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.

 

People implicated in 9/11

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
If you look at the distance between the row of intake ports and the flanged edge of the combustion chambers, there is a large difference between the two images. In the 757 Rolls Royce engine, the row of ports appear to be about 1/3 distance down on the assembly, leaving a fairly substantial region of metal between the ports and the big flanged circular rings of the assembly. In the image on the right, however, we do not see that same placement of the intake ports in relation to the flanged rings. These holes are much closer to the ring, almost touching it.


If you take an even CLOSER look, you'll see that the flanged rings are not perfectly symmetrical along the rim, but are uneven and in one area near the top, practically overlap tthe ports. It's clear that the flanged rings have been pushed in and folded up, like a crushed beer can, in the impact, meaning that you cannot make a one for one cosmetic comparison between an intact part and a heavily smashed part, particilarly when it's an intake cowling that would have had direct contact with the wall it was hitting.

There is a reason why these parts are called, "wreckage", after all.


What is most puzzling about this whole thing is WHERE ARE THE INTACT ENGINES, since in nearly all crashes, even of the worst kind, the engines remain largely intact due to the composition and construction.


You cannot compare what should or should not happen here with "most crashes" becuase "most crashes" occur while the plane is flying parallel with the ground I.E. either a crashed landing or it was travelling toward its destination when it went down. Flight AA77 flew directly INTO a wall, almost directly head on, so it's going to create a different pattern of damage. For an honest comparison you'll need to compare this wreckage with wreckage of another plane that had hit a hard surface head on.

I try to refrain from crash site forensics becuase I have no background in this whatsoever and cannot make any legitimate contributuons other than casual observations. The question is, what is YOUR background in studying crash site forensics? If it's ZERO, like mine, then all you're doing is basing your assessment on casual observation as well, so you'll forgive me when I say I'm still going to have to side in with people who ARE actual crash site forensics analysts, and who identified this as flight AA77.




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48



Ok , off we go to YOUR SITE

www.historycommons.org...

umm MM my friend (whispers )

It says "No hard Evidence Linking OBL to 911"




Some should teach you how to research a subject. There are over 6000 items in that timeline. A lot of material to read through and analyze.
Isolating a single remark made years ago by FBI's public affairs office is not exactly definitive. They don't even deal with perpetrators outside the US.

Try reading the evolution of bin Laden that stretches back into the Soviet-Afghan War days. Check out the section "Monitoring the 2000 Al-Qaeda Malaysia Summit"

And read through "The Hunt for Osama Bin Laden before 9/11" starting with him being tracked in the Sudan in 1991-2 and even considered a possible CIA assassination target. Right up to personal calls to Mommy.


www.historycommons.org...

September 9, 2001: Osama Tells His Stepmother that Big News Will Come in Two Days

It will later be reported that on this day, Osama bin Laden calls his stepmother and says, “In two days, you’re going to hear big news and you’re not going to hear from me for a while.”

US officials later will tell CNN that “in recent years they’ve been able to monitor some of bin Laden’s telephone communications with his [step]mother. Bin Laden at the time was using a satellite telephone, and the signals were intercepted and sometimes recorded.” [New York Times, 10/2/2001]

Stepmother Al-Khalifa bin Laden, who raised Osama bin Laden after his natural mother died, is apparently waiting in Damascus, Syria, to meet Osama there, so he calls to cancel the meeting. [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 10/7/2001]







[edit on 23-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


I not going to carry over your quotes on my quotes ....

The Thread is on People Implicated in 911

You apparently don't put any weight into the FBI's own statements.

And that is my arguement.

They say " There's no hard evidence"

You say there is.

I guess I'll have to choose between the FBI or you.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by mmiichael
 


I not going to carry over your quotes on my quotes ....

The Thread is on People Implicated in 911

You apparently don't put any weight into the FBI's own statements.

And that is my arguement.

They say " There's no hard evidence"

You say there is.

I guess I'll have to choose between the FBI or you.



It's not about me and the FBI. It's about knowledge and ignorance.

The source provided list hundreds of detailed items of bin Laden's direct involvement in 9/11. You choose a single uncontexted quote from the FBI PR department so you can say "I told you so."

The quote does not undo years of documented and analyzed data. It might even just be a chosen FBI deflection given to the press to avoid their embarrassment at withholding crucial indicators of the 9/11 from the CIA, NSA, etc.

