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.

 

WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

page: 39
46
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
reply to post by Varemia
 


I don't think you know what a turbine is . That is not the inside of a turbine. Sorry my friend. If you want try posting the magic engine on murray and a photo of the inside of a turbine.

Wow

And you said "the engine got damaged on the way to the ground",, so it was in perfect condition after leaving the tower?

At least the other OSers are smart and stubborn. You are just plain stubborn.




You're really going to dissect my every word to try and find a way to disbelieve the engine?

Okay, well, for one I meant that the engine got damaged on its way through the building and on its way to the ground.

Check out this video which goes over the interior of a jet engine. You'll notice some familiar stuff around 3 minutes, which gives a good perspective of the part of the jet engine that survived on the street on 9/11.



Good video




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Like I said :seen them all. The main object in the video could be anything .... Seriously

How does that video disagree with my POV?

Regardless if it was an engine , two things change:

1) It was not a 767 that it the tower

2) That supposed flying engine in the video did roll down into the corner of Murray and stopped under a scaffolding, sitting upright .

C'mon

100% uninformed speculation. Do you think anyone really cares how you feel about something? You obviously haven't bothered to do your research as the pictures and videos that you claim didn't exist have been presented. Now you're falling back on your magical ability to identify a turbofan by eye. You cannot, you have no idea what you are talking about.


The funny thing is you couldn't debunk my signature if you even tried.

Your signature means nothing, it is concentrated ignorance. I cannot debunk concentrated ignorance, as you are now demonstrating.


First and 2nd sentence has nothing to do with my previous post. How do you know I haven't done research? Just look at my signature.

Thats right,,,I don't have the magical ability to identify a flying turbine on a freakin video,but You and the rest of the OSers think its possible.....hilarious

Prove my signature is nonsense... I dare you





posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Still suspect sorry.




The engine is currently on display at a museum in Washington if you want to go see it.

www.mirror.co.uk... south-tower-of-the-world-trade-center-pic-getty-images-543775812.jpg
www.mirror.co.uk... south-tower-of-the-world-trade-center-pic-getty-images-36075760.jpg


www.newseum.org...


Photo of engine just prior to clipping building.

i268.photobucket.com...


This piece of debris is much more interesting. It can be tied directly to UA175






N612UA cn - 21873/41


edit on 29-5-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

Thank you for all the great links but I still don't see how all of this is definitive proof. What I am trying to say is,, it isn't proof. All of it still leaves an enormous amount of doubt.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Prove my signature is nonsense... I dare you




So what did destroy the 3 buildings and how much did it weigh ?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Still suspect sorry.




The engine is currently on display at a museum in Washington if you want to go see it.

www.mirror.co.uk... south-tower-of-the-world-trade-center-pic-getty-images-543775812.jpg
www.mirror.co.uk... south-tower-of-the-world-trade-center-pic-getty-images-36075760.jpg


www.newseum.org...


Photo of engine just prior to clipping building.

i268.photobucket.com...


This piece of debris is much more interesting. It can be tied directly to UA175






N612UA cn - 21873/41


edit on 29-5-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



9/11 was a crime scene of extraordinary proportions yet the photo simply proves that there was no chain of custody of the evidence. There is a construction worker rambling over the site which means the site clearance has already started. Normally in a criminal investigation or even a straightforward aircraft accident, the first people investigating a crime scene would be the police.

What happened to the surviving airplane air frame?


Further still, why isn't the super thin aluminum aircraft skin not savagely scorched if there was enough fire to bring down skyscrapers?
edit on 29-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
reply to post by Varemia
 


I don't think you know what a turbine is . That is not the inside of a turbine. Sorry my friend. If you want try posting the magic engine on murray and a photo of the inside of a turbine.

Wow

And you said "the engine got damaged on the way to the ground",, so it was in perfect condition after leaving the tower?

At least the other OSers are smart and stubborn. You are just plain stubborn.




Well there it is again. Arrogance, ignorance, and smugness. I know your little game and it is quite immature. You demand answers to ridiculous questions or assumptions, then ridicule every answer that does not fit your fantasy. I've seen it all before, and it is basically is known by a term: trolling. And no, what I posted earlier were not insults but just a fitting commentary on the current behavior. You have little knowledge in regards to what this discussion is about, and every time facts are posted, or common knowledge, or even basic common sense, you automatically scoff, hem, and haw, and handwave and ridicule everything with an air of arrogance, smugness, and ignorance. Those are the signs you are out of your league here in the discussion. If you want answers or to get facts, or to have a civilized discussion, it is a two way street. I am trying to be civil, but you are purposely trying to get my goat. Not gonna happen. You may want to change your attitude before I and others start to ignore you. You want actual answers? Start acting a little more mature and less arrogant.


Mods forgive me if I crossed the line, but I do not appreciate immature and arrogant behavior that is disruptive to the general discussion.

