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: 42
12
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
reply to post by IvanZana
 

No Boeing 757 crashed in Shansville as most experts will agree.
Please list all your experts in aircraft accident investigation with proof of their training. I have not found one expert trained in aircraft accident investigation who agrees with your hearsay fantasy based on zero evidence.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by beachnut]




posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 



You failed to present evidence.

You're probably expecting me to say this, but I disagree.

Why? Because the crater at Shanksville looks more like the numerous examples of blast craters, than an aircraft crash site.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by beachnut
 



You failed to present evidence.

You're probably expecting me to say this, but I disagree.

Why? Because the crater at Shanksville looks more like the numerous examples of blast craters, than an aircraft crash site.
Two high speed impacts of USAF aircraft, and 93, yes they may look like blast craters to the untrained due to the fact impacts like these impacts, are kinetic energy events of moving objects with the energy of 1500 to 2000 pounds of TNT. Energy is equal to ½ mass times velocity squared.

This is why impact craters from planes at high speed may look like bombs to the untrained, they are equal in energy to big 2000 pound bombs. Physics is great when thinking about impacts with this much energy with planes going faster than 700 feet a second!
High speed impact of USAF aircraft.

Three high speed aircraft impacts. Not one trained pilot/airframe aircraft accident investigator supports your idea.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut Here is a the skin from Flight 93, a fact you can't prove is wrong due to lack of evidence.


Please post evidnece that this skin is from Flight 93 or admit you have no evidnece.


Here are windows in the skin of Flight 93, the exact dimension of the 757. And you can't prove they are not!


Please post evidence that this section is from FLight 93 or admit you have no evidence.


An engine from Flight 93 found in the crater. A crater with the exact length of the wing span of a 757.


Please post evidence that this engine is from Flight 93 and that the crator is the exact length of a 757 or admit you have no evidence.



Facts beat hearsay. You post hearsay and your opinion based on nothing.


All you have posted is hearsey, you have posted no official reports to verify the evidnece you have posted.

If you really are a aviation investigator you should know what evidence is required in an investigation and you have failed to show it.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
Why? Because the crater at Shanksville looks more like the numerous examples of blast craters, than an aircraft crash site.


You have failed to show any official reports to verify the stuff you have posted as belonging to Flight 93.

You do know that the FBI and NTSB have not released most of the evidnece so you have no real evindece to post.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Where is that list again? The one about the 25 ways that 'debunkers' debunk???


Sorry, it was very hard to resist, ULTIMA.....

Pot calling a Kettle, and such and such....

As to what you asked beachnut.....true.....there are photos of debris of airline parts......you ask how to verify them, I ask.....how do you NOT verify them??

I mean.....PROVE to all of our satisfaction that none of those photos are actual pictures taken at the crash-site of Shanksville, before the clean-up was begun.

The burden now falls to you, ULITMA.....you wish to shift burden of proof? I challenge you now, to substantiate YOUR claims.

EDIT.....and lack of 'evidence', as you so carefully continue to repeat does not mean that those pictures are fake....it's like asking what the meaning of the word "is", is.....




[edit on 8/23/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


No, photos of evidence are not hearsay! Your ideas are based on hearsay, you can't back up a single idea you have on this topic with evidence, you use talk and hearsay.

I am a trained investigator; I have worked fatal accident scenes. You have not, you can not, produce one shred of evidence to support you ideas on this topic.





posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
No, photos of evidence are not hearsay!


Photos are hearsay if they do not have a proper source to suppor them. Someone with your training should know this.

None of your photos have a proper source stating that the parts in the photos are from Flight 93.



[edit on 23-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Go ahead debunk the United paint job on the bent metal.

Go ahead debunk the engine of Flight 93 buried where it hit.

Go ahead debunk the DNA found of each person who fought back against terrorist and figured out 9/11 over 6 years before you totally messed it up.

Go ahead debunk the thousands of plane parts spread out just like a high speed impact verified by the NTSB.

Go ahead debunk the FDR found at the site.

Debunk the stuff with some real evidence you have been hiding. So far the only thing you produce is fantasy ideas based on zero facts and evidence. You just say it doesn't look right, but have no experience in aircraft accident investigation. Please tell me your proof of all the things I presented are not real. Just some real proof, not talk.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA.....fair point.

beachnut.....we've seen your certificate, not doubting that at all.

Can you give sufficient proof to ULTIMA that the fragments photgraphed at the UAL93 crash site in Shanksville, PA, are indeed accurate?

I will depose ULTIMA in another manner, in this same post.....IF those fragments of an obvious jetliner ARE not from a United Airlines airplane, then why is the paint consistent with United Airlines paint schemes, from that time period?

Second question: Where would these fragments come from, to be photographed, as part of UAL 93 crash site?

Resorting to the obvious ploy.....the Government is hiding the information, etc....is getting a little bit old. Most Judges would have thrown you off of the Witness stand, by now.....



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
Go ahead debunk the United paint job on the bent metal.


