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.

 

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Whodunnit
 




But just a little bit of evidence would be a good start.


Evidence of what? How to conduct an investigation?




posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Whodunnit
 




But just a little bit of evidence would be a good start.


Evidence of what? How to conduct an investigation?


Translation:

Damn, he's not asking for proof, just a little bit of evidence that I'm correct when I say that the NTSB teams don't have a clue as to the identity of the plane type or flight number when they roll up on a scene. And that they always check various parts and their serial numbers to make sure they have the right plane.I doon't have any, I've just been repeating what i read on ATS. I know, I'll ignore that part and post some smiley faces instead......


Just some evidence that you're correct that it is policy to id a plane by matching serial numbers and ignore FDRs found in the wreckage as an id source.



Crickets chirping............................................



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Whodunnit
 


Enlighten me then. What exactly is the step-by step procedure for investigating a fatal crash?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Whodunnit
 


Enlighten me then. What exactly is the step-by step procedure for investigating a fatal crash?


Have a nice day.

Goodbye.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Whodunnit
 


It's pretty simple really.

Flight 11: departed from Boston, transponder turned off, tracked with primary radar back to WTC North Tower. Never landed.

Flight 175: departed from Boston, transponder turned off and then back on, tracked with primary and secondary radar to World Trade Center south tower, impact witnessed by thousands. Never landed.

Flight 77: departed from Dulles, transponder turned off, spotted by C-130 crew before impact, witnessed by hundreds crashing into the Pentagon, RADES data confirms entire flight path, FDR found in Pentagon. Never landed.

Flight 93: departed from Newark, transponder turned off, witnessed by other airlines, tracked by primary radar. FDR found in Shanksville. Never landed.

How could the identities of these aircraft be confused?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I believe the point is that the plane was not positively identified by officials.
I believe this should be expected from any reasonable investigation. Why not? All the pieces are there????? Why not identify the aircraft seems reasonable to me. Just like the steel from the WTC.....shipped off immediatly....why...why were the crime scenes completely compromised. Surely the pros knew this violated standard operating procedures???

In most accidents the planes are reassembled for educational purposes. To learn from the tradgedy. You mean to tell me all the pros from the NTSB and the FBI would disregard years of experience and training and ignore SOP. Puhleeeze!



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 

I believe the point is that the plane was not positively identified by officials.
What about the FDR's from 77 and 93?



In most accidents the planes are reassembled for educational purposes. To learn from the tradgedy. You mean to tell me all the pros from the NTSB and the FBI would disregard years of experience and training and ignore SOP. Puhleeeze!
I don't think that most accidents get reconstructed, actually, I believe its kind of rare.

Also, it's done for investigative purposes as a last resort if the cause of the accident cannot be found by using the the FDR, CVR, or other information available. The four hijacked airliner crashes on 9/11 were not accidents, they were criminal acts. So there was no need to investigate what caused them to crash.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Let me get this straight:

Debunkers claim that there is a plethora of evidence at the pentagon that what we are told was the truth.


Of course. Because there is.


No video and/or photos.


No video of it hitting. Plenty of photos of the wreckage.


No plane parts positively identified.


FALSE.


Only anectdotal evidence as I can see it.


That's too bad since there is plenty of evidence.


And the "truthers" are the ones who are supossed to have the burden of proof?


Absolutely, the burden of proof is on YOU. I don't have to remind you that you REFUSED to present the statements of the 1,000+ people who saw and/or recovered the wreckage from inside the Pentagon.


How people can actually think that way is beyond me.


How 9/11 Truthers can dismiss evidence because it is inconvenient is beyond any rational person's thinking.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
I believe the point is that the plane was not positively identified by officials.
I believe this should be expected from any reasonable investigation. Why not? All the pieces are there????? Why not identify the aircraft seems reasonable to me. Just like the steel from the WTC.....shipped off immediatly....why...why were the crime scenes completely compromised. Surely the pros knew this violated standard operating procedures???


No SOP's were violated. AA77 was positively identified as the Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon. ALL of the evidence converges on that simple fact.


In most accidents the planes are reassembled for educational purposes. To learn from the tradgedy. You mean to tell me all the pros from the NTSB and the FBI would disregard years of experience and training and ignore SOP. Puhleeeze!


PLEASE remember that aircraft are infrequently reassembled and ONLY when the cause of a crash is unknown, as was the case with TWA 800.

The cause of AA77's crash into the Pentagon is known, and it had nothing to do with the aircraft itself.

I wish people would come down to earth and realize that AA77 hit the Pentagon and that has been known since within 1/2 hour of the crash itself. And I wish people here would stop claiming it did not hit because they find certain evidence inconvenient to that conclusion.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
And I wish people here would stop claiming it did not hit because they find certain evidence inconvenient to that conclusion.


If this is what happened, then how could ANY evidence be "inconvenient"? It is only inconvenient because it does not match up. Why does it not match up?

Sorry that these questions are "inconvenient" to you, but I feel they must be answered.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
And I wish people here would stop claiming it did not hit because they find certain evidence inconvenient to that conclusion.


If this is what happened, then how could ANY evidence be "inconvenient"? It is only inconvenient because it does not match up. Why does it not match up?


Because your refusal to deal with ALL of the evidence is predicated on the fact that you don't like that 1,000+ witnesses who saw and/or recovered the wreckage from inside the Pentagon and your afraid that doesn't "match up" with what you want to believe. It's "inconvenient" for your "story."



[edit on 20-3-2008 by jthomas]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Because your refusal to deal with ALL of the evidence is predicated on the fact that you don't like that 1,000+ witnesses who saw and/or recovered the wreckage from inside the Pentagon


OK. I'm getting sick of this "thousands" that you claim. Name them.

