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.

 

Attention all sinister secret agents we have a problem !

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 





It's not a "tail wing" it's either a horizontal stabilizer, or elevator, and yes, they CAN fly if it's damaged or even most of it is ripped off.


Yea it can fly...all the way to the crash site.




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


China Air flight 6 lost most of its left horizontal stabilizer, a chunk of right horizontal stabilizer, two actuator doors on the inboard main landing gear, the wings were permanently bent up 2 degrees, left outboard elevator, actuator, and the hydraulic system drained. And oh look, it landed safely, and was put back into service. They were 350 miles out of San Francisco at the time of the incident. By the time it was over, they had rolled inverted, were in a near vertical dive, and entered a 30,000 foot per minute 5G dive.

The only reason that they landed at SFO instead of LAX, was that when they recovered, they noticed the landing gear had deployed, and the drag was too much to continue to LAX. Otherwise they would have flown all the way to their destination with the damage incurred.





posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 





The only reason that they landed at SFO instead of LAX, was that when they recovered


They recovered. Flight 93 didn't. There's your difference.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by Zaphod58
 





The only reason that they landed at SFO instead of LAX, was that when they recovered


They recovered. Flight 93 didn't. There's your difference.


Gee, that was a brilliant deduction. How in the world did you figure out that one?

There is ZERO evidence that UA 93 was shot down. In fact, all of the evidence indicates it WAS NOT shot down... The only thing in support is ("truther" mythology).



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


But you said they can't fly with the horizontal stabilizers damaged or missing. If they are completely gone, you are right. If they are damaged, they can fly just fine. The ONLY reason China 006 went into San Fran was because the drag from the gear being down would have caused them to run out of fuel. They had almost half of the left horizontal stabilizer gone, and the rest significantly damaged, and a big chunk of the right one missing. BOTH were badly damaged, and yet they flew over 300 miles, and could have flown much longer.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


But you said they can't fly with the horizontal stabilizers damaged or missing. If they are completely gone, you are right. If they are damaged, they can fly just fine. The ONLY reason China 006 went into San Fran was because the drag from the gear being down would have caused them to run out of fuel. They had almost half of the left horizontal stabilizer gone, and the rest significantly damaged, and a big chunk of the right one missing. BOTH were badly damaged, and yet they flew over 300 miles, and could have flown much longer.


Yes 300 miles after recovering from a spin you, yourself admitted to.



By the time it was over, they had rolled inverted, were in a near vertical dive, and entered a 30,000 foot per minute 5G dive.



93 didn't come out of its spin.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


You said "yes they can fly...all the way to the crash site." I proved that if you lose most of a horizontal stabilizer you CAN fly, and not crash.

Flight 93 didn't go into a spin. It was flipped inverted and deliberately crashed. If it was shot or damaged they would have found debris outside the impact site. They didn't. Therefore the aircraft was intact at impact.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by Zaphod58
 





The only reason that they landed at SFO instead of LAX, was that when they recovered


They recovered. Flight 93 didn't. There's your difference.


Gee, that was a brilliant deduction. How in the world did you figure out that one?

There is ZERO evidence that UA 93 was shot down. In fact, all of the evidence indicates it WAS NOT shot down... The only thing in support is ("truther" mythology).


There is the same amount of proof that it was actually over taken by passengers and crashed as a last resort.

Let me guess, Donald Rumsfelds Freudian slip doesn't count. Taken out of context no doubt.


"truther" mythology? How about "debunkers" delusion.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by maxella1
 


So if the CIA say something it means it's true?


Isn't that what you been saying? The debunkers are so sure that failure to share information was the reason they couldn't stop it. Now that it turns out that you are wrong you're saying that we shouldn't believe it?

I personally always knew that The CIA and the FBI both were monitoring the hijackers independently, and now it turns out that they also shared intelligence.

What is the next excuse?


Where is the proof they shared THIS intelligence. If they shared 95% of intelligence, and not this piece, you are wrong. So show me evidence THIS intelligence was shared. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by Zaphod58
 





The only reason that they landed at SFO instead of LAX, was that when they recovered


They recovered. Flight 93 didn't. There's your difference.


Gee, that was a brilliant deduction. How in the world did you figure out that one?

There is ZERO evidence that UA 93 was shot down. In fact, all of the evidence indicates it WAS NOT shot down... The only thing in support is ("truther" mythology).


There is the same amount of proof that it was actually over taken by passengers and crashed as a last resort.


