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: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Nor do I believe that the plane dug itself a hole and pulled the dirt in on top of it to bury itself.

But that's what officials are essentially claiming. Are they lying? (I think so.)



It hit the ground and penetrated into the ground. Whether 20, 30 or even 80 percent of the wreckage ended up in the crater, no one will ever know for sure, they can only estimate. No one sat there with a scale to weigh each piece when it was recovered to keep track of how much was in the crater and how much was around the crater.

Officials are clearly stating that "most" of the plane buried. Wally Miller said the FBI told him 2/3 (67%) buried and a female Ambassador at the memorial park was filmed saying 80%. Are the officials who told Miller and that lady the amounts buried lying? (I think so.)



[edit on 20-10-2009 by ATH911]

[edit on 20-10-2009 by ATH911]




posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
... that's what officials are essentially claiming ... officials are clearly stating that most of the plane buried ...


I can't believe I just read this whole thread and the discussion remains at square one.

OP has repeatedly ignored the simple, fundamental, request to provide a source for the statement quoted above. Until he complies and enlightens us with credible references, the subject is moot.

Everyone's "logic" is flawed if we're debating a figment of OP's imagination.

I vote for close thread ...



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


just looking at the last picture is most intresting~!
it's almost a joke! hmmm.. so .. there's a backhoe DIGGING out scrap of what 'seems' to be some sort of cylindical metal that is PACKED hard in dirt and rock. I dunno .. i don't get it.. doesn't make sence or Laws of Physics.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by HybridEB
 

Sorry, I know how you skeptics don't understand how to use hyperlinks in the OP. But just to show you were one hyperlink leads to:


posted on 13-6-2009 @ 05:10 PM by Reheat

The bulk of the airplane at Shanksville buried itself into the ground, but there were also plenty of small pieces scattered over the general area of the crash site.


Now, is your skeptic buddy 'Reheat' a liar?


PS - Make sure you click the hyperlink in Reheat's quote.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by HybridEB
 

Sorry, I know how you skeptics don't understand how to use hyperlinks in the OP. But just to show you were one hyperlink leads to:


posted on 13-6-2009 @ 05:10 PM by Reheat

The bulk of the airplane at Shanksville buried itself into the ground, but there were also plenty of small pieces scattered over the general area of the crash site.


Now, is your skeptic buddy 'Reheat' a liar?


PS - Make sure you click the hyperlink in Reheat's quote.




OK, just to set the record straight your "official claim" is from an anonymous poster on a internet forum? And based on that, we should imprison and or execute various elected officials and government employees? Just trying to get this straight.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
OK, just to set the record straight your "official claim" is from an anonymous poster on a internet forum? And based on that, we should imprison and or execute various elected officials and government employees? Just trying to get this straight.

Man I thought I had you on ignore? And for good reason.

I just got through talking about how skeptics aren't smart enough to check all the hyperlinks in OPs.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
OK, just to set the record straight your "official claim" is from an anonymous poster on a internet forum? And based on that, we should imprison and or execute various elected officials and government employees? Just trying to get this straight.

Man I thought I had you on ignore? And for good reason.

I just got through talking about how skeptics aren't smart enough to check all the hyperlinks in OPs.


Your own hyperlink to a video of a woman volunteer at the site said that "80% of the plane was in the crater" and you converted that to bulk of the plane was buried. Wow.

Listen, either post some real reference to some real official making some real claim about what was buried and what was not, or plain admit that you are just cobbling bits and pieces of half statements together with your own "estimates" in order to produce some strawman that you can look big trying disprove.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I believe a large section of it ended up in that crater when it crashed. Whether it was 40...50...or 60 percent of the wreckage (or more) I do not know, I wasnt there to dig it out. I have to rely on the reports from the people that were



Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Im not getting hung up on percentages like some posters do. Nor do I believe that the plane dug itself a hole and pulled the dirt in on top of it to bury itself.

Once more Swampfox contradicts himself with what he claims happened at Shanksville.

Swampfox, while you state that percentages do not matter, the fact is that they do. The fact is that you claimed up to 60% could have been dug out in your first quote. Note that dug out implies being buried, otherwise one would not need to dig.

This directly contradicts with your second quote where you state that you don't think the plane was dug into a hole.

In a few threads now, Swampfox you have contradicted yourself about the Shanksville crash site. Furthermore, you've also contradicted some other official government story believers too. Can't you people get your stories straight?


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
But I do commend Tezza for finally recognizing that I am an expert on the events of that day.

You're kidding right? I wish there were experts at Shanksville. Maybe then we would have official government data about the crash site.

