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: 73
24
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 

One of the oddities that stood out was the number of 200 passengers disembarking from alleged Flight 93. 200 passengers during a work day?
It wasn't Flight 93 then. Flight 93 only had 44 passengers and the aircraft's maximum seating capacity was 182 people.


Another was they were shuttled to NASA. The terminal could easily have accomodated 200 passenger though unexpected on that day. There were plenty of places to place them if they had to stay over until after 9/11.
They are at the airport and numerous from Hopkins and throughout Cleveland.
I thought some of them were taken to the FAA building as well. Who said they all stayed at Cleveland's Hopkins Airport? Why would they? No hotels?


Then a team of scientists, from Houston, brought in on a KC-135 was ordered landed. Didn't the military have any cargo planes instead? Those are not comfortable, but they are a darn sight better than flying in on a tanker.
Who said they were flown in on a KC 135? Can you post a link please. I don't recall reading that they were flown in on the KC 135. I read that they were in town for experiments and were flying on the KC 135.




posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Isn't that cherry picking so easy? Look at the brain work you do not have to do when cherry picking to suit your illogical points of argument.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I wasn't trying to challenge your assertion. The photo just struck me as funny that's all.

I do agree with you though. A fully intact plane after a hard crash landing. Good evidence.

In most crash scenes, I think much of the damage we see is due to fire and explosion of fuel as opposed to direct impact. The photo you posted is evidence of what is left (the whole plane) without combustion. I can't really say how accurate the comparison is, but again, no challenge intended.

For the record, no plane crashed in Shanksville.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Thank you so much for once again feeding us the "official" version like pablum to babes.

Now. please. go back and actually read, comprehend, and carefully digest exactly what I was stating in the post, from whcih you conveniently cherry picked as is also SOP for you.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


I did not think that at all. I hope I did not give you the impression that is what I thought. It was not intentional on my part if it did appear that way. I apologize if that is the unintended way it may have given the wrong impression.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
All the talk about witnesses on this thread leads me a bit off the direct topic of flight 93, but I feel compelled to enter some information regarding what people see.

To start with, any cop can tell you that witness statements are crappy evidence. The best thing to do with witness statements is use them as a general framework for investigation. Witness statements give you a general direction to look in for the real facts and the real evidence.

Then you have to consider all of the conflicting "first hand" accounts of witnessses in Shanksville.

I posted the following originally on the thread First post: What is the truth?:

I read some excellent material written by Howard Bloom, titled "Reality Is a Shared Hallucination." My printed version differs some from what I have found in a quick search online... Deep stuff, but the following quotes were my favorite part:



Though it got little public attention until the debates about "recovered" memories of sexual abuse in the early and mid 1990s, this avenue of research had begun at least two generations ago. It was 1956 when Solomon Asch published a classic series of experiments in which he and his colleagues showed cards with lines of different lengths to clusters of their students. Two lines were exactly the same size and two were clearly not - the mavericks stuck out like basketball players at a convention for the vertically handicapped. During a typical experimental run, the researchers asked nine volunteers to claim that two badly mismatched lines were actually the same, and that the actual twin was a total misfit. Now came the nefarious part. The researchers ushered a naive student into the room with the collaborators and gave him the impression that the crowd already there knew just as little as he did about what was going on. Then a white-coated psychologist passed the cards around. One by one he asked the pre-drilled shills to announce out loud which lines were alike. Each dutifully declared that two terribly unlike lines were perfect twins. By the time the scientist prodded the unsuspecting newcomer to pronounce judgement, he usually went along with the bogus acclamation of the crowd. Asch ran the experiment over and over again. When he quizzed his victims of peer pressure, it turned out that many had done far more than simply go along to get along. They had actually shaped their perceptions to agree, not with the reality in front of them, but with the consensus of the multitude.

To polish off the mass delusion, many of those whose perception had NOT been skewed became collaborators in the praise of the emperor's new clothes. Some did it out of self-doubt. They were convinced that the facts their eyes reported were wrong, the herd was right, and that an optical illusion had tricked them into seeing things. Still others realized with total clarity which lines were duplicates, but lacked the nerve to utter an unpopular opinion. Conformity enforcers had rearranged everything from visual processing to open speech, and had revealed a mechanism which can wrap and seal a crowd into a false belief.

