes abbr links you can want. They launch F-16s, but not until AFTER the Eagles.

The OP link does't mention anything about any evidence that I could see. Granted I only skimmed over it...

But I have some questions I was hoping someone, anyone, could help me understand:

Can someone explain why anyone should think the planes were remotely guided and not flown by pilots with passengers in them?

Can someone provide the proof, other than red highlighted words on an obscure website, that the original planes landed safely in Canada?

If those flights existed then all of those passengers and crew are still alive... where are they now and what was in it for them and their families. Has to be some 100's of folks that were part of that scheme.

Why shoot down flight 93 if it wasn't ever being flown by terrorists? Was that planes remotely guided too? If not did we sacrifice that plane and its passengers- for what purpose did that serve in this entire operation?

Why use missiles for one target, remotely guided planes for others, and a real one w passengers for another?

That's it for now...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by smurfy

 

There were several that were airborne that were recalled. They had been heading to a bomb range and weren't armed for air to air.

I haven't a clue to what you refer to, so back to the E4-B. (Egg for breakfast -scrambled)

I'll try again, and add a little more about this particular aircraft an E4-B that flew over Washington et al.

Zaphod, can you clear this up for me then. The Pentagon time for being penetrated is given as 9.37. However, Peter Jennings was reporting on the plane which we now know was the E-4B, (as anchor) at 9.41. The time for the South tower being hit was 9.03 and 34 minutes before the Pentagon was hit. The scramble time is given as 5 minutes and by the time it was seen around the Capital/Capitol building it was at a cruising height, in fact just a speck from the ground, and that takes a while. besides that, it was supposed to have taken off at 9.43 I would go that it was already part of operation Vigilant Guardian cancelled or otherwise, and already in the air.

Peter Jennings,
ABC anchor Peter Jennings also picked up the story, and aired the following report at 9:41 AM:

“The White House, of course, is--is--is--has leapt to
the forefront of people's concern this morning. And there is a plane circling
the White House at the moment. And they're clearing the grounds there…. "

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
The OP link does't mention anything about any evidence that I could see. Granted I only skimmed over it...

But I have some questions I was hoping someone, anyone, could help me understand:

Can someone explain why anyone should think the planes were remotely guided and not flown by pilots with passengers in them?

We wanted to go to war and we needed a reason plain and simple. I can't say for sure if the planes were empty or not but anyone in this govt who expects me to believe some buffoon with a box cutter took over a few planes and then had the flight training to fly not 1 but 2 planes into buildings is crazy.

Can someone provide the proof, other than red highlighted words on an obscure website, that the original planes landed safely in Canada?

Not sure about that one YMMV

If those flights existed then all of those passengers and crew are still alive... where are they now and what was in it for them and their families. Has to be some 100's of folks that were part of that scheme.

Are you saying it isn't possible? The govt makes people disappear all the time.

Why shoot down flight 93 if it wasn't ever being flown by terrorists? Was that planes remotely guided too? If not did we sacrifice that plane and its passengers- for what purpose did that serve in this entire operation?

DRAMA....the hero story........not everyone was in on this......as a matter of fact very few knew this was an inside job. No matter what was happening on that plane it was taken out.

Why use missiles for one target, remotely guided planes for others, and a real one w passengers for another?

Good question. IMO the original 2 planes that hit the towers were the start of the plan. The Pentagon hit was to add incentive to get an easily approved war and the plane being shot down was added drama to further that agenda. I believe the pilots genuinely thought we were under attack they just didn't know it was by our own govt.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Allow me.

Can someone explain why anyone should think the planes were remotely guided and not flown by pilots with passengers in them?

For the same reason they planned to do it to go to war with cuba. They planned to create a false flag event by remotely flying a plane that was supposed to have a bunch of students in it and blow it up over cuba and say that cuba shot it down. When in actuallity the students were never in the plane. Outrage the nation to back a war. Also its much easier to use your own planes than to steal a plane you get under the radar a bit longer.

Can someone provide the proof, other than red highlighted words on an obscure website, that the original planes landed safely in Canada?

I cannot comment on this one as ive not read it. I have no clue as to where the actual planes and/or passengers went.

If those flights existed then all of those passengers and crew are still alive... where are they now and what was in it for them and their families. Has to be some 100's of folks that were part of that scheme.

I would imagine their lives. Same as some military personnel and even citizens are threatened with their lives and lives of loved ones in connection of UFO's and other top secret information. I would imagine this is no different. Sworn to secrecy by threat of death of you and loved ones.

