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: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
The fact is.- AA77´s parts never needed to be ID.
AA77 was known to be a B757 reg. N644AA from the moment it´s flight plan was filed.
It was followed on radar and by radio comm. from the moment it started taxiing to the runway, took off, climbed and until the hijacking took place.
After it was taken over by terrorists, a few people on board were able to call the ground by telephone.
The id. of AA77 was never in doubt after it was hijacked and traffic controllers were able to observe in their radar screens it´s trajectory until it hit the Pentagon.
As with the other hijacked flights on 9/11 the identity of the plane was known, and there is no doubt as to who was on board.
All passengers and crew (except for one) were confirmed to have been killed at the crash site with DNA samples.
The hijackers remains were separated from the rest by being unconfirmed because of lack of samples from next of kin.
First responders, eyewitnesses, flight controllers, American Airlines executives and personnel, FAA officials, NTSB officials, FBI officials, fire fighters, police men, Pentagon employees and officials have helped to confirm that:
THOSE ARE THE FACTS. AA77 was identified thoroughly.





posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


Wow... how many times have I seen that unidentified piece of scrap wreckage being passed off as proof that the alleged Flight AA77 (#N644AA) struck the Pentagon?

911files, you have not supplied any chain of evidence for that picture. None. It does not answer the question set forth in the OP.

Swampfox would be disappointed with the absence of any chain of evidence surrounding that photo of scrap wreckage.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
In addition, I do not accept this "camera" shot as proof. No chain of custody....no confirmation of any kind that it is an actual shot taken that day and not a photo shop job done with an internet photo at a later date.



[edit on 30-12-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
The fact is.- AA77´s parts never needed to be ID.


Did you read your post? You know how I was just saying that you 'debunkers' cannot even agree on whether the plane WAS id'd or if it just never needed to be. Apparently, you cannot agree yourself?


THOSE ARE THE FACTS. AA77 was identified thoroughly.



They never needed to be but it was and you have no evidence for either contradictory statement? Wow.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
First responders, eyewitnesses, flight controllers, American Airlines executives and personnel, FAA officials, NTSB officials, FBI officials, fire fighters, police men, Pentagon employees and officials have helped to confirm that:
THOSE ARE THE FACTS. AA77 was identified thoroughly.


I really did not want to clutter up that last post with the facts and all but are you just asserting what you wish was true or do you have anything to back any of that up with? I ask because...if you have been actually reading the thread, you would see more than once

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage
so it seems a little odd to insist they did something they claim they did not do without even trying to prove that they did.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


Rush..

I hope this was a joke brother, if not, I look forward to you defending this feeble position.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


Telling us a story with no factual backing serves no purposes here. We have heard your OS for over eight years now, and it has been proven false or did some one not tell you that yet. We are not interested in un-provable fairytales. What you just posted was told to the world on TV on 911, funny thing about TV is they love to lie because, it pays them very well. We don’t believe in proven lairs.


The fact is.- AA77´s parts never needed to be ID.


That’s a first time in American crash investigation. Airplane wreckage parts don’t need to be identified! Says whom?


It was followed on radar and by radio comm. from the moment it started taxiing to the runway, took off, climbed and until the hijacking took place.


Funny thing about your statement is the Tower destroyed all their tapes of the whole 911 event so you have no evidences to support your claim.


After it was taken over by terrorists, a few people on board were able to call the ground by telephone.


Like the phone call, Barbra Olsen made to Ted Olsen, to tell him about the knife, welding, Muslim, extremist, that was reported by Ted Olsen to the media, while the planes were being hijacked. It was that phone call, that sold the hijacking story which was sold to the American people from the media, and we all fell for that propaganda. Turns out several years later that phone call NEVER HAPPENED. The FBI admitted Ted Olen lied, his wife never called him. But, you already know this, yet you are going to continue to push the OS lies that have been proven years ago as lies.

Out of all the alleged phone calls, the media took Ted Olsen call from Barbra Olsen, without this call, the media and Americans would not have gotten the descriptions of the alleged hijackers that Barbra told her husband. It turns out, this phone call was the one call, that was sold to our News media about the hijacking on 911, now it is all a proven lie. If the government lied about one critical event on 911, then one has to really wonder how many more lies has this government told in covering-up their actions, don’t you agree?













