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.

 

Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job w/video

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
well, that certainly didnt take long. check this out, as it actually compares intact engines with the exact photos already posted here:

source

browse about halfway down the page until you come to "Comparison of intermediate pressure compressor stages on the RB211 to the wreckage."


that was the first choice on a google pictures search of "boeing 757 engines."


I want to see a comparison of an RB211 engine with the pic i posted of the more intact engine at the Pentagon i posted and not just the fans.

See if you can match a RB 211 with the photo of the engine i posted from the Pentagon, and not jsut the compressor stage.

[edit on 16-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 16-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 16-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
keep looking on that same page i sourced (i've continued to browse it while waiting for you)....the exact pic is there with a comparison.

edit: i take it back...it's not the exact pic, but appears to be the same debris from a different angle. i'll keep looking to see what i can find.


[edit on 16-12-2006 by snafu7700]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
keep looking on that same page i sourced (i've continued to browse it while waiting for you)....the exact pic is there with a comparison.

edit: i take it back...it's not the exact pic, but appears to be the same debris from a different angle. i'll keep looking to see what i can find.


[edit on 16-12-2006 by snafu7700]


No, there is no comparision of the RB211 with the pic that i posted. Your source only compares the compressors and other parts not the whole engine.

But even if you do match the engines we still have to match them to flight 77.

[edit on 16-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But even if you do match the engines we still have to match them to flight 77.



well, my source pretty much does match the engine parts up from the other pics you were arguing about.....just not the one you posted (which, from the grainy pic, i'm not even sure is and engine. and how exactly do you expect anyone to positively match the exact engines? i'm sure there are serial numbers somewhere, but i dont have a clue where to find them. personally, i think just the fact that the engine parts match up is fairly positive proof.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But even if you do match the engines we still have to match them to flight 77.



well, my source pretty much does match the engine parts up from the other pics you were arguing about.....just not the one you posted (which, from the grainy pic, i'm not even sure is and engine. and how exactly do you expect anyone to positively match the exact engines? i'm sure there are serial numbers somewhere, but i dont have a clue where to find them. personally, i think just the fact that the engine parts match up is fairly positive proof.


Well i am not so sure they match up and i need the numbers to match up before i believe its flight 77.

You may be ok with that prove but for me being a data analysist i need more facts.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well i am not so sure they match up and i need the numbers to match up before i believe its flight 77.

You may be ok with that prove but for me being a data analysist i need more facts.


lol....you start by saying that the engine parts are apu's. when i prove that's incorrect, you decide that other pictures need to be proven as well....pictures that dont even look like they are part of a plane (in fact it looks more like a crumpled industrial sized bit of heating and air duct work). and now you say that regardless of what i or anyone else comes up with, you wont be satisfied until you see the numbers. something tells me that wouldnt satisfy you either.

but if you are serious about the numbers, a simple freedom of information act request to whoever is holding the engine parts pictured should reveal some kind of serial number......then a request from boeing or AAL should get you the corresponding numbers.....if you are indeed serious about getting the numbers and are not just too stubborn to admit that you might actually be wrong. good luck.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well i am not so sure they match up and i need the numbers to match up before i believe its flight 77.

You may be ok with that prove but for me being a data analysist i need more facts.


lol....you start by saying that the engine parts are apu's. when i prove that's incorrect, you decide that other pictures need to be proven as well....pictures that dont even look like they are part of a plane (in fact it looks more like a crumpled industrial sized bit of heating and air duct work). and now you say that regardless of what i or anyone else comes up with, you wont be satisfied until you see the numbers. something tells me that wouldnt satisfy you either.

but if you are serious about the numbers, a simple freedom of information act request to whoever is holding the engine parts pictured should reveal some kind of serial number......then a request from boeing or AAL should get you the corresponding numbers.....if you are indeed serious about getting the numbers and are not just too stubborn to admit that you might actually be wrong. good luck.



So i guess i have to provide proof so you will be happy, maybe you shoudl try doing some research.

For 1, i did not say the engine parts were APUs, i said its been argued thats that what it was. Thier was even a expert asked if it was an APU.

i22.photobucket.com...

quote: question posed at AOGspares.com

Q: Is this a component to an APU, specifically a Honeywell GTCP331-200???

A: The answer to your question is "NO" because its too big. I think what you are looking at is the first stage compressor disk to the main engine. could be a pratt & whitney PW2000 or a general electric CF6-50 motor. Hope that helps.


