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.

 

For those who think Flight 93 was shot down...

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Two planes? That actually clears up a few inconsistencies, then, regarding that aspect of it. I remember hearing about the first plane mentioned being asked to spot flight 93, I did not realize it was different from the second one. Thanks for the info.

This part made me cringe:


Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.


Great. Harassing witnesses and behaving like nazis on crack is NOT the way to get the cause of finding answers and renewed investigation about 9/11.




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The wreckage shown in the Iranian crash doesn't look like a plane either. It looks like unidentifiable pieces of twisted junk, and I would not recognize any of it as being from a plane had I not been told that this was being filmed at a crash site.



You didn't see the long wing section laying on the ground? Did you watch the entire footage?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The wreckage shown in the Iranian crash doesn't look like a plane either. It looks like unidentifiable pieces of twisted junk, and I would not recognize any of it as being from a plane had I not been told that this was being filmed at a crash site.



You didn't see the long wing section laying on the ground? Did you watch the entire footage?


Yes, I did. What long "wing section"? Nothing I saw resembled anything I could easily identify with an aircraft. It looked like warped, twisted, destroyed metal.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Yes, I did. What long "wing section"? Nothing I saw resembled anything I could easily identify with an aircraft. It looked like warped, twisted, destroyed metal.


Well, then show me the "warped, twisted metal at Shanksville."? Have you seen any photos? I haven't.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 





The wreckage shown in the Iranian crash doesn't look like a plane either. It looks like unidentifiable pieces of twisted junk, and I would not recognize any of it as being from a plane had I not been told that this was being filmed at a crash site.


Which is what you expect from a high speed aircraft crash

Been to such an accident - Lear 35A crashed in my neighborhood

Only recognizable piece was 2 x 3 ft section of tail fin. Rest can be
described as metal confetti - bits and pieces of shredded metal

As for people on board (were 4) - what was left was "human hamburger"
bits of shredded flesh, only recognizable was 1/2 of chest, hand minus
fingers, some amputated fingers. Walked crash scene marking bits of
flesh with flags for coroner to recover



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
As for people on board (were 4) - what was left was "human hamburger"
bits of shredded flesh, only recognizable was 1/2 of chest, hand minus
fingers, some amputated fingers. Walked crash scene marking bits of
flesh with flags for coroner to recover


I'm sorry but 1/2 a chest, a hand minus fingers, some amputated fingers DO NOT equate to "human hamburg". They equate to human remains. You really think 1/2 a chest cavity is the same as hamburg? Where the F are you from? Mars?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Yes, I did. What long "wing section"? Nothing I saw resembled anything I could easily identify with an aircraft. It looked like warped, twisted, destroyed metal.


Well, then show me the "warped, twisted metal at Shanksville."? Have you seen any photos? I haven't.


I have seen plenty of pieces of warped, burnt up pieces of flight 93. So have you, if you've bothered looking.










As dman kindly pointed out, it is exactly what you might expect from a high speed vertical impact of a large plane.

I, for one, given the reports from eyewitnesses and the behavior of the flight, was certainly not expecting anything large and identifiable to remain visible and intact. it was, after all, as i will point out again,

A HIGH SPEED IMPACT, DELIBERATE.

They have a habit of reducing planes to bits.

Not to mention that there is also the soil at the strip mine to account for much wreckage being buried.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Not to mention that there is also the soil at the strip mine to account for much wreckage being buried.

Skadi, please prove what you are trying to claim here?

Perhaps you might like to review Rewey's Thread, where he debunks the soft soil nonsense...

Casual readers to this thread should note that a lot of official government story believers have contradicted themselves and each other, with regards to the soft soil swallowing the plane.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Perhaps you are not aware of the aftermath of a plane crash. When flight 427 crashed in Pittsburgh, the moon township fire dept reported that the tree tops were filled with human remains. Besides the witnesses seeing a missle shoot down flight 93, there were no remains where the crater was., nor in the nearby trees. Also Mr.Rumsfld had a bad slip of the tongue. Flight 93 was headed for the whitehouse. PTB had it "taken out".



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf




I see no large pieces of twisted metal here. Maybe my monitor is too little?


As dman kindly pointed out, it is exactly what you might expect from a high speed vertical impact of a large plane.


And this refutes it being shot down?


Not to mention that there is also the soil at the strip mine to account for much wreckage being buried.



So, wreckage was burried but some of it landed miles away? How does this compute?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Not to mention that there is also the soil at the strip mine to account for much wreckage being buried.

Skadi, please prove what you are trying to claim here?


Perhaps you might like to review Rewey's Thread, where he debunks the soft soil nonsense...

Unfortunately, I have read that monstrosity of a thread, and lost hours of my life pulling my hair and shaking my head at what you consider "debunking". Which has been debunked nicely.


Casual readers to this thread should note that a lot of official government story believers have contradicted themselves and each other, with regards to the soft soil swallowing the plane.


casual readers to this thread should also note the free usage of pigeonholing and labeling used by self-styled "proponents of truth" simply because someone disagrees with, and displays reasons and evidence, for disagreeing with some of their more out-there theories.

