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.

 

Further proof UA93 didn't bury, media skipped it

page: 13
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I do not know where the moronic idea came from that the plane liquified. And it has never been mentioned that the bodies were all found intact.


I am wondering about this one myself. The Purdue study made no mention of this, and you read the interviews of rescue and recovery workers they describe boby "parts" scattered everywhere within the building.




posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
So to sum this up, you are trying to argue that the "official claim" that the plane was buried under the crater

Mostly buried.


is a lie because if it had been true then the media would have reported it

Not quite, it's a lie because if it had been true, the FBI excavation crew would have realized most of the plane was underground when they allegedly found one of the black boxes down 15 ft on 9/13 and the second one down 25 ft on 9/14 respectively and the FBI would have reported this to the media, JUST LIKE THEY had reported to the media EACH TIME that they found both black boxes AND one of the engines underground.

So the ONLY logical conclusion that the media didn't report it when it was realized that most of the plane was underground was that the FBI never told the media and the reason the FBI never told the media about this "monumental find" was because no plane was buried in the ground.


but when pushed to show this "official claim" most of what you refer to comes from the media

Who were told where most of the plane had gone only months and years after 9/11! That's the whole point of this OP (if you hadn't noticed).


and add to that no official sources has definitievly described the ratio of plane remains and how they were dispursed.

What constitutes "official sources" to you?


You like to cite the volunteer Ambassadors at the memorial site

Does it matter than they are volunteers, or not?


until you find that the only way to give their words weight to your argument is to actually ignore what they are saying

What did I ignore that the Ambassadors were saying?


or claim that they misspoke.

If you are referring to the "80% was in the crater" quote by that one female Ambassador, if you had even payed attention, I showed you other Ambassadors who clearly stated the plane "literally went into the ground" and MULTIPLE media reports that the plane burrowed underground, so by using a little bit of logic (I know that escapes skeptics a lot), we can deduce that when the female Ambassador said "80% was in the crater," she clearly meant that 80% was in the ground. I mean all you really had to do is look inside that crater and see that only 1% of a 757 is literally "in the crater," not 80%, so obviously she meant to say "in the ground."

[edit on 31-10-2009 by ATH911]



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Male Ambassador claiming the plane burrowed underground, the cockpit broke off beforehand and went into the woods, and the dirt closed up on top of Flight 93 that supposedly burrowed.


(Start at 1:55.)


"Just to give you a little thumbnail sketch, if you came in this way, you might have passed a little junk yard up on the top of the hill here? There were two fellows working in the junk yard that day. They attest to the fact that the plane come over them. By that time, it was less than 100 feet off the ground. It was flying full-bore, 560 mph and it was upside-down.

It came right down this ridge here and if you can see way back in the field, you can see an American flag... the plane crashed between there and the woods back there.

This is an old strip in here and had we been here back in the 60's, we'd be about 50 feet down. After they got through stripping the mines, they backfilled it and brought it back up to even. That's why you don't see any trees around here, because it's all been stripped.

That down there was the end of the mine and it became a hard rock wall again. They dug down here and then they filled it back up again, so this was still rock.

The plane came in at about a 40 degree angle, going 560 mph, hit that soft ground, slammed into that rocky wall and completely disitegrated. Parts of the cockpit broke off and went back into the woods, but the rest of it went straight down and the ground came in around it, so the actual hole wasn't very large. When the FBI went in for parts, body parts and what not, 35 to 40 feet down in the ground."



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


I love you all like my own babies, and puppies and kittens....but I THINK the topic here is United Airlines 93???


The Purdue study made no mention of this, and you read the interviews of rescue and recovery workers they describe boby "parts" scattered everywhere within the building.


I don't remember a "building" being a part of the UAL 93 crash site....please let's not allow the "Truther" parahnoia infect us as well...M'Kay????
_________________________________________________________

edit for spelling....oops, I probably missed a few....


[edit on 31 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yes, I believe the core of the OP argument was something like - the "official claim" was that most or the plurality of the remains of the aircraft involved in Flight 93 was buried deep beneath the impact crater, however, this is obviously a lie since if that had been the case, the media would have covered this supposed anamoly extensively, however, since it did not, the "official claim" must not be true and ergo no plane crashed at Shanksville.

When I pressed the original poster to produce evidence of the "official claim" he/she was not able to produce anything, but, in lieu of any official proclamation or documentation proceeded to produce - media reports and therefore negating the original argument.

It has now been reduced to trying to make an exact determination as to the quantity of remains extracted from the impact crater versus the amount retrieved from the surrounding landscape by the interpretation of statements made by local volunteer guides at the Memorial site.

