Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

When did they ID AA77's parts?

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by jthomas
Utter nonsense.

You do not need individual serial numbers to identify a known aircraft. ALL of the evidence already demonstrates that AA77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon.

You are right, utter nonsense since 9/11 is a criminal investigation so the aircraft do need to be identified.


The aircraft was identified - even before it hit the Pentagon. You lose.

One can never underestimate the intelligence of 9/11 "Truthers."




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
I have shown reasonable doubt because there are no photos of ALL the parts with reports that match AA77. Per U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, all federally registered civil aircraft are to contain uniquely numbered components.

Also no reports of where the parts are now.


Could you point out the "reasonable doubt" you claim to have shown? I must have missed it.

Thanks



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Alfie1
In order to establish a reasonable doubt, in relation to plane parts at the Pentagon, do you not have to demonstrate that there was at least one part recovered incompatible with a Boeing 757.

Can you do that please ?


I have shown reasonable doubt because there are no photos of ALL the parts with reports that match AA77.


You have no ability to demonstrate that claim so apologize to all of us for lying, REMISNE.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
the insurance companies are satisfied, our investigative agencies are wholly satisfied that the plane involved in AA77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.


Please show me the insurance company records that the airlines collected hull or hijack insurance for AA77.

I will be wating for the information.



Easy, just become and executive with the insurance company or majority stock holder then you can see anything you like. Or with the airlines, or a member of congress, or join the FBI or AG's office. Until then you are not in the loop. Neither am I, but I don't mistrust people because of who cuts their paycheck.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Ah. Hmmm. Aha...

You wrote this:


Per U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, all federally registered civil aircraft are to contain uniquely numbered components.


Please, find a link to this alleged "U.S. Code of Federal Regulations" (if that is its REAL name).

Or, this is just something you made up, maybe?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

All i have to do is prove reasonable doubt that the official story is wrong, which i have proven many times.


That's exactly what Ultima1 used to claim before he was banned, even using the lower case "i" to write it.

Gosh....



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files


That is one photo, already posted in this thread. I did not assert that was all that there was and again, you will have to take that up with the FBI.

You have never in your wildest dreams proven anything wrong. You have never offered evidence of any kind on any thread I have ever seen on any forum. All you have ever posted was a letter stating that the NSA was working on a search of records responsive to your request, but never the actual FOIA results. You sir, are simply a troll.


When was that number in that photo indentified as being installed on AA77?

You are just making things up and acting indignant because it is the only option you have. Proving it will never happen so instead you pretend to be upset at me for asking. Tsk tsk. So, the debunker's new best weapon is to just shut the other side up instead of refute what they say with facts and evidence?

Make up crap all you like, selling it to me will leave you empty handed and tired but feel free to look at my evidence, discuss your lack there of, and then get mad because I have asked something you wish had an answer but you do not have that answer.

Again, what does that photo prove?

If that is just one photo and it is not proof, then why did you post it?

Where are the other photos that you base this all on?




It is fun to tell people they are wrong without actually demonstrating why or how, isn't it? This thread is like practice for you guys with that. Go for it. If you prove they ID'd AA77 by SN, go for it. If not, then all this snide BS will be a bright shiny reminder of how empty your core beliefs in this really are. Thank you.

[edit on 12/29/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Again, what does that photo prove?

If that is just one photo and it is not proof, then why did you post it?

Where are the other photos that you base this all on?


Lillydale, I don't have to remind you of your complete failure to support your claims using photos, do I?

Oh, I do?

OK, you remember when you said there were no photos or evidence that AA77's wings were in the debris? You remember that YOU claimed there were NO photos of wing debris?

OK, here you go: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, apologize to everyone here for forgetting your schooling, Lillydale.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Now, apologize to everyone here for forgetting your schooling, Lillydale.



I am sorry but can you please show me which parts of AA77's wings we are looking at and how you know it came from the wings of AA77? Thanks.

edit to add: and if not, then do I get an apology from you?

[edit on 12/29/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
You are just making things up and acting indignant because it is the only option you have. Proving it will never happen so instead you pretend to be upset at me for asking. Tsk tsk. So, the debunker's new best weapon is to just shut the other side up instead of refute what they say with facts and evidence?


Lillydale, you have completely lost your mind. Here is a thread that is extending quite a few pages now and the only people presenting any evidence what-so-ever is me and a few other folks in regards to the OP. I have not seen one shred of evidence to the contrary presented by you or the NSA security guard, just rhetoric.

So please, stop the tsk, tsk because so far you have put up nothing...nada...zip...

You asked the OP question, and it was answered (with evidence I might add). Sorry if you didn't like the answer.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
Lillydale, you have completely lost your mind. Here is a thread that is extending quite a few pages now and the only people presenting any evidence what-so-ever is me and a few other folks in regards to the OP. I have not seen one shred of evidence to the contrary presented by you or the NSA security guard, just rhetoric.


Evidence that something did NOT happen? What would you like me to show you? You do realize that even if the accepted reality was that nothing happened, there is no way to show you that NOTHING happened, right?


