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.

 

The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie

page: 15
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Time to stop with the strawman.


Yes it is time for you to stop with the strawman and answer the question.

Which witness statements agree with the FDR and which do not, and are their more witness statements that agree or disagree with the FDR?

Also can you explain the flickering lights that were reported?



Waiting for your answer to these questions.




posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


First of all Ultima, the message was to Ivan.

Now, it has been abundantly clear that you have reading comprehension issues. I suggest you go back a couple pages, read the witness statements, then read the FDR report.

If you are not intelligent enough to comprehend the similarities between the FDR and the witness statements, then I am afraid I can not help you.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Ivan,

The questions were to YOU. Your actions lead me to believe that you are unable to grasp the facts that have been presented to you. Are you ignoring them? Did you read them?



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Time to stop with the strawman.


Yes it is time for you to stop with the strawman and answer the question.

Which witness statements agree with the FDR and which do not, and are their more witness statements that agree or disagree with the FDR?

Also can you explain the flickering lights that were reported?



Waiting for your answer to these questions.



Answert the questions. We know that no plane crashed in Shanksville as all experts, Pilots, and crash investigators agree on for the evidence that a plance crashed has been debunked in 2001.

Why you keep running away from the questions?



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Ivan,
I posted the statements already.

Why repeat myself?

I posted the witness statements and the FDR report after you called me a liar.

Remember that post??

Look back a few pages of this thread and READ for once.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I posted the witness statements and the FDR report after you called me a liar.


What about the witness statements that do not agree with the FDR, are you just going to ignore them like most believers do ?

What is your explanation for the lights flickering ?



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Hi Ultima,

Weedwhacker, Boone, Throatyogurt, Thedman, seymore and 1 or 2 others are resident truth deniers as you know.

These debunkers or truth deniers have been schooled in these forums in the last couple of weeks concerning the evidence that flight 93 DID NOT crash in Shanksville on 911.

Those people above love threads about lasers and holograms and other pseudo skeptic theories. They have failed miserably in all the flight 93 threads. They are going to avoid real questions, but thats ok because from what we seen their answers are quite ignorant and lacks any substance.

No plane crashed in Shanksville. Tell everyone you know and research this yourself. Do not get all your answers from Here.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Ivan,

First, I'm insulted you didn't include me on the "truth deniers" list.

Second, please let me know if I have this right.....

The government faked the Flt. 93 crash in Shanksville by:

a) Shooting the real Flt. 93 down, recovering the real wreckage w/o anyone noticing and then fired a missile into the field in Shanksville, or

b) by commandeering Flt. 93, landing in a secret location, imprisoning or killing the passengers and crew, then fired a missile into the field in Shanksville.

They did one of these two things simply to add to the drama on 9/11 to rally the gullible masses with the Todd Beamer "Let's Roll" story? They did all this so poorly that you, Ivan Zana, can provide the bullet proof, final nail in the coffin, indesputable evidence that no airplane crashed in Shanksville?

None of this is logical. If the government perpetrated all this, why didn't they just crash the airplane into the field? Why all the slight of hand and subterfuge? I'm not saying the government wasn't implicated, I'm just saying I can see no way it makes any sense for them to have done things the way you propose.

Please explain why you think they would have executed this highly complicated and easily exposed plan vs. just crashing the real Flt 93.

If they could create all the apparently "false evidence" of arab hi-jackers, passenger rebellion, airplane parts in the Shanksville crater, etc. It seems to me it would have been a walk in the park to sabotage Flt. 93 or assume remote control of the aircraft, and crash it wherever, whenever they choose. Doesn't it seem that way to you?

Thanks



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to darkbluesky

How are we supposed to know the whys and hows?

It doesn't matter why/how they did it (for now), the point is there is no plane wreckage of flight 93.

We just get to see the scene, and again, there are no plane parts or steel-melting fires there. Do you agree?
If not, can you point out where the plane parts are? you know things like the seats, the luggages, or even the bones of the victims? (let alone wings, tail, engines, landing gear)
Are you suggesting they are just buried from the impact on a soft soil?
Or maybe the plane just vaporized except for the black box?

What about the scar (as someone posted before) that was there since 1994? It just has an added hole in it. Can you explain that?



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Ivan,

When will you address the witness statements? How can you explain how they coincide with the FDR?

Why do you ignore this over and over?

Stop the spam posts appealing to other members of this forum. You continue to do this because your are constantly caught spreading false information.

Now, please address the evidence.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Experts and investigators all agree that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville on 911 upon viewing the evidence of the crater.

The days that followed 911, the excavators dug as deep as they needed to and no plane parts were found. There are pictures earlier in this thread that was sourced and proved that no plane crashed in Shanksville.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
When will you address the witness statements? How can you explain how they


When you address the fact that they found the FDR but no tail wreakage where the FDR is located?

