It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash According to ATC Radar

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on May, 12 2009 @ 04:16 AM
reply to post by Reheat
Here something for you to chew on that is a fact. Until then you have “NOTHING”, you can post FAA radar said this, NORAD said that, the FAA said this, the FBI said that, but all you have is blab, blab, blab, nothing until we see some wreckage that have the serial numbers that belong to those airplanes and we want to see the time change out records.
We want to see the serial numbers to those black boxes. So far, there is NO evidence that even supports the OS on all these planes. It seems to me you cannot fathom the idea that our government might be involved in 911. With all the cover-up going on, it should be obvious to any researcher who has done just a little research on the subject.

“The precautionary principle is based on the fact that it’s impossible to prove a false claim to be true. Failure to prove a false premise true does not automatically make it false but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Thus far, our government has provided the public with no physical evidence to support its claim that the attacks were the work of Muslim terrorists, or even that the aircraft that struck their targets on September 11 were positively identified. As explained below, it would be a simple matter to confirm the identity of each of the four aircraft, and until such physical proof of identity is forthcoming, no conclusions can be drawn scientifically to support the official story as being accurate. This is a precaution against rushing to judgment. At this point, it could just as easily be assumed that the 911hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the full cooperation of elements within our government.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:53 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:32 PM
Sorry Mr. Reheat, your post has been moderated.

Would you mind answering my question from page six again. I'm looking
forward to your expert analysis.

Thank you in advance.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:56 PM

Originally posted by turbofan
Would you mind answering my question from page six again. I'm looking
forward to your expert analysis.

Sure, I'll address your question once you stay on Topic by addressing the OP, explain why it's correct and explain why my analysis is wrong. Surely, you have no reason to continue to ignore the topic of the thread.

Thanks in advance!

Since this thread is hopelessly derailed I have a message for you to carry to your den regarding the thread with essentially the same subject that is supposed to be discussed here. That one has been derailed too, I see.

Just ask the one with de mole, why he's posting stuff he doesn't understand and crowing as if it's revelatory news? I addressed the serial number issue earlier in this thread even tho' it was/is an off topic subject. There is nothing new to see in the stuff posted at your den.

Of course, the NTSB normally records part serial numbers for aircraft accidents. Does he know they didn't for any of the aircraft on 9/11? Didn't think so. Does he know what part serial numbers are used for? I doubt it. What I have repeatedly asked for is written information from a documented Regulation/Instruction/Manual that indicate they are USED FOR AIRCRAFT IDENTIFICATION purposes and required for that purpose. He's so good at looking up stuff, why can't he find that?

Oh, and tell the bald-headed baseball player namesake with the goatee that I"m sorry that he is disappointed that I ignore his stuff regarding UA 93 but, just like Aircraft Crash Investigators, Courts, and rationally minded people, witness testimony is discounted as unreliable unless it supports the MOUNTAIN OF HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that is all in agreement.


[edit on 12-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 12-5-2009 by Reheat]

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:35 PM
Sorry "Mr. Reheat", this is not a derail. It's a relevant question and
associated with the original post.

The idea that the official story includes the plane crashing in this hole
must be accepted by all of those who support the notion that terrorists
hijacked UA93.

Unfortunately for the government loyalists, you cannot change one aspect
of the official story.

According to you, UA93 did not carry forward as suggested in your analysis.

Showing FBI photo evidence of a hole is a perfect tool to debate the
original post and your current position on UA93.

So once again, I ask:

Do you believe that a Boeing 757/767 could bore itself into the ground 165 feet?

Do you believe that digging down four feet into the ground would reveal
only part of the engine ... when common sense tells us a tail section,
seats, fuselage, wings, etc. should appear near the surface?

With respect to dMole and others at Pilots for Truth, feel free to contact
them directly. You are not banned. I am not your messenger. If you are
the man you say you are, and have expertise to directly discredit the
members at P4T, please show your value and post up.

As an administrator on P4T I give you my word that your post will stand,
and ensure your long awaited welcome to debate the facts.

Thank you once again for your expert response in advance "Mr. Reheat".

Tino "Turbofan" Desideri

P.S. I see Mr. Warren Stutt has put a nail in your FDR theory. Now you
all resort to a 'bird strike' hypothesis?

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:38 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
Sorry "Mr. Reheat", this is not a derail. It's a relevant question and
associated with the original post.

Huh, no it isn't.

The title of the thread is "United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash According to ATC Radar". The issue addressed in the original article and my rebuttal ONLY addresses that issue. There is no discussion of the hole in the ground, part serial numbers, or any of the other diversions from the subject of this thread.

You don't seem to want to discuss that and I KNOW WHY. So do you!

The only response to the issue of the OP has been a "personal attack" and an incredulity fallacy from your hero who wrote the original article.

It seems there is no longer a desire to discuss the topic issue and you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by Reheat]

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:53 AM
Since you feel my question is a derail, I've started a thread addressed to
you here:

Sorry mods and members if you felt my question was off topic.

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 12:42 PM
Mod Edit: I acknowledge your passion for the issue - however please lets not start any 'Board Wars' here...

Thanks for your understanding.


[edit on 13-5-2009 by alien]

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in