You can't reduce history to a text message. Your unwillingness to delve deeper pretty much summarizes 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Find some single factoid that you like - ignore a mountain of evidence that conflicts with what you want to believe.

The reason conspiracy theory is not taken seriously by most thinking people

Knowledge is work.



[edit on 23-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom

The image which shows a drawing of the RB211 dwarfs the technician, whereas the actual image of the engine found at the pentagon is small in comparison. This is pointed out in the aerospace website but then later affirmed that it is the same engine because the part is only a central hub. Don't you find it odd that a picture of only this central hubb was taken while the rest of the engine, and the second engine, was not found? Wouldn't it make more sense that this engine belonged to the global hawk, which had only one rolls royce engine?


I don't find this odd in the least, no, specifically becuase they were using one single photo in their analysis. There were many, MANY photos taken of the area and of wreckage found in myriad shaped of destruction which they didn't show, plus, there were many things found which they didn't take a photo of. The photos aren't meant to be an inventory nor should they be considered as such.

Thus, I have to ask, what are you going on that says only ONE engine had ever been found?



There are only pictures of one engine ever found at the pentagon. Can you show me a picture of two engines found at the pentagon? And I don't mean that website which shows the part inside and outside the pentagon, which even they say is part of the same engine. So if there were "many, MANY" photos taken, why do they only show one?

You can not show me a picture of two engines found at the pentagon, unless you try and tell me that the part inside of the pentagon is a different engine, which it is not. If you have a picture of two engines found at the pentagon, please share.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by ancient_wisdom]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
My only comment on this is "The ability to keep a secret in inversely proportional to the number of people that know the secret."

In other words, the more people that were in on it, the better chance of the secret being exposed. If there were 1000 people in on it, why haven't we had anyone with a conscience fess up? Perhaps a death bed confession or just someone who doesn't want the "truth" to be buried?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
There are only pictures of one engine ever found at the pentagon. Can you show me a picture of two engines found at the pentagon? And I don't mean that website which shows the part inside and outside the pentagon, which even they say is part of the same engine. So if there were "many, MANY" photos taken, why do they only show one?

You can not show me a picture of two engines found at the pentagon, unless you try and tell me that the part inside of the pentagon is a different engine, which it is not. If you have a picture of two engines found at the pentagon, please share.


This is a flawed argument. I'm not the one saying there was only one engine found at the Pentagon site. YOU are. Therefore, it's not my responsibility to prove multiple engines were found. It's YOUR responsibility to show that only one engine was found, becuase the only one I've ever head say that only one engine had been found is, well, you, actually. What documents are you referring to that said only one engine was ever found?

I have already said that the photos were never meant to be an inventory and cannot be relied on as such. For one thing, when they took those photos they had no idea hordes of you 9/11 deniers were going to pop out of the woodwork later and attempt to bicker over every nut, bolt, and door hinge. Claiming that a second engine doesn't exist entirely becuase noone took a photo of a second engine is bad logic.

FYI The A3 Sky Warrior ALSO has two engines, so if you're attempting to disprove one, you're necessarily attempting to disprove both. Think your next post over carefully.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
"Isolating a single remark made years ago by FBI's public affairs office is not exactly definitive. They don't even deal with perpetrators outside the US."

If the FBI does not deal with perpetrators outside of the U.S., why do they have a "Most Wanted Terrorists" List?

www.fbi.gov...

And by the way, Usama Bin Laden is on the list and according to the FBI, "is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

www.fbi.gov...

Hmmm.....nothing in the above statement specifically mentions Bin Laden being wanted for his alleged involvement for 9/11. I wonder why?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
"For one thing, when they took those photos they had no idea hordes of you 9/11 deniers were going to pop out of the woodwork later and attempt to bicker over every nut, bolt, and door hinge."

Come to think of it you got a great point there. These investigators should have been thinking:

"let's take thousands of photos and catalogue all the material evidence so those cooky 9/11 deniers stay in their holes and do not come out of the woodwork in the future"

Instead of thinking:

"let's photograph and catalogue as much material evidence as possible (like real investigators do) to attempt to reconstruct the occurrence

Here is a photograph of the results of a real airline investigation and recovery effort (TWA 800)

www.lessignets.com...

