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.

 

FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

page: 102
24
<< 99  100  101    103  104  105 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



IZ, a fire will not occur at avery aircraft accident site. Jet-A will ignite when it is atomized, and there is an ignition source. Throw a match on a bucket of Jet-A, and the match will go out, extinguished by the liquid.


Where did the fuel go if it did not burn?




posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
And I still want to know how that engine found itself 2000 feet from that hole.

Engines are made of steel and titanium, not silly putty.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
The whole plane 'vapourized' but this was found....



So when the terrorists crashed head first at 500+ mph into the ground, His head violently hit the cockpit instuments, glass, ground and knocked his red headband off.

Can you say the evidence from flight 93 is fraudulant?

[edit on 26-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 

Where did the fuel go if it did not burn?


Straw man Argument: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Where is your official source stating that all of the fuel burned?

Where is your official source stating that no jet fuel was found at the crash site?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Can you say" The evidence from Shanksville is fraudulant and has been planted"?


No.

But I can say that people who post images and statements like this

This is what it should of looked like.
are suspect disinformation agents.


Would you care to explain why you think that a tail section from an aircraft that slid to a stop and burned should look the same as an aircraft that impacted the ground at 580 mph at a 41° angle?

Care to answer my question




These misinformed, ignorance has been trying to prove the flight 93 had the force of 1000000 joules or whatever but they cant explain how everything of the plane 'vapourized', that means nothing left, no seats, no air frames, no wings, no fuel, no luggage but yet........

the terrorists passport survives.....


So did these.


Congratulations! You just debunked yourself.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Who said that it was 2000 feet away?

I read the source you posted yesterday and they gave three different distances. 2000 feet, 2000 yards, and 1/2 mile. Which one is it?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 



And I still want to know how that engine found itself 2000 feet from that hole.


The one that they actually found you mean?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Well, either the fuel burned or it was in the soil at the site. Feel free to show me either, or I will assume that you simply accept that the fuel vanished into another dimension.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Ivan,

Still dodging questions? If you actually read other's posts you would have seen what happens during a plane crash. But.. i guess you only read truther sites.

typical.

[edit on 26-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 

Well, either the fuel burned or it was in the soil at the site. Feel free to show me either, or I will assume that you simply accept that the fuel vanished into another dimension.


Well, no need to dodge my questions.

You are the one using the "no fuel" was found argument.

Where is your official source stating that all of the fuel burned?

Where is your official source stating that no jet fuel was found at the crash site?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Show me the fuel, or don't expect me to believe that it was ever there. Can you do that? I am not willing to see what is not there. Are you?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 



Show me the source stating that there was no fuel.

Or, shall we scratch another 9/11 myth out of the truther playbook?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Tell me. How am I supposed to show you something that was not there? By the way, a UFO just landed in my front lawn too, and I expect you to believe that.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 

Tell me. How am I supposed to show you something that was not there? By the way, a UFO just landed in my front lawn too, and I expect you to believe that.


Tell me. Who said that there was no fuel at the crash site? You are the one that is setting up strawman arguments so that you can knock them down. Who claimed that there was no fuel at the crash site?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 




Who claimed that there was no fuel at the crash site?


I claim there is no fuel at the crash site.


[edit on 4/26/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Boone,

I have yet to see what was done for a clean up, but there was in fact a clean up.




Crash site cleanup cost $850,000

The state Department of Environmental Protection has approved the final cleanup report for the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site near Shanksville in Somerset County.
"Site samples indicate that the site meets Pennsylvania's Act 2 statewide health standards for soil and groundwater for the fuel known as jet "A" fuel. We consider cleanup work at the site completed."

www.pittsburghlive.com...



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 



Thanks for the link Captain.

Here is the press release from the Department of Environmental Protection. Link



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 

I claim there is no fuel at the crash site.


What date did you arrive at the crash scene?

What methods did you use to test the soil?

Is it a habit for all 9/11 truthers to make up lies to fit their theory and then use those lies for strawman arguments?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


If the DEP didn't find any, why should I bother looking for it? No fuel, no crash.

EDIT to add: What date did you arrive at my house to investigate the UFO landing? Where are your soil samples to prove there was no radiation contamination from it?

[edit on 4/26/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Show in the report where they didn't find "ANY". The levels were acceptable. AFTER the clean up.




top topics



 
24
<< 99  100  101    103  104  105 >>

log in

join