Then these interpretations go to determining a heretofore undefined "tipping point" of credulity. Specifially, if say, it is determined that 32.8% of the remains are retrieved from an embedded state than that is in the realm of possibility, however, if we say that 41.3% was retrieved from embeddment than that is undeniable proof of an aritificated crash scene and the existence of a nefarious American born conspiracy.

In other words - a dead end.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yes, I believe the core of the OP argument was something like - the "official claim" was that most or the plurality of the remains of the aircraft involved in Flight 93 was buried deep beneath the impact crater, however, this is obviously a lie since if that had been the case, the media would have covered this supposed anamoly extensively, however, since it did not, the "official claim" must not be true and ergo no plane crashed at Shanksville.

Yes. Was that so hard to understand all this time?



When I pressed the original poster to produce evidence of the "official claim" he was not able to produce anything, but, in lieu of any official proclamation or documentation proceeded to produce - media reports and therefore negating the original argument.

Why do you keep lying hooper?

I've produced:
- multiple examples from various Memorial Ambassadors, who are rigorously trained to recite the official story, who's presentation states most of the plane buried with one videotaped explaining that 80% of the plane was in the ground
- a news article and interview of Wally Miller, an official involved with the cleanup, explaining that the "explanation" was that most of the plane buried
- numerous news reports (posted well after 9/11) stating most of the plane buried

Just because YOU don't accept any this as the official story, doesn't mean it's not the official story. You just choose not to accept it. From who would you accept as "official" enough to state the official story?


It has now been reduced to trying to make an exact determination as to the quantity of remains extracted from the impact crater versus the amount retrieved from the surrounding landscape ... if say, it is determined that 32.8% of the remains are retrieved from an embedded state than that is in the realm of possibility, however, if we say that 41.3% was retrieved from embeddment than that is undeniable proof of an aritificated crash scene

More like the math needs to add up.

If the FBI claims 95% of the plane was recovered from the scene and very conservatively about 15% of a 757 was found above ground, then the remaining 80% of the 757 has to be somewhere, agreed?

Since it is undisputed now by rational people that the official story is most of the plane was buried, then around 80% of the plane had to have been buried and if that was the case, not only would there be LOTS of evidence that much of a plane was dug out of the ground, but it would have been reported to the media by the FBI, who reported they found the black boxes and one of the engines underground, and the media would have made this .lines news the day, or day after they were told about this, because this would have been UNPRECEDENTED. Agreed?

[edit on 2-11-2009 by ATH911]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


No, I do not agree at all. I do not know that it is unprecedented. All plane crashes, by their nature, are unprecedented. No two are alike. They are each and everyone of them independent events.

Do you not notice that within your own post you note the media reports that portions of the plane were excavated from the crash site and then note that the media did not report it? Isn't this a little bit of a contradiction?

As for what is official - I would be looking for a written report from the authorities in charge of the recovery. Not Wally Miller, he was the county coroner and as knowledgeable as he was about recover the remains of the victims, I don't know that he would have been precisely noting each piece of plane remains.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 


No, I do not agree at all. I do not know that it is unprecedented.

Well why don't you think back and tell me the last crash of a large plane into dirt you remember that mostly buried. If it's not unprecedented, then you should be able to recall dozens of crashes where this happened because it would be so common if you think it's not unprecedented.


All plane crashes, by their nature, are unprecedented. No two are alike. They are each and everyone of them independent events.

OMG, your denial is unprecedented!


Do you not notice that within your own post you note the media reports that portions of the plane were excavated from the crash site and then note that the media did not report it? Isn't this a little bit of a contradiction?

OMG, will you f'n pay attention to the point of the OP?!? It's not what the media reported later, it's what the media didn't report when it supposedly happened. PAY ATTENTION.


As for what is official - I would be looking for a written report from the authorities in charge of the recovery.

Show me an example from the alleged Flight 93 crash.


Not Wally Miller, he was the county coroner and as knowledgeable as he was about recover the remains of the victims, I don't know that he would have been precisely noting each piece of plane remains.

So he, one of the landowners, the multiple Memorial Ambassadors, and eventually the media were all pulling the same facts out of their asses? What's the odds on THAT one?!?!?!



