Bodies strapped to seats on AA77, Pentagon?, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 14-10-2008 @ 10:00 PM by Grumble

Why is it so hard to believe they would find bodies still strapped to seats? Airplane crashes frequently produce odd pieces of debris which you would imagine could not survive the crash, yet do. And the use of the word "strapped" seems to me to mean that the passengers' bodies were still held into the seats by their seat belts, which is certainly not impossible.

reply posted on 14-10-2008 @ 11:45 PM by tezzajw

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Thanks, Swampfox. It appears that you've misunderstood the entire purpose of this thread - but that doesn't surprise me.

If bodies were found strapped to seats from a high speed impact at the Pentagon, then why were there no bodies found strapped to any seats at the high speed impact at Shanksville???

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 01:04 AM by cashlink

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

So where are the pictures of the bodies in the airplane seats? Why should we take the word of a Government employee? They have already proven themselves as liars protecting our Government from being caught. I have learned not to trust the press because they are used by the Pentagon to spread propaganda (that has already been proven). Mighty funny that three people where supposed to have been found intact in their airplane seats, but there is not one written report that can substantiate it, only what this so call witness said. Not one single time change out part was ever found to prove that was even the real plane. The FBI will not release the serial numbers of the so call black boxes that could prove without a doubt that it came from flight 77. The Government is not given us the real evidence to support their claim. So some of you want me to believe this huge 757 plowed in the Pentagon leavening a small impact hole with the windows above the hole still intact not broken and the windows on each side of the impact hole where not broken, you can clearly see the white foam running down the glass panes. Where is the tail section, which should have blown the entire windows out? The tail of a 757 is huge more than four stories high. Sorry folks, but I think the Government story on 911 and the Pentagon are lies. If people want to believe in fantasies, then read the Gove web sites on 911. The Gov org web site is for people who will not do any investigation on their own, and for people who still believe in our honest Government.

(Members of Congress who toured the site Thursday said rescue officials reported that much of the fuselage of the hijacked airplane remains intact in the ruins.)
WOW! Why hasn’t the Government released any pictures of this so call proof of the airplane fuselage to the public, then they could put the no plane theory to rest.
They say this, they say that, believe us (they give us nothing but lies with no proof to substantiate it.) I do not like the way our Government plays with our intelligence, do they think Americans are that stupid.

[edit on 10/15/2008 by cashlink]

[edit on 10/15/2008 by cashlink]

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 03:22 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by cashlink
So where are the pictures of the bodies in the airplane seats?

Swampfox, would you care to back up your witness claim that there was a body strapped to the seat by providing us with a coroners report? Something official that states who's body was strapped to which seat, where the body was located, cause of death, etc...

I understand if you can't do that, as it will show that your material witness has nothing to contribute, other than hearsay.

Originally posted by cashlink
The FBI will not release the serial numbers of the so call black boxes that could prove without a doubt that it came from flight 77.

Hey, cashlink, it gets better than that. Read this quote from pinch that he made in another thread.

Originally posted by pinch
Its already proven. The FBI had/have the piece-parts to the aircraft, including all the various serial numbers for N644AA and are not releasing the evidence as per standard ongoing-investigation procedures.

I asked him to prove it. You can probably guess that he did not respond with any proof. Maybe he's hoping that we will just believe him?

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 04:46 AM by SPreston

posted by Grumble
Why is it so hard to believe they would find bodies still strapped to seats? Airplane crashes frequently produce odd pieces of debris which you would imagine could not survive the crash, yet do. And the use of the word "strapped" seems to me to mean that the passengers' bodies were still held into the seats by their seat belts, which is certainly not impossible.

Perhaps because no aircraft ever impacted the Pentagon? It would seem rather difficult to arrive there in your seat without an aircraft. There were no photos of passengers strapped into aircraft seats. A few disinformation specialists tried to pretend that several photos were passengers, but those were obviously targeted Pentagon personnel without seats. There were no photos of empty seats. No photos of baggage. No 90 tons of aircraft anywhere to be seen.

Mainstream media repeating of prepared scripts does not constitute evidence. April Gallup was right there with her baby son just 45 feet from the alleged impact hole and she saw no aircraft debris, no passengers, no seats, no baggage, and no jet fuel.

Guns and Butter broadcast with Dave von Kleist interviewing April Gallup. There was an explosion and she crawled out from E-Ring through the alleged impact hole onto the Pentagon lawn. She saw no jet fuel and nobody burned with jet fuel. She and her baby boy were located originally about 35-45 feet from the alleged impact hole and no jet fuel was splashed on them. What happened to the huge infernos and fuel-air explosions inside the Pentagon which allegedly incinerated all the aircraft parts and engines and wheel hubs and baggage and seats? Just about everything on the alleged 100 ton aircraft except alleged aircraft passenger DNA, and April Gallup and her baby boy, was allegedly incinerated.

