FOIA requests

Originally posted by ImAPepper
[Hi, REMISNE,

There are plenty of reports. What is proper to you? You know that serial numbers were not recorded. FDR's were found, CVR's, phone calls, DNA, personal belongings, etc, etc.

I am still waiting for FBI/NTSB reports of proper ID of AA77 or any other 9/11 plane.

1. Proper ID is needed for criminal investigation.

2. Proper ID is needed for airlines to collect insurance.

Originally posted by REMISNE
I am still waiting for FBI/NTSB reports of proper ID of AA77 or any other 9/11 plane.

1. Proper ID is needed for criminal investigation.

2. Proper ID is needed for airlines to collect insurance.

Remisne, (Misner)
Are you trying to say the airlines were unable to collect insurance because the planes were not identified? Please provide a source.

thank you,

Dr. P

[edit on 28-10-2009 by ImAPepper]

Originally posted by impressme
I have to laugh at the debunkers. They still have not produced proof of any plane having crashed at the pentagon period. Nor have they shown any proof that the alleged aircraft parts found belonged to said aircraft. Without this proof first, the debunkers do not have an OS. So what's jthomas gloating about?

First, I am not a debunker or a truther, but there is overwhelming evidence that 'proves' a plane hit the Pentagon. Multiple radar sites from multiple sources clearly track a plane identified on ATC audio as AAL77 from the moment it left Dulles until it disappeared at the Pentagon. At that point, hundreds of witnesses saw the plane (recorded live at the time by AC police as an American Airlines plane) and those positioned to do so saw it plow into the Pentagon.

Not to mention the structural damage and debris at the scene, the data from the fdr found inside the Penagon by AC firefighters and recovered by the FBI.

And most compelling, the absolute lack of evdence that a plane did not impact the Pentagon.

Oh and as it relates to the topic of the thread, all of this material was obtained via FOIA, most of which is publicly available at AAL77.COM.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by 911files]

[edit on 29-10-2009 by 911files]

[edit on 29-10-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Remisne, (Misner)
Are you trying to say the airlines were unable to collect insurance because the planes were not identified? Please provide a source.

thank you,

Dr. P

No i am saying so far i have found no reports from the FBI/NTSB of their being proper ID of the aircraft for the criminal investigation or for the collection of insurance.

I have contected the FAA and the last known owner of the aircraft for information of insurace claims.

Originally posted by 911files
First, I am not a debunker or a truther, but there is overwhelming evidence that 'proves' a plane hit the Pentagon. Multiple radar sites from multiple sources clearly track a plane identified on ATC audio as AAL77 from the moment it left Dulles until it disappeared at the Pentagon.

Know let me explain to you what you do not have.

1. No criminal report from the FBI/NTSB of proper ID of the aircraft.

2. No criminal report from the FBI/NTSB matching parts found to the aircraft.

3. No phots with sources of all thep arts supposidly found at the Pentagon and no FBI/NTSB reports of where there were taken.

4. No actual photo of the aircraft hitting the Pentagon.

5. No actual video of the aircraft hitting the Pentagon.

Know for another problem with the official report.

If as the official report states that all the passengers were moved to the back of the plane.

And as stated by a military witness at the Pentagon a plane hit the building with the back of the plane sticking out, then an explosion came out of the building and destroyed the back of the plane.

NOW IF WE BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL STORY THAT ALL THE PASSENGERS WERE IN THE BACK OF THE PLANE AND WE BELIEVE THE WITNESS THAT THE BACK OF THE PLANE WAS OUT OF THE BUILDING THEN THEIR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOME BODIES FOUND OUTSIDE THE BUIDLING AND NOT ALL INSIDE THE BUILDING.

reply to post by REMISNE


How many witnesses reported seeing the tail sticking out of the building?

One?

Oh my, stop the presses...

Not to mention I'd like to see the restraints that kept those passengers in the back of the plane after striking the building. Nothing was thrown forward after impact? Wow...those little seatbelts must really be strong

note: You don't need to type in all caps either, Roger. That's pretty juvenile....as well as against the forum etiquette:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Most of all, do not use ALL CAPS in posts and thread titles.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by gavron]

reply to post by REMISNE


What part of pending criminal proceedings do you not understand?

Originally posted by gavron
How many witnesses reported seeing the tail sticking out of the building?

One?

Oh my, stop the presses...

Oh so know your stating you do not believe this witness, you just pick and choose what witnesses you want to beleive.