Show me where in an Official document that there are statements it was taken over by passengers. They did try as is evidenced on the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR). In addition, more than one passenger indicated this was what they intended to do (no phone calls in 1.....2.....3....) There is no evidence their take-over attempt was successful and there is evidence in a Arabic dialect of ending the flight. (that's fake in 1....2.....3......)


Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
Let me guess, Donald Rumsfelds Freudian slip doesn't count. Taken out of context no doubt.


Rumsfield's "Freudian slip" indicated the terrorists shot it down (another "truther" misquote)


Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
"truther" mythology? How about "debunkers" delusion.


The difference is there is plenty of evidence a shoot down is "truther" mythology. For anything else it is a delusion alright because you have NOTHING = ZERO.
edit on 28-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 


So, you trust the American government as a whole on their version of 9/11 events, then question why someone who you constantly call a 'truther' (maxella) is posting official CIA info.


(Loud buzzer sound) Wrong answer. Maxella starts threads with vague innuendo and ask others to bring supporting evidence for another "theory" that he is never clear on. All he ever does is post minimally and ask what do you think? About what?

Oh yah, he just wants to bicker (again). I'm out.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


What has collapsed? They shared information and worked together prior to 9/11.


No one has ever said that no information whatsoever was shared. Just that some vital pieces were not. You acted as though you had found evidence that suggested they shared everything. That has collapsed - embarrassingly for you - because the very same document that you so triumphantly produced asserts that critical intel was in fact not shared just as debunkers have claimed all along.



Do you think I should know what was shared and what wasn't?


For the entire first part of this thread you claimed that you had disproved the assertion that there was a problem with information not being shared. You even said this:




The debunkers are so sure that failure to share information was the reason they couldn't stop it. Now that it turns out that you are wrong you're saying that we shouldn't believe it?


You were then shown that the very document you had produced disproved this claim. Most people would gracefully admit their mistake. Your response is to rant.

Look. Here you go again:




I THINK THAT OUR GOVERNMENT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT AND I WANT ACCOUNTABILITY. I THINK THAT WTC 7 HAD EXPLOSIVES IN IT. I THINK THAT CHENEY GAVE A SHOOT DOWN ORDER AND UNITED 93 WAS SHOT DOWN. (in my opinion)



Any more questions?


I wasn't aware that I had asked you about any of that. It's all irrelevant anyway, and you're only saying it to avoid facing the fact that you've been proved wrong.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1




CIA OIG REPORT


The CIA released a bunch of previously classified documents. One of the documents is the CIA OIG Report from August 2001. On page 47 it says that they were doing a pretty good job working together with CTC, and the FBI.

“cooperative relations with the FBI, which allowed us to work together on what were closely linked domestic and international terrorist threats”.

“The growth in joint activities and cross assignments suggests that the relationship is now more institutionalized and less personality dependent. The Center provided operational support FBI 1999- 2000.”



Information sharing problem can no longer be used.

I didn't read the whole thing yet, so if anybody already read it and found something that would confirm that they did not share information, please correct me.


So what evidence do you have that proves they were sharing all this intelligence with the private security companies that airports were using at the time? You know, the guys actually standing at the gate watching for those questionable people coming through?


Exactly, and now because of their "incompetence" we all have bodyscanners and TSA groping our kids.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I would take almost anything the CIA said with a pinch of salt. You however appear to trust them. Why?




So, you trust the American government as a whole on their version of 9/11 events, then question why someone who you constantly call a 'truther' (maxella) is posting official CIA info.

One minute you are defending the government for years, the next you are distrusting them because this thread goes against other things you have said!

You are full of contradictions when it suits you, and you OS defenders change like the wind to suit the theory that you support. Be a man and stick by what you say.


What on earth are you talking about? Show me where I have said that everything the CIA say is trustworthy. You won't be able to.

Ironically your accusation works much better against Maxella. Or indeed yourself. Do you now suddenly believe the CIA when they say this? Just because you happen to like this piece of information?

It's all irrelevant anyway. The same document proves Maxella wrong. It's yet another Truth Movement embarrassment.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 

I felt most compelled to respond to your comments, despite a few from others that were tempting.

What do you make of the pre-2001 satellite imagery, showing the full contours of the supposed Shanksville impact site post-2001?


From what I could see in comparing sets of pre and post images, the only real obvious differences were wild grass in the post images and black coloration of the deepest part of the terrain.

You referred to light material having been blown by wind quite a distance from the area depicted above. There seems to be dozens of separate sites where it's claimed that large amounts of debris was found. This, despite these debris fields not correlating with the official account.