Another experiment indicates just how deeply social suggestion can penetrate the neural mesh through which we think we see hard-and-solid facts. Students with normal color vision were shown blue slides. But one stooge in the room declared the slides were green. Only 32% of the students ended up going along with the vocal but misguided proponent of green vision. Later, however, the subjects were taken aside, shown blue-green slides and asked to rate them for blueness or greenness. Even the students who had refused to see green where there was none in the original experiment showed that the insistent greenies in the room had colored their perceptions. They rated the new slides more green than they would have otherwise. More to the point, when asked to describe the color of the afterimage they saw, the subjects often reported it was red-purple - the hue of an afterimage left by the color green. The words of one determined speaker had penetrated the most intimate sanctums of the eye and brain.











[edit on 1/11/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Jack,

I agree with your assesment of eyewitnesses. To a degree. What happens in an investigation is the comparison of eyewitness statements to physical evidence.

example:

At 6:30pm on a December evening on a busy highway, 20 people witnessed a pick up truck roll off a cliff and explode in a horrific crash.

of those interviewed:

Description of vehicle:

14 saw a dark colored pick up truck
2 saw a black pick up truck
4 saw a blue pick up truck

Make of vehicle:

14 saw a Dodge Ram
1 saw a Chevy
1 saw a Ford
4 were uncertain

Passengers:

12 Couldn't see
4 Saw 1 Man and 1 Woman
2 Saw 1 man
2 Saw 2 men

the facts by the evidence were this:

It was a Dodge Pick up Truck, Dark Green in Color. The occupants of the vehicle were one man and his dog.

This is very rough of an anaolgy, but an example of how witnesses and physical evidence are used together.


Looking at Flight 93:

Witness Statements

911 Call

Family Phone calls

Physical Evidence

DNA and other human remain Evidence

FDR

and

CVR

ALL tell and verify the same story. I have yet to see any evidence that conflicts with what the offical reports were.


IF i can be so kind to ask one more time for anyone that has evidence that does not support the offical report, please post it.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 
Sorry about the long post. I don't like being accused of cherry picking, so I will respond to the post in its entirety.

Unless, someone in Cleveland or elsewhere taped it off the news programs, I do not know of anyone who has any. I had no idea I was one day going to work to prove a flight called 93 landed in Cleveland. I wish I had now.
I wish you had too.


However, just to validate my own memory, I checked with other people having seen it as well. They agree with what I have stated in this discussion. No, I cannot prove it but then no one can disprove it either. I can only relate what I and they actually recall on that day, because it was such a surreal occurrence that day and those immediately following. One of those occurrences people normally do not forget, including details.
If you can't prove it, then why are you posting hearsay? You've made it perfectly clear how you feel about that subject.


I do know what Hopkins looks like. I have flown out of and into Hopkins on numerous occasions. I watched them expand Hopkins over the years bit by bit and walked what became a terminal trying to equal O'Hare in size.
I'm not familiar with Hopkins myself.


There are still reportings of that event on the Internet. Unfortunately, when I attempted to locate the more valid websites, regarding Flight 93, I had saved in my favorite links at least a couple of years ago, the websites went disappearing for one reason or another. Over time, I learned to trust some websites but not others. The ones I felt I could trust are gone. No big surprise there.
Yes there are. Most of us on this thread have seen them and we've also seen the reports where they corrected themselves. Why do you only believe them when the story fits the conspiracy? I hate it when I click on a bookmark and the 404 error message comes up.


One of the oddities that stood out was the number of 200 passengers disembarking from alleged Flight 93. 200 passengers during a work day? That is normally unheard of except charter flights for tours. Week-day travelers are normally business people and coach can be extremely empty for those not traveling for business or designated charter flights.
I'm glad that you are saying "alleged flight 93". It can't be Flight 93 because the aircraft used had a seating capacity of 182 passengers and there were only 52 people on board. I'm also glad that you agree that 200 passengers is a lot for weekday. Most conspiracy believers think that the low number of passengers was a sign of an inside job.


Another was they were shuttled to NASA. The terminal could easily have accomodated 200 passenger though unexpected on that day. There were plenty of places to place them if they had to stay over until after 9/11.
The 200 passengers? This is where the confusion sets in. What if some of those passengers were actually the NASA employees? You've been shown links that state there was a NASA aircraft with scientists aboard. Any thoughts?

