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.

 

Prove that bulk of UA93 buried itself into the ground

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
This deserves a bump because no one has proven Reheat's (and the government's) extraordinary claim!




posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by titorite
 


Someone challenged, up above, to prove UAL 93 crashed at Shanksville.

No, it's Prove that bulk of UA93 buried itself into the ground.

Maybe you can be the first skeptic to prove this extraordinary official claim.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by ATH911]


First prove that an official of the US government made that specific claim in an official capacity or admit that your trying to tilt at strawmen.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Let me repost the OP again because apparently some skeptics can't read very well:


There is this extraordinary claim floating around that the bulk of the airplane at Shanksville buried itself into the ground which means it would be resting under the shallow crater in this field:


I also linked to who was floating around this thread:


posted on 13-6-2009 @ 05:10 PM by Reheat

The bulk of the airplane at Shanksville buried itself into the ground, but there were also plenty of small pieces scattered over the general area of the crash site.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Let me repost the OP again because apparently some skeptics can't read very well:


There is this extraordinary claim floating around that the bulk of the airplane at Shanksville buried itself into the ground which means it would be resting under the shallow crater in this field:


I also linked to who was floating around this thread:


posted on 13-6-2009 @ 05:10 PM by Reheat

The bulk of the airplane at Shanksville buried itself into the ground, but there were also plenty of small pieces scattered over the general area of the crash site.


And?

So know this is just an extraordinary claim made on an internet forum, not an "official claim" as you have previously stated 2000 times.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
So know this is just an extraordinary claim made on an internet forum [by a skeptic], not an "official claim"

For this thread for you, sure.

Is Reheat lying?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
So know this is just an extraordinary claim made on an internet forum [by a skeptic], not an "official claim"

For this thread for you, sure.

Is Reheat lying?


How would I know? The only way to prove that someone is lying is to first prove what they know and then prove that they are deliberately saying something else for the express purpose of trying to decieve the "listner" or in this case, reader. You of course know that just because you may be able to prove that something I said is wrong, does not mean I am lying.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

Well every time you skeptics want to know if truther think some official or 9/11 witness is wrong, you ask us if they are lying.

So is skeptic Reheat wrong then?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
A Boeing 757 would displace tonnes of dirt which is not the case. There is dry unbroken grass in the drainage ditch. The "ditch was used as a target for the systems involved. The pictures are indicative of a bomb or missile crater.

Coincidentally there were war game exercises taking place over Shanksville on 911 that involved cruise missile interceptions and live fly hijackings.

The crater was most likely caused by a bomb or missile. Passive plane crash exercises and live fly hijacking are common and take place ever 1-2 years.


Believe me. This was handed down from a RCAF pilot friend. What a BRAT he has always been.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper
 

Well every time you skeptics want to know if truther think some official or 9/11 witness is wrong, you ask us if they are lying.

So is skeptic Reheat wrong then?


Like I said before, I don't know. Unlike you I do not claim to have any definitive information regarding percentages or ratios of the plane debris and its final status. When will you finally admit that, contrary to your many posts, there is no official claims in this regard?



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012
A Boeing 757 would displace tonnes of dirt which is not the case. There is dry unbroken grass in the drainage ditch. The "ditch was used as a target for the systems involved. The pictures are indicative of a bomb or missile crater.

Coincidentally there were war game exercises taking place over Shanksville on 911 that involved cruise missile interceptions and live fly hijackings.

The crater was most likely caused by a bomb or missile. Passive plane crash exercises and live fly hijacking are common and take place ever 1-2 years.




Believe me. This was handed down from a RCAF pilot friend. What a BRAT he has always been.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]


Do you have any evidence to anything you say other than your own sense of authority?

Tons of dirt not displaced? Are you looking for an exact 1:1 ratio of plane weight displacement to dirt displacement? Please explain why this should be expected. Also, the photos do show an amount of displaced dirt from the crater, what do you calculate the weight of material to be and how would you calculate it?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

OK, then do you think Reheat is wrong that most of 93 was buried?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

You do agree that if a 757 buried in Shanks that the amount of dirt ejected out of the ground would be more than it would take to fill back up that shallow crater, right?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper
 

You do agree that if a 757 buried in Shanks that the amount of dirt ejected out of the ground would be more than it would take to fill back up that shallow crater, right?



Huh? I really don't follow you. Where are you going with this? It has been proven that NO official of any government ever made any claim as to ratios or percentages of the plane debris that was EMBEDDED or scattered or ejected or consumed. Yet you are still dying to call people liars even though they never said anything. Why don't you just spell out what you think?

Is this close: "I looked at the photos and I don't think the crater is large enough and I don't see enough remains of the airplane so I am assuming that the crash scene was artificated, based on my analysis of the photos I have found on the internet".



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Huh? I really don't follow you. Where are you going with this?

I'll make it easy that even you can understand.

If you have a bucket of water filled to the brim and you shook it so some water spilled, if you take that spilled water and poured it back into the bucket, the water level would fill back up to the brim.

Now take the same filled to the brim bucket and drop a bowling ball into it. What happens when you pour the spilled water back into the bucket?


It has been proven that NO official of any government ever made any claim as to ratios or percentages of the plane debris that was EMBEDDED or scattered or ejected or consumed.

Yes they have, through the memorial ambassadors. Why do you keep lying even after I show you?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   




Do you really think that is how the displacement would work????? Really? Please be advised that are some MAJOR difference between water and soil. MAJOR. Water is monolithic. Water can not be compressed. That is why the displacement ratio is 1:1. Soil is not monolithic, it containers air, organics, liquids and solids. It can be compressed and expanded.

So you know consider the volunteers at the memorial site "official" spokesman for the government investigatory agencies. Plus the video you showed of these wonderful people even shows that they are not telling anyone that the plane was buried, they even said it was "IN" the crater. Sorry, you have been called out on this BS so many times now it is getting tiresome.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
hooper, I actually feel sorry for you. You just got served.




"Because where [Flight 93] hit the ground, IT LITERALLY WENT INTO THE GROUND! They had to excavate and try and recover what they could and this top picture shows the excavation that they did. They excavated down about 40-45ft and the last pieces were recovered at about 30-35ft."


[edit on 23-10-2009 by ATH911]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
The plane flew apart on impact leaving a trench similar to the
Scotland crash crater bombed by the terrorest that just died in
Libya.

Unless a pressure beam more powerful than a beam for crops and cattle
has the ability to dig a trench, I can't see how one makes a crash site
without a crash.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 

The wing scars were a drainage ditch similar to the one seen in that 1994 aerial photo. You can tell because the surface of the dirt is still sun-dried.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


I played it over and over and at no time did the volunteer at the memorial site say that he was an official of the US government and that 80% of the plane was buried. Give it up. There is no such claim. I know how badly you want there to be one so that you can act all outraged, but it didn't happen. Rational people understand this. Find some other straw to grasp onto, this one has slipped away.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 

The wing scars were a drainage ditch similar to the one seen in that 1994 aerial photo. You can tell because the surface of the dirt is still sun-dried.


Created in advance.
There might be such a thing.

A high altitude crash looks the same as known from Scotland.
Was Scotland a test of what a high altitude crash looks like.
Quit possible to the renegade Illuminati think tankers.
Something perhaps not planned but evidence of opportunity.

I give you the occulted science of Tesla as being quite possible
of carving out a trench quicker than a crew of workers.
Beam technology very capable of physical forces and electrical jamming.

The crash site was not as big as in Scotland and have no idea the
plane size to crash trench dynamics.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join