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.

 

Hunt the Boeing II - Shanksville edition

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:38 AM
link   
I'd certainly read it if I could find it. How about being nice to a recently arrived ATSer and giving me a thread link? Please?




posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Many thanks, tuccy, I'll go and view it now. (Sorry, I went through trial by fire as a new arrival on another forum and saying thanks is now ingrained. It's also why I rarely get upset/annoyed here.)



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Okay, diggs here you are - Answers to Hunt the Boeing II - Shanksville

No. 1
We may observe that the crater in the photograph is maybe 10ft deep. Camera angles and foreshortening don’t really contribute much to these photographs. The depth of the crater from these photographs is unknown.

No. 2
From that photo? At that distance? You’re joking, right? Come on, at that distance even the rescue workers look like ants. How much of the aircraft was left when it made that crater? Was the wreckage at that stage bigger than confetti? (Coincidentally (and I’m sure you’re going to love that word), I am in contact with someone on another forum whose friend was one of those rescue workers. He said that around the crater there was nothing bigger than a piece of confetti.) How much of the aircraft disintegrated on the way down and how much was shed at other parts of the site?

No. 3
To be brutally honest, it looks like neither. There are conflicting stories regarding whether Flight 93 was shot down or crashed due to passenger intervention. If it was shot down, what’s to stop that being an unexploded piece of ordnance exploding on impact? A time for the photo would be helpful, too but I note that’s not supplied. See also external quote from answer No. 5.

No. 4
The aerial photo is worse than useless. Aerial photos regarding evidence usually are. They’re for the purpose of mapping a site, not spotting debris. Can you tell me how you know 6,000 gallons (I’m assuming “6,000 thousand gallons” is a typo) was still in the aircraft at that time? If the aircraft broke up during the descent/crash, isn’t it reasonable to assume that the wings (holding fuel tanks) were torn off? The same applies to the aircraft being shot down. Where was it hit? Did it lose fuel? What was left of the aircraft (and you seem to be postulating a nosedive into the ground) burrowed into the soft earth, taking whatever remained of the fuel with it. How fuel-soaked was the earth 20-30ft down?

No. 5
Okay, now we’re using the eyewitnesses that every CT has said have no idea what’s going on in the Pentagon crash. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Incidentally, photos 1 – 4 show wisps of smoke. So witness 1 is wrong to begin with.


The impact spewed a fireball of horrific force across hundreds of acres of towering hemlocks and other trees, setting many ablaze. The fuselage burrowed straight into the earth so forcefully that one of the "black boxes" was recovered at a depth of 25 feet under the ground. As coroner, responsible for returning human remains, Miller has been forced to share with the families information that is unimaginable. As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.


Source - linked to photo in Hunt the Boeing II

He doesn't sound like he's expecting blood from that scenario. I’d also be interested in seeing the Coroner’s credentials.

No. 7
Surprisingly enough, it’s common for oddities to survive aircraft crashes. I’ve seen many instances where it’s occurred. Sometimes it’s from being thrown from the wreckage before an explosion or fire begins, sometimes it’s from being covered by something else that’s charred beyond recognition. There are areas that somehow get protected by other things. No surprise.

For goodness sake, people, spend 20 years reading up on the details of aircraft crashes and you’ll know what I mean.

… Now, if I could just find my books.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I thought I'd posted it earlier, but look slike I posted the same pic twice instead. You can see the confetti like debris in the hole in this photo:




posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Witnesses said they saw the plane roll over and take a nose dive down into the ground, followed by a huge fireball. Isn't that why there are such small peices of the plain left? People on this topic show other crash photos trying to prove that "well this plane was found in large peices, why wasn't 93" and then come to think it didn't crash there at all!?!?!?! If flight 93 landed in Clevland, than why did the the passengers never return to there families?
Here is my theory: The government use there secret n678fjgkaleifmfkf machine to make the passengers go to the nearest Pizza hut, and then used there alien allies to abduct them and take the zykuolov sector on Planet zenoytheigthers millions of galaxies away only to be warped by the evil Refulitierestes, lord of planet zenoytheighters.

Witnesses saw a plane crash there, they found REMAINS of all the passengers and identified all of them!!!! Flight 93 didn't land in Cleveland, that is absoloutly rediculous.

Wheiter it was shot down or not, i don't know. The voices heard in the cockpit would say other wise, but that's a different story.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aotearoa
No. 1
We may observe that the crater in the photograph is maybe 10ft deep. Camera angles and foreshortening don’t really contribute much to these photographs. The depth of the crater from these photographs is unknown.

Looks about 10ft to me. What does it look like to you? Say it's about 15ft. How did a 115ft plane only cause a 15ft crater?



No. 2
From that photo? At that distance? You’re joking, right? Come on, at that distance even the rescue workers look like ants. How much of the aircraft was left when it made that crater? Was the wreckage at that stage bigger than confetti? (Coincidentally (and I’m sure you’re going to love that word), I am in contact with someone on another forum whose friend was one of those rescue workers. He said that around the crater there was nothing bigger than a piece of confetti.) How much of the aircraft disintegrated on the way down and how much was shed at other parts of the site?