Guns and Butter April Gallup

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 03:21 PM by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by tezzajw

Seymour, do you have an answer?

Yes I do, but why bother when you already know that 77 crashed there, and are just starting this thread to....... whatever.

My proof that you know that 77 crashed at the Pentagon is borne out by your statement:

Disclaimer: The troll in me must inform you that what I type may or may not reflect what I actually think or believe.

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 03:32 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Yes I do, but why bother when you already know that 77 crashed there, and are just starting this thread to....... whatever.

Again, Seymour, you're not really contributing to the thread.

How can bodies survive a high speed impact at the Pentagon, yet not survive a high speed impact at Shanksville?

Quoting my signature does not help to portray any of your replies as meaningful. It's a waste of bandwidth and probably borderline trolling. My current signature appears under each of my posts, so there's really no need for you to quote it.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by tezzajw]

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 04:31 PM by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by tezzajw

How can bodies survive a high speed impact at the Pentagon, yet not survive a high speed impact at Shanksville?

First, you need to show conclusively this:

That both incidents should have resulted in the exact same thing.

Can you answer that, other than with some weak argument from incredulity?

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 04:53 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
First, you need to show conclusively this:
That both incidents should have resulted in the exact same thing.

Alleged Flight UA93 crashed with a speed 906 km/h into an old 'soft' strip-mine.
Alleged Flight AA77 crashed with a speed 853 km/h into a reinforced building.

That's why I am asking the believers to explain to me the fundamental differences between these two scenarios which results in both alleged planes being 'destroyed'. However, intact bodies were allegedly found at one crash site and not the other.

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 05:23 PM by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by tezzajw

That's why I am asking the believers to explain to me the fundamental differences between these two scenarios which results in both alleged planes being 'destroyed'. However, intact bodies were allegedly found at one crash site and not the other.

You still haven't convinced me that you're asking a valid question yet. Instead of asking for answers that you'll ignore anyways because you don't want to hear them, why don't you do an analysis that shows how the bodies should have been in the same condition at both crash sites.

Start here:

Why don't you demonstrate WHY they should be similar. Show WHY bodies in a plane that hits "soft" ground, and decelerates to 0 mph in 40 feet would encounter similar deceleration G's as bodies in a plane that hits a building ( that is 90%+ air) decelerates to 0 mph in 300+ feet.

And, did you ever think of the 1 big difference in the behavior of the passengers on 93? What is the 1 significant difference that the passengers did on 93, and why wouldn't they be strapped into their seats while they were doing it? What effect would THIS have on the bodies during a crash? Why is the use of seatbelts so significant to survival in ANY kind of crash?

No one is going to bother answering your trolling questions. I have given you just 2 of many avenues available you may choose to pursue your own answers.

Good Luck!!!

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 05:28 PM by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by pinch

And...how old are we? Did you forget to put the "Nyah nyah nyah" at the end? Fingers in your ears?? I thought this was a relatively educated and erudite crowd - guess with some posters I was mistaken.

Yes, because dear Pinch, it takes a special kind of erudite to continue to post in a thread that proves you wrong and just pretend that the proof is not even there. Do not acknowledge it, address it, answer to posts directly to you about...etc. Now that is a very special kind of educated and mature isn't it?

[edit on 10/15/08 by MorningStar8741]

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 05:31 PM by tezzajw

reply to post by Seymour Butz

Thanks, Seymour - you still haven't shown me why there were bodies at one crash site and not at the other!

Well done!

Notice that in my original post, I asked if there should be bodies at one/both crash sites. I don't claim to know the answers.

Some 'believers' believe that bodies were found strapped to seats at the Pentagon, yet no bodies were found at Shanksville. Why?

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 05:38 PM by newagent89

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

WOW! Why hasn’t the Government released any pictures of this so call proof of the airplane fuselage to the public, then they could put the no plane theory to rest.

[edit on 10/15/2008 by cashlink]

If the government released it, you would not believe them anyway.

Why do you even care. Why are you on this site if all you are going to do is use a silly mistrust of authority. It seems redundant for you to be on this website if you throw out all proof given by the government.

You cannot assume that the government was behind 9/11 and then use that assumption to "prove" that all government officials were a part of it and all of their released info is propaganda.

That is not even an argument. Simply a claim.

That's like what that Spreston poster does. I think you are a better poster.

An expert releases info on what happened at the pentagon. The "truther" does not understand what they are talking about, thus, in the truthers mind, what they say is false and an explosive blew out the c ring in the pentagon. Why blow out the C-ring if the airplane was not going to? If they really wanted to, why not use a larger plane or just a bomb.