As to your "question": he means the engine was damaged and destroyed as it crashed through the building, out the other side, and impacted the next building, before landing on the street below. It is the correct size, shape, and type of engine used on a 767. A cut away of a 767 engine shows the size is correct, as it is obvious that the surrounding parts were destroyed. The engine blades and the cowling are the parts that were more susceptible to severe impact damage and being destroyed, leaving behind the smaller, denser, heavier part of the engine. Its like finding just the engine block of a car after a particularly severe high speed accident. Everything else around it got removed except for the main part..


I can assure you the mods will forgive you. Its not like this is an out-of-character moment


No,,,no,,, I don't think its the correct size,shape and especially type

"A cut away",, please explain

Your last 2 sentences make perfect sense. But proves jack.

Take care



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Prove my signature is nonsense... I dare you




So what did destroy the 3 buildings and how much did it weigh ?


Too scared to prove it huh?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Prove my signature is nonsense... I dare you




So what did destroy the 3 buildings and how much did it weigh ?


Too scared to prove it huh?


So how much does something have to weigh in order to destroy the three buildings ? In your opinion.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
That piece of fuselage ended up on top of WTC5. As you can see no floors fell on it.


Uh, I don't think so. Since the "plane" went right into the building with absolutely no resistance as if it was built out of cardboard, and the only thing that came out the other side was the "turbine of the engine", then that would mean that all the fuselage material was buried inside the tower. But SOMEHOW this piece of uncharred metal not only remained recognizable but miraculously found its way out of the building in order to land on the roof of WTC5.

Yes, I can see now that the OS is 100 percent accurate.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath


9/11 was a crime scene of extraordinary proportions yet the photo simply proves that there was no chain of custody of the evidence. There is a construction worker rambling over the site which means the site clearance has already started. Normally in a criminal investigation or even a straightforward aircraft accident, the first people investigating a crime scene would be the police.


Excuse me, but what "securing of evidence" is required of the airliner's skin? You have to remember that this was not an accident. It was a deliberate flight into a structure with intent of mass death and destruction. The airliner's remains like wheels, fuselage segments, etc, would not be necessary to secure as "evidence" for a criminal trial. The plane didnt crash of causes unknown. It was not blown up in mid-air. It did not have any mechanical failures. The police would not be necessary for this debris clean up.




What happened to the surviving airplane air frame?


Not much was left intact. I do not know where they put the pieces, but I'm sure if you look around or ask the right people, they may be able to point you in the right direction. I do know that the engines and a section of landing gear was preserved in a museum, but that is about all I know. Again, investigating the aircraft is unnecessary in this case since it was a deliberate act.




Further still, why isn't the super thin aluminum aircraft skin not savagely scorched if there was enough fire to bring down skyscrapers?
edit on 29-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)


But it is scorched and damaged. Why are you expecting for the skin that went through the building to be as burned up as though it was inside the WTC on fire? It cleared the structure, so it was not exposed to the fires inside. I am sure that a lot of the structure did stay inside and melt in the fires.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

I can assure you the mods will forgive you. Its not like this is an out-of-character moment



Nice jab. Too bad it falls short.




No,,,no,,, I don't think its the correct size,shape and especially type


Why? Because you say so? Because some anonymous person said so online in a conspiracy forum? You are going to need a little bit more than that. Who I am kidding? You are going to need a LOT.



"A cut away",, please explain


A cut away view of the engine. something like this:




Your last 2 sentences make perfect sense. But proves jack.

Take care



Of course. Who needs to think rationally or critically?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Prove my signature is nonsense... I dare you




So what did destroy the 3 buildings and how much did it weigh ?


Too scared to prove it huh?


So how much does something have to weigh in order to destroy the three buildings ? In your opinion.



Define something? If its explosives,,,,well,,,it depends what type of explosives. But we(me and you) will never know since a proper investigation was never done.

So (if) you and NIST are spot on then the japanese should have won the pacific and our military have suddenly discovered the ultimate weapon: a Boeing 767 filled to the brim with petrol.

Watch Out Persians!



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Not because I said so ,not because some site says it,but because of the shaft of the engine(or turbine or whatever,, the engine part in the picture(s)) seems a bit small for a 767. All you have to do is compare the first picture Way posted(when it was sitting upright and smoking) to any picture of a high bypass engine. Put them side by side,, I have ,and it looks completely different. Again comparing the mid section, the core of the engine(apple to apples) .


On top of that Gdeck it didn't flying TWO NY blocks and skipped directly under the scaffold. Someone put it there, who? Incredible Hulk?

And who is the wise ass who deliberately placed the street sign next to it.

Its all way too suspicious.


Toodles!



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


I suppose the FBI doesn't count







Notice marking on this debris indicated where was found



Debris marked by crime scene tape




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Thank you for all the great links but I still don't see how all of this is definitive proof. What I am trying to say is,, it isn't proof. All of it still leaves an enormous amount of doubt.




An enormous amount of doubt for which you have no proof.

We on the other hand have large amount proof and very little doubt.

Did you know that that N612UA originally came from the factory in a white finish.



and evidence of the original finish can be found on the debris.




Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Define something?


