Shanksville engine planted by a backhoe bucket? (theory)

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 02:36 AM
link   
This is what the perps used the plant the "Flight 93 engine" in the crater:



They brought an old engine scrap in, put it in the backhoe bucket, and simply lowered it in the crater and backed off the bucket for their quick little engine photo-op:


(Photo source: www.rcfp.org... )

That's why one of the heaviest/strongest parts of the airplane is only a couple of feet underground while we were told that parts of Flight 93 had burrowed down past 40ft.

It's also why this engine scrap looks old and rusted and has none of that "soft dirt" embedded in it after it supposedly burrowed at 580mph:




They also threw in a couple of small little shiny non-painted aluminum scraps to help try to make the photo look more realistic:




More


[edit on 6/13/2007 by thelibra]




posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   
What is it with you lot and demonizing our rescue services and personnel. What you suggest is total disinformation and seriously unhelpfull. You and your colleages are proving to be more than conspirators, you are posting out and out misinformation, bordering on traitorous lies..
This is not what ATS is about, this should be moved to Skunkworks or BTS where it belongs.. You are a thorn in the side of true truthers and ignorance deniers..



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fowl Play
What is it with you lot and demonizing our rescue services and personnel. What you suggest is total disinformation and seriously unhelpfull. You and your colleages are proving to be more than conspirators, you are posting out and out misinformation, bordering on traitorous lies..


Oh so your saying the misinformation and traitorous lies told by the media are ok then ?



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 03:44 AM
link   
I have seen no evidence that really holds water that they have told traitorous lies..
All i have found through research is information withheld for the security and stability of national security, and unfortunately but inevitable it has added fuel to the fire for conspiracies. I do firmly believe there is information being withheld, but that does not mean the Media are traitorous liars, they are doing their jobs..
What the OP and his crew are doing is bordering on treason, they need to be extremely careful..
Speaking on my behalf, i do not want to advocate such destructive threads on such an awesome website.. I as well as others appreciate ATS because of its search for truth and the denying of ignorance.
What the Op and his Pals are doing is past ignorant, it is traitorous to The US and its government, they ridicule our intelligence forces and rescue servicemen..
I cannot condone or tolerate blatant lies being told as fact, like the OP has done in this post, and i appreciate the ATS owners and Mods stance on the tough line they are taking with this sort of disinformation..
This thread is nothing short of disgraceful.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fowl Play
I have seen no evidence that really holds water that they have told traitorous lies..
All i have found through research is information withheld for the security and stability of national security, and unfortunately but inevitable it has added fuel to the fire for conspiracies.


Since when is lieing to the public have anything to so with security or the stability of national security for that matter ?

I have been doing research for quite a while and i have found that thier is enough evidence to suggest the governemnt knew about the attacks and let it happen, just like Pearl Harbor.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 04:03 AM
link   
When certain information can cause civil unrest or be a threat to national security, sometimes it is required to not release all information.

You are entitled to your opinion, but where is your evidence the US government " let " 9/11 happen or even Pearl Harbour for that matter..
You are using one CT to corraborate another.. Great method of study pal!!!



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fowl Play
When certain information can cause civil unrest or be a threat to national security, sometimes it is required to not release all information.

You are entitled to your opinion, but where is your evidence the US government " let " 9/11 happen or even Pearl Harbour for that matter..
You are using one CT to corraborate another.. Great method of study pal!!!


I do research and post facts, you should try it sometime. So what training in national security have you had to know what is a threat ?


The government was warned by our own and foreign intelligence aganices of attacks and that planes might be used. Here is a 911 commission witness statement from a FAA whistle blower.

Quote from 911 commission report witness statement.


Statement of Bogdan Dzakovic to the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
May 22, 2003

Coupled with this; virtually every expert on terrorism for several years prior to 9-11 had been screaming about the ever growing threat to the United States by a new breed of terrorists willing to inflict mass casualties on civilians. The first major wake-up call occurred in 1994, when terrorists planned on blowing up a dozen US commercial aircraft over the Pacific Ocean. This was thwarted by an accidental fire in the apartment where the bombs were being constructed. The second major wake-up call occurred in 1995 when terrorists planned on crashing an airliner into the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Only quick and decisive action by French commandos prevented this disaster. There were also additional indicators.


Well we have the decoded messages from months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The governemnt knew of the attack. Ever hear of the NSA's National Cryptologic Museum ?

www.rooseveltmyth.com...


Tokyo to Consul General, Honolulu, September 24, 1941 (#83):


"HENCEFORTH, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU MAKE REPORTS CONCERNING VESSELS ALONG THE FOLLOWING LINES IN SO FAR AS POSSIBLE:

"1. THE WATERS OF PEARL HARBOR ARE TO BE DIVIDED ROUGHLY INTO FIVE SUB-AREAS. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO YOUR ABBREVIATING AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE.

"AREA A. WATERS BETWEEN FORD ISLAND ANT) THE ARSENAL.