And all these aircraft parts were recovered from the Atlantic Ocean, a much more difficult effort than to recover parts from a land crash.

It would be nice to see a reconstruction of the aircraft which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. But then again, you cannot reconstruct an airplane that allegedly disintegrates or vaporizes (take your pick) into thin air.


Anyway, what's the point of spending time and money on properly investigating one of the most devastating terrorist acts on American soil? Better to fill up the dump trucks and get rid of the evidence by making a few bucks selling off the scrap metal, since most people are suckers who will believe any fertilizer shoveled in their direction.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Here is a photograph of the results of a real airline investigation and recovery effort (TWA 800)

www.lessignets.com...

And all these aircraft parts were recovered from the Atlantic Ocean, a much more difficult effort than to recover parts from a land crash.

It would be nice to see a reconstruction of the aircraft which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. But then again, you cannot reconstruct an airplane that allegedly disintegrates or vaporizes (take your pick) into thin air.


Anyway, what's the point of spending time and money on properly investigating one of the most devastating terrorist acts on American soil? Better to fill up the dump trucks and get rid of the evidence by making a few bucks selling off the scrap metal, since most people are suckers who will believe any fertilizer shoveled in their direction.


Improper analogy. The reason why they documented flight 800 so meticulously is becuase they needed to find out what caused it to crash. On the other hand, even you conspiracy people are conceding that flight 77 (or whatever UFO the conspiracy theorists think it was) was intentionally steered into the Pentagon rather than any malfunction. The only ones attempting to sow doubt that the craft was anything but flight 77 are the conspiracy mongers, and THEY are saying it so they can sell their knicknacks. It was some French guy trying to sell a book he wrote who came up with that claim to begin with.

What IS a proper analogy, OTOH, is that despite all the meticulous investigation of flight 800 and despite the documented pattern of wreckage showing an explosion occurred inside the craft, there are still conspiracy theorists who insist that flight 800 was really shot down by a navy missile, and anythign that refutes this will be perceived as gov't disinformation put out to fool them. You walked into that one.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


"It's YOUR responsibility to show that only one engine was found"

you're right, it is my responsibility to show that only one engine was found, which has been known for quite a while.

911review.com...

This is from a "debunker" website, and even they can not show more than two parts of the same engine. I think it would be obvious if there were two 757 jet engines at the pentagon. This is clearly two parts to the same engine. A single Rolls Royce engine, and the Global Hawk has one engine, not two like a 757, I think it's safe to say this was a Global Hawk and not a 757 at the pentagon.

So I ask anyone, anyone at all, to show me a picture of two 757 engines photographed at the Pentagon. And keep in mind, the standard picture of the engine part at the pentagon comes up to the guy's thigh, so if you say that is a 757 engine you'll make me laugh.





[edit on 23-12-2009 by ancient_wisdom]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ancient_wisdom
 


OMG!!!

"A Global Hawk has one engine"....

Well, at least THAT is a correct statement!!


Powerplant: 1 × Allison Rolls-Royce AE3007H turbofan engine, 7,050 lbf (31.4 kN) thrust


here...compare:

to the Rb-211 engine:

OK?

Now, youngster. Consider this fact.

A Boeing 757 actually has THREE jet turbine "engines" installed. The 'third' is called an 'APU'....it provides no thrust for flight, it is, as the initials stand for, an "Auxiliary Power Unit", so it provides electrics and pneumatics when the two main engines are not operating. ALSO, it can supplement the two main engines in flight, if needed.

A typical APU:


But, the laughable assertion that only ONE jet engine was found in the Pentagon crash site is...well, laughable.

Those darned fool conspiracy websites that keep telling you this garbage assume that the engines would remain intact after such an event as a crash of that magnitude.

Just look at how many pieces actually make up a modern jet engine...here!! It's the same RB-211 engine from the American Airlines jet that crashed at the Pentagon!!! (In a cutaway drawing, for clarity):



Of course, the numbskulls at "Loose Change" don't want anyone to see the real thing, nor to understand the truth...their DVD sales figures would plunge dramatically....


[edit on 23 December 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Fascinating. If it was Al Qaeda, then it takes only 19 skinny little guys wth jack knives. If not, then it takes 2,000 highly trained and highly placed Americans to pull it off.