The photo i posted was of an engine, i can not help it if it does not look like an engine, but that what happenes when it hits a generator and a reinforced wall.

Like i siad i am looking for the truth of what happened that day so if anyone can show me actual facts and reports then i will believe it flight 77 but untill then i can not say that its flight 77.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   
whatever. as far as i can tell you are intentionally ignoring facts that dont conform to your preconceived opinion. that's completely contrary to the scientific method, and research of that kind belongs in skunk works. i think we're through here.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
whatever. as far as i can tell you are intentionally ignoring facts that dont conform to your preconceived opinion. that's completely contrary to the scientific method, and research of that kind belongs in skunk works. i think we're through here.


I am looking at facts not just what other people say. It is you who are just looking at photos and saying oh it has to be that or it is too grainy to tell what it is without doing any real research.

[edit on 16-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
oh, ok. so i guess the source i quoted didnt prove that the pieces of engine (you know, the pics you were referring to when you said "Those pics were not of engines") were exact matches to the schematic layout of the actual engines. darn, must be more cointelpro.


like i said before, i think we're done here. you're idea of fact finding kind of reminds me of gestapo interrogations...if the truth that comes out doesnt fit your theory, it must be false, so just ignore it. real open mind youve got there buddy.


kix

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Love when posts are washed away with weird data and mile wide sarcasm is not even understood so Ill be more specific...

There had not been a Highjacks to Cuba In a very LONG time.... why would ATC assume they were going to CUBA? Is there a manual that states.... when a Highkack has been stablished, assume they will go to sunny Cuba?

If there were 4 Planes with transponders off, and it was a "new" scenario why didnt it raise any flags? Are you telling me the strongest military war machine in the world doesnt have any contingency plans?

Airplanes who turn off their transponder are very easily located because the Whole USA is covered by radar and specially the North EAST coast, but heck you are the expert!

If they turn off their transponder, on your screen you will loose the AC identifier, the flight code BUT THE RADAR WILL TRACK the PLANE.... dont try to fool anybody with missinfo, serious near misses have been tracked due to this simple fact. A radar will track ANY object that reflects its waves on the air...simple fact.

If turning off the transponder makes an airplane untrackable...heck who needs Stealth fighters LOL!

and I really love it when supposedly debunkers make the 757 big and heavy with a lot of mass and inertia to prove some parts of their "debunking" and when confronted with data...um ...then why there is a very small hole on the Pentagon and no wing marks, ops then the plane must be practically ..air , and flimsy... either is a heavy machine or doesnt.... Flaps and slats on airplanes are really flimsy and are supported by hidarulic jacks that put them in position to land, when stored (inflight config.) they are asili broken because the slat sits against the wing, if the wings clipped the poles and such we should have have parts of the slats broken and they would have ended far from the crash site.... but I dont think they will ever appear since not even the wings and engines let a good mark on the building...

This thread is rewriting the 60 pages plus .... on the pentagon attack.....go there and check the pictures and data...the jury is still way out in the Pentagon incident...

BTW I give more info on the plane:

line number 365 Craft number 24602 Registration N644AA Delivered on 8/5/91
engines: RB211-535E4...

have fun!



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
oh, ok. so i guess the source i quoted didnt prove that the pieces of engine (you know, the pics you were referring to when you said "Those pics were not of engines") were exact matches to the schematic layout of the actual engines. darn, must be more cointelpro.



Oh so your just going to beleive that site instead of doing research like at the Rolls Royce or Boeing site to see what they say about the enigne.

I probly have the more open mind on this forum, but i also have more background and experience in this matter then most people on this forum.

[edit on 17-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by kix
Airplanes who turn off their transponder are very easily located because the Whole USA is covered by radar and specially the North EAST coast, but heck you are the expert!

If they turn off their transponder, on your screen you will loose the AC identifier, the flight code BUT THE RADAR WILL TRACK the PLANE.... dont try to fool anybody with missinfo, serious near misses have been tracked due to this simple fact. A radar will track ANY object that reflects its waves on the air...simple fact.


I will agree with you to a point, ther are gaps in the radar field from things like terrain. Flight 77 did go off the screen for a few minutes.

In fact if you knew where the gaps in the radar fields were it would be easy to make a plane dissapear after turning off the transponder.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by kix
Love when posts are washed away with weird data and mile wide sarcasm is not even understood


kind of like your initial post.