Why shoot down flight 93 if it wasn't ever being flown by terrorists? Was that planes remotely guided too? If not did we sacrifice that plane and its passengers- for what purpose did that serve in this entire operation?

I'm sure all the planes present in the attack were remotely controlled. They sacrificed that plane because it was part of the script. Gave the Americans some hope that some fellow americans stood up to the enemy and took them down and sacrificed themselves to save others in what would be another target. All part of the story to enrage the public. Basically to evoke emotional responses.

Why use missiles for one target, remotely guided planes for others, and a real one w passengers for another?

Simply put for maximum damage. The pentagon is layered with structural reinforcements. It is of course the most secure building in the United States. A plane would have caused minimal damage to the exterior wall maybe slight penetration, But it would not have pierced 4 layers of the reinforced building. A bunker buster would though as that is what a bunker buster missile is designed to do. Perhaps there was something in there they were trying to get rid of.

Hope this helps

reply to post by smurfy


Oh, sorry, I was stuck on the fighter issue, not the E-4. The E-4 was sitting on alert at Andrews. When they're sitting alert, they keep the right side engines running the entire time, so all they have to do is to board through the left side door, close it, start the left side engines and taxi. Without having been involved, I would say that the most likely scenario is that when it became clear that more than one aircraft had been hijacked, they scrambled the crew, boarded the battle staff, and launched.

The Alert 5 (5 minute launch) is for the fighters that are sitting alert, not the E-4. The E-4 usually has a longer response time, although not much. The fighters on alert are sitting in hangars on the end of the runway, so they simply start engines, pull out, and they're on the end of the runway ready to take off.

Originally posted by SupersonicSerpent
I think 9/11 was simply an insurance job those towers was aging and becoming very expensive to maintain,and to have them demolished by contractors would have cost tens of millions,the planes hit the secure computer floors on both towers,where not many people should have been,and the north tower should have been completely empty,there was a 25 minute gap for everyone to get out,the blood of the people who died in the north tower is on the emergency services and staff that told them to go back to work.but why the pentagon was hit i do not know.

To destory the evidence of the $2.3 trillion that went missing. Search it on YouTube. Rumsfield announced it days before 9/11.

Here you go.

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
We wanted to go to war and we needed a reason plain and simple. I can't say for sure if the planes were empty or not but anyone in this govt who expects me to believe some buffoon with a box cutter took over a few planes and then had the flight training to fly not 1 but 2 planes into buildings is crazy.

What does the need for a reason to goto war have to do with explaining why remote controlled planes were used?
The real buffoons were the agencies who dropped the ball on this, and for all intents and purposes allowed this atrocity to happen. Now if you want to discuss that as being the conspiracy - that our agencies knew these guys were coming and let it happen for the purpose of going to war then I can understand that....but remote controlled planes... makes no sense. Not to mention theres not a shred of evidence.

Can someone provide the proof, other than red highlighted words on an obscure website, that the original planes landed safely in Canada?

Not sure about that one YMMV

YMMV?

If those flights existed then all of those passengers and crew are still alive... where are they now and what was in it for them and their families. Has to be some 100's of folks that were part of that scheme.

Are you saying it isn't possible? The govt makes people disappear all the time.

I'm saying it's highly implausible. There's 0 evidence for any of that.
Not everything you see in the movies or on cable TV is how things happen in reality. Don't give the CIA or any other agency so much credit...

Why shoot down flight 93 if it wasn't ever being flown by terrorists? Was that planes remotely guided too? If not did we sacrifice that plane and its passengers- for what purpose did that serve in this entire operation?

DRAMA....the hero story........not everyone was in on this......as a matter of fact very few knew this was an inside job. No matter what was happening on that plane it was taken out.

DRAMA?? As if taking down two of the tallest buildings in the world wasn't enough drama for everyone. This makes no sense in your plot. That's not drama- that's added risk for a rogue gov't trying to pull off such a stunt. Completely unnecessary, don't you think?

IMO the original 2 planes that hit the towers were the start of the plan. The Pentagon hit was to add incentive to get an easily approved war and the plane being shot down was added drama to further that agenda. I believe the pilots genuinely thought we were under attack they just didn't know it was by our own govt.

Added drama? Again, that makes no sense. Bringing down the towers with two planes was enough to do all of that. Theres no need to take those other highly unnecessary risks if you're the gov't. What of there was a mistake when trying to take down flight 93? Or if the alleged missile, that was supposed to look like a plane, aimed at the pentagon went awry and landed in a suburb in DC?

