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.

 

When did they ID AA77's parts?

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

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


This is my contention on events of 911 (my own , dont brush other

truthers with my theory).

Bush admin found out about a plan to take down the towers, CIA, FBI,

whatever. This they thought would be a gem falling in the PNAC laps.

Instead of stopping it, and it could have been, they did everything in

their power to make sure it happened. Trust me, it was hard , the

highjackers were real dumasses. Plans were made (we all know this)

for a invasion of Iraq , prior to 911, knowing they could happen with

a little spin, drawing on the "Lets get em" attitude after 911. Cheney had

the respond orders for Aircraft interception changed months before , so the

planes couldn't be shot down , without his say so, changed back to

original protacol on sept 12. The Rabbit hole is deeper of course , I could

write a book, but this is enough food for thought. If you truly

interested in learning more about the Set Up to 911 , this vid is the

best I watched ever (Got a applause for the vid)




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas
"Since you agree you cannot tell us of what the debris in the background is composed, then you would agree that you cannot tell us that the debris does not contain wing debris. You can only say, 'I don't know.' "

That was easy.


No. Please try and pay attention before I am forced to ignore you. IT IS NOT A WING PART.


You already know that you cannot claim debris from the wings IS or IS NOT part of the debris in the background of the photo.


Show me ONE AA plane with that paint on the wings. There is NOT ONE. I CAN SAY THAT IS NOT A WING. You said it is a wing and it is from AA77.


Nope, I never said that and you know that, Lillydale. Your desperation is telling. We know AA77 hit the Pentagon. We know that it was a Boeing 757. We know that Boeing 757's have wings.

We do NOT need that photo to KNOW that AA77 hit the Pentagon. neither do we need to have serial numbers or videos. You were schooled on that long ago. We Have ALL of the other evidence that YOU are completely incapable of refuting. Your strawman died 8 years ago and you cling to your fantasy in hilarious desperation.

Now, stop the silliness, Lillydale.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by 911files
How the heck do you know this? In all my years of research I have never heard anything quite so absurd.


1. Construction of the plane would not have let it make it all the in the building, pretty much common sense for anyone who knows aircraft.


Your opinion is meaningless.


2. A military witness that was the closest to the Pentagon stated the plane did not go all the way in the building.


What plane, Ultima1?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Let me state this one last time for the closed minded who just go by what they are told and not do research to find the truth.

The plane crash sites on 9/11 are a crime scene and proper ID of the planes must be made, basic CSI 101.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Your opinion is meaningless.


Its not opinion its fact. Look up what a 757 is made of and then compare it to the construction of the walls and collumns of the Pentagon.


What plane, Ultima1?


I do not know since we all know tha official reports have not been released yet.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Let me state this one last time for the closed minded who just go by what they are told and not do research to find the truth.

The plane crash sites on 9/11 are a crime scene and proper ID of the planes must be made, basic CSI 101.



And besides you and half a handful of conspiracist, who doesn't think the planes have not been properly ID'?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
1. Construction of the plane would not have let it make it all the in the building, pretty much common sense for anyone who knows aircraft.


Utter nonsense...review Newton's first law.


2. A military witness that was the closest to the Pentagon stated the plane did not go all the way in the building.


Name him.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And besides you and half a handful of conspiracist, who doesn't think the planes have not been properly ID'?


Well since we do not have the FBI crime scene reports the planes have not been properly identified.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
Utter nonsense...review Newton's first law.


The nose of the plane is a composite that would have been destroyed on impact, the cockpit is thin aluminum and would not have made it far through the reinforded wall and collumns of the Pentagon.


Name him.


Senior Master Sgt. Noel Sepulveda



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Well since we do not have the FBI crime scene reports the planes have not been properly identified.


Does not mean that at all. Just means you ain't special enough to have access to the reports.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
And besides you and half a handful of conspiracist, who doesn't think the planes have not been properly ID'?


Well since we do not have the FBI crime scene reports the planes have not been properly identified.



Again, the planes have not been "properly" identified to YOU. The investigative bodies are satsified that the plane was AA77. You don't count. The airline is satisfied (unless you can show otherwise). The rest of the world is satisfied.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
The airline is satisfied (unless you can show otherwise).


Well unless you can show that the airline collected insurance for thier planes, because i can not find any information that this was done.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
The airline is satisfied (unless you can show otherwise).


Well unless you can show that the airline collected insurance for thier planes, because i can not find any information that this was done.


And you probably won't. Unless, like I suggested before, you become an executive for AA, the plane's owners or the insurance carrier. Or become a majority stockholder.

Or write them a letter and ask them, that is always an option. If you have such a burning desire to confirm all this info then why not reach out to the source? They'll probably tell you that it is proprietary financial information and not for publication, but at least you'll know that you tried. I don't feel a need to do this as I am not consumed with fantasies about an evil cabal of FBI agents, insurance and airline executives that conspired to murder thousands of Americans so that we can go to war in the Middle East.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



...the cockpit is thin aluminum...