"Truthers" contradict themselves and backpedal their own evidence quite frequently. I am no more an "official story believer" anymore than I am a "truther". I have legit questions regarding 9/11, and if something can be proven to my satisfaction, I shall accept it, regardless of whose side of the truth it supports.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


Skadi, you made a claim about the soft soil accounting for much of the wreckage being buried.

You did not support it.

If you offer this as your opinion, then that's fine.

However, if you want people in this thread to believe that it is fact, then you'll need to prove it.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 



THE DEBRIS FIELD. The reclaimed mine where the plane crashed is composed of very soft soil, and searchers say much of the wreckage was found buried 20-25 feet below the large crater. But despite that, there was also widely scattered debris in the immediate vicinity and further afield. Considerable debris washed up more than two miles away at Indian Lake, and a canceled check and brokerage statement from the plane was found in a deep valley some eight miles away that week.


Source

I have looked up legit news reports and locals staements. All say the same thing. The soil at the stripmine was very soft. The pictures you love to parade around as proof that nothing crashed all show what is quite obviously, soft earth.

What evidence do YOU have that the soil at Shanksville was not soft? Or how this applies to your larger theory?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

What evidence do YOU have that the soil at Shanksville was not soft? Or how this applies to your larger theory?





How about the US Geological Survey? Does that count?

As far as I can see, Shanksville is in the Glenshaw formation and Allegeney group. Both of which consist of sandstone, shale, limestone, and coal. Are these substances "soft soil"?

www.dcnr.state.pa.us...



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I have looked up legit news reports and locals staements.

Do you have any official sources, Skadi?

You're offering media reports as though they're supposed to be thorough and complete. Can you tell me which journalist wrote the report and where his degree in geology is?

Skadi, if it is your opinion that the soil was soft, that's fine.

If you wish to progress in this thread stating that the soil was soft and buried much of the plane, as though it was fact, then you need to prove it.

Please, link to some official government documents that show exactly how much of the alleged Flight UA93 was buried and recovered.


Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
What evidence do YOU have that the soil at Shanksville was not soft? Or how this applies to your larger theory?

I didn't state anything about the soil at Shanksville, Skadi. You did.

I don't have a larger theory about Shanksville, Skadi. You're in error to claim that I do. I wasn't there, I don't know what happened.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Magantice
 





Perhaps you are not aware of the aftermath of a plane crash. When flight 427 crashed in Pittsburgh, the moon township fire dept reported that the tree tops were filled with human remains. Besides the witnesses seeing a missle shoot down flight 93, there were no remains where the crater was., nor in the nearby trees. Also Mr.Rumsfld had a bad slip of the tongue. Flight 93 was headed for the whitehouse. PTB had it "taken out".


No remains in crater or trees? That must be news to local coroner
Wallace Miller



"The remains of a number of passengers had been found in all five [search] sectors."




...Miller was familiar with scenes of sudden and violent death, although none quite like this. Walking in his gumboots, the only recognisable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached. 'I've seen a lot of highway fatalities where there's fragmentation,' Miller said. 'The interesting thing about this particular case is that I haven't, to this day, 11 months later, seen any single drop of blood. Not a drop. The only thing I can deduce is that the crash was over in half a second. There was a fireball 15-20 metres high, so all of that material just got vaporised.'"

"We went through here on our hands and knees hundreds of times"




As coroner, responsible for returning human remains, Miller has been forced to share with the families information that is unimaginable. As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.





In Pennsylvania, Somerset County coroner Wallace E. Miller and his team scoured the "halo"—the field and woods surrounding the crater left when United Airlines Flight 93 plunged into the ground. The debris was everywhere. Trees were draped with scraps of luggage, clothing, bits of the fuselage and human remains. Walking through the crash site in the days after the attacks, Miller's eye caught a flash of light 20 feet up in the branches of a hemlock tree. "I only noticed it because the sun happened to hit it at just the right angle," he says. A tree climber brought it down. It was a single tooth with a silver filling. Eventually it was matched to one of the passengers.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

What evidence do YOU have that the soil at Shanksville was not soft? Or how this applies to your larger theory?





How about the US Geological Survey? Does that count?

As far as I can see, Shanksville is in the Glenshaw formation and Allegeney group. Both of which consist of sandstone, shale, limestone, and coal. Are these substances "soft soil"?

www.dcnr.state.pa.us...



Did you miss the part about the crash site being a RECLAIMED STRIP MINE? In other words, a bunch of soft soil dumped to fill up an abandoned mine? A bunch of loose dirt? Have you forgotten that part?



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
It appears that Skadi may be demonstrating his ignorance about how soft the soil was...

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Did you miss the part about the crash site being a RECLAIMED STRIP MINE? In other words, a bunch of soft soil dumped to fill up an abandoned mine? A bunch of loose dirt? Have you forgotten that part?


Take a read of the following:



Decommissioning a Strip Mine…
There are a number of people who claim that the soil around the site was ‘loosely packed’ because it was an old, filled-in strip mine.
How realistic is it, then, that when the strip mine at Shanksville (called Diamond T) was decommissioned, the mine operators simply poured in truckloads of soft sand, and everyone shook hands and walked away. In short, not realistic at all, because in decommissioning the mine, the same government environmental branch would have to be satisfied that VERY STRICT decommissioning requirements had been met.

