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.

 

Shanksville pics..?

page: 17
26
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

If you could show a picture of the field with those parts in it, you would have some measure of credibility. You cannot, and therefor you do not. Photos from the sham trial of Moussaoui don't count. Those pieces were not observed in any photos or videos in the field. What the US Justice Department presents is trials of this nature is staged.

As Miller said to the cameras when he stepped out of the field, there was nothing there that suggested an airliner had crashed there. NOTHING



en.wikipedia.org...

Nothing left of this plane either.

"disintegrating instantly. "

And his suicide note was found afterwards:

"note on the airsickness bag "

And the gun he used, with part of his finger still in it.

" lift a print from a fragment of finger stuck in the pistol's trigger guard, "

So, conspiracy believers have evidence that suggests that their expectations and preconceived notions of what a high speed plane crash should look like to be wrong.

What will you do with this information?


I've already seen that information quite a few years ago. It changes nothing about the complete lack of crash debris consistent with a loaded airliner at either Shanksville or the pentagon. An interesting bit of trivia, but it changes nothing regarding 911.




posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Please establish your credentials as aircraft crash investigator .....

How many crash scenes you been to?

Do you have any degrees in aeronautical engineer? Forensic analysis? Pathology?

Otherwise your analysis are simply uninformed opinions ......



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

If you could show a picture of the field with those parts in it, you would have some measure of credibility. You cannot, and therefor you do not. Photos from the sham trial of Moussaoui don't count. Those pieces were not observed in any photos or videos in the field. What the US Justice Department presents is trials of this nature is staged.

As Miller said to the cameras when he stepped out of the field, there was nothing there that suggested an airliner had crashed there. NOTHING



en.wikipedia.org...

Nothing left of this plane either.

"disintegrating instantly. "

And his suicide note was found afterwards:

"note on the airsickness bag "

And the gun he used, with part of his finger still in it.

" lift a print from a fragment of finger stuck in the pistol's trigger guard, "

So, conspiracy believers have evidence that suggests that their expectations and preconceived notions of what a high speed plane crash should look like to be wrong.

What will you do with this information?


I've already seen that information quite a few years ago. It changes nothing about the complete lack of crash debris consistent with a loaded airliner at either Shanksville or the pentagon. An interesting bit of trivia, but it changes nothing regarding 911.


So you don't believe there were planes because you think there should have been more wreckage. Argument from incredulity AGAIN



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

The Shanksville gash in the ground was there in 1979 thereabouts. There is a picture of it taken back then around the net somewhere.

If i recall correctly it was taken as part of some Ariel photography of the time, its in black and white. I've got in my site library but I cant get it come up.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

I have no formal credentials as a crash investigator, but I have been to a number of aircraft crashes, helicopters and airplanes, civilian and military.

One thing I've learned is that with the exception of certain accidents in which deep water is involved, like the one in the Florida Everglades many years ago, most of, or many of the parts are visible on the surface.

I have done a career in aviation, helicopters and airplanes, no airline experience.

Just as all the pictures showed and all the witnesses reported, there was no sign of United 93 at Shanksville.

Are you one of those who admire the Emperor's New Clothes?




posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

No sir, I KNOW there should have been wreckage. With a few exceptions, a wrecked airliner with 37 pax and a crew of 7 cannot vanish from view.

When it shows up in the ACARS system 30 minutes later in Illinois, clearly a magnificent deception is in progress.

Some are gullible enough to believe the story, but I'm not one of those folks.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

You have been disproven on ACARS how many times? How does it prove where a specific jet is again from positive feed back from that jet.

And you hold to the miss representation of facts even after knowing other flights visually identify United Flight 93 to confirm it's radar position. Then the radar tracked flight 93 to its crash site.


You don't really get it. The vast majority of people don't trust the truth movement because it only chooses specific facts and views, takes data and quotes out of context, the movement chooses to not present all facts and evidence, and it's been proven there are people in the movement which are con artists useing 9/11 for personal gain and fame.

People expect from a truth movement that it would be total honesty, have the ability to police itself, analyize and present all data, and be totally transparency.

People see the truth movement as a desperate group of people grasping at any "smoking gun" that make people of the movement vulnerable to rampant fraud and manipulation.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

You have been disproven on ACARS how many times? How does it prove where a specific jet is again from positive feed back from that jet.

And you hold to the miss representation of facts even after knowing other flights visually identify United Flight 93 to confirm it's radar position. Then the radar tracked flight 93 to its crash site.


You don't really get it. The vast majority of people don't trust the truth movement because it only chooses specific facts and views, takes data and quotes out of context, the movement chooses to not present all facts and evidence, and it's been proven there are people in the movement which are con artists useing 9/11 for personal gain and fame.

People expect from a truth movement that it would be total honesty, have the ability to police itself, analyize and present all data, and be totally transparency.

People see the truth movement as a desperate group of people grasping at any "smoking gun" that make people of the movement vulnerable to rampant fraud and manipulation.


What the ACARS data proves is that Wally Miller was right the first time--the flight could not have been crashed in PA when it was still transmitting, computer to computer and recorded, in Illinois 30 some odd minutes later.

