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.

 

It wasn't Flight 93 in Shanksville!!

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


Flight 93 was confused on radar for Flight 1989 as confirmed by several agencies.



Please source this Roger.
Thank you,

Dr. P




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
[Please source this Roger.
Thank you,

Dr. P


I already did and showed a drawing showing that the planes did cross paths.



[edit on 30-12-2009 by REMISNE]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by REMISNE


Flight 93 was confused on radar for Flight 1989 as confirmed by several agencies.



Please source this Roger.
Thank you,

Dr. P


Look at your post. I didn't ask if they crossed paths. Please site the SEVERAL AGENCIES that state that flight 93 confused on radar for flight 1989.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Look at your post. I didn't ask if they crossed paths. Please site the SEVERAL AGENCIES that state that flight 93 confused on radar for flight 1989.


I already showed the agencies that stated that 93 and 1989 got confused on radar when they crossed paths.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   


Flight "93" is the only flight that has been disputed to not have existed


Okay, since im not in the habit of grammar lessons. What were you trying to say?

That it is disputed as to whether or not United 93 existed that day? If that would be your intent, then I would have to say anyone who does not believe that United 93 existed that day, lives in woeful ignorance of the facts.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Look at your post. I didn't ask if they crossed paths. Please site the SEVERAL AGENCIES that state that flight 93 confused on radar for flight 1989.


I already showed the agencies that stated that 93 and 1989 got confused on radar when they crossed paths.



Is "oredigger61" some new agency??



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
lost during the firey crash of a jetliner?

Oh yeah, real firey.




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Is "oredigger61" some new agency??


What, why are you even comming in the middle of a discussion?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


Flight 93 was confused on radar for Flight 1989 as confirmed by several agencies.



Please source this Roger.
Thank you,

Dr. P

Need I ask again, Roger?

Please list the several agencies, or retract your statement.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Oh yeah, real firey.


Care to thrill us all with an explanation as to how all those trees turned black? Is that a new tree? A Black Shanksville Spruce maybe?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
lost during the firey crash of a jetliner?

Oh yeah, real firey.



I guess those are steam vents? The plane exploded on impact. Big ball of flame, you know. But you're right - the trees should have been dripping with blood. Can you please point out on that photograph exactly how much blood should have been located where and please show your calculations.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by ATH911

Oh yeah, real firey.


Care to thrill us all with an explanation as to how all those trees turned black? Is that a new tree? A Black Shanksville Spruce maybe?

The official story is that the cockpit broke off while impacting at 580 mph and flew into the trees and disintegrated while the rest of the plane ploughed underground then the ground covered itself back up.

So the official story goes against your "fiery crash dried up all the blood" theory, unless fire can exist in the covered hole below ground.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I guess those are steam vents? The plane exploded on impact. Big ball of flame, you know.

Big ball of flame that hardly singed the tall grass surrounding the crater, but managed to jump up and over the road to burn some of the trees, but extinguished itself before the first responders arrived? That big ball of flame?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Care to thrill us all with an explanation as to how all those trees turned black? Is that a new tree?


Ever think it might have been from an initial blast,, UUMMMMM.

But still no big, aircraft fire.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



The official story is that the cockpit broke off while impacting at 580 mph


Sorry, no it is not. Thats what the county coroner said someone told him. Not the "official story". At least not in the real world.


and flew into the trees and disintegrated while the rest of the plane ploughed underground then the ground covered itself back up.


Again, just making stuff up and then challenging others to prove it. Its your claim, you back it up with "official" sources.


So the official story goes against your "fiery crash dried up all the blood" theory, unless fire can exist in the covered hole below ground.


Nope, there is no official explanation as to why the trees were not dripping with blood. Why? Because rational adults don't need an official explanation.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
edit..... nevermind



[edit on 30-12-2009 by ImAPepper]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
edit..... nevermind


Can you show me an offiical report?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


Can you show me an offiical report?



Roger, I am still waiting for your several agencies that got 93 confused on radar with 1989.

tick tock



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Roger, I am still waiting for your several agencies that got 93 confused on radar with 1989.


I am still waiting for you to give me the information i have asked for.

When you give me the insurance company for 93 i will repeat the agencies for you.




top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join