Not to mention I'd like to see the restraints that kept those passengers in the back of the plane after striking the building. Nothing was thrown forward after impact? Wow...those little seatbelts must really be strong

So know your stating the passenges just flew through all the seats in front of them and landing inside the building.



[edit on 3-11-2009 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by 911files
What part of pending criminal proceedings do you not understand?

What pending criminal proceedings?

Why can't we get the information we should be able to get?

Originally posted by REMISNE
Why can't we get the information we should be able to get?

Hey Ultima1, weren't you banned here already?

Speaking of information, did you ever get that "proof of Flight 93 shoot down" CRITIC report that you claimed to have seen over a year ago? Surely you must have gotten it by now with all your connections and everything, why don't you post it here so we all can see your hard work?

Originally posted by REMISNE
Oh so know your stating you do not believe this witness, you just pick and choose what witnesses you want to beleive.

Wow, I sound like ULTIMA1 don't I? I'm picking and choosing which witnesses to believe?

So know your stating the passenges just flew through all the seats in front of them and landing inside the building.

You you are stating that the passengers were held in place by some magical forcefield, that defied physics...and kept them and everything in the cabin from being propelled forward due to momentum?

Wow, what a magical place these truthers live in.

Originally posted by Soloist
Hey Ultima1, weren't you banned here already?

Its off topic, but i'll answer your question:

Yes, ULTIMA1, aka PHIXER2, aka remisner was banned twice here. However, he just created a new account and began again. I guess that is allowed here.

reply to post by 911files

but there is overwhelming evidence that 'proves' a plane hit the Pentagon.

I assume you mean physical evidences. Please provide links to this creditable evidences.

Multiple radar sites from multiple sources clearly track a plane identified on ATC audio as AAL77 from the moment it left Dulles until it disappeared at the Pentagon.

By air the Pentagon is less than 30 miles from Dulles airport. The plane you refer to as AAL77 took well over an hour to reach the Pentagon, since you are convinced that radar tract the plane from Dulles to the Pentagon please tell us exactly where the plane spent it’s extra hour and why wasn’t it intercepted when air traffic controllers saw it heading directly to the Pentagon without clearance?

At that point, hundreds of witnesses saw the plane (recorded live at the time by AC police as an American Airlines plane) and those positioned to do so saw it plow into the Pentagon.

Hundreds of witnesses saw the plane? With all of the 21st. century technology available on 911, cell phones with built in camera and small video cams, etc., did none of these hundreds of witnesses record AAL77 as it was approaching or striking the Pentagon? Who are these witnesses and where are their recorded statements?

(recorded live at the time by AC police as an American Airlines plane)

AC police? (Arlington County?) Please produce this video that was recorded by AC police.

Not to mention the structural damage and debris at the scene, the data from the fdr found inside the Penagon by AC firefighters and recovered by the FBI.

Questions For NTSB/FBI Regarding Flight Data Recorder Information
1. The current FDR shows 480' MSL True Altitude, too high to hit the light poles. What are your findings of True Altitude at end of data recording 09:37:44. Why did you provide a Flight Data Recorder that shows the aircraft too high without a side letter of explanation? How did you come to your conclusion.
2. What is the vertical speed at end of data recording :44. How did you come to your conclusion.
3. What is the Absolute Altitude and end of data recording? How did you come to your conclusion.
4. Why does the csv file show the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through FL180, but the animation altimeter does not show it being set?(This is a blatant cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it).
5. Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?
6. Do you have any video showing a clear impact and/or of the plane on its approach to impact?
7. Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?
8. Why are there no system indication of any impact with any object up to and after :44?
9. Why does the csv file and animation show a right bank when the official report requires a left bank to be consistent with physical damage to the generator?
10. How did you come to the conclusion of 09:37:45 as the official impact time?
11. What is the exact chain of custody of the FDR? What date/time was it found? Where exactly was it found? Please provide documentation and names.
12. Why does the hijack timeline show a 3 min interval for hijacking to take place? Why was Capt. Burlingame reported to have not followed protocol for the Common Strategy prior to 9/11?
_________________________________________________
07/20/06
Analysis of 9/11 Commission Report prior to release of Flight Data Recorder
First let me say i offer no theory or speculation. I definitely do NOT offer that is was a missle, global hawk or otherwise. All the following will be facts (according to reports) and questions.

