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 engine planted by a backhoe bucket? (theory)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
You make it look like this is a fact, but it is a theory. Lot's of things could have been used to put a engine in the hole. That does not mean it is proof that no plane crashed there. Maybe you are truly thinking that 9/11 was a setup by the government. But if you spread to much unproven facts it will make people tired and in the end totaly ignore everything that can/could be proven.




posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I have to side with killtown on this. Simply because there is clear evidence that nothing crashed in that field.. no plane, nothing. Something else happened at the site entirely. Shanksville is the perverbial "smoke and mirrors" event of 9/11, designed specifically to mislead the truth community. It serves no other purpose other than this.

Rumsfeld "slip of the tongue".. that the plane was shot down.. you think that was a mistake? Ha.. there is no such thing as coincidence, most definatly not in the world of geopolitics.

Everyone should recognise the fact that no plane crashed in that field. If you deny this, then your not being honest to yourself, or the truth community. Photo evidence is far more reliable in this case than eye witness testimony/statements, apart from the one by the corriner saying there was "no blood/bodies" at the scene, as evidence by the photos/videos.


If no plane crashed there, then it was either shot out of the air, or there was no plane to begin with. Those are the only two options, with the second requiring planted evidence, which is the case i believe, as was the case with all 4 events on 9/11.

If the plane was shot out the air, there should still be significant debry.. yet there were only fragments.. no portions of bodies, no big plane parts, no complete engines..

We already know that the one photo with the smoke plume is a FAKE..

Is it really too hard to believe other evidence is fake also..

Cmon people, open your eyes!



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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.



I would hope that the staff of this board would be able to properly discern the difference between someone creating a hoax/fraud (the original poster), and someone repeating what some believe to be a fraud (those who believe the media).

In the past, from what I can tell, the staff never banned members who fell for and support a hoax, only the perpetrator(s) of the hoax. Therefore, I believe your desire for a cleansing of "official story" believers to be misplaced.

And to touch on that point at the risk of diluting the original topic of this thread -- it is possible to feel that aspects of the so-called "official story" are factual and simultaneously hold firm the idea that the events are the result of a vast criminal conspiracy.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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.


So now it was shot down and the engine planted by use of an excavator? The shot down theory seems more plausible to me, and would also 'justify' a bit of secrecy from the government. It is not nice to hear that a loved one was shot down because it was the only chooice.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cygnific

So now it was shot down and the engine planted by use of an excavator? The shot down theory seems more plausible to me, and would also 'justify' a bit of secrecy from the government. It is not nice to hear that a loved one was shot down because it was the only chooice.


I did not say the engine was planted. But their are more questions then answers from the official story.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Conspiracy theorists need to understand what exactly the "official story" represents, and what it accomplishes.

But first, a short lesson in our current predicament.

First and foremost, in my experience, the vast majority of those attracted to "9/11 conspiracies" have little or no experiential basis in the study of conspiracies and cover-ups. Having a historical reference is critical to placing theories of criminal conspiracy in proper context.

Second, and similarly important, is the observation that the overwhelming majority of those involved in "9/11 truth" organizations are disenfranchised anti-establishment activists. These types of groups have a long history of distorting facts and promoting misinformation in order to gain attention and achieve their agendas.

When we combine these two elements, we have those who are inexperienced with conspiracies believing the distorted information from groups with anti-establishment agendas.

Now, as history has shown us with every item that is believed to be a conspiracy (both exposed and theorized), the "official story" is typically "just enough." It contains just enough facts, just enough conclusions, just enough data, and just enough official commentary to placate the general public. Similarly, by design, such stories also contain certain holes and errors that are designed to lead "crazy conspiracy theorists" intentionally down paths that lead to confusion and stigmatization.

Those of us with experience know of such tendencies, and look beyond the pre-planned rabbit holes of the "official story" and understand there are important secrets hidden within the truths, as history has shown us is always the case.

Those who have a pre-established anti-establishment agenda are lost in the well designed rabbit holes, falling easily into the trap and rejecting the simplicity of the lies burring within the truths.

The simplicity of the truth that passenger airlines were involved in 9/11 escapes the enraged impatient dissident hell-bent on attracting attention. But the patient studious conspiracy theorist understands that deceptions have been buried within the truth, and that is where we need to look.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Killtown , Please , Enlighten all of us with the mountain of research that
you undoubtedly have done and the evidence that you must have obtained
in your tireless quest to prove this stunning point that you have made here today . I will wait and hold my breath for your return post with the names of witnesses , the interview you did with the backhoe driver , the
many photograph's you have showing it being done and the Affadavit's
to back all this up . I , for one , will stand and publicly appauld you when
this is shown .
All im simply asking for is no less than anyone , evidense to prove your
accusation .


[edit on 13-6-2007 by gen.disaray]



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Why would the US government wait till 9/11 and then use an excavator to drop an engine into a hole? The only reason 93 was there and had not already crashed is that it was held up taking off for 45 minutes. So, according to your theory, the US would have had to watch the plane. What did they do for that 45 minutes waiting? No one noticed them hanging around?

