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.

 

flight 175 nose dive and high-speed bank

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Whatreallyhappened.com and Boston.com are not the 9/11 Commission.

Two hijackers flew in to Boston Logan Airport from Maine. How did the other eight hijackers get to Logan Airport? I thought you said Atta had to rental cars.

Killing innocent women and children along with not having facial hair is un-islamic also.

Who said he was an expert pilot? Did the 9/11 Commission?




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


9/11 Commission report is your referral not mine. I was referring to the "official" reports fed by US bureaucrats to media sources. Why are you referring to the 9/11 Commission report? Because it did not supercede the original US bureaucrat "official" reports fed to the media and declared case closed, as far as the Bush administration was and still is concerned.

The 9/11 Committe co-chairs, Kean and Hamilton, declared to the media and in their book, that their own co-chaired report was severely incomplete. Why would anyone accept a report even the co-chairs admit was severely lacking for accuracy and truth?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by OrionStars
 



Who said he was an expert pilot? Did the 9/11 Commission?



The US bureaucrats fed that to the domestic and international media over and over and over.........



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Where did the pre-official official report say that Atta had two cars?

So members of the Bush administration are the only bureaucrats with a voice?

They said it was severely lacking for accuracy and truth? Link please?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


If the US bureaucrats fed it to the media over and over and over, then I'm sure you can provide me with a link proving that, correct?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by OrionStars
 




If they flew out of Portalnd, they could have landed at Logan and not needed a rental car to leave at Logan.


Flight 11 and Flight 175 both originated at Boston. Each flight had five hijackers. Two hijackers flew in from Maine. Do you think the other eight hijackers were in their carry-on luggage?

Here's a novel idea; read the 9/11 Commission Report.

I find it very entertaining when a conspiracy theorists claims that there's too many inconsistencies and not enough proof to believe the official story when they have no idea what the official story says.




Thanks A$$, i have the 911 commission report... I find it very entertaining when people simply make assumptions and believe everything the govt. tells them.
Just because someone of authority says it, doesnt make it true.
You would be an excellent contestant on the Milgram Experiment



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


The media reports, stated by the US bureacrats, in press conferences and releases, to the media, were part of the original open-and-shut "official" report.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


The media report references are cited, and many linked to the media sources all over the Internet. I have done more than my fair share in providing substantiation when I post on various topics on 9/11. When members are involved in those discussions, and they neglect to read them at the time, it is completely inexcusable to continue requesting the same substantiation already redundantly supplied in other posts.

What is worse, is when members argue them at the time, wait, and then begin again requesting the same redundantly posted substantiation from other posters.

If you have a problem with the substantiation I do post, then you are responsible for offering an opposigion substantiated counter to my substantiation. Substantiated counter is not mere opinion.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Odessy
 


"Thanks A$$" ??? How very clever of you.

Since you have the 9/11 commission report, can you tell me where it states that Mohamed Atta had two rental cars? One in Boston and one in Maine.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I read all of your posts on this thread. I didn't see any mention of Mohamed Atta having a rental car in Maine and at Boston Logan Airport.

What I read was that Mohamed Atta rented a car from Alamo at Boston Logan Airport and then drove to Maine. You said that he had a rental car in Maine and in Boston. Am I wrong?

Please show me specifically in your pre-official official media accounts where they said that Mohamed Atta had two rental cars. One in Maine and one at Boston Logan Airport.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Odessy
 


The Milgram experiment?

You're not insinuating that I'm a Nazi, are you?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Instead of being so worried over whether or not the alleged Atta had alleged two rental autos in his name, perhaps better questions to ask are these:

According to the 9/11 Commission report:

www.msnbc.msn.com...

