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.

 

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 63
215
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Someone was asking for proof of the people on Flight 77...

While I understand that this will not be accepted as some on here, I am going to post it anyway.


According to AT&T, SOMEONE on Flight 77 called their operators and asked to be connected to (202)514-2201 so she could report her plane was being hijacked.

You might be wondering the significance of the phone number......its the direct line to the Solicitor General's office. Who, at the time, was Ted Olson. Which in turn makes one wonder, WHO would be calling his office to report a hijacking. It doesnt take much to figure out that it was Barbara Olson calling.

If you would like to read some of the documents...

911myths.com...


The call records do specify what airfone the calls came from. I will let those who are interested dig into airline records to confirm those particular phones were installed on N644AA (I will warn you that it will take some time to get to the right people at the airline, IF they will agree to help you)




posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
According to AT&T, SOMEONE on Flight 77 called their operators and asked to be connected to (202)514-2201 so she could report her plane was being hijacked.

You might be wondering the significance of the phone number......its the direct line to the Solicitor General's office. Who, at the time, was Ted Olson. Which in turn makes one wonder, WHO would be calling his office to report a hijacking. It doesnt take much to figure out that it was Barbara Olson calling.


Thanks for the link. Interesting tidbit, according to Barbara Olsen's call all the passengers were forced to the back of the plane.

In the cleanup aftermath it was noted while the front end of the plane was demolished on impact, the contents of the fuselage's rear end were telescopingly thrust through the wreckage by sheer momentum. So what was in the back of the plane ended up at the front. And that's where all the passengers were.


M



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

mmiichael, on the previous page, you made this claim:
"The plane took off in sight of thousands,"

Thus far, you have not supported this claim.

Considering your retractions and admissions of telling lies about other claims in this thread, nothing that you state can be taken as true at face value.

You have a few options available to you:
1 - prove the claim, by showing the thousands of eyewitness names who confirm the departure of the alleged flight.

2 - modify the claim, by showing X eyewitness names who confirm the departure of the alleged flight (where X is as many as you can find - I hope the use of basic algebraic substitution doesn't confuse you.)

3 - retract the claim and admit that you don't know how many eyewitness witnessed the departure of the alleged flight.

4 - do nothing, continue to post here knowing that you have again attempted to spread disinformation.

Your timely resolution of this matter should be important for you, after your admitted deceptions in the last few pages.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Mikey what about the witnesses that saw 2 of the 4 planes land in ohio? Cherry picking and disinfo is that all you know?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



9/11 happened in broad daylight with many eyewitnesses. Photo evidence is not even necessary to conclude what happened. The plane took off in sight of thousands, was tracked continuously, crashed. Many were there when it happened. Nothing has been put forward that conflicts with this. The case was closed the second the plane hit.



The plane took off in sight of thousands


You did make the claim, if you have a spine you should back up your claim.
Please, post proof for this source? Or retract this nonsense.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAntiHero420
 


The Cleveland claim was shown to be in error long ago. Yet, it STILL confuses people to this day.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



The Cleveland claim was shown to be in error long ago. Yet, it STILL confuses people to this day.


Prove it, show your source? You are making the claim.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



The Cleveland claim was shown to be in error long ago. Yet, it STILL confuses people to this day.


Prove it, show your source? You are making the claim.



It was in error because, as you already have been shown, AA77 hit the Pentagon with its passengers on board.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

As airliners this size carrying this much fuel were never crashed into huge structures at top speed brfore, I'm really not clear where there is a point of comparison.




UNTRUE. The aircraft designers at Boeing confirm that none of the aircraft can reach top speed EXCEPT at high altitude. At low altitude, they cannot exceed 300 miles per hour. Should they have flown in a 600 miles per hour, the density of the air would cause comprehensive structural failure within 20 seconds, in short, the wings wold rip off, the top tears of and the tail snaps away. An excellent example of this is the crash of the Egypt Air 990 on 31st October 1999. The pilot appears to have put it into a death plunge, only to have had the copilot yank it out and into a vertical U-turn. Although it was only seconds in the dense lower air, one of the engines ripped off entirely.

Also, you are failing to consider Cardington. Cardington is the foremost building structural research institutions in the UK. Since everything has to be tested to destruction here, and their word is taken as gospel in UK courts. They needed to test if airport buildings could withstand burning Jet fuel so they built a steel framed building and sprayed ti with burning jetliner fuels for hour after hour. Their conclusions were as follows:-

- They were never able to increase the temperature above 690 degrees
- The metal beams acted as giant heat sinks.
- The bigger the structure, the more efficiently the heat was taken away.
- The joints DID show signs of structural weakness after being hosed with jet airliner fuel at POINT BLANK RANGE like a blow torch after EIGHT AND A HALF HOURS.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by mmiichael
 



9/11 happened in broad daylight with many eyewitnesses. Photo evidence is not even necessary to conclude what happened.


So, when you go to see a scamster playing the shell game at a fairground, you are convinced that he has "MAGIC" powers and has harnessed the powers of darkness because he did it in broad daylight, rather than considering the possibility, its just that he can move his hands faster than you can follow?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

So lacking any other substantiated version of events we'll have to assume this is correct.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by mmiichael]



A few days ago my VISA Card was in my pocket. Now it is not.

