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.

 

Show me un-plantable Shanksville debris

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
To successfully stage a plane crash, the culprits are going to plant debris.

Show me any of the plane debris at Shanksville that could not have been realistically planted and that will be smoking gun evidence that a plane crashed there.



[edit on 30-5-2009 by ATH911]




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


This is probably the silliest challenge I have seen yet on ATS.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


How about the lack of planted debris? Show me the debris that they recovered?



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Pictures have already been posted to try to satiate his/her desire. He/she has already shown that there is absolutely no evidence that he/she will accept as valid.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
*sigh*

Show me proof that my furniture and personal effects were put in my house by me, and no planted by government agents wanting to trick me into believing this is my house for some nefarious yet undetermined purpose.

Really, you are using the same logic.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
We're getting the Shaftville at Shanksville....



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ATH911
 


This is probably the silliest challenge I have seen yet on ATS.

Silly because it's like a trick question, or silly because there is no un-plantable debris at Shanksville which suggests the crash was a hoax?



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by ATH911
 


How about the lack of planted debris? Show me the debris that they recovered?

I can only show you about 4% of the declared recovered debris. The rest of the 91% is still missing.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
This is my first post here although i have been a lurker for a long time. Now that's out of the way i would like to say I live very very close to to crash site and was on scene within minutes. I personally know people who saw the plane go down. Nothing was planted sorry dude. 500 mph plus hard rocky dirt with an aluminum plane there is not much left. But i guess you didn't hear about the body parts found in trees and such. Sorry to burst your bubble.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Pictures have already been posted to try to satiate his desire. He has already shown that there is absolutely no evidence that he will accept as valid.

Define valid.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by orionthx
This is my first post here although i have been a lurker for a long time. Now that's out of the way i would like to say I live very very close to to crash site and was on scene within minutes. I personally know people who saw the plane go down. Nothing was planted sorry dude.

First post. Long time lurker. Uh OK. Tell us, how close to the crater where you?


500 mph plus hard rocky dirt with an aluminum plane there is not much left.

Tell us the reports from officials that explain where most of the plane went after crashing. Remember the FBI told us 95% of Flight 93 was later recovered.


But i guess you didn't hear about the body parts found in trees and such. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Body parts in trees, but not a single drop of blood witnessed at the scene by the coroner. That was one magical crash site.


[edit on 31-5-2009 by ATH911]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by orionthx
500 mph plus hard rocky dirt with an aluminum plane there is not much left.

I wish that some people would get their story straight.

In other threads about Flight 93, some government story loyalists have stated that the soil was soft enough to swallow the plane.

Which is it, hard rocky dirt or soft swallowing dirt?

Edit: I found the quote...

Here's what trebor states about that hard rocky dirt:

Originally posted by trebor451
To state that the "tail section" should be expected to be "near the surface" of such a porous and loosely packed ground


[edit on 31-5-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by orionthx
 



Alright Time to rip apart a lying lurker. Orionthx if you lived so close to the event that you got there in minutes perhaps you could tell us more about that stripmine scar that was so close to the shanksville crash.

I mean it had to be a cool swimming hole when it rained to a local such as your self right?



ANYWAYS!! THE IMPACT! That is one thing that can not be faked or planted right??? Well not if we use the local stripmine... What I do not get is why those offical story believers don't acknowledge the USGS Photos of that scar. I mean it's right there in black and white solid proof and after 911 it was still there plus one TnT crater in the center and "POOF" magicly it is now the impact crater and not a stripmine scar.

I mean come on!!!

no I have no respect of Official story people anymore. We have tried to inform them for so long that I just feel they don't want to know the truth. They have had more then enough logical evidence put into their faces... No they just like to argue about a national tragedy for their own entertainment...

To them debating 911 is like calling Rush Limbagh to complain about Clinton.. They have no respect in my mind.

AND WE STILL DESERVE A BETTER INVESTIGATION!

Support the 911 gorilla yall.


[edit on 31-5-2009 by titorite]

[edit on 31-5-2009 by titorite]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
I can only show you about 4% of the declared recovered debris. The rest of the 91% is still missing.


Is this some sort of new math?



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911Show me any of the plane debris at Shanksville that could not have been realistically planted and that will be smoking gun evidence that a plane crashed there.


The perfectly clean, Tide fresh, red bandanna as seen here in this "9/11
Terrorist Kit"!







posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by orionthx
 


I"m sorry but I think your confused. The "body parts hanging from trees" talking point was in regards to US Air Flight 427 which crashed in September of 94 in Hopewell Township. There were no body parts in trees from US 93.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Silly because given the time and the equipment I could plant an entire frigging fuselage.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Thanks, turbofan. I fell for it.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ATH911
 


Silly because given the time and the equipment I could plant an entire frigging fuselage.

Maybe you can't read and comprehend well...

"...that could not have been realistically planted..."

That means within a realistic timeframe and without innocent people seeing agents planting debris.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I take it the skeptics concede that no debris at Shanksville was realistically unplantable?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join