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.

 

Skeptics seem to rely on FAITH for Flight 93 buried claim

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 



You have made an excellent point. I could not have said it any better. When will this madness end?




posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Not not dirty enough, not dirty at all! You do concede that the engine piece fits in the bucket next to it?

I have no idea if it fits in the bucket next to it, it is a single photo with no information as to scale. There is simply not enough information to tell. If you believe it does, tell me, how wide is the bucket in inches?


Please post your best evidence of where they were recovered.

Why? Do you have no evidence to suggest they were staged? That is after all a question I have already put to you.


*Sigh* Those accounts are of the people picking up debris ABOVE ground. You do agree it would be easier to plant debris above ground versus below ground?

Easier perhaps, but definitely not easy. How exactly did they manage to kill, grind up, incinerate and then spread the bodies of the passengers out over the field, and why was that thought to be a better plan than crashing the plane there?


I would never thought it would be sooooooo hard for skeptics to prove 80% of a 757 was buried!

It's not, it's difficult for some people to accept it.


Link?

They have been posted in this thread.


Anything you can that would make a rational person believe most of a big 757 buried itself underground.

This has already been posted. I am a rational person, and I believe that a large amount of Flight 93 was buried underground, with the remaining portion being decimated and spread around the local area through impact force.

This is why I said be specific, because I cannot guess at how your mind works, and so if you want evidence providing then you're going to have to ask for it more explicitly.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ATH911
 


No, the fact hasnt changed....now, the media not getting the fact straight...that is entirely possible. There were many, many blown calls made by the media that day and in the days that followed.


You keep talking about these reports but never produce a link or site to back it up the OP and others have no trouble posting their sources, having trouble using the link funtion?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I am a rational person, and I believe that a large amount of Flight 93 was buried underground, with the remaining portion being decimated and spread around the local area through impact force.

Could you quantify the approximate percentage of the plane that you think was buried?

Was it buried intact or in pieces?

Which major components of the plane do you think were buried?

Could you describe the forces involved with some calculations, to show how a large amount of the plane was buried?

Can you describe the physical process where the displaced dirt, from the large amount of the impacting plane, managed to settle back into the crater and cover all of the pieces?

To what depth did 'they' dig to recover all of the pieces?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I have no idea if it fits in the bucket next to it, it is a single photo with no information as to scale. There is simply not enough information to tell. If you believe it does, tell me, how wide is the bucket in inches

Wide enough to fit that engine part into it. Anyone with working vision can tell that.


Why?

You're making the claim those recorders came out of the ground in Shanksville.


Do you have no evidence to suggest they were staged? That is after all a question I have already put to you.

First you should prove the actually came out of the ground in Shanksville. Evidence they're staged? Why did they have someone jump in the hole to photograph it thereby stepping on the remains of some of the alleged 40 passengers? Seems kind of insensitive and unnecessary to do that unless they REALLY wanted to make people believe a black box buried there.


Easier perhaps, but definitely not easy. How exactly did they manage to kill, grind up, incinerate and then spread the bodies of the passengers out over the field, and why was that thought to be a better plan than crashing the plane there?

Wally Miller said he only found the amount of remains to fill up only 3 caskets. That's not very much remains.

Now you tell me why he reported not a single drop of blood if 44 people were essentially shredded during the crash?


It's not, it's difficult for some people to accept it.

Well prove most of the plane buried! We've only been waiting for 6 pages now.


They have been posted in this thread... This has already been posted.

Couldn't find them. Please repost.


I am a rational person, and I believe that a large amount of Flight 93 was buried underground

Why do you believe most of Flight 93 was buried?

[edit on 1-7-2009 by ATH911]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
We don't have enough information. First, most air crashes involve planes hitting the ground accidentally, usually with considerable forward motion (as well as the downward motion). Second, very few air crashes receive as much attention as this one did. What we saw is not at all representative of an ordinary air crash. We are seeing many things most of us have never seen before. We have no legitimate way to say whether anything is "suspicious", because we've never seen anything like it.

According to the story, passengers stormed the hijackers, trying to regain control of the plane. The hijackers couldn't complete their original plan, but were able to deliberately crash the plane into the ground. Such an impact is rare in ordinary crashes. So we really don't know much about how it looks when a large airliner is driven directly into the ground, apparently at full power. We can surmise, however, that such a crash is likely to be far deeper into the ground than normal.

Terminal velocity of a plane without power is much less than that of a plane under power; and it will usually have a much greater horizontal component. You'd expect a shallower impact crater with considerable horizontal spread of the debris, assuming the plane was intact before striking the ground. This horizontal spread would allow any remaining fuel to ignite. The fragments of the plane are likely to be larger.

I can't say that a power dive into the ground - even into relatively soft, spongy ground - would swallow a whole airliner, but then again, I can't say it wouldn't. I *can* say that any such impact would tend to pulverize the plane. You're talking about going from 580 mph to 0 in about 25 feet, assuming that the second black box was the deepest piece of plane. Whatever the case, I calculate that the force on the plane was somewhere in the neighborhood of 900 g's. That's enough to smash just about anything on a plane.

Questions were raised about the black boxes. These were obviously not photographed in situ. They were first dug up, then photographed approximately where they were found, oriented so as to make the labels visible. Photographs of the boxes before being dug up would just show some orange showing through the soil. I don't see anything sinister in this. A photograph of an orange spot in the dirt isn't particularly informative. For all we know, there may be dozens of such photos taken before the boxes were pulled out.