A terrorist could plausibly plant a bomb.

Why demolish WTC 7 if the target was WTC 1 and 2?

If it was the case that the gov did it, then a nuke probably would have been a better thing. Completely destroy downtown. Then public support galore forever no matter what. Very easy to blame on terrorists if all news is owned by the gov. Just make up that they have nukes now. Scare people even more. Make up phony intelligence reports. These silly stories don't add up.

There are micronukes, holograms, disintegration beams, shape charges, thermite cutters, NWO, illuminati, missiles, getting the jews out early, targeting certain parts of the pentagon because of disagreements, and UFOs. Which reminds me: where the hell is that supership that was supposed to show up today? It did not come.

The right kind of thinker looks at all sides and claims and comes at the situation logically (off board, though. hard to be rational here)

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 05:42 PM by newagent89

reply to post by tezzajw

here's where part of the seat stuff comes from:

Btw, urban legends are the bane of rational thought on the internet and email superhighway imo.

www.snopes.com...

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 05:43 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
And, did you ever think of the 1 big difference in the behavior of the passengers on 93? What is the 1 significant difference that the passengers did on 93, and why wouldn't they be strapped into their seats while they were doing it? What effect would THIS have on the bodies during a crash? Why is the use of seatbelts so significant to survival in ANY kind of crash?

By the way, Seymour...

Please supply the data that shows me which passengers were restrained in their seatbelts on the alleged Flight UA93 at the time of alleged impact.

Please supply the data that shows me which passengers were restrained in their seatbelts on the alleged Flight AA77 at the time of alleged impact.

Without knowing that specific information, you're merely speculating. Thanks for your research to find the truth.

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 07:10 PM by cashlink

reply to post by pinch

I would suggest you read my other thread that I have set up maybe people are on to you.
www.abovetopsecret.com...'
We are learning more and more about people who want to see the truth suppressed
You have been coming to these 911 threads for some time now, I have read everything you have written about 911, and you consistently keep supporting the Government version of everything. Apparently, the truth movement has shown “you” where the Government is lying, and has shown you questions that the Government refuses to answer.

To constantly to support the Government version of 911 one has to question your real motives and why you are against the truth movement.

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 07:13 PM by Swampfox46_1999

reply to post by tezzajw

And you continue to compare apples to oranges when it comes to the impacts of each plane. Then again, thats no surprise either.

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 07:16 PM by Swampfox46_1999

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 07:54 PM by cashlink

reply to post by newagent89

(Why do you even care. Why are you on this site if all you are going to do is use a silly mistrust of authority. It seems redundant for you to be on this website if you throw out all proof given by the government.)

You do not know what I believe in, and I do care, I care about the truth, do you have a problem with that?

(You cannot assume that the government was behind 9/11 and then use that assumption to "prove" that all government officials were a part of it and all of their released info is propaganda.?)

I can assume anything I want, who are you to tell me how to investigate 911?
I have not used “assumption” to prove anything assumption are not facts any ten year old know that. When our Government suppress the truth about 911 I and most American want to know why, like why has the Government never investigated 911.
I live in America not Russia I have the right to question my Government.

(An expert releases info on what happened at the pentagon. The "truther" does not understand what they are talking about, thus, in the truthers mind, what they say is false and an explosive blew out the c ring in the pentagon. Why blow out the C-ring if the airplane was not going to? If they really wanted to, why not use a larger plane or just a bomb.)

What expert are you talking about?

(A terrorist could plausibly plant a bomb.)

That has not been proven yet!

(That is not even an argument. Simply a claim.)
Like the Government version of 911!

(Why demolish WTC 7 if the target was WTC 1 and 2?)
Good question, why don’t you start a thread about WTC7 then.

( If it was the case that the gov did it, then a nuke probably would have been a better thing. Completely destroy downtown. Then public support galore forever no matter what. Very easy to blame on terrorists if all news is owned by the gov. Just make up that they have nukes now. Scare people even more. Make up phony intelligence reports. These silly stories don't add up.)

That’s why we are here asking questions to find the truth.
You are right about one thing, the Government story dose not add up.
Infact it dose not stand up to real science, or Newton’s law.

(The right kind of thinker looks at all sides and claims and comes at the situation logically (off board, though. hard to be rational here)

It dose not take logical thinking to know when you are been lied to.
To logically examine the 911 report, one has to conclude the Government is hiding something. (like the truth).

[edit on 10/15/2008 by cashlink]

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 08:03 PM by cashlink

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Save your snide remarks for your self, you have not contribute anything in this thread.
Infact most poster see “you” for what you are.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^