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 jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
img132.imageshack.us...
The federally registered aircraft reportedly used during the 9/11 attacks:
- American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA) and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA).
That debris is not from flight 77, how did it get on the pentagon lawn?
Originally posted by jthomas
AA77, a Boeing 757.
That was easy.
Now admit you don't know that my answer is correct.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
Lilly,
You missed the point when I asked you to complete the survey. I thought that you might have trouble because it does require a little original thought and knowledge of the issues. I would have helped with your reduced reading skills.
You may believe what you wish. You are unable to prove any of your theories as you have no evidence. What you have are demands. "Where are the passengers?" On 911, they were dying inside the Pentagon along with military and civilian employees. Many responders and rescue teams witnessed the carnage but didn't release the photos for ghouls and voyeurs to inspect. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon with people onboard.
As much as you would like to revel in a huge conspiracy, there is none here. You'll just have to make it up as you go. Ask CIT for help on this, they have a lot of experience.
www.aerospaceweb.org...
we have studied two key pieces of wreckage photographed at the Pentagon shortly after September 11 and found them to be entirely consistent with the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine found on a Boeing 757 operated by American Airlines. The circular engine disk debris is just the right size and shape to match the compressor stages of the RB211, and it also shows evidence of being attached to a triple-shaft turbofan like the RB211. While many have claimed the wreckage instead comes from a JT8D or AE3007H turbofan, we have shown that these engines are too small to match the debris. Furthermore, we have studied what clearly looks like the outer shell of a combustion case and found that its fuel injector nozzle ports match up exactly to those illustrated in Boeing documentation for the RB211-535 engine. There is simply no evidence to suggest these items came from any other engine model than the RB211-535, and the vast majority of these engines are only used on one type of plane -- the Boeing 757.
[…]
those believing in conspiracy suggest that these small items were planted and the lack of more substantial debris is proof of a cover-up. If a 757 truly hit the Pentagon, they argue, then where is the rest of the two engines? This argument ignores the simple fact that a lack of photos of other engine parts does not mean that none existed, only that other engine components were either not photographed or the photos have not yet been released.
[…]
.. an additional picture was released as an exhibit during the Zacarias Moussaoui terrorist trial in 2006. This photo clearly includes a sizeable and relatively intact portion of a gas turbine engine.
This debris appears to contain two rotating engine disks with part of the engine's central shaft protruding forward. Behind the two disks is another component called a frame. Frames are fixed, non-rotating components that provide attachment points holding the engine together. This debris must come from the aft section of an engine given the shape of the blade attachment points visble along the circumference of the two rotating disks. These attachments have a highly cambered, or curved, banana-like shape indicative of the blades used in the turbine section of a jet engine. The blades used on fan and compressor stages, by comparison, have a much straighter and less curved shape.
The RB211-535 engine used on the 757 contains five turbine disks--three low pressure turbines that power the fan, one intermediate pressure turbine driving the intermediate pressure compressors, and one high pressure turbine that turns the high pressure compressors. The debris shown here contains two of the three low pressure turbines and possibly the remains of the third. The protruding shaft also appears to be composed of two separate shafts of differing diameter. A small portion of the inner shaft, from the engine's low pressure system, appears to protrude from inside a second larger diameter shaft surrounding it. This larger diameter shaft corresponds to the intermediate pressure system and would connect to an additional turbine disk that is no longer attached.
Originally posted by jthomas
What proof to you have that a plane hit the pentagon?
The same proof you do.
GOOD! You have just admitted there is no evidences thank you Jthomas for finally answering my question. That’s right I have the same PROOF as you have so why do you continue to support a lie?
So personal insults is really all you guys have left huh?
Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by mmiichael
No they did not. They did not identify any part as being from AA77. Not one. Read it yourself.
Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
I directly demonstrated it.
Originally posted by Lillydale
Originally posted by jthomas
AA77, a Boeing 757.
and how do you know it was flight 77?
That was easy.
Good, then it should be just as easy to explain how you know it was AA77 a B757.
You are someone to talk about just hearing what people tell you.
Originally posted by Lillydale
Originally posted by jthomas
You claim the wreckage is NOT from AA77.
How do you know? Show us? Where are the statements of those who recovered the wreckage?
And this does not make you a weazel how?
Put your money where your mouth is. All you have to do is prove that wreckage is from AA77.
Your case is supposedly true so it should not be an issue to prove it.
I already know you will not be proving it, therefore confirming that your little story is false.
Come on man!, put your money where your mouth is.
Originally posted by Karilla
There are witnesses who saw the plane fly off from the other side of the building directly after the explosion, FFS.
Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
Well see you actually have to look at the picture. When you do, you can see the serial number on the part. It does not match the serial number of the plane.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by mmiichael
No they did not. They did not identify any part as being from AA77. Not one. Read it yourself.
No way of knowing if they tried to indentify visible serial numbers on fnd ouparts. But I guess that can be faked.
They would have to submit the same plane parts to similar extreme treatment and then plant them by the Pentagon.
And somehow AA77 which took off somehow disappears though no radar spotted that. The astounding claim is there weren't passengers, crew, and hijacker bodies and parts in the wreckage, though many did see burned bodies still strapped into seats. That was faked using other dead bodies? The labs falsified their analysis?
All those people from the plane disappear from the face of the earth. Presumably dead now after 8 years. AA77 is never seen either.
So who are you accusing of murdering those people on AA77? This is a serious accusation. What evidence do you have?
M
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by Karilla
There are witnesses who saw the plane fly off from the other side of the building directly after the explosion, FFS.
No, there are not any. CIT has refused for three years to present any eyewitnesses from all around the Pentagon who witnessed any aircraft "fly over and away from the Pentagon."
Originally posted by Karilla
Did you watch the video I posted? It has an interview with one of the Pentagon security guys who was on the far side of the building and left as soon as the explosion occurred. He saw what he assumed to be a second plane, which he describes as "a commercial air-liner" which continues to fly away from the scene. Just watch the video before making such outrageously argumentative claims. Denying something exists when one has just seen it is very bad form, you know.
[edit on 11-9-2009 by Karilla]