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: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
In reference to this post www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


Similar crash? The pilot intentionally crashed it at high speed? I'm not postive, but am pretty sure he wasnt playing kamikaze. The guys of Flight 93 were.


So using your 'fuzzy' logic then that would mean flight 93 would of made more of a crater then the Iranian plane crash which isn't the case.


Sigh. If you read the post I specifically said that intention cannot change the laws of physics.

The truth of the matter is that the Boeing 757 also known as flight 93, did not crash in Shanksville.


[edit on 8-8-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]


Swampfox? Mister I believe everything i am told on CNN. Where did you go?



No plane crashed in Shanksville on 9/11

[edit on 13-8-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]

[edit on 13-8-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
I don't owe you one.

You don't owe me a rational explanation, or you can't think of a rational explanation as to why the media didn't report it when most of the plane was "found" underground?

Don't worry, I can't think of a rational explanation either.


So, there is no report in the media, no official documents describing this burial yet you seem obsessed about something that appears to be a figment of your imagination.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
So, there is no report in the media, no official documents describing this burial yet you seem obsessed about something that appears to be a figment of your imagination.

So you don't believe most of a 757 was buried in Shanksville either?!



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
So, there is no report in the media, no official documents describing this burial yet you seem obsessed about something that appears to be a figment of your imagination.

So you don't believe most of a 757 was buried in Shanksville either?!


Is there or is there not an "official" claim that 80% of the physical remains of the airplane involved in Flight 93 were found "buried"?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012
In reference to this post www.abovetopsecret.com...


Swampfox? Mister I believe everything i am told on CNN. Where did you go?



No plane crashed in Shanksville on 9/11

[edit on 13-8-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]

[edit on 13-8-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]


Umm, one, I already replied to this. Two, I don't watch CNN. If you choose to believe in spite of ALL evidence that a plane did not crash in Shanksville that day, stick to that fantasy.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   


Regardless, you do concede that most of the passenger remains should be down in the "hole" with where most of UA93 supposedly was?


I would think that most likely the majority of the remains were found in the hole. However, I also know that first responders spoke of finding remains outside the crater, and I am not as morbidly obsessed with knowing exactly what was found where.





And we are still awaiting your extraordinary proof of that


40-50 foot deep hole, 150 foot fuselage.....didnt think it took that much thought



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Is there or is there not an "official" claim that 80% of the physical remains of the airplane involved in Flight 93 were found "buried"?

Yes, that's the official claim. Do you believe it or not? simple yes or no



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

I would think that most likely the majority of the remains were found in the hole.

OK, so why in the world did the media NOT report it when officials at the scene supposedly discovered most of the plane was buried, thereby most likely most of the passengers too since no bodies were reported above ground?

You've seen the news report right away when a mass grave is found, right?


40-50 foot deep hole, 150 foot fuselage.....didnt think it took that much thought

Wow, all I have to do to prove most of a plane buried somewhere is dig a deep hole and say a long plane was down there?! Never new it would be so easy!

Hey wait a minute, do you think it's possible that the FBI did that very thing, dug a deep hole where none existed and just SAID most of large plane was down in it?

[edit on 13-8-2009 by ATH911]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 





OK, so why in the world did the media NOT report it when officials at the scene supposedly discovered most of the plane was buried, thereby most likely most of the passengers too since no bodies were reported above ground?


You are a morbid cuss arent you?

"Today, at the Flight 93 crash site in Shanksville, rescue workers pulled what was left of a spinal column and skull with some brain matter still inside"

Is that really the type of report you wanted to see?

You really seem to be stuck on the fact that no one gave a piece by piece accounting of what was pulled from the crater. A real cannot see the forest for the trees viewpoint....



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



A real cannot see the forest for the trees viewpoint....


Again POT calling Kettal!



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
Is there or is there not an "official" claim that 80% of the physical remains of the airplane involved in Flight 93 were found "buried"?

Yes, that's the official claim. Do you believe it or not? simple yes or no


No, I do not believe....that is the official claim. Prove me wrong.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


So, did you ever find that "official" government document that states that 80% of the physical remains of Flight 93 were buried in the earth below the lowest point of the impact crater? Just curious.

And for the record, I am not accepting the spurious notion that all the media is controlled by the government and ergo anything found in any form of the media is therefore reflective of the government's official position.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Yes I agree. There was no boeing 757 found in shanksville that was also called Flight 93.

I personally spoke with some eyewitnesses and clean up crew from the EPA in Stoystown/ Shanksville. They told me the truth and being a smart man like myself, one is able to discern truth from lies. No Boeing 757 crashed in the soft dirt.

I was briefed a little bit about the wargames scheduled for September 11th morning. Odd coincidence is not and will not be the answer.




[edit on 19-8-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


Well if you were a smart man you would then realize that being able to "discern truth from lies" by just talking to people is very God-like of you.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Is that really the type of report you wanted to see?

You really seem to be stuck on the fact that no one gave a piece by piece accounting of what was pulled from the crater. A real cannot see the forest for the trees viewpoint....

No, you continue to fail to understand what I'm getting at.

I've explained what I meant over and over again with you. I'm beginning to think that you just don't have the intellectual capacity to understand what I'm asking.

I just want someone to give me a reasonable explanation as to why if most of the plane was found underground that the media didn't report when that was discovered and never reported where most of the passenger remains were located after the alleged crash.

What I'm asking is not rocket science.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No, I do not believe....that is the official claim. Prove me wrong.

I see that you are trying to side-step, but I'm not going to let you no matter how hard you try.

I simply want to know if you believe 80% of Flight 93 was buried under the crater. Do you believe around 80% was, or no? yes or no



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


You've changed your tune a little bit. Now you are asking if it was. Because you are the only person claiming that it was, I am going to say no, I don't beleive it.

So is there any official basis for this claim? Anything? NTSB doc? FBI doc? FAA doc? Insurance company? Anything? Or is this just something you heard from somebody at the scene?



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You've changed your tune a little bit. Now you are asking if it was. Because you are the only person claiming that it was, I am going to say no, I don't beleive it.

So just to be clear, you don't believe most of Flight 93 was buried underground?



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


It would have been easier for me to explain rocket science to you. I tried to put it as simply as I could and yet you continue to not get it.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
You've changed your tune a little bit. Now you are asking if it was. Because you are the only person claiming that it was, I am going to say no, I don't beleive it.

So just to be clear, you don't believe most of Flight 93 was buried underground?


Just show me or point me to this report already. Why the games? Either you have an official document that states that 80% of the remains of the plane were embedded in the ground below the crater floor or you don't.

Could it be possible? Well, one thing we would have to first qualify is the 80% by weight or by volume? That makes a huge difference. If the the engines were embedded than that could account for 80% roughly by weight but not by volume.

Just show me the doc or admit that this all just a figment of your imagination.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join