Do you have an idea of the makeup of the general debris supposedly found in these other debris fields? Do you think any of it was too heavy to have been wind blown so far from the supposed impact site?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1




CIA OIG REPORT


The CIA released a bunch of previously classified documents. One of the documents is the CIA OIG Report from August 2001. On page 47 it says that they were doing a pretty good job working together with CTC, and the FBI.

“cooperative relations with the FBI, which allowed us to work together on what were closely linked domestic and international terrorist threats”.

“The growth in joint activities and cross assignments suggests that the relationship is now more institutionalized and less personality dependent. The Center provided operational support FBI 1999- 2000.”



Information sharing problem can no longer be used.

I didn't read the whole thing yet, so if anybody already read it and found something that would confirm that they did not share information, please correct me.


So what evidence do you have that proves they were sharing all this intelligence with the private security companies that airports were using at the time? You know, the guys actually standing at the gate watching for those questionable people coming through?


Can you show us, GoodOlDave, any evidence of any Arabs boarding any of the four flights that were allegedly hijacked on the morning of 9/11/01?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TyrannyNews
reply to post by vipertech0596
 

I felt most compelled to respond to your comments, despite a few from others that were tempting.

What do you make of the pre-2001 satellite imagery, showing the full contours of the supposed Shanksville impact site post-2001?


From what I could see in comparing sets of pre and post images, the only real obvious differences were wild grass in the post images and black coloration of the deepest part of the terrain.

You referred to light material having been blown by wind quite a distance from the area depicted above. There seems to be dozens of separate sites where it's claimed that large amounts of debris was found. This, despite these debris fields not correlating with the official account.

Do you have an idea of the makeup of the general debris supposedly found in these other debris fields? Do you think any of it was too heavy to have been wind blown so far from the supposed impact site?


OMG.. the preexisting wing scar theory. Really?
FYI - it was completely debunked in 2009

opendb.com...


How did a thread dealing with a government agency document turn into a debate about wing scars???



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Can you show us, GoodOlDave, any evidence of any Arabs boarding any of the four flights that were allegedly hijacked on the morning of 9/11/01?


There were videos released 5 hijackers on flight 77 going through security at Dulles airport.




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





By who?


The FBI. That's what they do you know catch terrorists in America.



The only violations they had on them were immigration violations

They had no problems working with the INS when they arrested Moussaoui on August 16, 2001.
So what's the excuse again?



So what proof do you have that they were sharing intelligence with the INS?


Moussaoui




No matter how much innuendo you atempt to drop, you still can't get past the fact that critical security information wasn't being shared among the myriad agencies like it should have been.


Sure if that makes you feel better.


Boom!

Don't expect these guys to admit to anything. They don't get paid to admit defeat. They get paid to keep the subject in perpetual debate, and to give you these little wins in exchange for you feeling as if you actually accomplished something by besting them on an Internet forum like this as the guilty people go on living free and raking in the profits from what they did to us in 2001.

I wonder if the Supreme Court's defeating ObamaCare today will trigger the anti-corporate insurgency, or if we still have more societal defeats ahead of us before we finally get to see some pushback against the big international money that's hijacked our entire government.

Y'know, it's amazing just how relatively little money it takes to literally buy a person and force them to work against their own future and the future of their family. If you roll out the violations little by little, the poor sucker is way too deep in their own sin to be able to pull back out again before they even realize just how far gone they are. You can get some serious value for the money after that, and the guy is just trying to somehow break even before finally surrendering to the fact that he blew it and doesn't even have his soul anymore.

No matter what these corporate freaks get away with, it's better to be destroyed by them than to have to be one of them.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Boom!

Don't expect these guys to admit to anything. They don't get paid to admit defeat. They get paid to keep the subject in perpetual debate, and to give you these little wins in exchange for you feeling as if you actually accomplished something by besting them on an Internet forum like this as the guilty people go on living free and raking in the profits from what they did to us in 2001.


-rant snipped--



This is quite funny. Remember NorEaster, you truthers are "just asking questions." You've been doing this for the better part of a decade. You have also been ignoring the answers that are right there in your face.

This thread should have been completed on page 3 (and that's being kind). Truthers are the ones forcing the perpetual debate. I mean look a few posts above. Wing scars?!

Back on topic. There was a systematic failure of communication withing several government agencies. This was proven, and admitted by the US Government. The document that Maxella posted confirms this!







 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join