Swampfox, if you were an expert, you would know exactly how much was retrieved on the surface and buried. You wouldn't have to 'rely on the reports from the people who were there'.

You're far from an expert about Shanksville. You apply as much guess work as most other official government story believers do.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Your own hyperlink to a video of a woman volunteer at the site said that "80% of the plane was in the crater" and you converted that to bulk of the plane was buried. Wow.

So you think she literally meant 80% of Flight 93 was laying on top of the crater? Wow. Why did they excavate down to 45 feet if most of the plane was laying on top of the crater?

Do you think maybe she mispoke a little and meant to say "was in the ground" instead of "in the crater," kind of like when you skeptics say the hole in the field even though there was only a crater?


Listen, either post some real reference to some real official making some real claim about what was buried and what was not

You calling her a liar?


or plain admit that you are just cobbling bits and pieces of half statements together with your own "estimates" in order to produce some strawman that you can look big trying disprove.

What kind of strawman do you think I'm trying to make that's not the official claim?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper

Your own hyperlink to a video of a woman volunteer at the site said that "80% of the plane was in the crater" and you converted that to bulk of the plane was buried. Wow.

So you think she literally meant 80% of Flight 93 was laying on top of the crater? Wow. Why did they excavate down to 45 feet if most of the plane was laying on top of the crater?

Do you think maybe she mispoke a little and meant to say "was in the ground" instead of "in the crater," kind of like when you skeptics say the hole in the field even though there was only a crater?


Listen, either post some real reference to some real official making some real claim about what was buried and what was not

You calling her a liar?


or plain admit that you are just cobbling bits and pieces of half statements together with your own "estimates" in order to produce some strawman that you can look big trying disprove.

What kind of strawman do you think I'm trying to make that's not the official claim?


Case closed. Now you are claiming that the woman volunteer mispoke? Now I am calling you a liar.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Case closed. Now you are claiming that the woman volunteer mispoke?

How about she didn't choose the correct choice of words since? Sorry to get your panties in a twist. Or do you see 80% of a 757 laying on top of the crater? Case reopened.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
Case closed. Now you are claiming that the woman volunteer mispoke?

How about she didn't choose the correct choice of words since? Sorry to get your panties in a twist. Or do you see 80% of a 757 laying on top of the crater? Case reopened.


First tell me how something, anything, lays "on top" of a crater?

There is no case here. No official of the US or State government ever made a definitive and oficial claim as to what percentage, if any, of the physical remains of the airplane involved in Flight 93 was found either "in the crater", "outside of the crater", "embedded in substrate" or aggregated into the displaced ejecta from the impact crater.

It is like you trying to prove I am wrong about what year I was born before I told you what year I was born. You are tilting at windmills, shadow boxing, or pick you own metaphor.

The woman, a local volunteer at the memorial site, said in YOUR post that 80% was found in the crater.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
First tell me how something, anything, lays "on top" of a crater?

Same way it lays on top of the ground.


No official of the US or State government ever made a definitive and oficial claim as to what percentage...

So what *if* they do in fact that 80% (or "most") of Flight 93 was buried. Would you concede that the government is lying?


The woman, a local volunteer at the memorial site, said in YOUR post that 80% was found in the crater.

Do see 80% of a 757 "in" the crater?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
First tell me how something, anything, lays "on top" of a crater?

Same way it lays on top of the ground.


No official of the US or State government ever made a definitive and oficial claim as to what percentage...

So what *if* they do in fact that 80% (or "most") of Flight 93 was buried. Would you concede that the government is lying?


The woman, a local volunteer at the memorial site, said in YOUR post that 80% was found in the crater.

Do see 80% of a 757 "in" the crater?


What would you do if someone told you to go stand on top of a hole? Where exactly do you stand? At the edge? In the bottom?

What if what? Now you are just playing games completely removed from reality. Did I see 80% in the crater, no, you see I wasn't there. Were you there on 9/11/2001? Or is everything you are saying based on your analysis of a very few photos, most taken at a distance?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
What if what? Now you are just playing games completely removed from reality.

Too afraid to answer? Let me repeat the simple question:

So what *if* they do in fact that 80% (or "most") of Flight 93 was buried. Would you concede that the government is lying?



Did I see 80% in the crater, no, you see I wasn't there. Were you there on 9/11/2001? Or is everything you are saying based on your analysis of a very few photos, most taken at a distance?

Those along with this nice closeup photos like these:




Along with all the witness accounts of them saying no plane was in the crater.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
What if what? Now you are just playing games completely removed from reality.

Too afraid to answer? Let me repeat the simple question:

So what *if* they do in fact that 80% (or "most") of Flight 93 was buried. Would you concede that the government is lying?