As it is my card, I am in charge of the official version.

So, if I claim to own the Brooklyn Bridge and I am prepared to sell it to you for $1000, then you will conclude this ludicrous story without reservation "until you have another substantiated version of events" and hand over the money.

The whole concept of science is that NO PROPOSITION STANDS UNTIL PROVEN, NOT THE "OFFICIAL VERSION" BECAUSE SOMEONE IN "AUTHORITY" SAYS SO.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Though as there's no proof of this yet, and it's about as credible as an alien spaceship attack claim posted on Youtube.



Whilst this would seem ludicrous, this might no be so. Whilst I deeply do not accept this one should consider the claims of Jose Escamilla. He suggests that it is not humans who have been kidnapped, but the other way around - that the US captured aliens and interrogated them to gain valuable patentable inventions for the personal gain of those who interrogated them.

Hence, if the claims (which I do not accept) of Jose Escamilla are true, then it follows that... if I hit you over the head with a Teflon-coated frying pan, you have just TECHNICALLY been attacked with "alien technology".



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Originally posted by aristocrat2

Originally posted by mmiichael

As airliners this size carrying this much fuel were never crashed into huge structures at top speed before, I'm really not clear where there is a point of comparison.




UNTRUE. The aircraft designers at Boeing confirm that none of the aircraft can reach top speed EXCEPT at high altitude. At low altitude, they cannot exceed 300 miles per hour. Should they have flown in a 600 miles per hour, the density of the air would cause comprehensive structural failure within 20 seconds, in short, the wings wold rip off, the top tears of and the tail snaps away.


I'm afraid you're the one who is wrong. For starters I said "top" speed not necessary the absolute maximum or even optimal. IT was estimated the plane went into the WTC at 350 mph, top speed at near ground level. While Boeing may be right about reaching and maintaining 600 mph at high altitude, no one put knows how a plane would behave at low levels at full throttle. Would feeding fuel and built up momentum overcome resistance? Would full control be lost? Probably.

But no airline or pilot would ever test this - it would be suicidal. But someone did test it out. And we now know that you can get one of thiese suckers going well over 300 mph - if you aren't worried about crashing.



Also, you are failing to consider Cardington. Cardington is the foremost building structural research institutions in the UK. Since everything has to be tested to destruction here, and their word is taken as gospel in UK courts. They needed to test if airport buildings could withstand burning Jet fuel so they built a steel framed building and sprayed ti with burning jetliner fuels for hour after hour. Their conclusions were as follows:-

- They were never able to increase the temperature above 690 degrees
- The metal beams acted as giant heat sinks.
- The bigger the structure, the more efficiently the heat was taken away.
- The joints DID show signs of structural weakness after being hosed with jet airliner fuel at POINT BLANK RANGE like a blow torch after EIGHT AND A HALF HOURS.


You aren't aware of what happened if you're discussing the WTC. Jet fuel was a component of the fires, not the only source. Office contents, carpets, furniture, as well as stored heating fuels were burning. Steel structures are unique in that as strong as they may be they are also hazardous in that steel rapidly loses it's strength when overheated. This has been the basis of black-smithing for a thousand years. Forget the exact numbers, something like 50% support strength is lost at in the region of 6-700 degrees F.

Many structural engineering and building fire studies done on the WTC collapses. This one on line from Structure Magazine No 2007. On the WTC it was shown that the loss of integrity of one column put unsustainable loads on the adjacent columns leading to loss of self-sustaining ability.


www.structuremag.org...

A fuller explanation here

www.debunking911.com...


In general, cars that are supposed to survive crashes don't, building collapse sometimes on their own, Equipment fails that isn't supposed to.

No one can tell how machinery or anything will react in the most extreme conditions until they are tested.

So far no one has built 110 story buildings and had fueled airliners fly into them as a control study.

We base what CAN happen by what DID happen.

The so-called experts have to take notes not tell us what is or sin't possible.


M



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
THE TRANSPONDERS

A central piece of evidence that is ignored,pretty much by everyone, is the transponders.

The transponders were, apparantly turned on and off at various times during the flights of the machines that hit the WTC and the Pentagon.

Quite apart from being largely pointless for hijackrs to have done this, those with that level of experience could not have had the ability to have done this. No other hijackers have.

Sherlock Holmes said, eliminate that which is not possible and whatever is left must be the truth, no matter how ludicrous it seems.

So, if they cold not have turned on and off the transponders, what is the conclusion?

THE TRANSPONDERS WERE NOT TRNED OFF AND ON.

If this did not happen, how come NORAD showed this as such? There si ONE BIG CASE OF THIS HAPPENING, namely in 1982, and since this wold appear to be the only possible way that this could have happened, it leads to STUNNING CONCLUSIONS as to who did 9/11 mass murder and how it was done.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by aristocrat2
THE TRANSPONDERS WERE NOT TRNED OFF AND ON.

