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.

 

More On 911 From Morgan Reynolds

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
From the Washington Times:

washingtontimes.com...


Also:


www.lewrockwell.com...




posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   
From Texas A&M


The following is a statement from Texas A&M University regarding recent news reports about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds is retired from Texas A&M University, but holds the title of Professor Emeritus-an honorary title bestowed upon select tenured faculty, who have retired with ten or more years of service. Additionally, contrary to some written reports, while some faculty emeriti are allocated office space at Texas A&M, Dr. Reynolds does not have an office on the Texas A&M campus. Any statements made by Dr. Reynolds are in his capacity as a private citizen and do not represent the views of Texas A&M University. Below is a statement released yesterday by Dr. Robert M. Gates, President of Texas A&M University:

"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale.”



www.tamu.edu...



edit, the Aggies know all about structural collapse







[edit on 29-6-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   
And the point is?

[edit on 29-6-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
It looks to me more like the university doesn't want to be associated with a wacko.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale.”



Actually, to sweep it under the carpet, to allow the principal negligent/complicit people to attend hearings behind closed doors and not require them to give testimony under oath, to hold no-one accountable for the worst security failure in national history... that goes beyond the pale.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
MA, I have only one question:
In that statement about sweeping stuff under the carpet, were you speaking about 11Sept2001 or 22Nov1963? The statement fits both events. If you cannot believe what you've been told about one event, it is fairly easy to doubt the other.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I think it would have been easy to fake a plane hitting the towers. If you look at how the planes banked in the video, it would be very hard to do that with a plane that size, without being an expert at flying. But making a missle or something of that nature look like a plane, and then fly it into a building would be easier to do.

The way that the towers collapsed could in no way that could happen with just the fuel from the planes. Most of the fuel exploded on impact to the tower.

Most of this has been said before, but just a quick refresher incase anyone forgot.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Hey Syd,

Pink, pink, pink

Floyd, floyd, floyd.

(I heard that the real Syd Barret would go into a funk for days if someone mentioned the band.
)


Are you serious?

Those are real planes



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Real planes full of sleeping passengers. The planes have screens and compartments. Unless you have about 1 bad terrorist for every 10 people, it would be difficult to watch over everyone. So, it would be natural that in such an extreme situation people would be tempted to communicate by SMS messages. There are no records of last words from the passengers, so they must have been asleep. Whether only the passenger compartments were asleep or the whole space was asleep, it requires access to ventilation and airplane mechanics work: the planes were rigged from the start.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarBreather
. So, it would be natural that in such an extreme situation people would be tempted to communicate by SMS messages. There are no records of last words from the passengers, so they must have been asleep.


Am I missing something?

Were there not multiple cases of passengers speaking to relatives before the various crashes?

Whether or not you believe them is a different matter; but yes, there are indeed records of passengers' "last words", so to speak.

Or am I missing the point of your post entirely?



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Were there not multiple cases of passengers speaking to relatives before the various crashes?

Where can I see transcripts of those messages or recordings?



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
"We're all gonna die, but three of us are going to do something ... I love you, honey."
--final cell phone call of Tom Burnett, UA93 passenger, to his wife"

Tom Burnett call

"Todd Beamer was on the line for about 15 minutes -- long enough for him to ask Jefferson to relay a message to his wife and two sons, David, 3, and Drew, 1. "Tell her I love her and the boys," he told Jefferson. Lisa Beamer, 32, said she is expecting another child in January."

Link 1

Amy Sweeney's call

Betty Ong tape

Link with various calls noted

Even allowing for the possibility that the Pentagon flight (and thus, the Barbara Olsen call) was either rigged, faked, brought down etc etc, there are still enough instances of validated calls - from the New York flights, in addition to the famous Beamer calls from Flight 93 (which may or may not have been shot down, depending on who you believe), to support the bottom line: calls were made, and received, and recorded. Of course, whether or not you believe the calls is another matter entirely; but the reports are available as noted


HTH.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Where are the phone call transcripts from the other 3 planes?

How come we only see them from flight 93?

Doesn't that seem odd to anyone?

"Examining the the distribution of the phone calls on the flights commandeered on 9/11/01 reveals an interesting pattern. There are reports of thirteen cell phone calls from Flight 93 passengers, but only zero or one from passengers on any of the other flights. If passengers on Flight 93 were able to complete so many cell phone calls, why were they so rare on the other flights?"

As StarBreather suggested were they asleep? Or was flight 93 the only plane with passengers on it?

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by StarBreather
. So, it would be natural that in such an extreme situation people would be tempted to communicate by SMS messages. There are no records of last words from the passengers, so they must have been asleep.


Am I missing something?

Were there not multiple cases of passengers speaking to relatives before the various crashes?

Whether or not you believe them is a different matter; but yes, there are indeed records of passengers' "last words", so to speak.

Or am I missing the point of your post entirely?


Most of the calls were made from Flight 93, while it was about 30,000 feet up in the air. All were made from cell phones except for one, if I remember correctly.

Here's the thing: cell phones rarely work at 10,000 feet. This plane was three times higher, and no problems were ever reported with the calls.

Yes, you are missing something.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   

I think it would have been easy to fake a plane hitting the towers. If you look at how the planes banked in the video, it would be very hard to do that with a plane that size, without being an expert at flying. But making a missle or something of that nature look like a plane, and then fly it into a building would be easier to do.


Yes, those planes made some very professional-looking manuevers, but I think remote controlling is more realistic. Plus, the planes were planes.

But were they 767s that hit the WTC?






Hmmmm.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It looks to me more like the university doesn't want to be associated with a wacko.


Howard, your arguments are increasingly becoming more like bandwagon advertisements.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Could the planes have been military versions?

Note the "POD" under the nose...Remember the pod controversy?



[edit on 27/7/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   


"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale.”


I know what I saw on 9/11! I saw two or the worlds largest structures destroyed by fire, something that has never happened before or even after 9/11.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   
On the one hand, I've made calls from airplanes. Pre- and post-9/11. I'm not an alien, I'm not the owner of some vastly secret technology, and I'm not a government or airline employee - just a regular human who had a cellphone and an airphone at hand. Some of them failed; some of them connected successfully and the calls were completed (and at midflight altitudes of at least 24,500 by all accounts). So, where "most" calls might fail, this obviously implies that some calls will be possible, thus it's inaccurate to say that no calls could have been made.

On the other hand, there are still unanswered questions to this entire debacle.

Now, did anyone read the transcripts?

The calls were apparently made from Flight 11, Flight 175 and Flight 93 - not just the infamous "Beamer" flight and calls.

Or are we simply going with the allegation that all of the calls were somehow faked?

As for the oft-repeated call of "it never happened before....why would it happen then?!" (in regards to the toppling of the towers)....well, isn't that one obvious too?

No structure of their kind had ever been targeted and hit in quite the same manner. Of course it's never happened before - I'm just failing to see how that by itself even faintly suggests a coverup.


[edit on 27-7-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
The American people would never support military action without reasonable justification.

One needs to clearly understand the motives driving the military industrial empires.

The majority of major military conflicts in the last century were started based on
questionable " events"



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join