So please, stop the tsk, tsk because so far you have put up nothing...nada...zip...

You asked the OP question, and it was answered (with evidence I might add). Sorry if you didn't like the answer.


Right, and you have put up NOTHING as well. I asked for proof that AA77 was identified by SN. None of what you have presented has proven that or even helped to make that point. What good is bragging about all the evidence you presented when none of it actually proves your point?

I just want proof that AA77 was identified by SN. You would think that could be done in just one post if you had proof it was ever done. You have failed to do that EVEN WITH all your 'evidence.' I have done just fine in demonstrating something did NOT happen. I am asking if anyone can prove it did. Now can you prove it DID happen or not? You have not yet.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please, find a link to this alleged "U.S. Code of Federal Regulations" (if that is its REAL name).

Or, this is just something you made up, maybe?



Here you go! Code of Federal Regulations

It seems a real pilot would have known that. Hmmmm.....



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


I just checked through the "Title 14: Aeronautics and Space PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES" and the following sections on and the only thing I see having to do with serial numbers is that each aircraft needs a serial number to be within the rules. No, nothing about having uniqure serial numbers on all the parts though, or certain parts for that matter. but feel free to look deeper. There is a lot of info there. But nothing specific about serial numbered parts.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please, find a link to this alleged "U.S. Code of Federal Regulations" (if that is its REAL name).

Or, this is just something you made up, maybe?



Here you go! Code of Federal Regulations

It seems a real pilot would have known that. Hmmmm.....


I'll "do" you one better! (and weedwhacker too- but please do me the favor of informing him that I don't ORDINARILY "swing that way" if you will
)- how about "Title 14: Aeronautics and Space, e-CFR Data is current as of December 28, 2009"?

Federal blah-blah

[edit on 29-12-2009 by rhunter]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


What is that you say now? WW was wrong by trying to claim something pilots should have known about was just made up? I pointed that out with my link? Yes, that is right. Thanks for pointing that out.

Did you try Tell him to check CFR Title 14, Subchapter C, specifically parts 21, 25, 43, 45. 47 and 49?

Maybe you better check again, General



[edit on 12/29/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Wow, five posters ganging up on one, talk about teamwork. You people should be ashamed of yourselves not only did Lillydale prove you are all wrong, but Lillydale proved you guys are so desperate that you decided to make up BS.

I know its not about truth, it is about your ego’s.

The real fact is, those of you who supports the OS have never been able to prove how the government went about ID-ing the alleged wreckage from flight 77. We none believers want real evidences instead of taking the government word like they never, ever lie.

If you had asked, some criminals who robbed a bank to investigated themselves and send in their report. You would get a report like, the 911 Commission Report, that rambles and takes the blame off the real criminals and avoid answering the most important questions and avoids answering to the real evidences; you will get nothing but a white wash.

Here is your absolute proof the government did not investigate the wreckage period.


F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage


pilotsfor911truth.org...


I will take the word of Professional pilots who really question the OS, and have requested information under the FOIA, than a bunch of posters who are blinded by their loyalty & patriotic duty to our government, the very government we suspected in carrying out a false flag operation. We may not have tangible physical evidences but we defiantly have circumstantial evidences that points all to Dick Cheney and the Bush administration and enough circumstantial evidences that proves the FBI helped covered up their treasonable crimes.

Perhaps, some of you debunkers think circumstantial evidences cannot convict anyone you may want to think again. Many criminals have been convicted on circumstantial evidences alone, and that’s my friends is a fact.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Wow, five posters ganging up on one, talk about teamwork. You people should be ashamed of yourselves not only did Lillydale prove you are all wrong, but Lillydale proved you guys are so desperate that you decided to make up BS.



Oh come on, it is almost funny. All these people are arguing with me and yet... and yet... they still cannot agree on whether or not this happened or did not need to happen.


I cannot help but wonder if I were to ignore the facts provided and concede to one side or the other, would either side care enough to then clear up which truth they want to go with...

Did it happen and I am lying that it didn't?

or

Did it not need to happen and that is why it didn't happen?

Funny funny stuff.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas

Now, apologize to everyone here for forgetting your schooling, Lillydale.



I am sorry but can you please show me which parts of AA77's wings we are looking at and how you know it came from the wings of AA77? Thanks.

edit to add: and if not, then do I get an apology from you?

[edit on 12/29/09 by Lillydale]


You mean to say that you could not identify the debris in the photo just by looking at that photo so, yes, you owe us an apology.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

You mean to say that you could not identify the debris in the photo just by looking at that photo so, yes, you owe us an apology.



LOL...so what part of the WING is it and how do you know that it came from AA77?

Please do not make me ask again or it will be clear you are just trolling.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



You mean to say that you could not identify the debris in the photo just by looking at that photo so, yes, you owe us an apology.


Did you see the serial numbers on that debris jthomas that verified it belong to the alleged plane? Besides insulting good people who only want the Truth, do you have anything constructive to add to this thread topic?

Where is your evidence that the government identified the plane wreckage?
The government word is no good here, they have already “proved themselves” as lairs.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join