If this did not happen, how come NORAD showed this as such? There si ONE BIG CASE OF THIS HAPPENING, namely in 1982, and since this wold appear to be the only possible way that this could have happened, it leads to STUNNING CONCLUSIONS as to who did 9/11 mass murder and how it was done.


Politely. You're drinking too much Truth Serum. There are possibilities you haven' considered. Also you don't supply anything supportable of what did actually occur.

Along with most 9//11 myths this one has proven not to be the case.


www.debunk911myths.org...



M



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

We base what CAN happen by what DID happen.



New York City DID sell me the Brooklyn Bridge for $1, so it CAN happen so it DID happen, so I can sell it to you $1000. Seems fair?

Yours is a laughably circular argument.

[Originally posted by mmiichael
You aren't aware of what happened if you're discussing the WTC. Jet fuel was a component of the fires, not the only source. Office contents, carpets, furniture, as well as stored heating fuels were burning. Steel structures are unique in that as strong as they may be they are also hazardous in that steel rapidly loses it's strength when overheated. This has been the basis of black-smithing for a thousand years. Forget the exact numbers, something like 50% support strength is lost at in the region of 6-700 degrees F.


And YOU are not aware that I am talking about CARDINGTON who incinerate burn and pour acid over EVERYTHING. Their research shows that it could NOT have reached that temperature from jetliner fuels and that everything else burns at a lower temperature. Furthermore, absence of jetliner fuel wold not increase the temperature either.

In the 1970's there was another fire at the WTC which consumed several floors for several hours, yet despite having an EXTRA 100 or so floors of weight ABOVE where the floors were, there was no structural loss.

Additionally, it did not take ONE truss to fail to cause it to fall. She had 47, yey only needed 12 to stand. Reference Les Robertson's original design if you want confirmation. Les states that the architect told him that he wanted to always be able to touch at least two trusses at any time and "he was a small man" stated Les Robertson. As Les was paid on a percentage of the cost basis, like most structural engineers, the more junk he through in, the fatter his pay check, so the WTC was built so heftily that you could have filled it from floor to ceiling with solid slate billiard tables on every floor and she'd have had no problem in standing.

Your claims are nonsense and flow precisely against the facts.

Claiming that Al Qaeda infiltrated the Turner Construction Corporation and placed explosives whilst seemingly ludicrous, is a tougher proposition to disprove, but concluding that two airliners casued the WTC to fall is utterly outlandish nonsense.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



The Cleveland claim was shown to be in error long ago. Yet, it STILL confuses people to this day.

Prove it, show your source? You are making the claim.


It was in error because, as you already have been shown, AA77 hit the Pentagon with its passengers on board.


Obviously you feel you can make false claims, and not have to answer questions.


Prove it, show your source? You are making the claim.


You still have not answer my question?



[edit on 1-11-2009 by impressme]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Politely.



This is a baldly UNTRUE. You are patently NOT polite. You have been NOT polite. I doubt if you ever will be POLITE.


Originally posted by mmiichael

There are possibilities you haven' considered. Also you don't supply anything supportable of what did actually occur.



As I explained, I shall include that in a fture post.


Originally posted by mmiichael

Along with most 9//11 myths this one has proven not to be the case.



UNTRUE - This is PRIMA FACIA.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
There are possibilities you haven' considered. Also you don't supply anything supportable of what did actually occur.

I've given you four possibilities with respect to your claim that thousands of people saw the plane depart, mmiichael.

You have a few options available to you:
1 - prove the claim, by showing the thousands of eyewitness names who confirm the departure of the alleged flight.

2 - modify the claim, by showing X eyewitness names who confirm the departure of the alleged flight (where X is as many as you can find - I hope the use of basic algebraic substitution doesn't confuse you.)

3 - retract the claim and admit that you don't know how many eyewitnesses witnessed the departure of the alleged flight.

4 - do nothing, continue to post here knowing that you have again attempted to spread disinformation.

Currently, you are selecting the last option, where you are doing nothing and spreading disinformation about the number of people who saw the plane depart.

This will remain in place unless you decide to choose another option. As it can be seen, 'you don't supply anything supportable of what did actually occur' with respect to the plane's alleged departure.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I've given you four possibilities with respect to your claim that thousands of people saw the plane depart, mmiichael.

You have a few options available to you:
[...]

This will remain in place unless you decide to choose another option. As it can be seen, 'you don't supply anything supportable of what did actually occur' with respect to the plane's alleged departure.


I'm afraid you are only one of 160,000 members on this forum and not in any position of authority to dictate to anyone what they can or cannot do.

Thousands of people did witness the plane crash at the Pentagon and were involved in the cleanup aftermath days and weeks later. This can be verified by any news publication of the period. I have no requirement to verify something widely reportedt. in all media including the Internet. Google will deliver a thousands of hits.

I have supplied summary information as well as linked to credible sources.

I can't help but note how you ignore all this information and repeatedly claim there is proof required - while not providing any substantiation of counter claims.
e
More I could say - but any thinking person will already see this pattern.

Where is your proof a plane did not hit the Pentagon?

Either reply with specifics or concede you have nothing to offer that disproves what is known to have happened.


M


[edit on 1-11-2009 by mmiichael]



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join