Well, everything aft of the forward pressure bulkhead and part of the fuselage were made of varying thicknesses of aluminum, and other metals. The 'composite' re referred to, I guess you meant the radome?

Here's a good example, because of the paint difference, to understand what the radome is, and how big it is:



Here's a glimpse of what's typically "under the hood" (or bonnet, as some might use the analogy):





....and would not have made it far through the reinforded wall and collumns of the Pentagon.


Puzzling comment, that.

You already agreed that it is THIN aluminum.

Does it not seem reasonable to understand that the materials making up the structure of the airplane would SHATTER and disintegrate, under the tremendous forces and energies of the impact?

Sure, larger, denser components (landing gear struts parts, major portions of the wing box, the major structural part where the wing and fuselage mate, parts of the engine components, after they broke apart...lots of parts in one of them engines...) would tend to continue onwards, just because of kinetic energy, of course --- AND the Pentagon did have windows, by the way...



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Puzzling comment, that.

You already agreed that it is THIN aluminum.

Does it not seem reasonable to understand that the materials making up the structure of the airplane would SHATTER and disintegrate, under the tremendous forces and energies of the impact?

Sure, larger, denser components (landing gear struts parts, major portions of the wing box, the major structural part where the wing and fuselage mate, parts of the engine components, after they broke apart...lots of parts in one of them engines...) would tend to continue onwards, just because of kinetic energy, of course --- AND the Pentagon did have windows, by the way...


(by the way i was a crew chief in the Air Force)

The point i am making is that the back of the plane would not have made it into the building, as backed up by military witness near the Pentagon.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
The nose of the plane is a composite that would have been destroyed on impact, the cockpit is thin aluminum and would not have made it far through the reinforded wall and collumns of the Pentagon.


So? How is it a stream of water can cut steel? You really need to review the Purdue simulation again. The mass of the fuel alone had enough intertia (Newton's 1st) to do the job.


Senior Master Sgt. Noel Sepulveda


He did not say that. What he said was his perception of events 'froze'. Very common in eyewitness recall. So is Terry Morin's extended time reference or any number of other witnesses who claim an extreme slow-down in their perceptions of the event. And you claim to have law enforcement experience? This is basic POST academy stuff.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
He did not say that. .


Yes he did say it. Quote from Noel Sepulveda

www.af.mil...
"It seemed like the pilot was scrambling to keep control, and I watched as he dropped lower and lower," Sepulveda said. "Then he dropped his landing gear and started coming down even faster and lower. "


[edit on 30-12-2009 by REMISNE]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


A portion of Noel Sepulveda's comments, when he received his purple Heart:


Sepulveda said the wings disintegrated, and then disappeared. "For a brief second, you could see the fuselage sticking out of the side of the Pentagon," Sepulveda recalls. "Then, all of a sudden, this ball of fire comes out from inside. It looked like it was just coming from inside the building, engulfing the fuselage. And then the fuselage was all gone."


"For a brief second...", he said. AS HE WATCHED the jet impact the Pentagon!

To him, under the stress and shock, his perception of time might have appeared to slow down. Common to humans, in those situations.


And then the fuselage was all gone."


"...all gone."

Gone. As in, just what you'd expect of an object with that much mass moving at upwards of 720 fps. Even when it hits a building.


"For a brief second..."


I certainly don't take that to literally mean an entire second of real time, and I don't think reasonable people would either. Figure of speech, just as many would have used in describing the event.


BTW, I also read more of his eyewitness comments, and impressions...and, just as we've seen often enough, some of the things he thought he saw are very unlikely.

Such as, he said he saw the landing gear come down. Nope, no indications of that, he is incorrect, and is a faulty memory. AND, highly unlikely to boot, given the intent of the pilot, and the short time period when he witnessed the airplane. But, he DOES say he witnessed the light pole strikes. Is that a faulty memory? Well, at least there IS evidence of that....

How much of his 'eyewitness' impressions do you wish to pick and choose from?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just thought to add, speaking of "picking and choosing"...

Where's Craig Ranke and his "Investigating Team"?? THEY keep trying to confuse the issue, with selected "witness" who think, but are vaguely unsure, they thought maybe they saw, but maybe not, an airplane fly OVER the Pentagon...those "Investigators" miss Mr. Sepulveda in their "Investigating"???








[edit on 30 December 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
A portion of Noel Sepulveda's comments, when he received his purple Heart:


You and i both know that an airliner cannot make it all the way into the reinforced walls and collumns of the buidling.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


An airliner taxiing at around 20 knots? Yup, I agree wholeheartedly, in that case it would NOT make it all the way into the building. Reinforced, or not.

Not even at 100 knots (though that's an awfully fast taxi speed. We'll call it a runway excursion, instead).

People with degrees in physics could probably supply some maths...but as I remember the kinetic energy of a body in motion increases as the square of the velocity.

So, at about 480 knots???

Anyone wish to do the maths, so we can convince someone who needs convincing?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join