Allah must be one hell of a powerful god.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Improper analogy. The reason why they documented flight 800 so meticulously is becuase they needed to find out what caused it to crash. On the other hand, even you conspiracy people are conceding that flight 77 (or whatever UFO the conspiracy theorists think it was) was intentionally steered into the Pentagon rather than any malfunction.


My brother pioneered the field of aircraft failure analysis, and the truth is that the NTSB always investigate airline crashes at the same level of intensity. The NTSB does, that is. That said, the NTSB was not allowed to conduct the 9/11 aircraft crashes, and was only cc'ed on what few findings were documented. Even the Shanksville crash, which was - physically - a very traditional crash by airline disaster standards.

It's very enlightening to examine the Flt 77 FDR, as released by the NTSB. It almost seems as though they smiled as they released the bizarre findings of that report - especially the simulator program. If you log onto Pilotsfor911Truth.org, you'll discover why they might have grinned as they made that report public. After all, they were blocked from being able to do their normal investigation, and you know how govt. agencies are when they get edged out by a more powerful agency. Catty little pricks, they can be.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


[nevermind]

[edit on 23 December 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
My only comment on this is "The ability to keep a secret in inversely proportional to the number of people that know the secret."

In other words, the more people that were in on it, the better chance of the secret being exposed. If there were 1000 people in on it, why haven't we had anyone with a conscience fess up? Perhaps a death bed confession or just someone who doesn't want the "truth" to be buried?



It's good to keep in mind that the operation you're describing is the most repugnant terrorism attack in modern history, and the people involved (if not the 19 scrawny little Al Qaeda guys) have at least someone in their lives that matter to them. Forget the deathbed confessions - even if there were deathbeds involved for any of the perps of this recent operation - which isn't very likely.

Then, keep in mind that Blackwater Security (and other corporate security firms) hired many of the ex-KGB wet-team operatives that lost their paychecks when the USSR collapsed, so the big defense sector leadership alliances have armies of their own to use for things like demo prepping the towers with RF trigger C4 packs and Thermate cutters, and getting remote control software programs loaded int the auto-pilot systems of those planes that morning.

Then you have Rumsfeld "warning" the big Pentagon brass to make sure they stick with the standdown plan, or face Congressional budgetary scrutiny, when he held that Sept 10th press conference where he announced a 2.3 trillion dollar discrepancy in the Pentagon's procurement records. Interesting that this discrepancy vanished the next day, when the 19 terrorists took apart our entire defenses with X-acto knives.

This operation didn't require many people at all. What it required was the right people with serious legal threats facing them, and the top-down structure of the US military system, to keep the fighter jets on the ground until the planes hit their targets, and then it was all about the prep work that the corporate "security firms" were assigned to put together, and for that, they had ex-KGB and other Eastern European professional killers who have hated the USA all their lives anyway. With Larry Silverstein opening all the door under the guise of "upgrades" the demo crews had all the time in the world to wire the core matrix of both towers to drop. No trouble, and all it took was a laptop triggering a simple RF transmitter to blast the charges in the proper sequence once the final trigger sequences were adjusted to initiate at the jet impact locations.

I don't know. Maybe I'm an evil genius, but taking this operation live and making it work out isn't hard at all. All you'd need is millions of dollars, cutting edge military technology, a private army of foreign black ops professionals, and the goods on high level Pentagon brass over shady procurement practices that go back for years. The defense industry has all of that and more. So far, they've reaped hundreds of billions as a direct result of the attacks of 9/11. To me, these are the people to look at for this crime.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
things like demo prepping the towers with RF trigger C4 packs and Thermate cutters,


and no one noticed these tonnes of explosives, miles of cabling, holes punched in the walls - just when did they have time to do all this, as it would have taken weeks


and getting remote control software programs loaded int the auto-pilot systems of those planes that morning.


and just where did this "remote control software" fit in the autopilots, and how was it linked to a radio somehow?

just when you thought the conspiracy theories were as silly as they get, along comes a new one!!



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by NorEaster
things like demo prepping the towers with RF trigger C4 packs and Thermate cutters,


and no one noticed these tonnes of explosives, miles of cabling, holes punched in the walls - just when did they have time to do all this, as it would have taken weeks


What part of RF-trigger C4 packs don't you understand? What part of prepping the core matrix don't you understand? Obviously, you've never really looked into what it would take to drop those towers. One guy operating the "being -serviced" elevator, as two guys ride on top of it and attach C4 blasting packs along the center core matrix structure. That's what it took. No holes in drywall. No drywall at all in the central core matrix structure. Just enormous steel beams that needed to be blown to hell by RF triggered C4 demo packs.