Also when will address the fact that there are witness statments that do not agree with the official story?



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
Experts and investigators all agree that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville on 911 upon viewing the evidence of the crater.

The days that followed 911, the excavators dug as deep as they needed to and no plane parts were found. There are pictures earlier in this thread that was sourced and proved that no plane crashed in Shanksville.




Oh....OK. Case closed then.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Well, seeing the wreckage would be a start. You know things like wings, tail, bodies, seats... whatever.
All I see is a hole in the ground, made over a preexisting "scar".
What I hear are witnesses, some supporting the official version, others not.
What I don't see is the plane (or a plane for that matter). Flight 93 was allegedly pulverized whether in the air or on impact with the ground. Sci-Fi stuff if you ask me.
Someone asked why would they do that or how would they do that.
I say it's not for us to tell (we didn't orchestrate the event) and at this point in the "investigation" it really doesn't matter why or how.
The Shanksville event was only a detail in the big 911 "show". Too many things don't add up to the official story, starting from the 3 buildings neatly falling down the very same way although struck in different manners or locations. Fascinating.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I agree with the post above!

Remember the document outlining "Operation Northwoods"? You might laugh, but that document was very real, even if the intentions (at that time) to execute the plan weren't. The point is it demonstrates what they were thinking, even back then, to initiate something they wanted to happen.

Moving to 2001... where's the aircraft? Even if every part is unrecognizable, there should be a pretty big pile of wreckage somewhere, that comes to approx. 120,000 lbs. I don't see it.

Given how it crashed and disappeared into the landscape (allegedly), I would have thought crash investigators would have been particularly interested in reconstructing that aircraft in order to learn just what happens to a jet when it crashes like that.

There are plenty of ways Flight 93 could have happened, but in light of the lack of evidence for the most likely scenario (including any significant collection of aircraft debris), we're forced into considering another possibility.

The "it was shot down" scenario doesn't work, because the Air Force up to that point were looking pretty incompetent. Most aircraft were on exercise, and the few that did fly ended up flying over the Atlantic! If they'd succeeded in shooting it down, they could claim it as a victory, but that part never occurred.

Officials (not including Bush) are on record as saying things like "the plane that was shot down over Pennsylvania" and "the missile that hit this building" etc.. - you just don't say things like that!!! They're very strange comments indeed. They're even more intriguing given their proximity to the date of the events.

As has been mentioned in another thread - look at the lies that were spun in order to go to war with Iraq. Just think what else they're capable of.

You can bury your head in the sand if you like, but the reality is what it is.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
Experts and investigators all agree that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville on 911 upon viewing the evidence of the crater.





Please, Ivan once again I will ask you to present these Experts and investigators that have "ALL" agreed on. You posted this before and I asked you to post their names. YOU FAILED.

Now you have another shot.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Moving to 2001... where's the aircraft? Even if every part is unrecognizable, there should be a pretty big pile of wreckage somewhere, that comes to approx. 120,000 lbs. I don't see it.


I don't understand this way of thinking, especially from intelligent and apparently highly educated people like you Mirage.

Surely you understand that not seeing pictures of a thing, doesn't mean a thing doesn't exist or didn't happen.

I've metioned this idea many times over the last few years. What compels the authorities to produce this "evidence"? The vast majority of the educated, voting public accept that the events of 9/11 were just as they were reported. There is a very small web based community of doubters. There is no compelling reason for the authorities to produce what
this community demands. There is probably even a very good reason for perpetuation the concpiracy buzz...the reason escapes me....but I wouldn't discount the idea.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I agree with the post above!



Moving to 2001... where's the aircraft? Even if every part is unrecognizable, there should be a pretty big pile of wreckage somewhere, that comes to approx. 120,000 lbs. I don't see it.

There are plenty of ways Flight 93 could have happened, but in light of the lack of evidence for the most likely scenario (including any significant collection of aircraft debris), we're forced into considering another possibility.

As has been mentioned in another thread - look at the lies that were spun in order to go to war with Iraq. Just think what else they're capable of.

You can bury your head in the sand if you like, but the reality is what it is.


Good point, Your very right.

Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville on 911. No evidence says it did.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Hey truth denier/ debunker throat yogurt.

TO answer your question. Yes. Experts agree that no plane crashed in Shanksville on 911.


What experts are willing tro put the career on the line and say a boeing 757 crashed in shanksville. I cant find a source.

You show me an official source?



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


So, you were wrong. You have not ONE single professional to come forward even though you said the "ALL AGREE."

Thanks for admitting it. Now on to the next subject.




top topics



 
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join