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.

 

Claim this UA logo debris taken at Shanksville

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Can someone please pin-point on a map (plus/minus a few feet) where this one-and-only piece of plane wreckage with United Airlines colors on it was photographed at?



The government claims it was taken at Shanksville. I just want to be sure before I can accept it as plane wreckage from Shanksville.

See if I was going to stage a plane crash, I would just drop miscellaneous plane debris on the ground at some other location and take closeup photos of it where you can't tell where it was photographed.

Kind of like these other photos:






That way I would cut the risk of being caught planting debris at the scene that I'm trying to convince people a plane crashed at. Neat trick, huh?

I would also only have to photograph one piece of plane debris with the logo colors of the plane I was trying to make people think crashed, especially if it's a company where not many of their planes have crashed in which it would be difficult to find a lot of plane wreckage with their logo colors on it.

Most people would never even notice!

[edit on 2-7-2009 by ATH911]




posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
To answer your question:

no.


Sir, what do you think happened to flight 93? You have started several threads regarding flight 93 and I have yet to see your opinion as to what happened to it.

If you could share your hypothesis, I would appreciate it.

Thank you,

CF



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
To answer your question:

no.

So does that mean you concede that UA logo piece can't be used to help prove Flight 93 crashed at Shanksville?



Sir, what do you think happened to flight 93?

I don't think it crashed in Shanksville and I don't know what happened to it, or it's passengers if you are going to ask.

And to add, all the evidence I have seen that it crashed is unverifiable, or could easily have been staged. I've seen no extraordinary proof to support the extraordinary claim that a 757 crashed and mostly buried itself in that field with 44 passengers on board.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I would ask United Airlines.

It was their plane after all.

What do you figure they think happened to it?

Would United Airlines be in on the conspiracy too?... I suppose that depends COMPLETELY upon their answer, right..



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

So does that mean you concede that UA logo piece can't be used to help prove Flight 93 crashed at Shanksville?


No.

It was used in a court of law as evidence to convict Zacarias Moussaoui.





I don't think it crashed in Shanksville and I don't know what happened to it, or it's passengers if you are going to ask.


But you know for a fact it didn't crash in Shanksville? So, you think there was a decoy plane that witnesses saw crash? Or, nothing crashed there? A pre-planted bomb with plane parts pre- buried?

And to add, all the evidence I have seen that it crashed is unverifiable, or could easily have been staged. I've seen no extraordinary proof to support the extraordinary claim that a 757 crashed and mostly buried itself in that field with 44 passengers on board.

The phone calls?

The personal belongings?

The DNA evidence?

The witness statements?

FDR matching the witness statements?

CVR?

The flight was tracked on radar from take to crash?

None of this means anything to you?



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
I would ask United Airlines.

It was their plane after all.




True.

I have offered contact information AND names to ask these questions. After all UA is in possession of flight 93. So far, only one truther has taken me up on the offer and he has not posted regarding this info on over a month.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Would United Airlines be in on the conspiracy too?... I suppose that depends COMPLETELY upon their answer, right..

I don't care who may, or may not be in on it. I only care of determining if this plane crash was real or staged. Once it's determined it's staged, then we can proceed with the "who did it?"



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
No.

It was used in a court of law as evidence to convict Zacarias Moussaoui.

So? Where the prosecutors the one's who took that photo at the scene in Shanksville? I would bet it was more like the FBI who took that photo, they labeled it was debris taken in Shanksville, and they passed this photo with their description on it to the prosecution to use in their case.


But you know for a fact it didn't crash in Shanksville? So, you think...

None of this means anything to you?

Based on the evidence I've seen, I don't believe a 757 crashed there. This thread is about whether that UA logo piece was really taken in Shanksville or not. Feel free to start another thread on your topic.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
True.

I have offered contact information AND names to ask these questions. After all UA is in possession of flight 93. So far, only one truther has taken me up on the offer and he has not posted regarding this info on over a month.

Just curious, let's say I call UA from the info you give. How do I convey to you what they say? Are you going to believe me if I report back with evidence that doesn't help your case?



