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.

 

FBI workers remove evidence

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
No, I mean the NTSB report that you said you would accept as true..


I cannot accept them as true when they have been debated by people with more experience and knowledge then you.




posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I cannot accept them as true when they have been debated by people with more experience and knowledge then you.



LOL. Why in the world would it matter if I have experience interpreting FDR data or not?

NTSB has experts in this field. They have a culture of reading FDRs and are aware of their limitations.

I would presume that your sources have examined what, 1 or 2? ANd this is supposed to make them qualified. So who are these people that you have that make you doubt proven experts in the field? Jughead, Veronica, and Scooby Doo?

Any challenge to the data will be rejected in court. Get used to it.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
So who are these people that you have that make you doubt proven experts in the field?

PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
PRESS RELEASE
Contact: Robert Balsamo
e-mail: pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org

UNITED 93 DATA PROVIDED BY US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT OBSERVED EVENTS

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain United Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder information, consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict observed events in several significant ways:

1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.
2. All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.
3. Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach claimed by the US Govt.
4. Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells. Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich explosion.
5. Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.

In May, 2007, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that United Airlines Flight 93 created the impact crater as reported, in Somerset County, PA on the morning of September 11, 2001. According to the US Govt, United Airlines Flight 93 approached Somerset County from the North-Northwest at a high altitude on the morning of September 11, 2001.

However, many witnesses contradict altitude as well as approach path. Also, according to reports, and as the impact crater suggests, United Airlines Flight 93 impacted terrain at an almost vertical 90 degree angle, while the Flight Data Recorder shows a 35 degree angle with up-sloping terrain, further reducing impact angle.

The information provided by the US Government does not support reports of United Airlines Flight 93 approach, impact angles, and lack of jet fuel at Somerset Country, PA.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is committed to discovering the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001. We have contacted both the NTSB and the FBI regarding these and other inconsistencies. To date, they have refused to comment on, correct, refute, retract or offer side-letters that might explain the discrepancies between what they claim are the data extracted from the FDR of United Flight 93 and the events observed.

As concerned citizens and professionals in the aviation industry, Pilots for 9/11 Truth asks, why have these discrepancies not been addressed by agencies within the United States Government? Pilots for 9/11 Truth takes the position that an official government inquiry into these discrepancies is warranted and long overdue. We call upon our fellow citizens to write to their Congressional representatives to inform them of these discrepancies and call for an immediate investigation into this matter.

For more information and in depth analysis please visit www.pilotsfor911truth.org



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I venture to say many of the people who "sifted the remains" had alterior motives than to serve the public good. Just think of all the diamonds laying around.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Ok, Jughead then.

Any challenge of the FDR data in court will be rejected.

Get used to that fact.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
No, I mean the NTSB report that you said you would accept as true..


I cannot accept them as true when they have been debated by people with more experience and knowledge then you.



Why do you always create excuses to not accept anything that may prove you wrong?



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Any challenge of the FDR data in court will be rejected.


Kind of like the official story would be rejected in court.

GET USED TO IT.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by scotty18
Why do you always create excuses to not accept anything that may prove you wrong?


I could ask the same thing of those who still believe the official story.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Kind of like the official story would be rejected in court.

GET USED TO IT.



So then you have no disagreement with me then vis-a-vis the FDRs?

The NIST is not evidence. It is a collection of evidence.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
So then you have no disagreement with me then vis-a-vis the FDRs?

The NIST is not evidence. It is a collection of evidence.


Yes i do disagree because the FDR has been challenged by professionals.

NIST is the only agency that has stated the plane impacts and fires caused the collapse. Other agencies like FEMA, 9/11 commission(who hired NIST), and Homeland Security disagree.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Yes i do disagree because the FDR has been challenged by professionals.

NIST is the only agency that has stated the plane impacts and fires caused the collapse. Other agencies like FEMA, 9/11 commission(who hired NIST), and Homeland Security disagree.



They may be professionals, or they may be Scooby Doo. But the NTSB's professionals have more demonstrable experience with interpreting FDR data. It doesn't matter what you OR I think about the data. What matters is what those that are most qualified think.

So is the NIST evidence, or is it a collection of evidence? Because that's how it could be challenged in court. It wouldn't be challenged for the totality of its contents, but piece by piece of the evidence that it outlines.

To be candid, I believe your statements about FEMA, 9/11C, and HS to be false, unless you can provide an entire quote, in context, with links, from their sites, and not from some woo-woo truther site. Otherwise I suggest you retract it or face a T&C violation.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
What matters is what those that are most qualified think.


Yes, and the qualified are coming out against the official story.