If you can't get me a link to the names, then YOU can't claim this anymore. Because if you can't back up your claim that 1,000+ witnesses saw and/or recovered stuff, then you are just stating your opinion.

The burden of proof is on you to supply these 1,000 + witnesses.


and your afraid that doesn't "match up" with what you want to believe.


Actually, I want to believe my government had no involvement and was caught off guard. That would help me sleep better at night. Unfortunately, the real evidence doesn't point that way.


It's "inconvenient" for your "story."


I have not peddled a "story". Unless you think I have written a book or something? Now, who has peddled a "story"? The USG.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
It is not enough to say there was wreckage, which was recovered by witnesses. The wreckage must be identified properly.

Just because there was a tow truck driver who towed away a vehicle after a DWI fatality wreck, does not mean that I don't have to take the VIN numbers from multiple points on the vehicle and otherwise meticulously document the scene.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   


No SOP's were violated. AA77 was positively identified as the Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon. ALL of the evidence converges on that simple fact



How? The OPs original statement and link states otherwise. And even the comments made by Marion C. Blakey and Carol Carmody, Vice-Chairman National Transportation Safety Board don't say anthing about positively identifying the plane, only assisting in aircraft identification analysis.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I just want to reiterate this sentiment.

We hear from the debunkers when questioned about the heat and DNA evidence (in regards to 9/11) that the astronaut's DNA was recovered and tested from the Space Shuttle explosion.

Well, since we knew exactly who was on the Space Shuttle, why would they do DNA tests?

For verification purposes.


The "verification purpose" being to positively identify the correct remains to be returned to the family members of the astronauts. This is exactly the same purpose done for AA77 with the additional purpose of verifying the identity of the hijackers.


One would think it just logical that if they would go the extra step in identifying the astronaut's DNA for verification, why would they not positively identify the plane parts?


False premise. They didn't have to verify that the wreckage was from the Shuttle to know it was from the Shuttle.

Neither did they have to verify "serial" numbers of AA77 wreckage parts, as Balsamo claims, to know the wreckage was from AA77.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
They did the DNA testing of the Columbia's crew remains for the same reason they do in every accident where the body cannot be positively ID'ed through other means...so that they return the right remains to the families for burial. One would think that would be common sense....



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Because your refusal to deal with ALL of the evidence is predicated on the fact that you don't like that 1,000+ witnesses who saw and/or recovered the wreckage from inside the Pentagon


OK. I'm getting sick of this "thousands" that you claim. Name them.

If you can't get me a link to the names, then YOU can't claim this anymore. Because if you can't back up your claim that 1,000+ witnesses saw and/or recovered stuff, then you are just stating your opinion.

The burden of proof is on you to supply these 1,000 + witnesses.


Congratulations I am glad you finally admitted what Ranke and Balsamo refuse to: you don't know what all the evidence is.

Should it then be my responsibility, or should it be that of those who claim no 757 hit the Pentagon to investigate all of the evidence? Should it not be the responsibility of no-planers to investigate just what happened after the crash and who was there?

How do I know so many people had access to the wreckage? For the very same reason everyone else can know. Can I know everything? NO, because only so much information is available to all of us on the Internet; much would have to be acquired by going directly to the sources. But it is not my claim that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon; it is that of no-planers who make the claim.

Isn't that what Craig Ranke's "Citizens Investigation Team" was supposed to be doing?


Actually, I want to believe my government had no involvement and was caught off guard. That would help me sleep better at night. Unfortunately, the real evidence doesn't point that way.


You've just acknowledged that you don't know what all the evidence is. You wouldn't make the claim that all of the wreckage from inside of the Pentagon just walked out of the Pentagon unseen. So wouldn't you want to find out just what happened, on your own?

I can provide a list of references, not individual names. You can find it just as easily as I did. Will you? Then it begs the question, what is the nature of the wreckage removed from the Pentagon and why did all these people not dispute that it was from AA77?

Perhaps you can now understand why no-planers never want to answer the question.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Neither did they have to verify "serial" numbers of AA77 wreckage parts, as Balsamo claims, to know the wreckage was from AA77.



Not that I'm totally convinced it actually was AA77 or even otherwise but the components were all collected and taken *somewhere* and yet there has been no correlating information about that wreckage released even though it's now 2008. They should still have it locked up somewhere for reasons only known to the investigators because deliberate destruction of evidence is quite a serious matter.

Verification is needed and let's hope it's soon although after all this time I doubt it will be generally accepted.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cromagnum



No SOP's were violated. AA77 was positively identified as the Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon. ALL of the evidence converges on that simple fact



How? The OPs original statement and link states otherwise. And even the comments made by Marion C. Blakey and Carol Carmody, Vice-Chairman National Transportation Safety Board don't say anthing about positively identifying the plane, only assisting in aircraft identification analysis.


If you read carefully, Leo's premise is false. One does not need to go through any formal process of identifying the wreckage to know what the wreckage is from.

It's just another meaningless red herring. ALL of the evidence, including the wreckage, points to the irrefutable conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon. No one has yet demonstrated otherwise.


[edit on 22-3-2008 by jthomas]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by jthomas
Neither did they have to verify "serial" numbers of AA77 wreckage parts, as Balsamo claims, to know the wreckage was from AA77.



Not that I'm totally convinced it actually was AA77 or even otherwise but the components were all collected and taken *somewhere* and yet there has been no correlating information about that wreckage released even though it's now 2008. They should still have it locked up somewhere for reasons only known to the investigators because deliberate destruction of evidence is quite a serious matter.

Verification is needed and let's hope it's soon although after all this time I doubt it will be generally accepted.


You may not be totally convinced but that does not speak to the fact that we know the wreckage was from AA77 without having to go through any subsequent formal identification.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join