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.

 

How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

page: 62
13
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The evidence is there that some components of that plane managed to break out from the opposite side of the building.


Yes there were parts comming out the South tower but mainly because the plane that hit the South tower went in at an angle through the side of the building thus missing the inner core.

Do we have any part number on the engine found on the street to match to the aircraft ?




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
wrong again Ultima, in fact the aircraft smacked into the core having struck the side of the building having the least distance from the exterior wall to the inner core wall.

Bird's eye view aircraft impact

The right side engine ripped through virtually un-impeded on the impact floor and out the building (in multiple section not intact)

The left engine smacked into the core and become debris within the tower collapse as were the two engines from the impact into the WTC 1.


[edit on 28-12-2007 by robertfenix]

[edit on 28-12-2007 by robertfenix]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by robertfenix
 


That is someone's drawing. How is that a true "bird's eye view"? Even a bird could not see through all that massive ball of orange flame and dense black smoke.

No one but those inside the building, on the same floor, as an impact and penetration, know for certain if any plane penetrated and got to any core supports, much less sliced through any of them or compromised them in any way. Those who saw it, cannot tell us what they saw while it was happening.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Do we have any part number on the engine found on the street to match to the aircraft ?

None that I ever heard of - they must have dropped me off the mailing list


Thinking of the scene and the total chaos, casualties, fire & debris posing a risk to survivors... you're told by authority it was flight XXX and perhaps the model - would it be a priority or even considered necessary to go collecting part numbers? on a scale of priorities it would be close to the bottom of the list, if it was on the list at all. All hopes would be resting on discovery of the flight recorders at some stage to provide that sort of confirmation.

Perhaps data like that is being reserved for presentation in pending legal proceedings - the FBI would know and someone will need to have a few aces up their sleeve to defend the justified allegations of inadequate investigation.

Comparing the event to Pearl Harbour, I can't imagine an investigation collecting plane parts and looking for numbers and fingerprints when securing the area and finding casualties is more important.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


The part number should be etched into the part. If someone had it, they had the part number.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
Bird's eye view aircraft impact

The right side engine ripped through virtually un-impeded on the impact floor and out the building (in multiple section not intact)

The left engine smacked into the core and become debris within the tower collapse as were the two engines from the impact into the WTC 1.



That drawing has to be some of the worse evidence i have seen, and i have seen some bad ones.

You cannot post anything from a official site ?



[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   
www.electro-methods.com...


Telephone
860-289-8661

FAX
860-289-1868

Electro-Methods, Inc.
330 Governors Highway
South Windsor CT 06074

Electro-Methods, Inc, is a registered ISO9001-2000/AS9002 manufacturer of machined and fabricated complex parts and assemblies in the compressor, turbine and combustor sections of turbine engines.



This is called research, why don't you call them and send them a picture of the engine section on the NY street and ask them if they know what it is..



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by robertfenix
 


That is someone's drawing. How is that a true "bird's eye view"? Even a bird could not see through all that massive ball of orange flame and dense black smoke.


Just a dumb worthless statement, would it be more legitimate if some posted the actual engineering drawings that showed the dimensions in handwritten pencil of the distance between the exterior wall and interior core wall....

its to represent the buildings orientation with respect to the impact face and orientation of the internal "core".



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
The part number should be etched into the part. If someone had it, they had the part number.

They could successfully claim that it was illegible considering the trauma that part went through but let's hold onto hope that it will be produced sometime. There's also the issue of what make of engine it should have been as UA supposedly only had Pratt & Whitney engines on their 767s so that's another bone of contention.

Any progress on the double steel wall?
We may need to re-evaluate the calculations if you can substantiate it.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by MikeVet
238 broken by the impacts. 1312 missing by the time of collapse. 133 in place at the time of collapse.


How many could not be counted as missing becasue of being smokey?

Do you really want me to post quotes from your site, to prove to everyone here how wrong you are?

And how much i have owned you?


Oh pleeeeease do post that.

I believe it'll say 376 windows "can't see". Just like the 376 obscured that I put up but you so creatively edited out of my post.

You're so clever. I am in the presence of greatness.....



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by robertfenix
 


No one's drawings are proof positive. Because they would still be guessing at what happened, without being able to prove what did actually happen.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
There's also the issue of what make of engine it should have been as UA supposedly only had Pratt & Whitney engines on their 767s so that's another bone of contention.


www.plane-spotter.com...

Actually United Airlines on 767-200 could have used CF6-80C2 which can be used in place of CF6-80A's, also 767-300 could have used CF6-80A's

www.airfleets.net...


N612UA Boeing 767-222 United Airlines

[Serial number 21873 LN:41
Type 767-222


First flight date 27/01/1983
Test registration

Flightlog
UA175 BOS->LAX 11/09/01 N612UA
UA111 ANC->ORD 27/09/89 N612UA
UA111 ANC->ORD 02/04/88 N612UA

Plane information as BUILT information
Serial number 21873 LN:41
Type 767-222
Engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney
Engine type JT9D-7R4D
Delivery year 1983






Date: 11 SEP 2001
Time: 08:46 EDT
Type: Boeing 767-223ER
Operator: American Airlines
Registration: N334AA
C/n / msn: 22332/169
First flight: 1987-04-07 00:00:00
Total airframe hrs: 58350.0
Cycles: 11789.0
Engines: 2 General Electric CF6-80A2

While it is possible the engine fragment found was from the American Airlines, more probable is that the original JT9's were updated to the GE engines on the UE plane



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Without the unique individual SN identified part, that part could fit on any engine fitting on any 767 in anyone's airline fleet. No doubt about it.