Something is what ever you think destroyed the towers. How big was it and how much did it weigh ?




edit on 29-5-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent



kidtwist:

Why did NIST not look for explosives in any of the buildings?.


exponent:

There was no unambiguous test.


kidtwist: There was no test at all, considering the amount of people that heard explosions you'd think they would have at least tested for it? The deliberatley did not do one!


kidtwist:

Why did NIST exclude seismic blast dats for WTC 1, 2 & 7?


exponent:

There is no seismic blast data.


kidtwist: Siesmic records show some high readings, I guess you haven't looked into it, neither did NIST for some strange reason!


kidtwist:

Why did NIST excluded that WTC7 was a controlled demolition?


exponent:

They didn't. They tested it and found any plausible charges would produce deafening bangs more than 1km away. We have video from the event and those bangs did not occur.


kidtwist: There are numerous videos showing 'bangs' do you not remember these for instance?


There are loads of videos with loud explosive 'bangs' in them exponent!

You (exponent) said: 'they tested it' what exactly did they test? you didnt say!

You (exponent) also said: 'We have video from the event and those bangs did not occur' Who is 'we'?? Well they obviously missed all the videos with loud exlosive 'bangs' in them, such as the compiliation I posted above this comment!
How could they miss all those videos?



kidtwist:

Why did NIST exclude there was foreknowledge that WTC7 was a controlled demolition?


exponent:

They didn't, they interviewed the firefighters involved and found that it was Chief Nigro who set up a collapse perimeter.


kidtwist: So if they did not exclude this, where does it say in their report that they knew of this foreknowledge?


kidtwist:

Why did NIST ignore the FOIA for a good while initially?


exponent:

How would anyone know that? I don't work for NIST, nobody else here works for NIST, why don't you ask them?


kidtwist: Well do you not think it was odd they ignored the FOIA request? To the point a law suit had to be taken out on them? Is that normal behaviour when people ask for a FOIA request?
How do you know no one here works for NIST? Do you know everyone here personally?



kidtwist:

Why did NIST not release all evidence together, instead in dribs and drabs?


exponent:

Because it's not all stored in one big filing cabinet called '911 EVIDENCE DO NOT SHOW TO TRUTHERS!!!'


kidtwist: How do you know how they store their data? All pictures, videos and transcripts were digitised, they could have sent all files in one go quite easily. You know, copy & paste? Never heard of that simple method? Seems an odd answer to an easy question exponent.


Not exactly great atttempts to answer the questions exponent! Hopefully you can answer my follow up questions in this reply a bit more clearer, and more thoroughly!



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

kidtwist: Siesmic records show some high readings, I guess you haven't looked into it, neither did NIST for some strange reason!



kidtwist did you know that the misreading ( by Truthers, such as yourself ) of the NIST report on the seismic data is the origins of the Truther meme "free fall speed".

When NIST lined up the seismic data with the videos they used the impact of the large chunks falling parameter walls as a reference point. Because these chunks of wall were falling at free fall acceleration, they were able to trace back and find the start of the collapse on the seismic readout. They got 9.2 seconds for the south tower and 10.5 for the north tower.

Truthers saw the words free fall, 9.2 sec and 10.5 sec the rest is history.

If there had been any explosions prior to collapse NIST would have used them as a reference point.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


I suppose the FBI doesn't count







Notice marking on this debris indicated where was found



Debris marked by crime scene tape




Where does it say FBI in the photos?

How does piling aircraft parts in a dumpster constitute forensic examination?

Since when do authorities sling evidence into the back of a battered construction waste truck?

This is extent to which the French government went to secure aircraft parts from a crash at sea.



Remember the Smolensk Crash that killed almost the entire Polish executive branch and the president? The names of all the dead were known, the black box was found and the crash registered in the radar records, yet the Russians and Poles conducted an intense investigation to confirm what they already knew.

Here is the aircraft forensic reconstruction of parts;




Here is where the 9/11 aircraft parts were kept;




Where are the 9/11 flight debris reconstructions?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





But it is scorched and damaged. Why are you expecting for the skin that went through the building to be as burned up as though it was inside the WTC on fire? It cleared the structure, so it was not exposed to the fires inside. I am sure that a lot of the structure did stay inside and melt in the fires.


But it is not scorched.

I note that you also suggest that I claimed it was not damaged. Very sneaky.

I made no comment about mechanical damage to the aluminum debris.

There are videos all over the internet showing airplanes crashing into WTC 1 and 2. On each occasion the crashes caused an enormous fireball that OS'ers claimed that it spread into lift shafts, caused enough heat to sag steel trusses and the pulverisation of concrete yet thin aluminium airplane skin managed not to be burnt.
edit on 29-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Thank you for all the great links but I still don't see how all of this is definitive proof. What I am trying to say is,, it isn't proof. All of it still leaves an enormous amount of doubt.




An enormous amount of doubt for which you have no proof.

We on the other hand have large amount proof and very little doubt.

Did you know that that N612UA originally came from the factory in a white finish.



and evidence of the original finish can be found on the debris.




Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Define something?


Something is what ever you think destroyed the towers. How big was it and how much did it weigh ?




edit on 29-5-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



That is your large amount of proof???? Wow ,,ok.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join