No official reports that states this was from Flight 93.


Go ahead debunk the engine of Flight 93 buried where it hit.


No official reports that states this was from Flight 93.


Go ahead debunk the DNA found of each person who fought back against terrorist and figured out 9/11 over 6 years before you totally messed it up.


You mean like the cororner stating there was not 1 drop of blood found at the site?


Go ahead debunk the thousands of plane parts spread out just like a high speed impact verified by the NTSB.


No FBI or NTSB reports that states parts were from Flight 93.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
I am a trained investigator; I have worked fatal accident scenes. You have not, you can not, produce one shred of evidence to support you ideas on this topic.


Beachnut,

Thanks for the info! Glad to see a professional here, and posting valuable information. We appreciate your opinions, and your explanations.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA!!!

'no official reports'.....come on!

What would Judge Judy think????

EDIT....just read she makes a butt-load of money....something like USD$45M per year.

Her Bailiff....'Burt'? About USD$500,000.....hmmmmm

What WOULD Judge Judy think, anyways????

[edit on 8/23/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA!!!

'no official reports'.....come on!


Well then show me the FBI and NTSB reports that match the parts found to Flight 93. Or be adult enough to admit there are no official reports mathching the parts.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


gavron, Oh? Like I'm chopped liver???

Kidding, kidding.....it is a difficult discussion to engage in, especially in a forum such as this.

We all have different perspectives to bring in, and talk about....I'd realy, really like to have enough money to rent a Simulator, and fly some of these scenarios.....could help answer a lot of questions.....

EDIT...I hit that darn 'reply' button too quickly!!

I believe, with my experience in aviation, we could do it, without raising the hackles of the DHS....I'd submit to an interview and background check, if needed.

Of course, I am not qualified to OPERATE the Simulator....but I could fly it, and assist others who are less qualified.

The OPERATOR sits in the back....and has a 'FREEZE' button whenever he/she needs it....but that only applies when the motionis turned on....and to re-create this, we'd need the motion, for full effect.

EXCEPT......when the motion is on, and you roll inverted....well...it's not good, and the Sim will 'FREEZE' on its own, or will cause damage to the hydraulic struts.....so, we cannot do the UAL93, with motion on....

However, it would be illuminating to many, about how airliners are actually operated. A few months ago, I floated this idea because of other 9/11 suggestions...and, since I live in the USA, tought the best place would be in Denver, since United Airlines has a very large facility there, and it's fairly centraly located. Of course, next week is the Demo Convention....but an alternative is, of course...Dallas....for American's Home Base.

Haven't checked prices yet....but I'll tend to Denver and United, because I don't think United is as 'uptight' as American is (sorry, guys).

EDIT again.....then, of course there's always Houston, and Continental....and that 'Training Center' is really convenient to the AIrport, and numerous local hotels.....





[edit on 8/23/0808 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 8/23/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA......you are missing the point of most of my posts.

It's not about being 'adult enough' to admit, as you imply, 'no official reports'.....it's about the visual evidence!!

I mean, if the Vice President, for instance....shoots his friend in the face and neck while quail hunting.....but there's no 'official report' of the incident....then who did he shoot????

Maybe the quail he missed could file a claim.....if he was "quailified".....



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It's not about being 'adult enough' to admit, as you imply, 'no official reports'.....it's about the visual evidence!!


But visual evidnece is not real evidence it if does not have proper sources to show what it is and where its from. I mean thats basic evidence 101.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Yes....absolutely correct, ULTIMA.

NOW, please prove the various photos that have been brought to bear as 'fake'.....or just unadmissible.

I think, 'eyewitness' testimony is also admissible.....unless it's second-hand, then it's hearsay.....

Am I close to the truth?



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NOW, please prove the various photos that have been brought to bear as 'fake'.....or just unadmissible.


None of the photos shown so far have a proper source. Without a proper source they cannot be considered evidence.

Problem with the eyewitness acoounts is that you have one witness that admitted he did not see what hit the Pentagon he was told later it was a 757. Thats enough to question all the witness accounts.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
As to what you asked beachnut.....true.....there are photos of debris of airline parts......you ask how to verify them, I ask.....how do you NOT verify them??

weedwhacker, normally your posts are logical. Not that I agree with them all, but you present yourself as a sane person.

However, this instance of flawed logic is out of character.

The claim being made is that the alleged wreckage is that of Flight 93. That's the hypothesis which needs testing. In case you're not sure about logic, it takes NOTHING to affirm the alternate hypothesis.

Unless you can prove those parts are from Flight 93, then the null hypothesis stands and they're not confirmed to be from Flight 93.

beachnut, why do you continually troll pictures of scrap metal and then claim that they are from Flight 93? You have no idea at all. You can't make a positive ID on those pieces of alleged wreckage, but you're doing your best to convince all of the casual observers in this thread that you can.

No positive ID means, you're not able to confirm that Flight 93 was the alleged plane that allegedly crashed.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by tezzajw]




top topics



 
12
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join