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.

 

737 Wheel recovered at the Pentagon on 9/11

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Really ULTIMA, which ones? I've been racking my brain to try and figure out what other airliner uses 757 tire/wheels.




Originally posted by AMTMAN
What possible "resources" does your Air Force experience give you access to?


Oh i can get to resources i know from my aviation expereince and my government work.



[edit on 9-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


If that's true then why don't you get some references from a 737 and 757 IPC to back up your argument, whatever that may be. I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time.




posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN
If that's true then why don't you get some references from a 737 and 757 IPC to back up your argument, whatever that may be. I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time.


Becaue i have a feeling (because of your post) you would not accept what i post anyway.

Oh, did you rack your brain about what military aircraf use the same type of wheel as the 757?


[edit on 9-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by shiman
Could you post your source?


www.popularmechanics.com...



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
I humbly suggest they are from a 757-223, serial 24602 N644AA


But where is the evidence of this?

[edit on 9-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Let's see. Other planes missing that day: accounted for. N644AA: destroyed. Where is N644AA if it was not the plane in question. What was the other plane involved? Where are the people that were on flight 77? Are they all part of the conspiracy too?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by shiman
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


OK so i might have been wrong, and reading the next page makes me lean towards other possibilitys. slightlyabovepar, STOP ATTACKING ME INDIRECTLY

One is it was a 7#7, but radio controlled. I am back to middle ground.


If questioning your claim is ATTACKING YOU INDIRECTLY then I am guilty as charged!

Anyway, you're now of the opinion that flight 77 was radio controlled? What leads you to believe that?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

Originally posted by shiman
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


OK so i might have been wrong, and reading the next page makes me lean towards other possibilitys. slightlyabovepar, STOP ATTACKING ME INDIRECTLY

One is it was a 7#7, but radio controlled. I am back to middle ground.


If questioning your claim is ATTACKING YOU INDIRECTLY then I am guilty as charged!

Anyway, you're now of the opinion that flight 77 was radio controlled? What leads you to believe that?


Attacking me indirectly by stating falsly that i am in some sort of truth movement and that they are stupid.

read to the right of that statement, and please read the whole post.

damn spelling...

[edit on 9-4-2008 by shiman]

[edit on 9-4-2008 by shiman]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by shiman
If you acually look back at my post with the security camera images there is an image with an object on the left side of the picture.


But what is the image. It sure does not look like a 757 does it?


i put the image there to state that it wasnt a 7#7. But what is it? Looks like a missile.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by shiman

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
In addition, you’ll find the more “inner” damage to be fuel and debris damage with more of the structure intact.


So what made it through and punched the hole through the outter wall of the third ring ?


Sigh.

More semantic games.

Yes of course, it was a shaped warhead from a mini-nuke cruise missile launched by MOSAD, built by Dick Cheney and sanctioned by the NWO!


And to back that statment up with this gif image!





and here is the frame that shows the "plane".




everyone who thinks i am trying to prove that there was a plane with these images is wrong.

Ultima please look at the right side of the second image. Use the top image as reference.


[edit on 9-4-2008 by shiman]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by AMTMAN
If that's true then why don't you get some references from a 737 and 757 IPC to back up your argument, whatever that may be. I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time.


Becaue i have a feeling (because of your post) you would not accept what i post anyway.

Oh, did you rack your brain about what military aircraf use the same type of wheel as the 757?


[edit on 9-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Well there's Air Force Two which is a 757 but I believe they are all accounted for. Along with the wheel rim at the pentagon there is the landing gear, brakes, parts of the engine part of a power supply for the emergency lights on a 757. Care to explain this?

[edit on 9-4-2008 by AMTMAN]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I am really at a loss here, to understand why otherwise well-educated people will imagine some incredible scenario, such as a 'missile' or * cough, cough* a radio-controlled Boeing 757!

It's almost as if the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

One poster is convinced it was a missile, although there is no physical evidence at all to support a missile theory. PLUS, you'd have to assume that someone somewhere....actually, many someones, somewhere, had to launch this alleged missile. And, doesn't the Military have a resposibility to maintain a thorough accounting of all missiles in the inventory? There ought to be many records, showing new missiles delivered, those de-commisioned, and those 'fired'....I'd think that someone in the Military, who posts here, would know that....

Then, we have someone else, who comes along, and *cough, cough* proposes that it was, in fact, a B757....but 'radio controlled'.

Ya know, I've been an R/C hobbyist for over 40 years....I think I have a little bit of understanding of what's involved. (oh...and thousands of hours in the airplane we're discussing...)

'nuf said about that theory....

'weemad' from Scotland said it well, some posts above. This has gone nowhere, since it continues to be circular, in some of the interactions I've read in just the last few days....

ps....I had considered a compromise, but rejected it as possibly unworkable, given the time elapsed. Since I'm not the only ATSer who lives here in spitting distance of the Pentagon, I thought that a couple of us could go interview the Arlington Fire Departments, find any who responded on that day, and get their stories, off the record, since I doubt they'd want publicity. I am, however, not a reporter, and have no reporter credentials, so I assume my idea would go nowhere....especially since these CT are so fringe to begin with.

WW

[thought to add]....the military version of the B757 is designated C-32. This is the machine used to ferry around the VEEP (VPOTOS), and when the Dark Master is onboard, the call sign is 'Air Force 2'.....



[edit on 4/9/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Along with the wheel rim at the pentagon there is the landing gear, brakes, parts of the engine part of a power supply for the emergency lights on a 757. Care to explain this?

Do you care to provide the forensic evidence that shows these alleged parts match the serial numbers and maintenance records for the alleged flight AA77?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
N644AA: destroyed. Where are the people that were on flight 77?