There had not been a Highjacks to Cuba In a very LONG time....


you might want to research that. as i noted in my initial reply, i simply pulled the top three results of a quick google search. i think you'll find that there was a least one in the few years before 9/11.



why would ATC assume they were going to CUBA? Is there a manual that states.... when a Highkack has been stablished, assume they will go to sunny Cuba?


that's not really what i said, but i'll give you kudos for the best attempt at twisting someone's words that i've seen for awhile.

what i said was that in the years before 9/11, nine times out of ten a hijacker simply wanted to go to cuba. if you actually research the events of 9/11, you will find that there was no hijack code in the transponder (in fact the transponders had been turned off), and the only reason atc suspected that a hijacking was in progress was because atta mistakingly transmitted on the frequency when he intended to talk to the passengers in the back. i never said that anyone assumed they wanted to go to cuba, or that procedure states that you make that assumption.



If there were 4 Planes with transponders off, and it was a "new" scenario why didnt it raise any flags?


umm, it did....the problem was that nobody was on the same page until after the first aircraft hit the tower. again, as i have mentioned repeatedly, it was a very confusing day for all involved, and alot of contradictory information was passed back and forth to contribute to that confusion.



Are you telling me the strongest military war machine in the world doesnt have any contingency plans?


there is a huge difference between having contingency plans on paper, and implementing them in the heat of battle. i dont know whether or not there were contingency plans for an event like this, as that's well out of my realm of expertise. furthermore, there are contingency plans at the pentagon for a war with every other country on the planet. that doesnt mean that we are expecting to use them, or that they have even been pulled out and had the dust blown off of them in several years. it's very easy to look back and say "we should have been able to prevent this because we are the strongest most capable nation in the world." the sad truth of the matter is that everyone is fallable, and mistakes happen. period.



Airplanes who turn off their transponder are very easily located because the Whole USA is covered by radar and specially the North EAST coast, but heck you are the expert!


you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. do you have any idea how many primary targets are out there on a beautiful sunny day? everybody and their brother is out flying and only maybe a quarter of them below 18000 ft are talking to atc. it's like finding a needle in a haystack. but hey, dont believe me, research it for yourself.



If they turn off their transponder, on your screen you will loose the AC identifier, the flight code BUT THE RADAR WILL TRACK the PLANE....


no, there will only be a blip on a screen.....maybe. depending upon where the aircraft is and it's altitude. no information about who the plane is and no way to differentiate it from other primary targets. but, of course, i've covered this already.....and i dont really give a whoopty do whether you believe me or not because a simple google search will most likely confirm everything i'm telling you. do you know how we identify aircraft that are only primary targets? we ask them to turn 30 degrees left or right, because there is no other way to differentiate them from other primary targets.....and guess what? you have to be talking to them and have their cooperation to identify them. it's very easy to look back at past radar data and correlate that with information that is known now. wasnt so easy to do on that particular day when we didnt have said info.



dont try to fool anybody with missinfo, serious near misses have been tracked due to this simple fact. A radar will track ANY object that reflects its waves on the air...simple fact.


yup, it sure will....like trucks on a highway, or sails from ships on the water, or flocks of birds. look up the term "ground clutter."

near misses tracked? i'll guarantee that although i have no idea exactly what situations you are talking about, the aircraft in question were either radar identified, or their position was correlated with the radar data after the fact through pilot info.



If turning off the transponder makes an airplane untrackable...heck who needs Stealth fighters LOL!


again, twisting my words.....very ignorantly i might add. again, there will still be a primary target, it's strength depending upon many different variables. but try picking that primary out of all the others cluttering the screen is like finding a needle in a haystack. and again, see info above on radar identification of primary tracks.



and I really love it when supposedly debunkers make the 757 big and heavy with a lot of mass and inertia to prove some parts of their "debunking" and when confronted with data...um ...then why there is a very small hole on the Pentagon and no wing marks, ops then the plane must be practically ..air , and flimsy... either is a heavy machine or doesnt.... Flaps and slats on airplanes are really flimsy and are supported by hidarulic jacks that put them in position to land, when stored (inflight config.) they are asili broken because the slat sits against the wing, if the wings clipped the poles and such we should have have parts of the slats broken and they would have ended far from the crash site.... but I dont think they will ever appear since not even the wings and engines let a good mark on the building...


okay. when the conversation moved from air traffic to the pentagon plane i made it very clear that we were moving from the realm of my expertise to the realm of my humble opinion based upon what i know of physics, aviation in general, and google searches of data. as i said previously, i am no aeronautical engineer. if you want one's analysis, there are several members here who are qualified to do just that, but as far as i can tell, none of them are on this thread. if you want to have an honest, open-minded discussion about the facts, i think the first step would be in admitting that you are no more qualified than i to discuss the flight characteristics of a boeing 757 and start from there.