To be candid, I believe your statements about FEMA, 9/11C, and HS to be false, unless you can provide an entire quote, in context, with links, from their sites.


I will post the links, then it will show who has actually done the research.

1. FEMA:
911research.wtc7.net...

Following the aircraft impact into the building, the structure was able to successfully redistribute the building weight to the remaining elements and to maintain a stable condition. This return to a stable condition is suggested by the preliminary analyses and also evidenced by the fact that the structure remained standing for 1 hour and 43 minutes following the impact. However, the structure's global strength was severely degraded. Although the structure may have been able to remain standing in this weakened condition for an indefinite period, it had limited ability to resist additional loading and could potentially have collapsed as a result of any severe loading event, such as that produced by high winds or earthquakes.


Although only limited video footage is available that shows the crash of American Airlines Flight 11 into WTC 1 and the ensuing fireballs, extensive video records of the impact of United Airlines Flight 175 into WTC 2 are available. These videos show that three fireballs emanated from WTC 2 on the south, east, and west faces. The fireballs grew slowly, reaching their full size after about 2 seconds. The diameters of the fireballs were greater than 200 feet, exceeding the width of the building. Such fireballs were formed when the expelled jet fuel dispersed and flames traveled through the resulting fuel/air mixture. Experimentally based correlations for similar fireballs (Zalosh 1995) were used to estimate the amount of fuel consumed. The precise size of the fireballs and their exact shapes are not well defined; therefore, there is some uncertainty associated with estimates of the amount of fuel consumed by these effects. Calculations indicate that between 1,000 and 3,000 gallons of jet fuel were likely consumed in this manner. Barring additional information, it is reasonable to assume that an approximately similar amount of jet fuel was consumed by fireballs as the aircraft struck WTC 1.

Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs, being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage. It is not known whether the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris.


2. The 9/11 commission did not agree with or print the findings from NIST that it was both plane and fire that caused the collapse.

3. Will be back with the Homeland Security.





[edit on 10-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scotty18
Why do you always create excuses to not accept anything that may prove you wrong?


I could ask the same thing of those who still believe the official story.


Except that YOU are the one who will look at a video that clearly shows something and then deny it does.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by scotty18
Except that YOU are the one who will look at a video that clearly shows something and then deny it does.


What video are you talking about that actually shows something?

[edit on 12-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scotty18
Except that YOU are the one who will look at a video that clearly shows something and then deny it does.


What video are you talking about that actually shows something?

[edit on 12-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]


That would be the one showing the smoke trail leaving the building and falling to the ground. You know the smoke trail you claimed is a missile going towards the building.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by scotty18
You know the smoke trail you claimed is a missile going towards the building.


I never claimed the smoke trail was a missile, I said it looked like a missile trai. You should learn to read post.

Also you need to read all the information on the Woolworth missile.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scotty18
You know the smoke trail you claimed is a missile going towards the building.


I never claimed the smoke trail was a missile, I said it looked like a missile trai. You should learn to read post.

Also you need to read all the information on the Woolworth missile.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]


1) You should learn how to spell.

2) You posted that it looked like a missile trail and that it was going towards the WTC, even after having a video link and being called out on it.

3) Why do you insist on lying about things that are posted on this forum for all to see?



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Kind of like the official story would be rejected in court.

GET USED TO IT.



Mmm, very bold statement to make.

I am curious if a court would actually reject the whole "official story". Would you be the one to get it started, since you seem so sure of your statement?

I'm also curious to see which judge would let a challenge to the "official story" go to trial.

Of course, both outcomes ("official story" gets rejected or the challenge to the "official story" gets rejected") are only speculation until someone actually does manage to bring it to a trial.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
I am curious if a court would actually reject the whole "official story". Would you be the one to get it started, since you seem so sure of your statement?


Well since most of the evidence has not been released the official story as it stands now would not hold up in court becasue there is not enough physical evidence or official FBI and NTSB reports to suport it.

The biggest evidence aganst the official story is the lack of evidence that supports it.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well since most of the evidence has not been released the official story as it stands now would not hold up in court becasue there is not enough physical evidence or official FBI and NTSB reports to suport it.

The biggest evidence aganst the official story is the lack of evidence that supports it.



You have said in other threads that it's because they haven't "released all of the evidence yet".

What makes you assured that if you got them into court that they won't pull all those reports out on you?

Like I said. If you're so damned sure that they have nothing, why not start the ball rolling yourself and take "them" (whoever you see fit) to court and call them on it? The way I see it, if you even make it that far, it can only help us because it'll force them to expose those "hidden" documents.

Until I actually read about the court case in the paper or watch it on the news, the results are still pure speculation right now.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join