Never before have I seen a report of an air crash in which the black boxes were shown. Neither have most people. How do we know what they're supposed to look like when dug up? The only reason we saw them this time is because of the other attacks. Otherwise, this would have been a fairly boring airliner crash.

Which brings us to the next issue. Probably one huge reason we've never seen an impact crater such as this is simply that it's not very dramatic. In fact, it's boring. A hole in the ground, no roaring inferno, no wreckage strewn throughout the region, just a little smoke and maybe a small piece of aircraft or two. For an ordinary airplane crash, you wouldn't even see the footage, because there's nothing there to see. That's why it looks so strange to us - the media jackals normally would skip the boring hole and go to the grieving loved ones at the airports. Give us dirty laundry.

Finally, to my knowledge, when something large and heavy hits the earth at a high rate of speed and makes a crater, it is common for much of the thrown out dirt to fall back into the crater. I know that meteorites are usually covered by the matter they eject. Why not a plane? Not saying that explains it, but it does make sense.

But really, there is hardly anyone here who has had any experience with whatever happens when a plane hits the ground under power. We don't know enough to claim it's a coverup or a fake.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911


Hi ATH911... I believe you should look at my paper in this thread... it might help you add some weight to your argument about the soil around the Shanksville site...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Rewey



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Yes we do...we know it has to be a lie that the plane crashed there as described because NO crash site in the history of aviation has ever left a trail of debris across 5 miles of forest when the plane came down vertically...

To argue that the plane was buried is just plain stupid....

Great thread....the lack of quality responses on the part of the debunkers speak volumes for the quandary they find themselves in....!!

For example, arguing on the definition of hearsay being "different in Australia" smacks of someone clutching at straws...

Hearsay definition...fron the Freedictionary website.

"Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor."

There you go....unverified information....

As for the comment about the soil that was "thrown from the hole" then miraculously landed back in the same place, burying the plane , well..really...if you are serious mate i would keep that one to yourself...9/11 has sooooo many "firsts" that are too incredible to be believed....adding this gem might be stretching the bow a little too far...


[edit on 1-7-2009 by benoni]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


So again how many crash scenes you been too?

Reason I ask you seem to have a lot of opinions on what a crash scene
should look like...

So what is your exoerience base?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
thedman

I remember reading here that you have experience in plane crash sites..

How many have you attended??

How many that you attended, that included vertical impact with the ground, were able to disperse small pieces of debris across a 5 mile radius??

How many that you attended have had the uncanny ability to bury themselves in the ground?

How many have you attended that had basically NO wings, engines, fuselage, seats or human remains visible?

And last but not least, would you agree that this "official" story, given your experience, is the biggest load of codswollop you have ever heard (excluding the Pentagon and WTC 1, 2 and 7??)



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by earthman4
 
Not while they have careers and reputations to think about.A lot people within the government and military made their names on the events of that day.To come out now and admit that the USAF shot down that jet is a responsibility that no one in power then and now wants.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
The FACT that 911 was an inside job aren't opinions to be debated... they are facts to be delt with...



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ATH911
 


So again how many crash scenes you been too?

Reason I ask you seem to have a lot of opinions on what a crash scene
should look like...

So what is your exoerience base?

Where did I say the Shanksville scene should have looked like something? I'm simply asking for hard evidence most of Flight 93 buried itself and so far you skeptics have received a big FAIL in providing that.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
In truth i think they realise their official tale is, well, utter drivel...

But...some people have a hard time conceding they were duped by Bush n Co. ....or are too blindly patriotic for their own good.

Patriotism comes in many guises....some healthy, some decidedly unhealthy...

To question something because it seems soooo implausible as to be laughable is to be considered patriotic, especially when considering the 3000+ deaths on 9/11 and the hundreds of thousands of arabs slaughtered in the name of freedom....

America loves to cause mayhem and death....one of her less endearing qualities.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
But...some people have a hard time conceding they were duped by Bush n Co. ....or are too blindly patriotic for their own good.

Or actively working to help cover up this conspiracy, therefore they will be tried for treason and they better pray they don't get the chair if convicted.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Wally Miller said he only found the amount of remains to fill up only 3 caskets. That's not very much remains.

Now you tell me why he reported not a single drop of blood if 44 people were essentially shredded during the crash?


You seem to be offering your opinion here - ever seen a real crash scene
up close and personal?

SNIP

Crash scene I was at was just down road, Lear 35A with 4 people

Walked the crash scene marking out body parts for coroner to recover
Like I said real up close and personal

Didn't see any blood, only parts recognizable as human - part of chest
(1/2 rib cage), a hand minus fingers, several amputated fingers. Rest
was scraps - "human hamburger". Only enough to fill small bag

So I can relate to Wallace Miller saw at Shanksville

Why when Wallace Miller tells what scene was at Shanksville do we get
stream of ignorant drivel about "not enough blood"?

=================================================
[Mod edit]

Let's see if we can post without insulting our fellow members, please. Address the topic without the personal potshots. Thanks.
=================================================

[edit on 7/2/2009 by yeahright]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
The type of soil there would not swallow up the whole plane. This did happen once in the everglades. I have seen a few crash sites in the CAP and this one looks fabricated. The guy calling 911 from the plane's lavatory and telling them they had been hit pretty much tells the story.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
thedman

Dont worry about the blood mate!!

Wheres the *SNIP* plane?????

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2/7/2009 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Why when Wallace Miller tells what scene was at Shanksville do we get
stream of ignorant drivel about "not enough blood"?

Not enough blood? Try not a single drop of blood!

Btw thedman, you ever going to prove most of Flight 93 buried itself, or are you just going to rely of FAITH that it did?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join