Too many risks to take for the gov't. If they wanted to goto war then they could just make up a story about WMD's... Isnt that how we always did it?

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
I meant that Langley had used F-15's mentioned in response to 9/11. Like I said provide links to back up your statement. My link states SPECIFICALLY that 2 F-15's from Otis and 3 F-16's from Langley were scrambled.

The unarmed F-16s launched from Andrews just after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Two were armed with 20mm ball ammo, not HEI, one didn't have anything, and they considered ramming any aircraft if necessary.

www.freerepublic.com...

Flight 93:

A fighter pilot rushed into the skies on 9-11 was prepared to make a kamikaze run at one of the hijacked planes - even though there was a chance her father had been its pilot before terrorists seized command.
Lt. Heather (Lucky) Penney was ordered to bring down United Airlines Flight 93, which security officials feared was hurtling straight toward Washington D.C., The Washington Post reported.
But in the panic that followed the strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, crews at Andrews Air Force Base didn't have enough time to equip her F-16 with missiles.
"We wouldn't be shooting it down," Penney told The Post. "We'd be ramming the aircraft."
"I would essentially be a kamikaze pilot," she added, reflecting back on what would have been a suicide mission."

www.nydailynews.com...

So, no, they couldn't have fired from 22 miles away.

I can't find the damn link on the Langley F-15s anymore. I may be wrong on them, but I just read where the military said F-15s out of Langley, when I was on my phone. I should have saved the damn link, but I'll keep looking for it tonight after my shift. I distinctly remember F-15s out of Langley with the Otis birds though. If I'm wrong, then I'll be the first to admit it, but I'll try to find that link again where I can quote it.

reply to post by IndieA


It didn't "go missing", it wasn't listed in the primary budget when they spent it. It was all spent on the projects it was allocated for, but they were having to go from project to project to find it, instead of being able to go through the main budget to see when it was spent.

reply to post by Mitsuskitzo

I'm so with you on this. That poster has only regurgitated what MSM has sprouted as his/her proof.
I was watching the BBC live news report when the third building was reported as downed (the building was behind the reporter as she lied to us) only for it to happen minutes later on live TV during her report.
How can anyone who believes the official story be taken seriously?
There are other issues I have with the official story too, especially when I found out about the insurance policy taken out on the twin towers prior to their destruction. I didn't know about ENRON or the Pentagon secrets being held but this just adds fuel to the fire so to speak.
I also still find it difficult to understand how the terrorist pilots were such skilled fliers after such basic training. If it was a plane that hit the Pentagon there were some seriously skilled precision maneuvers for rookie pilots to perform.
And 'no debris' I'm still pissin myself over that one ffs hahahahah..........
You answered those point better than I could so cheers.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by smurfy

 

Oh, sorry, I was stuck on the fighter issue, not the E-4. The E-4 was sitting on alert at Andrews. When they're sitting alert, they keep the right side engines running the entire time, so all they have to do is to board through the left side door, close it, start the left side engines and taxi. Without having been involved, I would say that the most likely scenario is that when it became clear that more than one aircraft had been hijacked, they scrambled the crew, boarded the battle staff, and launched.

The Alert 5 (5 minute launch) is for the fighters that are sitting alert, not the E-4. The E-4 usually has a longer response time, although not much. The fighters on alert are sitting in hangars on the end of the runway, so they simply start engines, pull out, and they're on the end of the runway ready to take off.

That is not my understanding, the E4-B is supposed to be on the same alert, scramble is given as 5 minutes, engines always running?

Whatever, that E4-B over Washington was not a scramble.

abcnews.go.com...

reply to post by smurfy


Actually, all alert aircraft are on an Alert 15 status, unless an actual attack is underway. Alert 5 means engines running sitting on the end of the runway, waiting to go. Alert 10 is engines running, in the shelter, ready to taxi, Alert 15 (normal status) is engines shut down, nav system aligned, pilots in the shelter. Alert 15 is the normal status for all CONUS forces, be they E-4, E-6, or fighters. Alert 5 is mostly used on carriers, when they are in a high threat area, or for USAF forces that are on a CAS mission, with forces in contact, or soon to be in contact.

Actually it was, just it was an unexpected one. They were at Andrews as part of the exercises, and they scrambled when it was clear an attack was happening.