Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Smiling Buddha said:
I believe the earth is probably warming.
I believe that if it is warming, humans are probably contributing to this warming.
I believe that regardless of the above, any government who uses the spectre of global warming (/climate change) to increase taxes and/or reduce civil liberties is deceitful, deceptive and corrupt.
Click to expand...

Well we agree on something then;)
 
RIOLIUSTAR said:
Lets not derail this thread gentlemen ;)

Now Glacier is there any chance you could put forth a link to the Honeywell comments made early mate, I've checked my sources and it seems it's only "truthers" saying this...don't get me wrong mate, but it seems kinda important to the whole debate, given everything else has been covered, debunked and won...wouldn't mind ticking that box :thumbsu:
Click to expand...


Morning
Firstly carn the Hawks, but I'm a bit nervous about tonight against the injectors, going down with a few mates who get quite loud so could be fun!
The Honeywell statement was first made in 2002 and repeated in 2006 in numerous articles in newspapers. Such as the Washington Post and Seattle Times, interestingly it also appears in numerous sites put FWD by both sides if the debate, some of course claiming it points to one thing whilst others saying it was from a second hand source
The newspaper articles quote simply a " representative of Honeywell" and I'm buggered if I can find a name so make of that what you will
However having had a bit of a look at that rotor, to me it doesn't look like the Honeywell part, but of course many will then say" how would you know" so I won't comment further :)
Links you say ???

You know better than that!!
If you are going to the game tonight, let me know, it's time we had a $20 beer !!
 
Glacier said:
Morning
Firstly carn the Hawks, but I'm a bit nervous about tonight against the injectors, going down with a few mates who get quite loud so could be fun!
The Honeywell statement was first made in 2002 and repeated in 2006 in numerous articles in newspapers. Such as the Washington Post and Seattle Times, interestingly it also appears in numerous sites put FWD by both sides if the debate, some of course claiming it points to one thing whilst others saying it was from a second hand source
The newspaper articles quote simply a " representative of Honeywell" and I'm buggered if I can find a name so make of that what you will
However having had a bit of a look at that rotor, to me it doesn't look like the Honeywell part, but of course many will then say" how would you know" so I won't comment further :)
Links you say ???

You know better than that!!
If you are going to the game tonight, let me know, it's time we had a $20 beer !!
Click to expand...

Is the Honeywell statement also mentioned in the documentary "9/11: In Plane Site"? I know there was mention made in that of someone denying that some debris found at the Pentagon wasn't part of anything they manufactured.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

winty said:
Is the Honeywell statement also mentioned in the documentary "9/11: In Plane Site"? I know there was mention made in that of someone denying that some debris found at the Pentagon wasn't part of anything they manufactured.
Click to expand...

I have no idea winty , I've never actually watched it !
 
Glacier said:
Morning
Firstly carn the Hawks, but I'm a bit nervous about tonight against the injectors, going down with a few mates who get quite loud so could be fun!
The Honeywell statement was first made in 2002 and repeated in 2006 in numerous articles in newspapers. Such as the Washington Post and Seattle Times, interestingly it also appears in numerous sites put FWD by both sides if the debate, some of course claiming it points to one thing whilst others saying it was from a second hand source
The newspaper articles quote simply a " representative of Honeywell" and I'm buggered if I can find a name so make of that what you will
However having had a bit of a look at that rotor, to me it doesn't look like the Honeywell part, but of course many will then say" how would you know" so I won't comment further :)
Links you say ???

You know better than that!!
If you are going to the game tonight, let me know, it's time we had a $20 beer !!
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response mate:thumbsu:

Firstly, I agree tonights game will be danderous, but I'll back good vs evil everytime;) I'm not in Melbourne fella so I'll have to skip the $20 beers unfortunately:D

I'll definately look into the Honeywell statement in regards to context. Should be interesting.

I'm not sure how it really matters to the debate given the overwhelming evidence out there in regards to eyewitness accounts, photo's, emergency service statements, engineering reports etc all supporting the crazy theory that it was indeed a plane that crashed into the Pentagon, but I'll go seek it anyway.

