It's quite simple. Drones were used because that's what the plan called for. They knew that drones could be flown much more precisely than any hijacked airliner might have been flown by lousy and inexperienced pilots. There were no hijackings that day. That was all a big story.
You are obsessed with that silly question Margot, as you've been repeatedly asking it for several days at least. As petty questions go, you have never specified which airplane debris you're talking about. If you can ask a proper question you might receive an answer from somebody. Because I was not involved in the planning or execution of the effort, I have not a clue who hauled what to where. You live in a fantasy land. Whatever was hauled there would most likely have been hauled by somebody who worked there, an employee with a card to get him in the gate. As to the single turbine engine remains and the small landing gear wheels we were shown early on inside the building, they are the artifacts that suggest some sort of small aircraft was involved.
27 photos of debris and airplane parts from Flight 77. https://www.businessinsider.com/the...nes-logo-is-clearly-visible-in-this-picture-3
You should stop making stuff up.. I posted the protocols for NTSB investigations in a pdf file earlier.
OH PLEASE .. THEY WOULD HAVE NEEDED A WAREHOUSE AND A COUPLE OF FLATBED TRUCKS TO HAUL ALL THAT STUFF TO THE PENTAGON.. AND WHAT DID THEY DO WITH THE PASSENGERS ON FLIGHT 77?
This post demonstrates <Rule 4> abysmal ignorance of aviation matters, and is consistent with other comments on this subject matter.
No they didn't. The early photos showed a single turbine engine way to small for a 757, and only one. The 757 has 2 engines in case you didn't know. The landing gear assemblies are massive, as was demonstrated in all the pictures of the Korean airliner that crashed at SFO. You've been hoodwinked, and you're not alone.
They knew? Is this the same gang of thieves and liars that "knew" there were WMD in Iraq? Is this the same gang of thieves and liars that "knew" the Gulf of Tonkin story was true? You are a gullible individual sir, and that's how they like 'em inside the Beltway. Easily led and most deferential to authority.
You posted a section of the manual that has nothing to do with Appendix J, where it lists in detail how recovered parts should be handled. I didn't write Appendix J so your claim that "I'm making stuff up" is idiotic libel.
Idiotic libel is all she has. And of course, statements from known liars, to be regurgitated on command, like Pavlov's dogs.
You keep repeating your ignorant claim: And avoid responding to mine. And every time you make that idiotic claim, which shows you know nothing about airplane crash investigations or any type investigation for that matter, I will post the above in response as well as this one:
The above is a perfect example of why you don't know anything about the NTSB Aviation Investigation Manual and if anything YOU're making stuff up. This is the Appendix: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process/Documents/MajorInvestigationsManualApp.pdf
You're welcome. Yes I fully acknowledge I made that up and I can't source it for the same reason I can't source that the sky is blue on a clear day. The bigger problem for you is that even though you claim to be an engineer and what I made up is incredibly simplistic common sense YOU don't have the neurological facility to come up with it yourself. That among many other posts you write raises quite a bit of skepticism about your claim that you're an engineer or if true how in the world did you ever get to be an engineer.
Pure idiocy. Nobody cares what YOU think is reasonable and logical. That's not what's stated in the manually. When the FBI determines a scene to be criminal in nature, it takes over and the NTSB does what is requested. There was no reason to think the debris was NOT from the planes they say they were. And your "clear blue sky" comparison is even more stupid. If you claim the sky is blue where your at and I have reason to question it, I'm going to go to sources like the weather channel in your area or have you or others take pictures to prove it. Don't be stupid Bob. You're not that dumb.
What you post is that for sure. I understand YOU don't care because YOU have no idea what it is that is reasonable and logical based on all your posts. I already said that, did you miss it? It isn't in the manual because it doesn't need to be, it's plain common sense. That was already established and acknowledged, you're very observant lol. Once again, a legitimate investigation does not begin with a conclusion and reverse engineer the investigation to fit the conclusion. I know you don't understand the universally settled premise but it is what it is.They "said they were" has nothing to do with any investigation, that's a statement to be accepted by the gullible on faith. Actually it's as clear as a clear day. You believe it's "stupid" because you are clueless and believe things about 9/11 on faith as evidenced above. That's your call but that's not what I said. The sky is ALWAYS blue on a clear day and no one needs to source that. Reading comprehension problems Sherlock? Talk about stupid. No but it sure sounds like you are or pretend to be.
Once again for the observant. I already did and I never determined there were no mistakes, in fact I raised a very significant question about Hulsey's conclusion. You never read it since you keep asking and don't want to discuss it by your own admission. So why do you bother?
Where? The slideshow of his? THAT'S what you consider his preliminary report? Thanks for finally admitting this. You never determined that there were no mistakes, yet you claim he proved NIST wrong. I'll just continue to post your above quote whenever you try and use Hulsey's report your evidence. This is just TOO funny.
