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: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

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?

No games. Just don't want you to later say "well, that's exactly what I meant. I actually blah blah blah." I'm trying to get you to give a definitive answer so you don't try to weasel out later.


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.

Volume, just like when they said they recovered 95% of the plane. They were talking about the volume there too. (weight -- sheesh!)


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

Soon as you give a definitive answer.




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   
No debunker. intellectual or even seasoned pseudoskeptic can prove that a Boeing commercial air liner crashed in the Stoystown shanksville field on the morning of 911 in Pennsylavania.

That is a fact.

But they try and try.

Those pesky wargames got us again.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012
No debunker. intellectual or even seasoned pseudoskeptic can prove that a Boeing commercial air liner crashed in the Stoystown shanksville field on the morning of 911 in Pennsylavania.

I would say they can't prove most of a 757 buried and was dug out of the ground.

The area was staged, so above ground there was debris to give the "appearance" that a plane had crashed there.

The point of staging something is to make it look real. The should have threw around more pieces of debris with United logo colors though. It's absurd to think only ONE piece of debris with United colors survived when supposedly 95% of the plane was recovered! LoL



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Skeptics, do you concede no 757 was buried in the ground in Shanks?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Nope, I only concede that one day you will stand before St Peter and St Peter will tell you the official story is the truth....and you will STILL think it was a conspiracy lead by the dreaded NEOCONS.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ATH911
 


Nope

Then maybe you can show us some extraordinary evidence to prove the extraordinary claim that most of a 757 was buried in Shanks. No one has yet.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Yes we need all of those videos released. There is no reason on earth to not release them now unless they are hiding something. Why not release?



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


"Proof" is a two way road. Denial will trump science, logic, reason and even real life experience every time.

Is there really anything out there that will prove anything to you other than what you already have invested all your faith in? I doubt it, but that doesn't mean I can't have fun trying.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Any chance that you can show us the basis for the "extrordinary claim"? I still haven't seen anything that would qualify as an official government claim that 80% or 95% or any other percentage of the plane was buried.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Absolutely, uh, I think. Now its the entire 757? I thought it was only a part of it? Oh well, guess it's just a moving target then.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 


Absolutely, uh, I think.

Agreed, I don't think a 757 buried itself either.

But Swampy thinks most of one did. You agree that he is wrong about that?



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


ATH, thanks for your more than enlightening information, but it seems as if the same old debunkers come onto these types of forums, for round 5 of insanity then round 6,7 and 8. my god, do these same people who beleive this official story from our government actually beleive it? So, if they beleive these assanine reports, do they also beleive that the economy will recover in the 3rd quarter?


Bill Hicks comes to mind with this insanity" GO BACK TO SLEEP AMERICA YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS IT ALL UNDER CONTROL.


THINK i need some of this equilibrium KOOL AID that some of these members are inhaling in!!!



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 


Absolutely, uh, I think.

Agreed, I don't think a 757 buried itself either.

But Swampy thinks most of one did. You agree that he is wrong about that?


Wrong about what??? Please give me something to even evaluate. Anything. 80%, 95%, some, all, none - which is it already? What does the official document say? Can sections of the plane be buried in the ground? Absolutley. Beyond a doubt.

There was just an incident in England where a World War II vintage bomb was found buried in a farm field. When things fall out of the sky at very high rates of speed, unless they fall on soild rock, they will penetrate the ground. Shoot a BB into the sand and it will be "buried". You don't need an advanced degree in physics to figure this out, common life experience will tell you what happens when two objects meet at a high rate of speed and one is significantly harder then the other.

Why do you have such a problem with this? Maybe the media "skipped" it because the idea of some of the plane being burrowed into the ground after crashing into it at 500mph is not as newsworthy to most of the population as it apparently is to you.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tatersalad
reply to post by ATH911
 


ATH, thanks for your more than enlightening information, but it seems as if the same old debunkers come onto these types of forums, for round 5 of insanity then round 6,7 and 8. my god, do these same people who beleive this official story from our government actually beleive it? So, if they beleive these assanine reports, do they also beleive that the economy will recover in the 3rd quarter?