Unless, someone took the time to document the SN of every part going into any specifc plane, with an SN finished product number. If that happened, first the plane would have to be found with a particular model SN with those documented part SNs.

It works like this. Someone documents all the SNs of parts in engines, which have individual SN finished product numbers. That engine SN is documented to belong to only one specific finished product plane with an individual SN number.

Otherwise, those involved cannot prove there was no planted parts when suspicion falls heavily on them.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by robertfenix
 

Thanks for that info

Clears up some more of the considerably muddy waters and helps more pieces of the puzzle fall into place (for me anyway).



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
You're so clever. I am in the presence of greatness.....


Just learned from you, like being clever to leave out the other catagories of widows in your count. As stated NIST was making a guess at bast onthe number of windows, and most were due to impact not fire.


Open
Window

Glass in
Place

“Can’t
See”



I also noticed how it talked about isolosted fires and them burning out, showing oxygen starved smoke just like i posted.


The 94th floor fires can be seen at many locations between windows 94-405 and 94-448. Most of the fires are burning at isolated locations near the floor. The only window where flames are protruding out is
94-405.

Relatively small fires are observed at several locations on the 94th floor. Heavy smoke continues to come
from window 94-108.



[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Without the unique individual SN identified part, that part could fit on any engine fitting on any 767 in anyone's airline fleet. No doubt about it.

Unless, someone took the time to document the SN of every part going into any specifc plane, with an SN finished product number. If that happened, first the plane would have to be found with a particular model SN with those documented part SNs.

It works like this. Someone documents all the SNs of parts in engines, which have individual SN finished product numbers. That engine SN is documented to belong to only one specific finished product plane with an individual SN number.

Otherwise, those involved cannot prove there was no planted parts when suspicion falls heavily on them.

When did the no plane/different plane/planted evidence theories emerge though, was that prior to wreckage being removed from the site?
From what I've seen it was much much after 9/11.

Now on the day was there any reason for anyone to suspect it wasn't the planes that were claimed to have been hijacked and witnessed flying into the buildings and subsequently missing?
For something looking that cut & dried it's possible that no such data apart from some photographs was considered vital to collect leaving us with the ongoing kerfuffle we see now. There was a million tons of rubble to clean up and a city to get back on its feet.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


After people got over the shock of what they were viewing at first, I am highly certain I am not the only one who did not immediately accept what the newscasters were expressing for opinion. They had a great number of them.

Then the US bureaucrats got in on the act, and it got even murkier. My question was, "How did they know who it was in less than 24 hours?" Then when the words were mouthed by people, such as Rumsfeld, "We had no idea......" Then how did they know so quickly who did it and named bin Laden on 9/11?

US bureaucrats gave themselves away saying what they did on 9/11. They treated every citizen in the US as if we are all too stupid to realize who was actually involved on 9/11.

There was W reading "My Pet Goat" to a class of children, and deliberately delaying acting like a presidential leader, on a day that will be recorded a nothing short of mass murder, of thousands of US citizens and some foreign nationals working in WTC.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Then the US bureaucrats got in on the act, and it got even murkier. My question was, "How did they know who it was in less than 24 hours?" Then when the words were mouthed by people, such as Rumsfeld, "We had no idea......" Then how did they know so quickly who did it and named bin Laden on 9/11?


What got me is the media was stating it was a terrorist attack as soon as the second plane hit, but the DoD did not state officially it was a terrorist attack untill later in the day.

I guess the media has better resources then the DoD.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I do not remember exactly when bin Laden's name was mentioned the first time. However, I do remember it was on 9/11.

18 people were touted to be involved within 48 hours(TV and 72 by newspaper), until, one more was added. For people claiming, "We had no idea....." (Rumsfeld and Rice as only two of others), that was some miraculous law enforcement work and so swiftly too.

www.welfarestate.com...

"The New Yorker - What Went Wrong
by Seymour Hersh - 10/1/01

Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists' identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, "Whatever trail was left was left deliberately--for the F.B.I. to chase."

In interviews over the past two weeks, a number of intelligence officials have raised questions about Osama bin Laden's capabilities. "This guy sits in a cave in Afghanistan and he's running this operation?" one C.I.A. official asked. "It's so huge. He couldn't have done it alone." A senior military officer told me that because of the visas and other documentation needed to infiltrate team members into the United States, a major foreign intelligence service might also have been involved."


For anyone having seriously studied or currently seriously studying international history, politics, and finance, "a major foreign intelligence service" is well-known by name.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
What got me is the media was stating it was a terrorist attack as soon as the second plane hit, but the DoD did not state officially it was a terrorist attack untill later in the day.

I guess the media has better resources then the DoD.

The way it unfolded for me, first plane hit - random disaster?
Second plane within an hour - omg this is deliberate

I don't necessarily listen to the media but I do watch sometimes

My skeptometer went off when so quickly they announced having found Mr Atta's bag complete with incriminating evidence left behind at the airport. The odds of that seemed too long to me but lately I've been assured that the airport baggage handling was apparently that bad.

I've never had a problem with the fact that planes hit buildings, exploded, burned and buildings eventually failed apart from the human aspect. It's more about the who, how, why and who gained from it all.

Something I asked in another thread: If these buildings were rigged from top to bottom with all the suggested demoilition devices (nukes in the basement, thermite in the columns, HE cutter charges all over the core columns, DEWs focussed from a satellite) what happens if one or both planes fail to get there for any of numerous possible reasons? Just seems like a too overly risky and unmanageable possibility to me to even warrant consideration.




top topics



 
13
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join