"Atta continued to coordinate the teams until the very end. On September 7, he flew from Fort Lauderdale to Baltimore, presumably to meet with the Flight 77 team in Laurel, Maryland. On September 9, he flew from Baltimore to Boston. By this time, Marwan al Shehhi and his team for Flight 175 had arrived in Boston, and Atta was seen with Shehhi at his hotel. The next day, Atta picked up Abdul Aziz al Omari, one of the Flight 11 muscle hijackers, from his Boston hotel and drove to Portland, Maine. For reasons that remain unknown, Atta and Omari took a commuter flight to Boston during the early hours of September 11 to connect to Flight 11. As shown here, they cleared security at the airport in Portland and boarded the flight that would allow them to join the rest of their team at Logan Airport.."

Now the following is where it gets very sticky between "official" reports:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

"(Mohamed) Atta and (Abdulaziz) Alomari boarded a 6:00 a.m. flight from Portland to Boston's Logan International Airport. [SFGate]
A Mitsubishi sedan [Atta] rented was found at Boston's Logan Airport. Arabic language materials were found in the car. [CNN]


How did Atta leave a rental car at Logan Airport in Boston when he supposedly flew there from Portland, Maine?

The official story:

[Atta] rented a car at Logan Airport Alamo and drove to Maine [on September 10]. Then flew down from Portland, Maine, early Tuesday before connecting on Flight 11. [Boston.com]

Why would Atta leave a rental car containing incriminating evidence at Logan Airport, rent another car in Boston to drive to Maine, then fly back to Boston again?

Even the 9/11 Commission couldn't explain this conundrum...

Atta picked up Omari at another hotel [on September 10], and the two drove to Portland, Maine, for reasons that remain unknown. [9/11 Commission Report]

...and they didn't look for answers.

The Bukharis provide a key to the enigma:

[Adnan and Ameer Bukhari's] names had been tied to a car found at an airport in Portland, Maine. [CNN]
The two rented a car, a silver-blue Nissan Altima, from an Alamo car rental at Boston's Logan Airport and drove to an airport in Portland, Maine, where they got on US Airways Flight 5930 at 6 a.m. Tuesday headed back to Boston, the sources said.

Before CNN learned the identities of the two brothers, Portland Police Chief Mike Chitwood said, "I can tell you those two individuals did get on a plane and fly to Boston early yesterday morning ... I can tell you that they are the focus of a federal investigation." [People's Daily 9/13/2001]

[Adnan Bukhari's] name reportedly appears on the American Airlines Flight Eleven manifest. [First Coast News]

A trail of evidence led investigators into Tuesday's terrorist attacks from one abandoned rental car in Portland, Maine, to two houses in Vero Beach, Florida. One of the Vero Beach houses had been rented by two brothers from Saudi Arabia. Inside it were two pilot's certificates in the names of Adnan Bukhari and his brother, Ameer Abbas Bukhari. [BBC News]


Early accounts stated it was Adnan and Ameer Bukhari who rented the car from Logan Airport Alamo and abandoned it at Portland, not Mohamed Atta. The Bukharis "did get on a plane and fly to Boston", Adnan Bukhari's name reportedly appeared on Flight 11's manifest, and a trail of evidence led investigators to Adnan Bukhari's house.

Within hours of the attacks it was nearly "case closed" that the Bukharis were hijackers of Flight 11, but a couple of simple facts proved their innocence - Ameer Bukhari died in a plane crash in 2000 and Adnan Bukhari is alive."


I have no idea how anyone planned to board or did board any Flight 11 on 9/11/2001, when BTS specifically has no record of any Flight 11 being scheduled on 9/11/2001.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



from whatreallyhappened.com
A Mitsubishi sedan [Atta] rented was found at Boston's Logan Airport. Arabic language materials were found in the car. [CNN]



Using the link your source provided:

According to law enforcement sources, Atta was on American Airlines Flight 11 that departed from Boston and slammed into the World Trade Center. A Mitsubishi sedan he rented was found at Boston's Logan Airport. Arabic language materials were found in the car.

Nothing official. Nothing pre-official official. Just a journalist's account three days after the attack. No name or quotes from the pre-official official.


from whatreallyhappened.com
Early accounts stated it was Adnan and Ameer Bukhari who rented the car from Logan Airport Alamo and abandoned it at Portland, not Mohamed Atta. The Bukharis "did get on a plane and fly to Boston", Adnan Bukhari's name reportedly appeared on Flight 11's manifest, and a trail of evidence led investigators to Adnan Bukhari's house.