Did I see 80% in the crater, no, you see I wasn't there. Were you there on 9/11/2001? Or is everything you are saying based on your analysis of a very few photos, most taken at a distance?

Those along with this nice closeup photos like these:




Along with all the witness accounts of them saying no plane was in the crater.


Are you trying to say that if the government proposes an official report stating that 80% or Most of the plane was embedded in the aircraft impact crater zone would I call them liars? Is that what you are trying to say? No I would not call them liars. I think, however, if they said anything other than the whole thing was a huge complex magic trick pulled off by the US government in order to accomplish some other political goal, you would call them liars.

And stop with the total BS that witnesses said that there was no plane in the crater, you are embarrasing yourself. There were also no bodies there either, just plane, and God bless them, body parts.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Is this the thread with the guy from the Marina, the alleged "eyewitness"? Let's see how reliable that dude is:


The Indian Lake Witness

There is one witness that is clearly lying. He is John Fleegle, the manager of the Indian Lake Marina that is THREE MILES away from the crash site:

Fleegle had just returned to the marina to get fuel for a boat that had run out of gas when Carol Delasko called him into the drydock barn to watch news of the World Trade Center attack.

“All of a sudden the lights flickered and we joked that maybe they were coming for us. Then we heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom,” said Fleegle, pointing to a clearing on a ridge at the far end of the lake.

Fleegle, Brant and a fellow marina worker, Tom Spinelli, jumped in a truck and rushed to the crash site. (13)

This statement is fine as it is, but in another report he makes statements that show he is lying:

"Was standing watching on TV and the lights flickered in the building. About that time we heard the engines roar and we took off out of the building. As we were coming up from the office out through the building, the ground shook and we heard a big "boom", looked over and saw the big ball of fire up in the air.

Like I said, probably within, within 45 seconds or a minute of impact, we were there. We were there before any fireman, any paramedics, or anybody; we were on site. When we got there, there was a plane flying up above and he was smart, he flew straight for the sun, so you couldn't, you couldn't look at it and see exactly what type of plane, or if it was a fighter or what it was. But we caught a glimpse of it and as he was swinging, he was basically traveling in the same direction as the plane."


Since the Indian Lake Marina is three miles away from the crash site, how could he have arrived within one minute of the crash? No, he did not arrive before anyone else. As we have already learned, there were people who lived within blocks of the crash who were there before him, and there were even two people working in the area who actually witnessed the crash. So he is clearly lying.



How about this?

IF anyone wishes to claim that the impact of United 93 in Shanksville was made by something else, LIKE a missile (or whatever you wish to claim) then find PHOTOS of similar missile impact sites.

Second, provide evidence of missile parts, components or explosive residue as well.....



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Are you trying to say that if the government proposes an official report stating that 80% or Most of the plane was embedded in the aircraft impact crater zone would I call them liars? Is that what you are trying to say?

And you're accusing me of playing games?! You know exactly what I mean. If the govt said 80% of the plane was underground.


And stop with the total BS that witnesses said that there was no plane in the crater, you are embarrasing yourself. There were also no bodies there either, just plane, and God bless them, body parts.

Oh, OK.


"It didn't look like a plane crash because there was nothing that looked like a plane," Barron said.

"If they hadn’t told us a plane had wrecked, you wouldn’t have known," Delano said.

...said Nina Lensbouer..."But I got there and there was nothing, nothing there but charcoal. Instantly, it was charcoal."

Mark Stahl of Somerset, who went to the scene immediately afterwards, says, "There’s a crater gorged in the earth, the plane is pretty much disintegrated. There’s nothing left but scorched trees."

“You couldn’t see nothing,” said Nick Tweardy, 20, of Stonycreek Township. “We couldn’t tell what we were looking at. There’s just a huge crater in the woods.”

“There was no plane,” Ernie Stull, mayor of Shanksville, told German television in March 2003:
“My sister and a good friend of mine were the first ones there,” Stull said. “They were standing on a street corner in Shanksville talking. Their car was nearby, so they were the first here—and the fire department came. Everyone was puzzled, because the call had been that a plane had crashed. But there was no plane.”
“They had been sent here because of a crash, but there was no plane?” the reporter asked.
“No. Nothing. Only this hole.”


[edit on 23-10-2009 by ATH911]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


"There was one part of a seat burning up there," Phillips said. "That was something you could recognize."



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


According to Ron Delano, a local who rushes to the scene after hearing about the crash, “If they hadn’t told us a plane had wrecked, you wouldn’t have known. It looked like it hit and disintegrated.”



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join