So, i started with NTSB, since they are the "go-to" guys when you want a report.. right?

This is what i get...

Summary.
"The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. " Full report here. NTSB report.
All reports from the NTSB for all 4 planes on Sept 11 are identical.

Ok, sounds reasonable. So lets check with the FBI reports.
www.fbi.gov...
Thats all i can find from the FBI.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

F.B.I. Counsel: No Records Available Revealing ID Process Of Recovered 9/11 Plane Wreckage

www.911blogger.com...

Looks to me the FBI did a good job of hiding all the evidences, don’t you agree?

And most compelling, the absolute lack of evdence that a plane did not impact the Pentagon.

Why is it? …that in the early photos there is no visible aircraft debris.
Early photos, that show views from all directions, previous to, and during the collapse at about 10:10 am, have no aircraft debris! After the collapse of the upper section the lawn will get salted with bogus debris. Let’s look at some of the early photos — you can see for yourself.

An anonymous airline pilot remarked after seeing the evidence, “…I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated upon impact, water, land or buildings…”

The supposed fireball didn’t leave a damage trail — of any sort. There was no scorching or even sooting to suggest that the immense fireball of the parking lot video was factual. One would at least expect to see concussion damage like blowing over the nearby construction trailers, or window damage to the control tower. The windows of the building are not even broken as would be expected (there are no blast resistant windows in wedge 2). In any event, it was clearly NOT 5,000 gallons of jet fuel, burning out of control.

EARLY photos show NO DEBRIS, –– NONE!

911exposed.org...

If you claim this is not true then, you have to prove it and I want to see some internet sources to back your claim.

Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 4-11-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by gavron
Wow, I sound like ULTIMA1 don't I? I'm picking and choosing which witnesses to believe?

I do not pick and choose witnesses. I am stating facts, i am sorry if they do not fit into what you think happened.

You you are stating that the passengers were held in place by some magical forcefield, that defied physics...and kept them and everything in the cabin from being propelled forward due to momentum?

Wasn't there supposed to be a photo of a passenger still strapped in a seat?

Are you saying that the seats the passengers were sitting in were ripped out and then ripped out all the seats in fornt of them so they could get to the front of the plane and inside the building?

You do know that there were other seats in front of the seats the passengers were sitting in?

Originally posted by gavron
[Yes, ULTIMA1, aka PHIXER2, aka remisner was banned twice here. However, he just created a new account and began again. I guess that is allowed here.

You mean i was discriminated against becasue i can post facts and evidence that does not agree with the official story.

Just like JERF banned me because i posted facts and evidence that disagree with the majority of people, i also talked back to the people who were attacking and insulting me. It is ok for people to attack and insult me but when i say something back i get banned.

JERF should be shut down because they allow people to attack and insult other people.


[edit on 4-11-2009 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE
I do not pick and choose witnesses. I am stating facts, i am sorry if they do not fit into what you think happened.

So, the FACT that all the other witnesses did not see a tail sticking out of the building, you're just ignoring those facts...because they go against your conspiracy theory?!?

Are you saying that the seats the passengers were sitting in were ripped out and then ripped out all the seats in fornt of them so they could get to the front of the plane and inside the building?

Umm...Roger, you ever hear of the word "momentum" ? Ever seen a car accident, where everything is thrown forward due to the impact?

Simple physics there, that even an NSA security guard should be able to understand...

Originally posted by REMISNE
You mean i was discriminated against becasue i can post facts and evidence that does not agree with the official story.

No, you violated the T&C here.

Just like JERF banned me because i posted facts and evidence that disagree with the majority of people

No, you violated the T&C there.

See the pattern?

Originally posted by gavron
So, the FACT that all the other witnesses did not see a tail sticking out of the building, you're just ignoring those facts...because they go against your conspiracy theory

The military witness was the closest to the buidling, the other witnesses were further away thats why they did not see the back of the plane sticking out.

Ever seen a car accident, where everything is thrown forward due to the impact?

Does a car have dozens of rows of seats?

Originally posted by gavron
No, you violated the T&C there.

So did others but i was the only one banned, sounds more like discrimination to me.

I can show the attacks and insults others made but they were not banned only me.

Originally posted by REMISNE
The military witness was the closest to the buidling, the other witnesses were further away thats why they did not see the back of the plane sticking out.

So..the chaplain that was a witness to the impact, and saw the plane enter the building. He is lying....and going against his faith in God?