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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Shanksville pics..?

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I use to work with the lead investigator of the Shanksville crash site son a few years ago. While I can understand some skepticism of official reports, I'd take the bulk of the reports as being pretty close to the truth.

I've talked to the guy and I'd imagine most of the other higher-ups in the FBI are pretty straight shooters with the intent of finding out the cold hard truth. If I was still in contact with him I'd ask if there was anything that didn't sit quite right with him or provide a more personal perspective since he was there.

With the exception of a few drunken nights and some MySpace bulletins, the most conspiratorial thing I've thought about 9/11 is that Bush, or maybe even more so Cheney, allowed the attacks to happen. Seeing how Cheney was CEO of Halliburton. They're still making money off this boondoggle to this day.




posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
naw...I'll post it again....at the pentagon and Shanksville the first reporters in a jet ranger on video showed Not enough debris to fill a suitcase.....tell me.....I'm real friggin curious....I'm a seasoned 65 year old pilot...lookin for good judgement



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY

There was plenty of wreckage recovered. United 93 was wreckage was found as deep as 6 feet or deeper. American 77 was mostly found inside the building.

What do you expect from two high speed impacts?



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   
While I was trying to find a source to cite for debunking of the wings, I rediscovered why I love conspiracies.

There was the no parts at the crash site theory.

There was the crater and the planted parts.

There was the parts too small / too few.

There was the engine craters not spaced the right distance for the span along the wing trench. (spacing to close)

There was the wing trench was a preexisting drainage ditch.

The 911 movement could improve their image by starting a commission to rank theories from most probable to not a chance.


edit on 1-11-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY

On mobile just now there's PLENTY of first responder quotes re PLANE debris inside the Pentagon. Including pictures will post link later.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Water is dense too, but a jetliner wouldn't atomize hitting it dead on.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
naw...I'll post it again....at the pentagon and Shanksville the first reporters in a jet ranger on video showed Not enough debris to fill a suitcase.


Why should the wreckage be clearly visible from a helicopter after a plane hit a building and the other one augered into the ground?

You watch too many cartoons.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 03:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
That doesn't look like a picture from the incident, in fact refer to above post (phage) . . . my best guess is that this picture is actually from a b-movie set.


Actually the pic.in the OP looks the same as the majority of the pics in Phages link. The only ones that look different are the ones with the planes photoshopped in...








These look like the "crash site" in the OP...



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Water is dense too, but a jetliner wouldn't atomize hitting it dead on.


Are the properties the same as soil concrete or steel ?
I don't think so more flawed logic



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: djz3ro

Photoshopped



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Not going to comment on the airliner portion cause Phage and zaphod and a few others have hit that hard..

As for the body parts, when I was a flight engineer several years ago the USAF took prints of my feet (like fingerprints but of my feet) because (as I was told) your foot in a leather boot is one of the few things they were certain would survive a plane crash and subsequent fire.

While not quite the same it lends itself to the reason not much in the way of body parts were found.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Water is dense too, but a jetliner wouldn't atomize hitting it dead on.


Different densities. DIfferent properties.

One cubic foot of water, about 63 pounds.
One cubic foot of sand, 90 to 130 pounds.
One cubic foot of clay, 100 to 110 pounds.
One cubic foot of concrete, up to 150 pounds.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

There was no wing trench as it was proved that the trench that are usually sold or confused for wing scars was there prior to the crater on 911.

What ever hit the ground did not have fuel laden wings consistent with a large commercial airliner as the trench is a weathered ditch that was used as a target. Friend knows a guy that worked at Rollock scrap.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   

CRATER was only 15 feet wide, that's smaller than the fuselage of the Boeing. Also the picture was taken from in the weathered trench which saw no impact that liars here claim are wings scars. They are not. No wings hit the ground especially fuel ladened ones.

Silly.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

Planes leave noticeable wreckage when they hit flat, at relatively low speed. Planes that hit almost vertically, at high speed, don't.


i'll take it.

what about the engines?



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
naw...I'll post it again....at the pentagon and Shanksville the first reporters in a jet ranger on video showed Not enough debris to fill a suitcase.....tell me.....I'm real friggin curious....I'm a seasoned 65 year old pilot...lookin for good judgement


And if those are the same news helicopter videos I saw on that day and years later, they have been removed from the internet.

There was no airliner at Shanksville. Further, the ACARS data seen through discovery in the Moussaoui trial showed the aircraft that was UA93 that day was still transmitting within the system 30 minutes after the supposed crash in PA, and it was somewhere in Illinois.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Chatting over beer and cocktails, I know a Pennsylvania man who at the time was a member of a volunteer fire department from a town in PA several hours from Shanksville. By the time they arrived to assist as they could, it was dark. He said that they saw what appeared to be body parts in the trees overhead. Rather dramatic I'd say.


That was after the feds had moved the "scene of the crime" from the open field into the adjacent forest, shown in those pictures here.


Such a dog and pony show.




posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: djz3ro

Photoshopped



I couldn't tell you, I was just playing devil's advocate. One of the photoshopped pics claims the only way the wreckage made that trench was if it was falling nose into the ground with the body of the plane at right angle to the ground...



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   
the jet ranger gets closeenough I saw about 40 feey in Shanksville... at the pentagon.....90 feet....I smell something silly.....

a reply to: hellobruce


edit on 2-11-2016 by GBP/JPY because: our new King.....He comes right after a nicely done fake one

edit on 2-11-2016 by GBP/JPY because: our new King.....He comes right after a nicely done fake one



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

Once again, it didn't atomize. The wreckage buried itself.




top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join