[edit on 30-12-2009 by impressme]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Easy, just become and executive with the insurance company or majority stock holder then you can see anything you like.


Thanks for showing us you were dishonest when you stated you had proof of proper ID for the insurance companies.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:29 AM
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?



Originally posted by GenRadek
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.


So fun and easy to post facts to back up what i post. Others on here should try it.

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

ecfr.gpoaccess.gov...



[edit on 30-12-2009 by REMISNE]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Easy, just become and executive with the insurance company or majority stock holder then you can see anything you like.


Thanks for showing us you were dishonest when you stated you had proof of proper ID for the insurance companies.



As far as I know they are satisfied and that is all I said. Its easy to prove me wrong, just reference the court docket wherein they are suing to release further information or the docket wherein the planes owner is suing the insurance company because they won't pay up.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
As far as I know they are satisfied and that is all I said.


Show me proof they are satisfied.

Show me any evidnece you have that the planes have been properly ID'ed for the insurannce companies.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
As far as I know they are satisfied and that is all I said.


Show me proof they are satisfied.

Show me any evidnece you have that the planes have been properly ID'ed for the insurannce companies.


As far as I know they are satisfied and that is all I said. Its easy to prove me wrong, just reference the court docket wherein they are suing to release further information or the docket wherein the planes owner is suing the insurance company because they won't pay up.





posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
As far as I know they are satisfied and that is all I said.


Show me proof they are satisfied.

Show me any evidnece you have that the planes have been properly ID'ed for the insurannce companies.


As far as I know they are satisfied and that is all I said. Its easy to prove me wrong, just reference the court docket wherein they are suing to release further information or the docket wherein the planes owner is suing the insurance company because they won't pay up.





posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

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?


The laughs on you, Lillydale. ALL of the evidence already demonstrated that it was AA77 that hit the Pentagon. None of us need photographs to know that it was AA77 - including you.

Like I said, one can never underestimate the intelligence of you 9/11 "Truthers."



Your apology to the families of the victims of AA77's crash into the Pentagon and the thousands of people who worked at the Pentagon in the aftermath of 9/11 is past due, Lillydale.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

As far as I know they are satisfied and that is all I said. Its easy to prove me wrong, just reference the court docket wherein they are suing to release further information or the docket wherein the planes owner is suing the insurance company because they won't pay up.


Just as i thought you have no evidence to back up what you post, its just your opinion.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
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?


You already know that NO ONE, including you, needed one single serial number to KNOW that it was AA77, a Boeing 757, that hit the Pentagon, so please stop lying about that, Impressme.


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.


Your fantasy that that the "government" had some obligation to you to "identify" an aircraft whose identity was already known by many thousands of non-government people when AA77 hit the Pentagon is one of the dumbest strawmen by 9/11 "Truthers" ever.

Now, please join Lillydale in apologizing to all of us.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
The laughs on you, Lillydale. ALL of the evidence already demonstrated that it was AA77 that hit the Pentagon. None of us need photographs to know that it was AA77 - including you.


So you do not need evidence like photos you just go by what you have been told happened? You make a good media robot.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme


The fact is.- AA77´s parts never needed to be ID.


That’s a first time in American crash investigation. Airplane wreckage parts don’t need to be identified! Says whom?


You already know that it was not a "crash investigation." So why do you persist in pretending it was, Impressme? Tell us that after 8 years of knowing that fact, you persist in your propaganda war against the truth?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You already know that it was not a "crash investigation.


Yes it is not a crash investigation it is a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, which means the aircraft must be identified.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by jthomas
You already know that it was not a "crash investigation.


Yes it is not a crash investigation it is a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, which means the aircraft must be identified.


As I've told you for several years, one does not need serial numbers to identify an aircraft when the identity of the aircraft is already known. You already admitted knowing an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
As I've told you for several years, one does not need serial numbers to identify an aircraft when the identity of the aircraft is already known. You already admitted knowing an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon.


1. You have no facts to back up what aircraft were involved, its only your opinion.

2. Saying an aircraft crashed into a the Pentagon is not the same as having the proper ID for the aircraft. Please learn the difference.



[edit on 30-12-2009 by REMISNE]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join