Have a good one tonight friend:thumbsu:
 
I'm back Glacier with a summary of the Honeywell misnomer.

This first link http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml has the quote by John. W. Brown from Honeywell.

"It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy."

Hmmmm, sounds fishy....I read on and I'm suggesting you have a good read of this link also. Very informative.

This next link is an article where the Brown quote originted and was swooped on by certain groups with ulterior motives, be it selling papers or spreading BS.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265a.shtml

Look forward to reading your take on the provided links :thumbsu:
 
RIOLIUSTAR said:
I'm back Glacier with a summary of the Honeywell misnomer.

This first link http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml has the quote by John. W. Brown from Honeywell.

"It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy."

Hmmmm, sounds fishy....I read on and I'm suggesting you have a good read of this link also. Very informative.

This next link is an article where the Brown quote originted and was swooped on by certain groups with ulterior motives, be it selling papers or spreading BS.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265a.shtml

Look forward to reading your take on the provided links :thumbsu:
Click to expand...

Hey mate, thanks for that
I've read the Bollyn article before and yes it is a good and informative read
However in my little collection I have the quote above from a certain Karl Schwarz from Patmoz Nanotechnology where he was talking about what he thought was a part of a JT&D turbo from a A-3 Sidewinder...and the other quote coming from a Honeywell spokesperson , John Brown you say? Thanks for finding the name as all I had were " spokesperson"
So it seems once again there is a fair bit of mis quoting going on to suite whatever side of the debate you favour
Personally I am not certain that rotor is a Honeywell, but that's only from my knowledge and of course my holier than thou attitude :)
Interesting point you make about certain things being reported by the media to sell papers etc, true but the whole event was a bonanza for the media in that way, as shit as that sounds
Every reporter or investigator at first dug deep to find what they could, but just as interesting was how so many things died down so quickly
Was it that all these leads led nowhere or was it that maybe some leads were considered definate no go ?
I wonder that question very much
 
Glacier said:
So it seems once again there is a fair bit of mis quoting going on to suite whatever side of the debate you favour
Personally I am not certain that rotor is a Honeywell, but that's only from my knowledge and of course my holier than thou attitude :)
Click to expand...

Firstly with all due respect mate the misquoting is really only coming from one direction, I'll leave that for you to decide.

If you read the first link it's all there, but here I'll post a chunk for you;)

Since this article was first published, we have received several comments from readers citing a quote from Rolls-Royce spokesman John W. Brown who said, "It is not a part from any Rolls-Royce engine that I'm familiar with..." The critics go on to suggest that this statement disproves all of our analysis indicating the disk is a compressor stage from the Rolls-Royce RB211-535. However, a simple review of the source of this quote shows just the opposite. The material is from an article titled "Controversy Swirling Over September 11 Pentagon Mystery: Industry Experts Can't Explain Photo Evidence" written by Christopher Bollyn that appeared on the pro-conspiracy website American Free Press.

The article describes John Brown as a spokesman for Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis, Indiana. This location is home to the Allison Engine factory that builds the AE3007H turbofan used aboard the Global Hawk. Brown's quote regarding the mystery wreckage states that, "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy." Furthermore, the article correctly notes that the RB211 is not built in Indianapolis but at the Rolls-Royce plant in Derby, England. Since Brown is a spokesman for Allison Engines, which was an independent company that only became a subsidary of Rolls-Royce in 1995, it stands to reason that an engine built in the United Kingdom would be one he's not "familiar with." The article even goes on to point out that Brown could not identify specific parts from one engine or another since he is not an engineer or assembly line technician who would be familiar with the internal components of turbine engines.

For what it's worth (and it isn't worth much, given the author's apparent lack of journalistic skill), the Bollyn article actually supports the evidence assembled on this site. The article provides quotes from Honeywell Aerospace indicating that the piece did not come from an APU, from Allison Engines suggesting that it is not a component found in the turbofan used on Global Hawk, and from Teledyne Continental Motors indicating that it is not part of a cruise missile engine. All of these conclusions match those explained above.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
 
:D:thumbsu:Now that is a response
Well done !
Although I wonder if Mr Brown would have been too happy to be told that he new SFA seeing as he was the spokesperson for the company...
 