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Well, I am glad to see you finally conceded that the media didn't "skip it" they just had different editorial priorities than you and that you finally concede that there is no "official claim"

Now tell me, how does reporting it later than YOU think they should have and there being no official presentation on the exact percentage of the plane's remains that were embedded amount to irredfutable evidence of a conspiracy and a cover up?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 


Well, I am glad to see you finally conceded that the media didn't "skip it"

Not only lying again, but quote mining. Didn't you even read my OP??? Aren't you skeptics always criticizing us for quote mining? Now we'll add "hypocrite" to your list beside "liar."


they just had different editorial priorities than you

Ah, so it was a priority for the news to report about the black boxes and engine pieces when they were allegedly found deep in the ground, but it wasn't a priority for the news to report it when the FBI realized that most of the plane, and therefore passengers, were buried? Do you know and illogical and ridiculous that notion sounds? Not only does it seem you suffer from denial, but delusion as well.


and that you finally concede that there is no "official claim"

*Snip*

Mod Note: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Posting Conduct – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/4/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


The media, as expected, reported on the finding of the recorders. Considering all else that was going on at the time, of what relative consequence was the information, if offered, regarding the depth and quantity of the remainder of the other material?

You are obviously obsessed with the subject because you think that somewhere in the information, or lack of information, or lack of reporting on the information is a "smoking gun" that will call out some diabolic conspiracy within the US government to create the illusion, in a field in Pennsylvania, of a passenger plane crash.

It would appear however, that you are quite alone in this pursuit. Nobody else seems to think it the least bit unusual that a large plane crashing at nearly right angles into the ground at near 600 miles per hour should embedded some, most, alot of its physicallity into the earth. You would also appear to believe that there is some hard and fast formula for determining crash site geography for each and every impact and that any variation from the calculus of that formula is a red flag denoting an attempt to decieve.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
It would appear however, that you are quite alone in this pursuit. Nobody else seems to think it the least bit unusual that a large plane crashing at nearly right angles

Since when is an alleged 40 degree incline close to being a right angle???

I've seen some strange and incorrect claims made in this forum the past few days...



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Ok 40 degrees. At over 500 mph.
The point was that there is not a hard and fast forumla for predicting behavior that Flight 93 violated.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by tezzajw
 

Ok 40 degrees. At over 500 mph.
The point was that there is not a hard and fast forumla for predicting behavior that Flight 93 violated.

Wrong, hooper.

It'se very difficult for you to predict what the alleged Flight UA93 should have done.

You couldn't even get the alleged crash angle correct.

Try again.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
It would appear however, that you are quite alone in this pursuit. Nobody else seems to think it the least bit unusual that a large plane crashing at nearly right angles into the ground at near 600 miles per hour should embedded some, most, alot of its physicallity into the earth. You would also appear to believe that there is some hard and fast formula for determining crash site geography for each and every impact and that any variation from the calculus of that formula is a red flag denoting an attempt to decieve.


A lot of people think it is strange that the crash site does not look like a plane crash...

Other planes have crashed at high speeds, but I have never seen a plane crash that you wouldn't immediately know was a plane crash.

Do you know of any other cases where the wreckage is not clearly a plane?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


No, that is the problem - a lot of people don't think that. They understand that when you crash a plane into the ground at a very steep angle and at very, very high speed that there isn't going to be much left that is recognizable as a plane. It is quite simple to understand and everybody does.

People also understand what first responders meant when they talk about there being nothing there. It is everyday language.

Guy I work with was a volunteer fireman, gets called to the scene of a car crash where the car was doing close to 100 when it hit a bridge abutment. When he says, "Man, there was nothing left to that thing" I know that he does not mean that literally.

You are more than welcome to show me crash scenes from any other plane crash were the parameters are exactly the same and then make the argument. But you won't because there isn't.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by tezzajw
 

Ok 40 degrees. At over 500 mph.
The point was that there is not a hard and fast forumla for predicting behavior that Flight 93 violated.

Wrong, hooper.

It'se very difficult for you to predict what the alleged Flight UA93 should have done.

You couldn't even get the alleged crash angle correct.

Try again.


Wasn't trying to get it exactly right, that is your obsession, I was spekaing to the broader point. If you are so determined to prove Shanksville is a stage set then the solution is quite simple. Show me the numbers. Just like Purdue did for the WTC. Run an a computer model of Flight 93 and prove that the scene is fabricated.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Jezus
 


No, that is the problem - a lot of people don't think that.


Well I'm sure we are exposed to different parts of the population of Earth, but in many experience, a large majority of people who actually look at the photos think it is unusual that there is no clear wreckage.


Originally posted by hooper
They understand that when you crash a plane into the ground at a very steep angle and at very, very high speed that there isn't going to be much left that is recognizable as a plane. It is quite simple to understand and everybody does.


Do you know of any other cases of plane crashes where an uninformed person would not be able to tell it was a plane crash?

Do you know of any photos of plane crashes where the wreckage is indistinguishable?

Or is this the first time a plane has ever crashed at high speeds?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 






posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   




new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join