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: 55
24
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I answered your question and provided the info you requested.

In this picture that you have seen, the photographer is standing behind the red 'x'. This is where the official reports claim the wings crashed.

I would like you to explain to me where the wings and fuel went considering the grass is untouched and unburnt?

The dent that the wings are said to have hit are dry and have unburnt , unroken grass growing out of the crash site.

How is this possible?

Where did the wings and fuel go?, lack of fire?, where the wings?




[edit on 6-1-2008 by IvanZana]




posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
It must have also been an "incredible coincidence" that Osama bin Laden's picture, plus, references to being a target, just happened to appear on the cover of Operation Amalgam Virgo (only one of many Pentagon, DOD, and CFR dress rehearsal "anti-terrorism" games) as well. That was 6/2001, when Amalgam Virgo was carried out in Florida.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


What good is something that looks like DNA is there, if there is nothing to match it to? If DNA is contaminated, it is worthless. If it is not taken from the right body parts, it is worthless.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Who stated it? Have you been reading the comments in these discussions and across Internet forums? I have for several years, and that is who. What about raging fires, claimed by all those not being able to account for plane parts, passengers and luggage, they insist had to be near an alleged plane crash? There was so much raging fire parts of a treeline grove of trees were on raging fire, but they cannot prove that either.

People, you cannot have it all ways, simply because the plural you cannot get the "official" reports to make any sense to you either.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Who said all those "1500 people" were in on anything? People do not have to be privvy to what is going on to go along with it by keeping their mouths shut. Thus, keeping their jobs and benefits, they may well not have if they ask too many questions and make too many waves asking those questions.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


So you ask me a question and then attribute words to me I did not write. To add insult to injury, say "Wrong answer". It is definitely a wrong answer for you. You deliberately twisted what I did write. That is definitely wrong of you.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Do you have any links or not? You said that the official story states that flight 93 was destroyed by fire. Are you going to back up your claims?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   


Do you have any links or not? You said that the official story states that flight 93 was destroyed by fire. Are you going to back up your claims?


he probably does....and of course we have the link that states enough mangled remains of the aircraft were recovered to amount to 95%.....



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


How do you know for certain any phone calls were made? What is the meaning of over 7500 ? call duration? Seconds? Minutes? Both being impossible.

Alleged phone records that show at least at one point alleged Flight 93 was grounded (0 altitude means a plane is sitting on the ground). As I stated, that is about the right time alleged Flight 93 would be grounded in Cleveland, Ohio, on a lone stretch of runway at Hopkins or NASA, as originally touted by media on site, before flip-flopping the next day.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   


Alleged phone records that show at least at one point alleged Flight 93 was grounded (0 altitude means a plane is sitting on the ground). As I stated, that is about the right time alleged Flight 93 would be grounded in Cleveland, Ohio, on a lone stretch of runway at Hopkins or NASA, as originally touted by media on site, before flip-flopping the next day.


Phone records arent going to show a planes altitude. And why do you keep mentioning Cleveland? That "story" has been throughly debunked by the PEOPLE WHO ORIGINALLY PUT IN ON THE AP WIRES.....and it wasnt "flip-flopping the next day" the AP error was corrected in less than 45 minutes ON 9/11/01.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Unless you personally measured it, how would you know for certain how large it is or is not?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I'm not the one that stated its size. What I want to know is; where did IvanZana come up with that number?

The two of you are the ones asking for valid physical evidence and it is you two that cry foul when the de-bunkers use media as their source.

Where is the valid physical evidence?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Boone, im pretty sure I could tell you exactly how he arrived at that number, however, it would get me in trouble with the board moderators....



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Then why is the back of the crater in your picture facing away from the trees in direct contradication to the picture used by Ivan?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 

Then why is the back of the crater in your picture facing away from the trees in direct contradication to the picture used by Ivan?


Ivan's picture came from the media or the government. Therefore, it is invalid.

Valid physical evidence please? No hearsay either.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


I did not say that. I did not say the "official" reports said it. I said those, embracing the "official" reports, have said it all over the Internet, including these discussions.

Why else claim raging fire was burning so many trees, and leaving the grass surrounding some crater, from alleged plane impact, fire and jet fuel free?

When asked where all the parts, passengers, and luggage were, we get answers from 900' (engine from an alleged 757 flung that far), to anywhere from 1-10 miles away by, and sitting on the side of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. That is impossible to have happened during any actual plane crash. It is completely against the laws of physics.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Why is his invalid since you believe the US bureaucrats are telling the truth? You must. You are clinging to the "official" reports while metaphorically they are disintegrating between your fingers.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


That is not the issue. You said it is wrong, now you must prove it is wrong. Unless, you personally measured, you have no idea of who is right or wrong, do you?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 

That is not the issue. You said it is wrong, now you must prove it is wrong. Unless, you personally measured, you have no idea of who is right or wrong, do you?


Thanks for proving my point.

Ivan said that it was 10 x 20. It is up to him to prove it, not for me to disprove it. He makes the claim-he has to back it up.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


This is the way legitimate debate works. One opponent presents a position and does not have to substantiate at that time.

The second, in challenge, must provide substantiated points of argument of opposition.

Then the first opponent must substantiate original position at that time to dispute or refute his or her opponent.

If people are going to challenge others, they best prove they can validate with substantiation.

Unless a challenger is capable of doing anything beside pontificating him ot herself, that challenger has already lost before the debate gets off to a rolling start.

Ivan does not have to prove the figures. You have to attempt to disprove those figures, or his statement stands as is. The best way to do that is to have measured that area yourself, and had a notarized affidavit drawn up, on site, to that effect at that time. He does not have to validate unless you provide valid substantiate to dispute or refute. You have not done that.




top topics



 
24
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join