Glacier said:
:D:thumbsu:Now that is a response
Well done !
Although I wonder if Mr Brown would have been too happy to be told that he new SFA seeing as he was the spokesperson for the company...
Click to expand...
Well Mr Brown admitted he knew SFA about the UK built Rolls Royce engine in the Boeing 757, so I guess he wouldn't have cared too much;)
 
1959572_10151894172036269_652227308_n.jpg


Not sure if serious?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I can't believe I had never heard of this one before.



Incredible. It aired on Murdoch's Fox in March 2001. Over 13m people watched it in the US alone.

Now that would be enough for any skeptical person to wonder. But even if you refuse to countenance the possibility of 'prior/inside knowledge', you cannot seriously refute the obvious fact that this was, at best, a coverup.

 
Last edited:
Smiling Buddha said:
I can't believe I had never heard of this one before.



Incredible. It aired on Murdoch's Fox in March 2011. Over 13m people watched it in the US alone.

Now that would be enough for any skeptical person to wonder. But even if you refuse to countenance the possibility of 'prior/inside knowledge', you cannot seriously refute the obvious fact that this was, at best, a coverup.

Click to expand...


You mean March 2001. Interesting, I've never heard of this before
 
I know I'm getting in very late here and I don't mean to de-rail the current point of conversation but...

even the 9/11 Commission reported that they felt the Bush Administration were withholding information and even went so far as to say that they suspected they were being deceitful in many of their conversations with them.

Also, check out pilotsfor911truth.org for some very sound and reasonable arguments from professional commercial pilots as to why they feel a handful of amateurs (who could barely land a Cesna) could not have made the "hits."
 
Doc_ said:
The title of this thread needs changing. It is up to the conspiracy theorists to prove their version of events, not the other way round.
Click to expand...
I lean the other way. Notwithstanding the unconfirmable commentary, re: engine components and lack of CCTV ( Pentagon ), I feel there is sufficient doubt as to the probity granted to witness ( ground zero ) testimony, and reasonable conjecture. Demolition experts aren't particularly divided 50/50 over the " controlled " collapses of three buildings, without the identical trigger factor, ie: av gas as the incendiary propellant.

While the " Bush/Bin Laden " relationships may be tenuous, the urgency to finalise this incident vastly over-rode a realistic, comprehensive and inclusive report, the gaps leading to the inevitable conspiratorial speculation.

Trust my government to give me the full picture? Not likely. Too many vested interest groups that require placating, ensuring funding to maintain power ( wealth ). IMHO
 
Doc_ said:
The title of this thread needs changing. It is up to the conspiracy theorists to prove their version of events, not the other way round.
Click to expand...

No!

This is a conspiracy board and for people to discuss all sorts of stuff like this, if you want discussion like you stated go to SRP or GD.
 
It is not up to anyone to prove the official story- it is up to deniers to prove the alternative theories.

Makes me wonder why conspiracy theorists want to let Osama Bin Laden off the hook.
 
Personally I like hearing about the weird and whacky responses the CT's come up with on this topic:)

I think having had it moved onto this board speaks volumes to who has won the debate:D
 
catman 71 said:
Who wants Bin Laden off the hook?

Those who want to blame the U.S. government, instead of a terrorist leader who sent planes into buildings.

The fact is, Bin Laden started it.
Click to expand...

What, so someone who doesn't believe in the official version wants Bin Laden off the hook?
Repeat...what a stupid comment
Grow a brain
 
RIOLIUSTAR said:
Personally I like hearing about the weird and whacky responses the CT's come up with on this topic:)

I think having had it moved onto this board speaks volumes to who has won the debate:D
Click to expand...

About as wacky as sending some intercepting fighters out above the ocean whilst a terrorist attack goes ahead in NYC, eh mate?:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top