Destroyed , but how, where and when?

People from the plane were ID'd, but no evidence that they were in the building.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Well there's Air Force Two which is a 757 but I believe they are all accounted for. Along with the wheel rim at the pentagon there is the landing gear, brakes, parts of the engine part of a power supply for the emergency lights on a 757. Care to explain this?


Did i say any planes were missing? i asked what other planes use the same type of wheel as the 757, becasue maybe the wheel at the Pentagon is from a differnet plane.

What about the photo of the engine found at the Pentagon that does not match an RB211?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, OK, I'll bite....can you post that photo of the engine?

Because, I guess you already know that AA77 operated the RB211 engines...guess you also know that UA93 had different engines....

Anyway, please, again, post the photos of the damaged engines, from the Pentagon, the ones from AA77...an event that others, here at ATS, claim was NEVER an airplane in the first place, even though there are obvious photos of debris, posted all over the web, of AA fuselage fragments, along with paint markings that corroborate the AA fuselage, and consistent with a B757.

AND, there are testimonies from first responders, who saw body parts, and bodies....and, if I cared to, for the sake of this discussion, since I live here, I could go out tomorrow and ask around at the various Arlington Fire Departments, and see if they would even talk to me, since I'm not a Reporter, just a concerned citizen with a substantial background in aviation, as I am sure you have, and as they are concerned citizens as well, and maybe I'll buy a mini taperecorder so I can get all of it down, all of their recollections, those that might still be on duty, if they haven't retired by now because of the trauma, sorry for the run-on sentence, but I just had to make a point!!!

I offered up this idea, in another thread, for another ATSer who lived here locally, in case it was a viable notion....to go to the local Arlington Fire Houses, and canvas them, to get their responses....if they were on duty that day, to relate, confidentially, what they saw or didn't see.

It isn't something I think I could take on by myself....not sure if it's worth the effort, since I've seen how many have been treated on ATS, even when they present truth....

WW



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MajKarma
 


So you reject the bodies, the pieces of wreckage with the big "A" emblazoned upon it, the hundreds of eyewitnesses, the FDR information, the FAA radar tapes, landing gear, window sections, seats, airline uniformed body parts all recovered within the impact zone, the hundreds of first-responders who recover bodies still strapped into their seats and cell phone calls from people on the plane to their loved ones and instead insist on the straw-man argument that you must personally see wheels or that's proof 9-11 was an inside job?

So, you would agree with me the sun doesn't exist?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Along with the wheel rim at the pentagon there is the landing gear, brakes, parts of the engine part of a power supply for the emergency lights on a 757. Care to explain this?

Do you care to provide the forensic evidence that shows these alleged parts match the serial numbers and maintenance records for the alleged flight AA77?


Do you care to provide the forensic evidence they don't match?

Sorry, burden of proof reversal. As one of the propagators of the 'no plane' or 'wrong plane' theory it's up to you to prove your claims, not for us to prove them wrong.

Of course, you can’t.

The “no matching serial numbers” argument is based on assumptions that ignore the massive amount of correlating evidence that makes it utterly irrelevant.

If there were no bodies, no aircraft wreckage, no eyewitnesses, no security camera footage, no pictures, etc, etc, etc then you would have a point.

In the absence of everything else (which is intellectually dishonest at it’s core) – purely for the sake of argument – you have to admit there is every chance the numbers do match as they don’t.

Someone looking for the so-called truth must concede this point. If your honest and concede this point then we can agree that the argument is completely moot to begin with.

What does that leave us with? Massive, overwhelming evidence that FLT 77 did, in fact, hit the pentagon.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Anyway, please, again, post the photos of the damaged engines, from the Pentagon,


Here is the photo of the engine found outside the Pentagon. It is damaged and i cannot not match it to a RB211.

i22.photobucket.com...



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
So you reject the bodies, the pieces of wreckage with the big "A" emblazoned upon it, the hundreds of eyewitnesses,


Their have been NO official reports released that match parts found to Flight 77.

Their is no evidence to put the bodies from the plane inside the building.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
So you reject the bodies, the pieces of wreckage with the big "A" emblazoned upon it, the hundreds of eyewitnesses,


Their have been NO official reports released that match parts found to Flight 77.

Their is no evidence to put the bodies from the plane inside the building.



Nor have there been any official reports released that prove the parts don't match. You're making the assumption they /don't/wont match.

As before, all things being equal (which is gross intellectual dishonesty), you must agree that - logically - that there is as much likelihood the parts are from flight 77, as they are not.

In the absence of any other correlating evidence (a vacuum if you will) the likelihood the parts don't match is the same they do, in fact, match...correct?

And remaining in this perfect vacuum of just this one piece of evidence and admitting that either outcome is just as likely do you not have to admit this angle is moot, thereby making the argument irrelevant?

Conversely, if you choose to delve into the evidence at the impact site, how do you reconcile all (and you have to admit there is a boat load) the evidence? I understand your position is that there is no official report but, do you discount the first-responders who have publicly stated they saw (and recovered bodies) that were clearly from an aircraft?

Meaning: the absence of an official report does not mean those bodies weren’t recovered.

On the other hand, you have stated before that you think the 9-11 Commission report is bunk. Nothing wrong with that opinion. However, how do you reconcile your dismissal of the reports currently released and yet claim the proof you seek is in another ‘official’ report?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Nor have there been any official reports released that prove the parts don't match. You're making the assumption they /don't/wont match.


There are no reports that match the parts found to flight 77.

So if you state that flight 77 hit the pentagon it is your opinion and not fact.

Also if there was a boatload of parts why have we still not seen them or a reconstruction done with them?

[edit on 10-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join