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.
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.
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.
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)
Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Prove my signature is nonsense... I dare you
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)
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..
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 ?
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?
Originally posted by waypastvne
That piece of fuselage ended up on top of WTC5. As you can see no floors fell on it.
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.
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)
Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
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
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.
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.
Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Define something?
Originally posted by exponent
Why did NIST not look for explosives in any of the buildings?.
There was no unambiguous test.
Why did NIST exclude seismic blast dats for WTC 1, 2 & 7?
There is no seismic blast data.
Why did NIST excluded that WTC7 was a controlled demolition?
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.
Why did NIST exclude there was foreknowledge that WTC7 was a controlled demolition?
They didn't, they interviewed the firefighters involved and found that it was Chief Nigro who set up a collapse perimeter.
Why did NIST ignore the FOIA for a good while initially?
How would anyone know that? I don't work for NIST, nobody else here works for NIST, why don't you ask them?
Why did NIST not release all evidence together, instead in dribs and drabs?
Because it's not all stored in one big filing cabinet called '911 EVIDENCE DO NOT SHOW TO TRUTHERS!!!'
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!
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
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.
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)