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911


So? Where the prosecutors the one's who took that photo at the scene in Shanksville? I would bet it was more like the FBI who took that photo, they labeled it was debris taken in Shanksville, and they passed this photo with their description on it to the prosecution to use in their case.



"I bet?"

You are speculating. You ignore the abundance of evidence.

Bottom line, the prosecution used this photo as an exhibit and it was allowed.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
"I bet?"

You are speculating. You ignore the abundance of evidence.

What is the abundance of evidence of who took that photo and where?


Bottom line, the prosecution used this photo as an exhibit and it was allowed.

And that is proof-positive that somehow that proves that UA logo piece is from Flight 93 taken at the scene and not a staged pic taken somewhere else?

As my other thread says, you rely a lot of faith.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911


As my other thread says, you rely a lot of faith.


a LOT more than faith my friend. I looked at ALL the evidence. And there is quite a bit.

I will be more than happy to give you the info to UA. Please use the U2U function though.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
a LOT more than faith my friend. I looked at ALL the evidence. And there is quite a bit.

So you rely on the quantity of evidence, regardless of the quality? What I mean is if someone staged a plane crash and planted/made-up a LOT of evidence, that would be enough to convince you?


I will be more than happy to give you the info to UA. Please use the U2U function though.

Again, what if I called them and they told me info that proved a conspiracy, how would I convey that to you without thinking I made it up?



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

So you rely on the quantity of evidence, regardless of the quality? What I mean is if someone staged a plane crash and planted/made-up a LOT of evidence, that would be enough to convince you?


This is so laughable. Quality? Eyewitnesses to a plane crashing? The FDR to match them? All victims ID'd via dental records or DNA? Personal Belongings found? Radar data?

Dude... with this crash there is quantity AND quality.



Again, what if I called them and they told me info that proved a conspiracy, how would I convey that to you without thinking I made it up?


What do you care what I think? I am a faceless poster on a conspiracy website. If you are searching for the truth sincerely, you would not give to craps what I think. Or anyone else for that matter.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
This is so laughable. Quality? Eyewitnesses to a plane crashing? The FDR to match them? All victims ID'd via dental records or DNA? Personal Belongings found? Radar data?

Dude... with this crash there is quantity AND quality.

If you want, start another thread and we can disect each piece of evidence you present. I see nothing that couldn't have been realistically planted or just made up. You wouldn't expect a staged crash to not have a lot of seemingly convincing evidence?


What do you care what I think? I am a faceless poster on a conspiracy website. If you are searching for the truth sincerely, you would not give to craps what I think. Or anyone else for that matter.

So why do you spend so much time here trying to debunk 9/11 conspiracies? Is this your job?



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Is it your job to proliferate misconceptions and exploit ignorance, all the while ignoring (or not trusting) anything regarding the events of 9/11 that do not fit into your reverse engineered hypothesis?

What exactly is your agenda? And who are YOU working for?



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Is it your job to proliferate misconceptions and exploit ignorance, all the while ignoring (or not trusting) anything regarding the events of 9/11 that do not fit into your reverse engineered hypothesis?

Such as?



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
If you have to ask, I suppose it makes your recent thread flurry moot.


Have A Nice Day.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
If you have to ask, I suppose it makes your recent thread flurry moot.


Have A Nice Day.

That's what I thought. You skeptics are just mad because you keep failing to win any of my debates.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   

posted by Taxi-Driver

What exactly is your agenda? And who are YOU working for?


ATH911 certainly must not be working for the 9-11 perps, nor the FBI, nor the Bush Crime Family, nor the Military Industrial Complex, nor the NIST incompetents, nor Saudi Arabia, nor the 911 Whitewash Commission, nor Purdue University, nor the New World Order Elitists, nor Lucky Larry Silverstein, nor the Israeli MOSSAD, nor UnPopular Mechanics, nor the CIA, nor Integrated Consultants, nor Tricky Dick Cheney, nor the NeoCONs, nor the US Defense Department, nor the Secret Service, and nor for you pseudoskeptics and government loyalists.

Gee. ATH911 must be working for the American People and simple Justice must be his agenda. What else could it be?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join