The discovery process in the Moussaoui trial let that little cat out of the bag, and that's why there were no more trials related to 911 after Moussaoui's. They were all settled, with no discovery.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

The question was, how would Flight 93 give positive feedback of its position by ACARS?



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Whole thread on explaining why ARACS is not proof of anything and trumped by the visual positive identification of Flight 93's position. Which you choose to ignore.

www.internationalskeptics.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   


One thing I've learned is that with the exception of certain accidents in which deep water is involved, like the one in the Florida Everglades many years ago, most of, or many of the parts are visible on the surface.
a reply to: Salander

Parts visible ........

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Maybe did not look too hard

As someone who allegedly has been to crash scene(s) should be aware that high speed crash reduce the aircraft
(and everything inside) to small unrecognizable pieces , Depending on distance and angle may not be able to
see anything until very close up

Crash scene was at the largest piece(s) was 2 x 3 section of rudder and landing light . Rest was metallic confetti
spread around the area......



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

The gash in the ground at Shanksville was there in the 1990's so how likely is it that a plane would insert itself into the ground in exactly the same place.

9/11: Shanksville Crash Site Exposed (Proof)

www.youtube.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Link



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

The question was, how would Flight 93 give positive feedback of its position by ACARS?


The information regarding location was not displayed to 93. The assumption is the airplane crew already knows where it is.

The ACARS data shows the VHF based tower through which the onboard computer and the computer in United's dispatch center was in Illinois, and each time the 2 computers communicate with each other (not necessarily a message from crew to dispatch) it is recorded. Whether or not a human generated message is transmitted, the computers communicate. The same protocol works with our cellphones and their ground facilities.

So the point is that the ACARS data showed the computers were still talking to each other 30 minutes after the official story has the plane crashed in Pennsylvania.

Another fact that is fatal to the official story.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

I don't know about your common practices, but I always consider the source when analyzing statements and documents.

Unfortunately, the statements and documents put forward by the US government are often inaccurate and misleading, even false.

The US government has had a reputation for mendacity for many years.

Those pictures are not consistent with other pictures of the scene in which no wrecked airliner is visible. Those pictures are not consistent with the statements of those on scene who found no evidence of a wrecked airliner.

The vast preponderance of the evidence contradicts the claim that any airliner was there, especially 93.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Spoken like a true "truther" .....

The evidence presented does not agree with my conspiracy fantasy, therefore it is fake, planted or some
Jedi mind trick.......



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Which computers identified how? on what frequencies? With what return message from the flight?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

If you would do some research.....





From Oystein, member of international skeptics. Post 50.

From this thread: www.internationalskeptics.com...


And that anomaly is not even perceived - it is laboriously invented.

There is no expert who claims explicitly that the plane send any kind of message back to the ground after crash time.
The message logs are clear:
There are basically three kinds of messages:
ULMSG - sent from airline to ARINC network. It contains a "target station", which is close to expected location of plane, according to flight plan
ULBLK - sent from Remote Ground Station (land-based VHF antenna). This contains the RGS that actually sent the message. ARINC determines this from the antennae that last received a message from plane
DLBLK - a message down from the plane, received by ground station. Often by more than one ground station. Ground stations may be within a radius of >200 miles
If you read the logs message by message, and compare time stamps with flight plan and actual flight path as determined by NTRSB from radar and FDR, you will find that ULMSG follow the airlines's flight plan (e.g. UA93: going east from NY through PA and OH into IA), while ULBLK follow actual flight path (for example UA93: from Newark to Pittsburgh, on to Cleveland, and back to Pittsburgh). DLBLK stations follow actual flight path, too, just with more variation as some messages get received as far west as Detroit, as far north as Toronto, as far south as Charleston (WV) and as far east as Baltimore.
After crash time, no more DLBLK, but airlines and ARINC still trying to send up to where they think the plane ought to be (flight plan, going west) or was last (Pittsburgh).

Absolutely EVERYTHING in the ACARS logs actually CORROBORATES radar and FDR analysis by NTSB.

Balsamo and his fellow loons pretend they are better at analysing radar, FDR and ACARS than the NTSB.



It has been pointed out to you before, there was never return data from your alleged still in the air flight 93! No positive feed back evidence from an actual inflight jet.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

No sir, I KNOW there should have been wreckage. With a few exceptions, a wrecked airliner with 37 pax and a crew of 7 cannot vanish from view.

When it shows up in the ACARS system 30 minutes later in Illinois, clearly a magnificent deception is in progress.

Some are gullible enough to believe the story, but I'm not one of those folks.



So you're just ignoring the wreckage that was found then?



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

If you understood how the ACARS system worked, if you understood how the cell phone system worked, how the computers on the airplanes communicated with the computers on the ground, you would get it. But you don't, so you can't.

If you were curious about those things you would educate yourself, but obviously you prefer the bliss of ignorance. I do understand why.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

There was no wreckage in the morning. That's what Coroner Miller said when he exited the field and spoke to the media, and that's what every single photo or video showed--no wreckage consistent with a wrecked airliner.

Some say, including a friend of mine who actually visited the scene as a volunteer firemen that evening, that some human remains and other tokens supposedly from the airliner that wasn't there, were "found" inside the forest nearby, in the roped off area created by the feds, on the land owned by Jim Svonavec.

It was terrific sleight of hand, a magnificent deception.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join