Within hours of the attacks it was nearly "case closed" that the Bukharis were hijackers of Flight 11, but a couple of simple facts proved their innocence - Ameer Bukhari died in a plane crash in 2000 and Adnan Bukhari is alive."
Your source used this CNN article to cause confusion about Mohamed Atta having 2 rental cars, but conveniently left out the following part of the same article to cause more doubt about two brothers boarding flight 11 and investigators sweeping it under the rug and not following up.


Federal sources initially identified Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari as possible hijackers who boarded one of the planes that originated in Boston. The two men were first identified as brothers, but Adnan Bukhari said that was not the case.

Their names had been tied to a car found at an airport in Portland, Maine, but Adnan Bukhari's attorney said it appeared their identifications were stolen and said Bukhari had no role in the hijackings. A federal law enforcement official said Bukhari passed an FBI polygraph test and is not considered a suspect.

Ameer Bukhari died in a small plane crash in Florida last year, said Adnan Bukhari's attorney.
Quote mining at its best!



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Then it is back to Square One. How can anyone board a scheduled flight number, when BTS has no record of any such scheduled flight number or time on 9/11?

Since BTS has no scheduled Flights 11 and 77, that leaves any Flight 175 and 93 highly suspect, as well, for being used as any hijacked planes. Either there were 4 alleged BTS documented scheduled flights, with 19 alleged hijackers distributed between them, or there were not any. FBI insists, without caring about right names and faces for 19 people, there were 19 people involved as alleged hijackers using four alleged civilian commercial airliners.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Never in my history of flying, has anyone ever sold me a ticket, and wrote on it "When you show up, we will find you a plane to board."



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


wow, you really aren't all there in the head are you?

The milgram experiment... since i have to explain it to you,
was a study that showed how people not only believe, but obey those that they believe are a legitimate source.

look it up on youtube or just the world wide web before you assume im making statements about Nazi'ism... since it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

this shows your ignorance to the absolute degree...



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Odessy
 


"Thanks A$$" ??? How very clever of you.

Since you have the 9/11 commission report, can you tell me where it states that Mohamed Atta had two rental cars? One in Boston and one in Maine.



yes, thank you, I'm not trying to get "warned" thank you very much.
I've been on this site long enough to know that if i was to actually spell out what i meant, i would reap the consequences...

and this has nothing to do with the rental cars... it has to do with your statement:



I find it very entertaining when a conspiracy theorists claims that there's too many inconsistencies and not enough proof to believe the official story when they have no idea what the official story says.


so. let me explain this to you as well... sigh..
I have the 9/11 commission report...
I still believe 9/11 was an inside job...
therefore, I have every idea what the official story says, I just don't believe it simply because it comes from a legitimate source, like the participants in the milgram experiment...

and now, thanks to my previous post, you know what the milgram experiment is...

does it all make sense to you now?

do you need anything else explained?



I think you'll find these types of responses a lot if you keep up the attitude.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Apart from their driving skills, does anyone think that those manouvres performed in the planes are actually impossible? I certainly don't

They had no concerns about overstressing the airframes or engines, spilling the drinks or making some passengers a bit airsick and the goal was to hit a rather large and obvious target on a clear day.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by powerdive
 




You have to remember that the pilots sole objective was to crash into the tower, at any cost. Maybe a pilot could do that manoeuvre but would crash the plane, whilst trying to get it back under control. The terrorists didn't have that problem.

One thing I don't get though, why would an autopilot be able to do extreme manoeuvre's but a human one can't? Isn't the autopilot using the same controls?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   


3k feet per minute


Drop some rubber and you're down to 5k feet per minute.

Well if i didn't have to take pax comfort and structural damage into consideration 10k feet per minute is in the box.

Boeing makes some reliable hardware.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join