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.
originally posted by: Jacobu12
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12
Have your friend remote view and tell me what I was doing on the morning of 9/11. Should have no problem doing that.
I have not spoken to him a few weeks. And you are of no importance, you not a point in history worth looking at i don't think?
originally posted by: Jacobu12
originally posted by: InhaleExhale
originally posted by: Jacobu12
originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jacobu12
Twin Towers. There was 3 teams of 4 men. One team spotted for the team who entered the building on 9/11. People think this building was wired before the attack, not true ( my friend told) They placed the lab engineered (chemical placed bombs) at strategic points inside the building to melt the steel ( i believed incased in concrete), the day of the attack. Security footage will be lost with the collapse. I not sure if they placed just before the planes hit or earlier in the morning? They arrived in as white van pretending to be workers. Evidence a fingerprint ID will be confirmed if the molten steel was tested (test the particles) When you see the molten steel coming out the side the side of the building, that's the sign the chemical bomb was working.
and this has what to do with what?
Just reading it sounds like a child came up with the plan, encased in concrete, done either in the morning before or after the planes hit.
Fingerprint ID will be conformed if the molten steel is tested? test the particles or the molten steel to get fingerprint ID?
Seriously, am I reading that right?
Fires have to break the concrete incasing around the steel column/cores? Again i not a 9/11 truther, this could be inaccurate?
inaccurate?
How about completely undecipherable.
I know you are not a 9/11 anything, its clear you are trolling.
I am all out of food, so maybe some poor fool will feed you.
You guys have decided the official narrative is correct. This information might help the truther people?
How hot does it need to get to fail?
He says things carefully, but words spill out as he talks about Hanjour.
"I'm not comfortable knowing I was close to someone who did something so evil and had such disrespect for life," Bernard said. "Of course, I wish, in hindsight, that I would have known something. In those days, suicide hijackers didn't exist."
Bernard and others who saw the hijackers in the weeks before the attacks are left to wonder: Was there anything I could have done?
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12
You missed a bit.
He says things carefully, but words spill out as he talks about Hanjour.
"I'm not comfortable knowing I was close to someone who did something so evil and had such disrespect for life," Bernard said. "Of course, I wish, in hindsight, that I would have known something. In those days, suicide hijackers didn't exist."
Bernard and others who saw the hijackers in the weeks before the attacks are left to wonder: Was there anything I could have done?
www.baltimoresun.com...
So despite not renting him a plane, he doesn't seem to doubt that he did it.
Oh wait, I forgot. THEY made him say that.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12
Did you see what he had trouble with? Landing.
If you'd read the thread, the maneuver he carried out, just looking at the radar data from the airport next to the Pentagon, was an amateur maneuver. A trained, proficient pilot will do a standard rate turn when making that maneuver. It will take them two minutes to turn 360 degrees.
According to the radar data, it took Flight 77 over 5 miles, and three minutes. He was all over the place as he turned, and he took a long time to do it. Consistent with an inexperienced pilot.
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
From what i see it's identified as Turbonfan disk. If true the official narrative is wrong.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12
You don't rock a plane if you care about passenger safety and comfort. It doesn't affect the plane to be rocked any.
Again, you misquoted. If you read the entire quote, they went on to say, "You don't maneuver a commercial plane like that. It's not safe."
abcnews.go.com...
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12
You said,
From what i see it's identified as Turbonfan disk. If true the official narrative is wrong.
How does it make it untrue if it's a turbofan disk? The RB211 is a turbofan.
There is no way to identify what type of engine it came from. The turbine disks not type specific. It matches the high pressure turbine disk from an RB211, minus the blades. When taken with the other wreckage, eyewitness statements, it shows that a large aircraft impacted the Pentagon.