I looked it up. It's covered by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 1977 (SMCRA), and administered by the Office of Surface Mining. This is just one of the 60 Federal laws and regulations which must be adhered to which apply specifically to coal mining.

One of the requirements of the Act is the preparation (BEFORE mining even starts) of a reclamation plan, which needs to be assessed and approved. To quote: "The broad objectives of the rehabilitation program were to eliminate soil and water pollution on and around the site, and to produce a STABLE LANDFORM with a self-sustaining vegetative cover…"

The reclaiming of the decommissioned strip mine was under strict Federal laws surrounding strip mining activities. For the 'Official Story' to continue to claim that the ground was 'loosely packed' or 'soft' because of an old strip mine that used to operate is completely ignoring the masses of Federal laws and regulations which would have ensured that the area was returned to its PRE-MINING STATE (which is a term used throughout the legislation).

These legislative requirements for decommissioning a strip mine IN
PENNSYLVANIA can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30,
Volume 3, Part 398 Pennsylvania.

"Section 938.1 SCOPE - This part contains all rules applicable only
within Pennsylvania that have been adopted under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977".

Therefore, one of the nearly 60 Federal laws surrounding strip mines required the land to be returned to its PRE-MINING STATE when the mine was closed. This is in direct contradiction to the 'official story', who claim that the presence of the old strip mine left the soil ‘loosely packed’.

There is plenty of information around on the strict requirements about the reclamation plans required for the decommissioning of a strip mine:
“Reclamation
Reclamation is the process of restoring disturbed land as closely as possible to its original condition when mining is finished. All mine sites must be reclaimed according to applicable governmental regulations. This typically involves a number of activities including: reshaping the land, restoring topsoil, and planting native grasses, trees or ground cover. Reclamation is done according to the approved closure and reclamation plan, which must be continuously updated by the mining company and approved by the responsible government agency”.

And:
“What is a Mine Closure and Reclamation Plan?
Planning for mine closure starts during mine planning... Under existing
legislation, mine owners must submit a mine closure and reclamation plan to the [state] and/or federal government. The government must approve the initial closure and reclamation plans before any mine development work can begin. However, the development of final plans may take years of study and detailed engineering before being completed. The company must also put up money (e.g., a deposit or bond) to make sure that it can complete the reclamation, including shut-down, closure and post-closure. The financial assurance may be a few million dollars for a small mine or over $100 million for a large mine. The deposit makes sure that the government will not be left with the responsibility of paying for a mine closure as has happened in the past because abandoned mines become property of the governments.

A mine closure and reclamation plan for any mine is site-specific. It details
how the mining company will close the mine site and return the surrounding land, as closely as possible, to its pre-mining state”.

Therefore, there is no way that the surrounding soil from the alleged Flight 93 crash would have been the 'loosely packed' remains of the old strip mine. The mine would have had Federal regulations applied during decommissioning to return it to its premining state.

The above was written by Rewey.

Skadi, I know that I pasted a lot of words on the screen. So, please, take your time to read them, understand them and then present your rebuttal to Rewey for why you still think that the soil was soft.

I'm looking forward to it.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Tezzjaw, as I have stated, I have, unfortunately, read through that thread, and I do not with to compound my already growing migraine reading through the same nonsense yet again. It seems you are taking rewey's spin on things without actually looking at a broader picture.

Damage of reclaimed strip-mines

Things are never the same

Here's a little newsflash: mining companies are not exactly the most ethical, environmentally conscious people, and guess what! The majority of the time, they use all sorts of federal loopholes, legal nitpicking, and dirty tricks to do half-assed jobs. Regardless of what federal mining reclaimation regulations state, or what a company might claim, the truth is the reclaimed stripmine is often sadly, no where near what it should be.

Reports from people who have been there and the pictures themselves show soft, loose soil that no where near resembles the original state of the land.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi
Here's a little newsflash: mining companies are not exactly the most ethical, environmentally conscious people, and guess what! The majority of the time, they use all sorts of federal loopholes, legal nitpicking, and dirty tricks to do half-assed jobs.

Please supply your proof that the Shanksville strip mine was not decommissioned properly, according to the laws, if that's what you're claiming.

Please supply your proof that the soil at Shanksville was soft.

You have not done this.


Originally posted by Skadi
Regardless of what federal mining reclaimation regulations state, or what a company might claim, the truth is the reclaimed stripmine is often sadly, no where near what it should be.

Please supply your proof that this was the case at Shanksville. Show your data that supports your contention.


Originally posted by Skadi
Reports from people who have been there and the pictures themselves show soft, loose soil that no where near resembles the original state of the land.

This is is direct contrast to Rewey's findings. Rewey's analysis of the pictures shows firm, compact soil.

You have made the claim that the soil at Shanksville was 'soft'. The burden of proof is upon you to show this.

Without being able to prove this, your satement can only be taken as your opinion, which is essentially worthless, when trying to investigate what really occured at the alleged crash scene.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join