BTW I give more info on the plane:

line number 365 Craft number 24602 Registration N644AA Delivered on 8/5/91
engines: RB211-535E4...

have fun!



well excellent, now that you've done half of the homework for ultima, if he's really serious about the numbers, he shouldnt have too much work to complete the circle of info.


edit to expand on a few points as i was pressed for time initially.

[edit on 17-12-2006 by snafu7700]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

well excellent, now that you've done half of the homework for ultima, if he's really serious about the numbers, he shouldnt have too much work to complete the circle of info.


edit to expand on a few points as i was pressed for time initially.

[edit on 17-12-2006 by snafu7700]


I hate to tell you but i have already done all this homework months ago, maybe you should try doing some research sometime its fun and easy and you can see how much information does not agree with the official story.

I have already looked up the registration number through FAA.


N644AA has multiple records

Reserved N-Number Type Reservation Fee Paid
Mode S Code 52072030
Reserved Date 09/15/2006
Renewal Date None
Purge Date 10/15/2007
Pending Number Change None
Date Change Authorized None
Reserving Party Name GREENWAY JONATHAN JAMES
Street PO BOX 714
City FREDERICK
State MARYLAND
Zip Code 21705-0714
County FREDERICK
Country UNITED STATES


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deregistered Aircraft 1 of 1

Aircraft Description
Serial Number 24602 Type Registration Corporation
Manufacturer Name BOEING Certificate Issue Date 05/08/1991
Model 757-223 Mode S Code 52072030
Year Manufacturer 1991 Cancel Date 01/14/2002
Reason for Cancellation Destroyed Exported To


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Aircraft Registration prior to Deregistration

Name WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY TRUSTEE
Street RODNEY SQ NORTH ATTN CORP TRT ADM
City WILMINGTON State DELAWARE Zip Code 19890
County NEW CASTLE
Country UNITED STATES


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Airworthiness Engine Manufacturer ROLLS-ROYC Classification Standard
Engine Model RB.211 SERIES Category Transport

A/W Date 05/08/1991


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Other Owner Names

None


[edit on 17-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 17-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 17-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
well good for you! one teeny tiny problem though.....the only registration numbers i see in your data are that of the aircraft and it's transponder....i'm pretty sure we were discussing the engines serial number. but hey, maybe i'm confused.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
well good for you! one teeny tiny problem though.....the only registration numbers i see in your data are that of the aircraft and it's transponder....i'm pretty sure we were discussing the engines serial number. but hey, maybe i'm confused.


Well to get the engine serial numbers you need the aircraft information, don't you think ????



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
lol....i noted that he had already found the serial number for you (without sarcasm), and you just had to come back with this smart butt comment:


I hate to tell you but i have already done all this homework months ago, maybe you should try doing some research sometime its fun and easy and you can see how much information does not agree with the official story.


so i couldnt resist informing you that you didnt have the one thing you were attempting to ridicule me for pointing out....and of course that pissed you off: another member who likes to dish it out, but cant take it. get over yourself, man, and lets get back on topic.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
lol....i noted that he had already found the serial number for you (without sarcasm), and you just had to come back with this smart butt comment:


I hate to tell you but i have already done all this homework months ago, maybe you should try doing some research sometime its fun and easy and you can see how much information does not agree with the official story.


so i couldnt resist informing you that you didnt have the one thing you were attempting to ridicule me for pointing out....and of course that pissed you off: another member who likes to dish it out, but cant take it. get over yourself, man, and lets get back on topic.


So you have all the answers. Where did you get your aviation training from the know what part of engine looks like another ? I have yet to see any real facts from you regarding flight 77 and the crash scene.

Do you know the anwers to the following, i do.

1. How many planes use the RB211 engine ?
2. How many planes use the same wheel as the photo at the Pentagon shows ?
3. What are the 757 parts made of, like the wheels and flight controls, and wing box.

Where is the research you have done to provide facts on what happned the crash site ?

Have you looked at the FBI and NTSB sites to find information or reports on the crash scenes

I have been doing this for several months so do not try to tell me what i have done and not done ok !!!!!!!!

[edit on 17-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Sorry, double post.

[edit on 17-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join