They are at the airport and numerous from Hopkins and throughout Cleveland.
I don't understand that sentence. Can you clarify?


Then a team of scientists, from Houston, brought in on a KC-135 was ordered landed. Didn't the military have any cargo planes instead? Those are not comfortable, but they are a darn sight better than flying in on a tanker.
From the three sentences above, I thought you meant that the flight arrived from Houston that morning and the passengers were flown in on the KC 135 on that flight, from Houston. Am I right?


9/11/2001 was surreal from beginning to final subsiding in less than 4 hours.
Indeed.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Good post.

So what you're trying to say is that, if enough people tell you that Bush is Hitler, you are more than likely to believe them.

Nice picture.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Please Ultima... link me to a video of a crash site where you can witness the recovery of a FDR. ok? Really, I didn't expect such a question from you.


If you are going to state something as fact you should have the evidence to support your statement.

Do you have any evidence or photos of the FDR being found buried in the ground, YES or NO ?

Do you have evidence of the bodies identified being at the crash site, YES or NO ?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Well, no one wants to believe what they see in the real pictures, so I figured a little propoganda might go a long way on this thread.




[edit on 1/11/0808 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 1/11/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Perhaps you will catch that boat one day. I witnessed. The people I spoke with independently witnessed it as well. We arrived at consensus, of agreement, by independently viewing and agreeing on the same eyewitness accounting on 9/11/2001.

That is not hearsay. It is also not conflicting testimony. Understand the difference between what you keep pushing at us, and what is required to be credible eyewitness testimony with consensus of more than one person?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
So what you're trying to say is that, if enough people tell you that Bush is Hitler, you are more than likely to believe them.


And what your trying to say is that if the TV reporters repeat the same thing then you are more then likely to believe them.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Are we in agreement that Delta 1989 was one of the flights that was videotaped that day?

I believe you when you say that there was another aircraft being videoed also. Do you believe that video was of Flight 93?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Do you have any evidence or photos of the FDR being found buried in the ground, YES or NO ?

Do you have evidence of the bodies identified being at the crash site, YES or NO ?



Are you serious?? ULTIMA.... I am... for the first time speechless!!!

Ok.. not for long... SO I will ask you like I had asked Orion... What would it take for you to believe that the FDR was found there? (there are pictures of it) Or...what evidence do you want for the remians that were found?

Can you please go back several pages and see the 10 points of evidence and refute the 10 points with your own evidence.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Did you read my earlier post? If so, why are you asking those questions already answered more than one time in at least one of these disucssions?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Why don't you just admit everything you call "evidence" is based on hearsay, plus, photos of non-positively identified objects and origin? We have known it for quite some time now. We have told you at least 50 times what is wrong with what you present and call "evidence". What don't you understand about forensic science that has not been explained to you already?

What is your motive for insisting we have to accept any "official" reports? What is in it for you if you succeed in wearing down the psyches of people to conform? Are you running some experiment on mind control or what? If so, why?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Ok.. not for long... SO I will ask you like I had asked Orion... What would it take for you to believe that the FDR was found there? (there are pictures of it) Or...what evidence do you want for the remians that were found?


Well it would take things like actual evidence and actual reports. Like a actual crime scene reports, and something like a FOIA requests answered with the facts about the FDR.

The numbers on the FDR matching Flight 93, and the facts of where and how it was found. I have filed FOIA requests, so i know its possible.

The only thing is that the FBI and FAA are refusing FOIA requests for part numbers for the 9/11 planes.

As for the remains it would take actaul evidence like a coroners report and crime scene reports.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I know why. Because FAA reports conflict with BTS reports on 9/11/2001. BTS place all their reports online including 9/11/2001. Those original, untarnished BTS reports were captured and copied for websites of those investigating 9/11/2001. That is why the FAA and NTSB will not release their reports for comparison.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Are coronor reports available to the public?

I'll tell you, if one of my fmaily members died on flight 93, I would not want their coroner report splashed all over the internet.

So, are you saying the FDR they found mysteriously had data on it that matched the radar data, CVR, physical evidence, and eyewitness statements?

Ultima... you are reaching.

Oh... and please tell me what you think happened to flight 93



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join