This is the start of the disinfo for people who are going to investigate 93 closer and an attempt to mislead.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
No backhoe in the picture so your wrong again. But you don't really care do you.



I don't know what you people are getting at. By definition it is a backhoe.


back·hoe (bāk'hō') Pronunciation Key
n. An excavator whose bucket is rigidly attached to a hinged pole on the boom and is drawn backward to the machine when in operation.


Or do you really care?

The bucket doesn't have to be on the back. It is a backhoe because the bucket is pulled "back" towards the machine.


[edit on 6/13/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   
So much for threads being under 'close scrunity'.

What a joke of a thread and a waste of space.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Now, as history has shown us with every item that is believed to be a conspiracy (both exposed and theorized), the "official story" is typically "just enough." It contains just enough facts, just enough conclusions, just enough data, and just enough official commentary to placate the general public. Similarly, by design, such stories also contain certain holes and errors that are designed to lead "crazy conspiracy theorists" intentionally down paths that lead to confusion and stigmatization.


I completely agree with what you've just said. Having said that, all we have in terms of real evidence for Shanksville is fragments of supposed flight 93.. an engine part some 2000 feetaway from the crater, and nothing to substantiate that a plane crashed into a 30ft crater. No plane. No bodies. The plane was either shot out the air.. as Rumsfeld hinted to all the awaiting theorists, to satisfy their curiosity.. or there was no Flight 93 to begin with. There may well have been a plane in the vicinity, and i think that is more than highly likely, but it certainly was NOT Flight 93.

The damage sustained to the ground;








I ask you, please locate me some plane in the above two pictures.

The damage is more that of some air dropped munition, spraying forward in a blast radius, and igniting trees in the vicinity, which are not well shown in the pictures, apart from this aerial one. This was taken September 12th. Bear that in mind please.;






This photo claims to show the explosion plume from the crash. It is has been stated that it is a fraud right here on ATS;






So. If you concede that you think a plane was shot out of the air, you must try and explain the crater itself and the engine part 2000ft away when there was no wind due to the fraud photo clearly showing no wind on the smoke plume! Witness testimony is unreliable unless it actually fits with given visual evidence.

A picture is worth a thousand words.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
To all who are claiming "hoax". This is not a hoax. This is a theory. There is a huge difference. A hoax would be if Killtown said something like "I was the backhoe operator and this is what we did" and it not being true.

Now, back to the THEORY of the engine being placed as a photo op.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   
A theory needs to be proven and this cannot. He is not stating that he IS the operator but that is what happened, so in a sense he is stating that he has knowledge that we do not. I could say that dogs can fly but that is pretty easy to prove.

This is as bad as the picture from ground zero where it is clearly a cut in steel days after the attack yet it is described as thermite cuts.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
This is as bad as the picture from ground zero where it is clearly a cut in steel days after the attack yet it is described as thermite cuts.


No, in fact its the opposite. The "evidence" of thermite cuts is really lack of evidence, because it is attempting to use visual evidence which does not match the conclusion (we know this because other photos show the cleanup/cutting steel, as do various pieces of footage, cutting at angles also..)

The engine part in Shanksville however is attempting to show a plane part, thus implying a crashed plane.. when infact the other evidence does not elude to a crashed plane. The photos and videos of the crater are evidence of this. Its that simple.

Evidence was planted. Either by hand, or scattered from above..



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I've come to the conclusion that before I go into threads on 911 I am going to look to see who the original poster is....it will keep me from wasting 20 minutes of my time everyday.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
killtown

What standard of consistency are you going to apply when examining evidence? It seems that any evidence that contradicts your theory, you say that evidence is planted or totally faked.

Then you proceed to produce what you think is 'evidence' without earning the trust of those who are looking. It is arbitrary.

Exactly what is your evidence for what 'evidence' actually is?



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
This isn't really a theory. This is currently more opinion or speculation. A theory is a testable model based on facts.

I cannot see anything in the OP post that is fact. The entire OP post is subjective information supporting a specific agenda.

I will agree with others that this post is boardline hoax. If we are to the point were a poster can make up anything they want to support their desired impressions of an event then ATS is in trouble.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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.


That sounds like an admission of guilt to me.


Edit: Or rather a Freudian slip.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by intrepid]



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
A theory needs to be proven and this cannot.


So, the theory of relativity has been proven? Can you link me to the news site that shows them traveling at the speed of light? Thanks.


He is not stating that he IS the operator but that is what happened, so in a sense he is stating that he has knowledge that we do not.


No, he is stating what he thinks happened.


I could say that dogs can fly but that is pretty easy to prove.


I've seen them fly before. Usually on planes. See how semantics work and you are doing the semantic dance here.


This is as bad as the picture from ground zero where it is clearly a cut in steel days after the attack yet it is described as thermite cuts.


Only to you it is clearly.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Killtown, in the future, please refrain from just making things up and presenting them as fact. I'm editing the title of this thread, and I'd also consider yourself on thin ice as far as this forum goes.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join