"AREA B. WATERS ADJACENT TO THE ISLAND SOUTH AND WEST OF FORD ISLAND. THIS AREA IS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ISLAND FROM AREA A.

"AREA C. EAST LOCH.

"AREA D. MIDDLE LOCH.

"AREA E. WEST LOCH AND THE COMMUNICATING WATER ROUTES.

"2. WITH REGARD TO WARSHIPS AND AIRCRAFT CARRIERS WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU REPORT ON THOSE AT ANCHOR, (THESE ARE NOT SO IMPORTANT) TIED UP AT WHARVES, BUOYS, AND IN DOCK. DESIGNATE TYPES AND CLASSES BRIEFLY. IF POSSIBLE, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU MAKE MENTION OF THE FACT WHEN THERE ARE TWO OR MORE VESSELS ALONGSIDE THE SAME WHARF."

(Decoded in the War Department, October 9, 1941)

Consul General, Honolulu to Tokyo, September 29, 1941 (#178):


This message was in answer to Tokyo dispatch #83, and set up a two-letter code designation for each of the five prescribed Pearl Harbor areas.

(Decoded in the Navy Department, October 10, 1941)
Tokyo to Consul General, Honolulu, November 15, 1941 (#111):


"AS RELATIONS BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES ARE MOST CRITICAL, MAKE YOUR 'SHIP IN HARBOR REPORT' IRREGULAR, BUT AT A BATE OF TWICE A WEEK. ALTHOUGH YOU ALREADY ARE NO DOUBT AWARE, PLEASE TAKE EXTRA CARE TO MAINTAIN SECRECY."

(Decoded in the Navy Department, December 3, 1941)

Consul General, Honolulu to Tokyo, November 18, 1941 (#222):


This was a lengthy report of U.S. vessels in the different Pearl Harbor areas.

(Decoded in the War Department, December 6, 1941)
Tokyo to Consul General, Honolulu, November 18, 1941 (#113):


"PLEASE REPORT ON THE FOLLOWING AREAS AS TO VESSELS ANCHORED THEREIN: AREA 'N,' PEARL HARBOR, MAMALA BAY (HONOLULU) AND THE AREAS ADJACENT THERETO. MAKE YOUR INVESTIGATIONS WITH GREAT SECRECY."

(Decoded in the War Department, December 5, 1941)
Tokyo to Consul General, Honolulu, November 20, 1941 (#111): [1]


"PLEASE INVESTIGATE COMPREHENSIBLY THE FLEET . . . BASES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE HAWAIIAN MILITARY RESERVATION."

(Decoded in the War Department, December 4, 1941)


Tokyo to Consul General, Honolulu, November 29, 1941 (#122):

"WE HAVE BEEN RECEIVING REPORTS FROM YOU ON SHIP MOVEMENTS, BUT IN TILE FUTURE WILL YOU ALSO REPORT EVEN WHEN THERE ARE NO MOVEMENTS."

(Decoded in the Navy Department, December 5, 1941)



[edit on 13-6-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   
I find nothing that convinces me, your sources are suspect and therefore i cannot take them seriously.
And you are totally off topic. what has this got to do with the OP's disinformation.
Or is this a disinfo thread, and you are throwing more wood on the fire...
I use official reports, you use circumspect evidence taken from suspect sources.. Who is the adept student here?



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fowl Play
I find nothing that convinces me, your sources are suspect and therefore i cannot take them seriously.
And you are totally off topic. what has this got to do with the OP's disinformation.
Or is this a disinfo thread, and you are throwing more wood on the fire...
I use official reports, you use circumspect evidence taken from suspect sources.. Who is the adept student here?


I use offial reports, or you do not consider the 911 commision report an official report ?

Let me give you my background.

Crew Chief, US. Air Force 4 years.
Federal Police officer, DoD 12 years
Data Analyst, DoD, 9 years

As you can se i have a background in aviation, crime scenes and emergency incident management. Also in governmnet reports and i have acess to government resources.

You can not debate anything i posted with facts so you say they are suspect and can ot take them seriously.

It is you and others that believe the official story that can come up with any actual reportsd or evidence to support the official story.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   
No backhoe in the picture so your wrong again. But you don't really care do you.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Fowl Play
I find nothing that convinces me, your sources are suspect and therefore i cannot take them seriously.
And you are totally off topic. what has this got to do with the OP's disinformation.
Or is this a disinfo thread, and you are throwing more wood on the fire...
I use official reports, you use circumspect evidence taken from suspect sources.. Who is the adept student here?


I use offial reports, or you do not consider the 911 commision report an official report ?

Let me give you my background.

Crew Chief, US. Air Force 4 years.
Federal Police officer, DoD 12 years
Data Analyst, DoD, 9 years

As you can se i have a background in aviation, crime scenes and emergency incident management. Also in governmnet reports and i have acess to government resources.