It took less than a week to plant these, and the last of it happened the weekend before the attacks. Read up on it. The explosives dogs were yanked off site weeks before the attacks, and there was a complete power-down the weekend just before the attacks. It's public record.



and getting remote control software programs loaded int the auto-pilot systems of those planes that morning.


and just where did this "remote control software" fit in the autopilots, and how was it linked to a radio somehow?

just when you thought the conspiracy theories were as silly as they get, along comes a new one!!


The software had been operational since the mid-80s, and there is video of the take-offs and landings with this kind of software being used as part of the auto-pilot systems back then. Not hard at all, and you ignorance about it is kind of charming.

As far as the radio is concerned. As long as the frequency is cloned, the transmission could've come from the next room for all the ATC people would've known. They sure as hell didn't need to come from the planes themselves. They could've come from anywhere. The frequency and tags would've been the key to assigning the tx's from the planes in the ATC's systems.

In other words, that stuff was childs play. Oh, and this isn't a new theory. it's been around since 2005 at least. You need to bring yourself up to speed if you want to play on this board. At least, that's what I thought. I don't know. Maybe this place isn't as cutting edge as I assumed it to be?

[edit on 23-12-2009 by NorEaster]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



...and getting remote control software programs loaded int the auto-pilot systems of those planes that morning.


I'm sorry for this being off topic, but....

That is ridiculous!

This is the sort of nonsense that is spouted by people who know NOTHING about the airplanes, and even less about the autopilots; specifically, what they can and CANNOT do.

All fueled by those wannabe conspiracy nutcases who sit around and concoct ever more fanciful concepts...and no doubt influenced by crap Hollywood movie plots.

If I may be indulged....a BIG TIME blockbuster sequel to the original "Die Hard", with mega-star Bruce Willis, is a perfect example of how Hollywood fakery infects the minds of laypeople....

Y'all remember the movie? Terrorists take over ONE (just one, mind you) airport control tower, and somehow THIS gives them the advantage (???) to extort whatever they extort??? Honestly, the entire premise is ridiculous.

Oh, and the coup de gras....at the end, the bad guys escaping in their getaway jet, but it's leaking a trail of jet fuel...and our stalwart hero Bruce IGNITES it like a fuse!!!!! THAT actually made me embarrassed (because I saw it in the theater and shouted out loud at the screen, it was so ridiculous!!!)

Truly, it IS that sort of baloney that fuels the rest of these crazy "conspiracy" theories....with NO basis in actual fact.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by NorEaster
 



...and getting remote control software programs loaded int the auto-pilot systems of those planes that morning.


I'm sorry for this being off topic, but....

That is ridiculous!

This is the sort of nonsense that is spouted by people who know NOTHING about the airplanes, and even less about the autopilots; specifically, what they can and CANNOT do.

All fueled by those wannabe conspiracy nutcases who sit around and concoct ever more fanciful concepts...and no doubt influenced by crap Hollywood movie plots.

If I may be indulged....a BIG TIME blockbuster sequel to the original "Die Hard", with mega-star Bruce Willis, is a perfect example of how Hollywood fakery infects the minds of laypeople....

Y'all remember the movie? Terrorists take over ONE (just one, mind you) airport control tower, and somehow THIS gives them the advantage (???) to extort whatever they extort??? Honestly, the entire premise is ridiculous.

Oh, and the coup de gras....at the end, the bad guys escaping in their getaway jet, but it's leaking a trail of jet fuel...and our stalwart hero Bruce IGNITES it like a fuse!!!!! THAT actually made me embarrassed (because I saw it in the theater and shouted out loud at the screen, it was so ridiculous!!!)

Truly, it IS that sort of baloney that fuels the rest of these crazy "conspiracy" theories....with NO basis in actual fact.



You typed a lot, but you said nothing at all. Where's your information that claims that remote control software can't steer a plane if loaded into the very system that steers the plane.

Now, think about that statement in bold highlight before you tell me more stories that have no bearing on the argument you're attempting to make.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join