Bill Hicks comes to mind with this insanity" GO BACK TO SLEEP AMERICA YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS IT ALL UNDER CONTROL.


THINK i need some of this equilibrium KOOL AID that some of these members are inhaling in!!!


Really? You have an assanine report from the government that states these things? Can we see it? ATH doesn't seem able to produce anything.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

Swamp thinks most of Flight 93 was buried.

You think most of Flight 93 did not bury (as do I!).

You guys are at odds. Who's right and who's wrong?


[edit on 1-9-2009 by ATH911]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper
 

Swamp thinks most of Flight 93 was buried.

You think most of Flight 93 did not bury (as do I!).

You guys are at odds. Who's right and who's wrong?


[edit on 1-9-2009 by ATH911]


About what? What constitutes most? What constitutes buried?

Swamp says more than 50%, I think less than 50%.

You, on the other hand say there was no plane there at all.

Who's right and who's wrong?

You are the only one who is obviously wrong.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Swamp says more than 50%, I think less than 50%.

You guys can't have it both ways!

And you Hooper actually have quite a problem if you think it's less than 50%, because the FBI says they recovered 95% of the plane and if you look at the crash scene photos before they started the cleanup, you can see there less than 5% of debris above ground, so you have quite a bit of explaining to tell us where most of that 95% was after the alleged crash!

Funny thing is, 80% of the plane being buried actually makes more sense to explain how 95% of the plane could be recovered when less than 5% is seen above ground! It's just too bad there is just no proof that most of a 757 was buried there!

Quite the dilemma for you skeptics. Quite the dilemma.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
Swamp says more than 50%, I think less than 50%.

You guys can't have it both ways!

And you Hooper actually have quite a problem if you think it's less than 50%, because the FBI says they recovered 95% of the plane and if you look at the crash scene photos before they started the cleanup, you can see there less than 5% of debris above ground, so you have quite a bit of explaining to tell us where most of that 95% was after the alleged crash!

Funny thing is, 80% of the plane being buried actually makes more sense to explain how 95% of the plane could be recovered when less than 5% is seen above ground! It's just too bad there is just no proof that most of a 757 was buried there!

Quite the dilemma for you skeptics. Quite the dilemma.


Oh, I see now. You have an FBI spokesman telling a reporter that 95% of the plane was recovered (not exactly an official report, is it?) and you have officially and unilaterlally declared that what photos you have seen constitutes 5% of the plane and therefore the other 90% must be buried. Very tricky, but sorry, a big failure.

Your unilateral declarations are not exactly what I would call an "official report" as you openly stated and you are therefore lying.

Shame, shame.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Oh, I see now. You have an FBI spokesman telling a reporter that 95% of the plane was recovered (not exactly an official report, is it?)

Where did I ever say there was an "official report" that said 95% was recovered, or that 80% was buried? I don't think there was ANY "official report" released detailing the alleged crash of Flight 93.

I've said these are the official CLAIMS and when the FBI reports something, that is THEIR claim.


and you have officially and unilaterlally declared that what photos you have seen constitutes 5% of the plane and therefore the other 90% must be buried. Very tricky, but sorry, a big failure. [/url]
Well if it's such a big failure, why don't you tell me what % of Flight 93 wreckage do you see in the scene photos before the cleanup started?


Your unilateral declarations are not exactly what I would call an "official report" as you openly stated and you are therefore lying.

Shame, shame.

As I've said, I've never said there was an "official report," so you are lying that I'm lying.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


As I have told you more than once. I do not know if 55 percent was found in the crater and 45 was outside the crater. I have also told you more than once that no one sat their with scales weighing each piece of the wreckage and keeping track of whether it was from the crater or not. I am not sure why that is so hard for you to understand.....



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join