You can not debate anything i posted with facts so you say they are suspect and can ot take them seriously.

It is you and others that believe the official story that can come up with any actual reportsd or evidence to support the official story.


A shame after what posts you have held, you hold your government in such contempt.. i suggest you have become a bitter person, and paranoid by the sounds of it, i am Ex-Marine.. im just glad a British one, and i would defend my country till the death and take a bullet for my head of state at any time.. It shows the difference why we are real winners.. we are loyal and not turncoats, damn i am even being loyal to your Govertnment because we are allies, unlike you sir, you should be thrown out in disgrace.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fowl Play
A shame after what posts you have held, you hold your government in such contempt.. i suggest you have become a bitter person, and paranoid by the sounds of it, i am Ex-Marine.. im just glad a British one, and i would defend my country till the death and take a bullet for my head of state at any time.. It shows the difference why we are real winners.. we are loyal and not turncoats, damn i am even being loyal to your Govertnment because we are allies, unlike you sir, you should be thrown out in disgrace.


Why would i hold my government in contempt, i still work for the government ? I am vet andhave proven i would die for my country, but i also hold my government responsible for thier actions and question them the way the men did that questioned the British government when we broke away from them and became a country, the way these men wrote down on paper to question the government and hold them accountable.

I have been around the government long enough to know though what they arfe capable of doing. As stated i also have access to resources to know what reports thier should be and what they should contain and i am not seeing them for what happened on 911.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   
I apologise, i mistook your intentions..
I take that back.. i understand what you are saying, but you must also understand the compartmentalization of information, i have been led to believe this is what has happened from 9/11 for the benefit of stability and National Security...
That is why we can pick holes in the official story and which of course causes these CT's... i admit some theories are credible and i find them interesting, but some are a total disgrace and go too far without any evidence at all, the op of this thread for example...
Just because theres a digger in picture means it was used to plant evidence??
Give us a break Ultima1... you dont believe that, same as me??

[edit on 13-6-2007 by Fowl Play]



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by killtown

They brought an old engine scrap in, put it in the backhoe bucket, and simply lowered it in the crater and backed off the bucket for their quick little engine photo-op:



It is an excavator, for those that want to be technically correct. I have my reservations on this one due to heavy equipment operators and those that deliver heavy equipment usually start many conversations with "Y'all ain't gonna believe this but..."

I have no empirical proof that this was the case here but I know I am not the only one without it.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fowl Play
That is why we can pick holes in the official story and which of course causes these CT's... i admit some theories are credible and i find them interesting, but some are a total disgrace and go too far without any evidence at all, the op of this thread for example...
Just because theres a digger in picture means it was used to plant evidence??
Give us a break Ultima1... you dont believe that, same as me??

[edit on 13-6-2007 by Fowl Play]


The reason we can pick holes in the official story is because it is missing or left out a lot of information.

But you have to agree that their are some things that happened that day that raise a lot questions

1. How did the hijackers still get on the planes after they were flagged at the airport and set off security scanners ?

2. Out of 4 planes not 1 got off an emergency call or signal, even after Flight 93 was warned of the first hijackings.

3. The debris fields from Flight 93 being so far from the crash site. I caller reported an explosion and smoke on the plane.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 06:51 AM
link   
More deceptive tactics from the "conspiracy fakery" crowd it would seem.

If you review the original (high resolution) image from the source, you can easily ascertain that the damaged engine is indeed buried in dirt and not rusted. Additionally, we can easily compare the source against what was presented in the opening post and discern that a "conspiracy fakery" artist has altered the imagery saturation and contrast in an effort to support their proposition.

www.rcfp.org...

I had hoped that the ATS staff would follow their previous examples and ban those who hoax, for we have shown these fraudulent Conspiracy Tycoons for what they are -- at best, 9/11 Conspiracy Tycoons competing for attention against other 9/11 Conspiracy Tycoons in a turf-war of attention, or at worst, disinformationists intent on discrediting all 9/11 conspiracy research efforts.

There are also these images, which our conspiracy faker ignores --
www.rcfp.org...
www.rcfp.org...
www.rcfp.org...



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
I had hoped that the ATS staff would follow their previous examples and ban those who hoax,


If the staff were to ban everyone that porvided false information or hoaxes then none of the people that beleive the official story should be on here, because all they do is spread the false information and hoaxes started by the media.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 07:17 AM
link   
this is probably the most absurd "theory" that I've heard thus far.

Couldn't be that thing was brought in to dig up the wreckage.... nah, that would be too simple and then you guys wouldn't have anything to talk about.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
this is probably the most absurd "theory" that I've heard thus far.

Couldn't be that thing was brought in to dig up the wreckage.... nah, that would be too simple and then you guys wouldn't have anything to talk about.


Well the bigger question is why their are 2 different debris fields and why they are so far away from the crash site. This would lead to verify the theory that the plane was shot down.

ALso their is the call from a passenger stating that thier was an explosion and fire.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join