Planes don't disintegrate into nothing. It was a big plane. There should be a few big pieces near where it crashed and none of the crater pics show what looks like plane debris to me.



No. 3
To be brutally honest, it looks like neither. There are conflicting stories regarding whether Flight 93 was shot down or crashed due to passenger intervention. If it was shot down, what’s to stop that being an unexploded piece of ordnance exploding on impact? A time for the photo would be helpful, too but I note that’s not supplied. See also external quote from answer No. 5.

Well if it was shot down then the game is lost because the game was supposed to see if "The official US government version of events still holds."



No. 4
The aerial photo is worse than useless. Aerial photos regarding evidence usually are. They’re for the purpose of mapping a site, not spotting debris. Can you tell me how you know 6,000 gallons (I’m assuming “6,000 thousand gallons” is a typo) was still in the aircraft at that time? If the aircraft broke up during the descent/crash, isn’t it reasonable to assume that the wings (holding fuel tanks) were torn off? The same applies to the aircraft being shot down. Where was it hit? Did it lose fuel? What was left of the aircraft (and you seem to be postulating a nosedive into the ground) burrowed into the soft earth, taking whatever remained of the fuel with it. How fuel-soaked was the earth 20-30ft down?

The aerial photo clearly shows no fire damage outside the crater and between the woods. Btw, how did the crater and woods get fire damage, but not between the two???

If the plane broke up in the air, then surely there would have been large pieces of debris lying around. Again if it was shot down, the offical gov't story wouldn't hold.

Gov't said it nosedived. Did it also burrow it's large tail section in the ground?



No. 5
Okay, now we’re using the eyewitnesses that every CT has said have no idea what’s going on in the Pentagon crash. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Incidentally, photos 1 – 4 show wisps of smoke. So witness 1 is wrong to begin with.

He said nothing to distinguish that a plane crashed there. Does that puny puffs of smoke looks like it came from a plane crash with 1,000's of gals of fuel on board?



The impact spewed a fireball of horrific force across hundreds of acres of towering hemlocks and other trees, setting many ablaze. The fuselage burrowed straight into the earth so forcefully that one of the "black boxes" was recovered at a depth of 25 feet under the ground. As coroner, responsible for returning human remains, Miller has been forced to share with the families information that is unimaginable. As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.

Fireball across hundreds of acres of hemlock??? Where...



They only found 8% of body remains, but were able to identify 100% of them??? Yeah right.



He doesn't sound like he's expecting blood from that scenario. I’d also be interested in seeing the Coroner’s credentials.

Well body parts were found in the trees. So why no blood in the area? And how did those body parts land in the trees if the whole plane burrowed underground???



No. 7
Surprisingly enough, it’s common for oddities to survive aircraft crashes. I’ve seen many instances where it’s occurred. Sometimes it’s from being thrown from the wreckage before an explosion or fire begins, sometimes it’s from being covered by something else that’s charred beyond recognition. There are areas that somehow get protected by other things. No surprise.

Such a simplistic answer. It's all a 'coincidence', huh?


Well at least you took the time to answer them. Got to give you credit for that.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I thought I'd posted it earlier, but look slike I posted the same pic twice instead. You can see the confetti like debris in the hole in this photo:



I'll go with Question No. 6 on this one:


"[The crater looked] like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it."



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by nt327
If flight 93 landed in Clevland, than why did the the passengers never return to there families?

Why would our military allow them to go back to their families and blow their conspiracy???



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   
diggs, try this link: Source Then check out Lockerbie and look at the scar there. No two crashes are exactly the same. Similar, yes - Identical, no.

With regard to the 8% of body remains found, do some reading on forensics. You'll be surprised what you find. Failing that, read forensics for 20 years, then let me know how much tissue you need for a positive ID. Oh, and I'm still waiting for that Coroner's credentials.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

"[The crater looked] like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it."



Key words there 'looked like', just because something 'looks like' something does not mean it is that something



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aotearoa
diggs, try this link: Source Then check out Lockerbie and look at the scar there. No two crashes are exactly the same. Similar, yes - Identical, no.

With regard to the 8% of body remains found, do some reading on forensics. You'll be surprised what you find. Failing that, read forensics for 20 years, then let me know how much tissue you need for a positive ID. Oh, and I'm still waiting for that Coroner's credentials.

Wait, how did these non-burnt big pieces land in the forest when you said the plane burrowed all the way under ground???




Please don't give me the "strange things can happen in plane crashes" excuse.

You don't get it. found only 8% of total body remains, but miraculously was enough to ID 100% of passengers. There goes those incredible odds again!



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by diggs

"[The crater looked] like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it."



Key words there 'looked like', just because something 'looks like' something does not mean it is that something

And sometimes when something looks like something, it is.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join