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.

 

Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?

page: 12
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Arent you the same poster that started an identical thread a few months ago. You know the one where the OP got hung up on what percentage of the wreckage was actually in the crater? And was told then, that no one sat there with a scale weighing each piece of wreckage and writing down what percentage was in the crater and what percentage was around the crater.

Wasnt that you?





Sorry if the evidence is inconvenient for you. Just like an equation, it has to all add up. You can't just insert a miracle to make the outcome what you want it to be. The real world doesn't work that way.


And people wonder why few rational intelligent people take the truth movement seriously. The above quote from your post makes absolutely no sense in regards to the wreckage of Flight 93. However, its a nice job at deflection.

....its an equation that has to add up.......Almost as funny as the postings by another comedian on ATS.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Swampfox46_1999]




posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

Are you the same skeptics that believes 95% of Flight 93 was recovered, but won't give your estimate of what % of the plane's wreckage was below ground versus above ground? Why is that?

Here's my estimate of the % of a 757 remaining above ground: 5%. (of course all planted parts IMO)

That leaves 90% unaccounted for.

So what % of a 757 do you think remained above ground?



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Yes I would be one of the skeptics that refuses to quantify what percentage of the wreckage was found in the crater as opposed to around the crater. Does it really matter if 45 percent or 55 percent or 65 percent was found in the crater? Not really.

Quite frankly, its one of the dumbest things I have seen yet.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ATH911
 


Does it really matter if 45 percent or 55 percent or 65 percent was found in the crater? Not really.

Yes it does. If only 5% of a 757 remained above ground, as the photographic evidence seems to show, then even your 65% comes up way short.

So either tell us where the missing debris is, or concede that the FBI's 95% claim is greatly exaggerated.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by ATH911]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Except this was an act of war. Not sure why that is so difficult a concept for some to grasp......


Oh who told you it was an act of war?

Why can't you understand that the plane crashes on 9/11 were a crime scene?



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


And you using the few photos that you can find online to estimate the amount of the wreckage is pretty dumb too. No other word for it.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

So we should be like religious people and just have "faith" that the FBI's 95% recovered claim is legit?


[edit on 2-1-2010 by ATH911]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Ah yes. The mistaken belief that terrorism is a law enforcement issue. It has served us so well in the past.

You dont arrest and try terrorists like you would a thief. You kill them.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Hey Swamp,

Do you think I am "dumb" for thinking there is no way there is 95% of a 757 scattered above ground around the scene?

I won't be upset, or report your post if you say yes.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


It is sad that you get so hung up on the 95% remark. I think the FBI was wrong...I think they recovered 96.34768746% of Flight 93.....based on the pictures I saw........



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


No, I think its dumb to look at a couple of pictures you found on the internet and then decide that someone is lying about the percentage of the wreckage that was recovered.

Should the FBI agent just said that they had recovered the majority of the airliner instead of saying 95% of it.....probably. But im not going to get hung up in the semantics.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ATH911
 


No, I think its dumb to look at a couple of pictures you found on the internet and then decide that someone is lying about the percentage of the wreckage that was recovered.

So if it's dumb to look at photos released of the incident and decide that there is no way near the FBI's 95% recovered claim of a 757 above ground, then what do you call this eyewitness, who was at the scene, that is saying the same thing I am?


Bill Baker, Somerset County Emergency Management Agency: "...When they said it was a 757, I looked out across the debris field. I said, "There is no way there is a 757 scattered here."


So is Bill Baker's estimation dumb too?



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, I think its dumb to look at a couple of pictures you found on the internet and then decide that someone is lying about the percentage of the wreckage that was recovered.


So show us some REAL pictures w/sources of the amount of wreckage that the official story states.

Should be easy if the official story is correct.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Do I point out that once again, someone is not including the full story?




Bill Baker, Somerset County Emergency Management Agency: "There was debris everywhere. You couldn't step without walking on a piece of plane part, fabric, or some kind of debris. When they said it was a 757, I looked out across the debris field. I said, "There is no way there is a 757 scattered here.


Thats what you posted right? Now, what is the very next line?




At that time, we didn't know that it was in the hole. The jet fuel smell was really strong...There were plane parts hanging in the trees."


"At that time, we didn't know that it was in the hole"

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

But since we are using that site, let us look at some of the other individuals that were there.




Shanksville VFD firefighter Keith Curtis: "I walked up to where the tire was on fire, probably a hundred feet past the crater. It was a big tire. I was thinking that this is a big jet. I hit it good with the hose and put it out. I stopped and 'poof,' it just started on fire again."




Firefighter Mike Sube: "We made our way to a small pond. That's where I observed the largest piece of wreckage that I saw, a portion of the landing gear and fuselage. One of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there. ...There were enough fires that our brush truck was down there numerous times. ...I saw small pieces of human remains and occasionally some larger pieces. That was disturbing, but what was most disturbing was seeing personal effects."





Lieutenant Roger Bailey, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department: "We started down through the debris field. I saw pieces of fiberglass, pieces of airplane, pop rivets, and mail...Mail was scattered everywhere. ...the one guy who was with us almost stepped on a piece of human remains. I grabbed him, and he got about half woozy over it."





When former firefighter Dave Fox arrived at the scene, "He saw a wiring harness, and a piston. None of the other pieces was bigger than a TV remote. He saw three chunks of torn human tissue. He swallowed hard. 'You knew there were people there, but you couldn't see them,' he says."





"Those who were there moments later say the smoking wreckage looked like a pile of scrap metal in a pit, until you focused more closely and saw the other kinds of fragments among the debris."


Wiring harnesses, pistons, landing gear, tires, sections of fuselage with 3 to 4 windows, plane parts hanging in the trees.

Gee maybe relying on a couple photos from the internet isnt such a good idea when it comes to estimating how much wreckage was found. Because it sure seems that the men and women who were actually there saw quite a bit of wreckage, but they were a bit busy to be taking photos.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Gee maybe relying on a couple photos from the internet isnt such a good idea when it comes to estimating how much wreckage was found. .


So show us some REAL pictures w/sources of the amount of wreckage that the official story states.

Should be easy if the official story is correct.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, I think its dumb to look at a couple of pictures you found on the internet and then decide that someone is lying about the percentage of the wreckage that was recovered.


So show us some REAL pictures w/sources of the amount of wreckage that the official story states.

Should be easy if the official story is correct.



Some REAL pictures w/sources of the amount of wreckage...does it ever stop....

So, a picture with a sign that says "50% of Flight 93 is here" would work for you? Dont worry, its a rhetorical question. I know you wont accept any photos. Not to mention, there was a concerted effort to keep photographers from traipsing all over the crash site taking photos.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Not to mention, there was a concerted effort to keep photographers from traipsing all over the crash site taking photos.


So in other words you cannout show any official, like the FBI photos of the supposed wreckage.

Thanks for admittng that. Another blow to the official story.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
The initial eyewitness accounts, photographic and video evidence of the scene point toward the same conclusion: there was NO commercial 757 aircraft which crashed at that location.

At the very least, the airplane should have been reconstructed for investigative purposes, since a whopping 95% of it was allegedly recovered. But then again, it's kind of difficult to reconstruct a 757 from a garbage pile.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
But then again, it's kind of difficult to reconstruct a 757 from a garbage pile.


They did it with Flight 800. Flight 800 was in a million tiny pieces form hitting the water at very high speed but yet the Navy gathered enough tiny pieces to do a reconstruction.

Flight 800 was also originally considered a crime scene.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   


Straight from the horse's mouth!

This explanation more than explains why there isn't any "puddles", debris, lots of burned areas.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join