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: 13
9
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Another blow to the story....only in the twisted world of the conspiracy theorist. Besides, it wouldnt matter if I had photos of all the wreckage, your next argument would be, "Prove they were taken in Shanksville"




posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
"Prove they were taken in Shanksville"


Proper CSI calls for proper sources of the photos as i keep pointing out.

Proper source for photos accroding to CSI 101.

1. Photographer

2. Time and Date.

3. Location.



[edit on 2-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   



Here is a little video from one of the head OS'ers confirming what many of us already know.

Don't you think that the Secretary of Defense would really know what happened that day?



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
"They did it with Flight 800."

That's because those were ACTUAL airplane parts. The debris in Shanksville looked like unrelated garbage from the local dump.

TWA 800 Reconstruction

channel.nationalgeographic.com...

Pan Am 103 Reconstruction

www.independent.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
And notice he is looking at a script? Can't claim typo here now can we boys?



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ATH911
 


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

So is this what you agree with too Swamp, that most of the 95% was down in the ground? (you seemed to want to deny this in other threads)


Wiring harnesses, pistons, landing gear, tires,... plane parts hanging in the trees.

All the above that I left, please provide photographic/video proof of each, or should I rely on "faith" again?



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"That's because those were ACTUAL airplane parts. The debris in Shanksville looked like unrelated garbage from the local dump.


Well i was just stating the facts.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
"Well i was just stating the facts."

I agree with you 100%. Shanksville was a total con job, and a pretty lousy one at that.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Yep...this looks like garbage found in any old dump...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Yep...you find stuff like this in every dump....

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
farm4.static.flickr.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


Yeah, you find that stuff in any junkyard.


Edit time...ole ATS didnt take care of the links properly...

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   


All the above that I left, please provide photographic/video proof of each, or should I rely on "faith" again?


And as I have said before, those firemen had things on their minds other than taking photos to satisfy a ghoulish conspiracy theorist.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



Your ability to post links that actually work belongs in the junkyard.


The page you have requested could not be found. (404)



[edit on 2-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


The links are fixed.
sorry the http link botched them on the first go



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Still stuck on CSI:Miami? or is is CSI:Las Vegas?



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And as I have said before, those firemen had things on their minds other than taking photos to satisfy a ghoulish conspiracy theorist.


At a crime scene a specific person is required to take photos.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Still stuck on CSI:Miami? or is is CSI:Las Vegas?


Real word CSI. Please do some research so you can at least have a adult discussio on the subject.

www.policeone.com...
Investigators should maintain a photographic log as a reference to where and what photos have been taken, as well as the conditions under which the photographs were obtained. A log also helps the photographer present a professional image when testifying in court.

The log should include:

Identity of photographer
Date/time
Location of crime
Type of case
Case number or other identifying number
Orientation, description of the scene
Type of camera/lens used
Type of film used
Light source, type of strobe (manual or automatic, fill)
Shutter speed
Lens aperture - Because photography does have some inherent limitations, always create a crime scene sketch as an addendum to the photographic log.


[edit on 3-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Besides, it wouldnt matter if I had photos of all the wreckage, your next argument would be, "Prove they were taken in Shanksville"

Swampfox, you have already stated that you will not accept evidence without a proper chain of custody.


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
In addition, I do not accept this "camera" shot as proof. No chain of custody....no confirmation of any kind that it is an actual shot taken that day and not a photo shop job done with an internet photo at a later date.


Without a proper chain of custody, as you already previously agree, any photos of alleged wreckage are worthless.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by impressme


Blah blah blah


I do not understand “baby talk” come back to me when you grow up and we can discuss this issue.


Someone was harping on something that their uneducated belief makes them think should be written down somewhere. So I appeased them. You cant handle it...thats your issue.


Cant handle what? Looks like you are the one that is crying in here, because no one will believe in your OS fairytale that we all have proven to be a fantasy.



Your post was just another shining example of a cherry picked quote on the truth side..typical.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Swampfox46_1999]


No, you are wrong as usual, my quote came from a creditable sources and as hard as it is for you to except it, it is all a proven fact, so that alone blows your OS out the window.








[edit on 3-1-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Yep...this looks like garbage found in any old dump...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Yep...you find stuff like this in every dump....



Every amateur researching 911, knows that wtc7lies, is a disinformation websites no wonder you fell for the OS lies.

All those photos could have been taken anywhere, in any country anywhere in the world. Those photos could have been taken years before 911.

There is no chain of custody, nothing! Tell you what, I am going to find an airplane bone yard and take some photos and upload these photos’ on a disinformation website and tell everyone that is foolish enough to believe me, that these are the pictures from the 911 crash site.

I see you love opinions, so here’s mine, those photos came from an airplane bone yard because there was no plane crash and in nine years you OS believers have not proved one shred of tangible evidences that even proves those photos where from airplane parts belonging to said planes.

The fact is, which you continue to ignore for nine years, is the FBI did not investigated any of the four-plane crashes. Crash debris were not tagged or numbered, no serial numbers were recorded, nothing, in fact the FBI was in such a hurry to get ride of all the airplane debris without allowing anyone to investigated or examine the contents. In my opinion, it sure looks like they had to get rid of criminal evidences before anyone could figure out that those airplane parts belong to bone yard scraps.

You cannot even disprove my opinion, and you cannot prove your OS fairytale that those photos belong to the planes in question. The real criminals had to put up some pictures any photos would have done the job.

Prove me wrong! Show me the chain of custody, real proof where the photos where taken and by whom and what time of day and what day they where taken. In fact, I want to know what kind of camera that was used. This should not be hard for you to get if these are legit.








[edit on 3-1-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Try reading the transcript from the CVR, truther. Then come back and explain your alternative theory as to what happened to flight 93. Seems truthers have a hard time with that one.


Debunkers seem to have a really hard time reading. I specifically asked why it went down. Have an answer or more links?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



the FBI did not investigated any of the four-plane crashes. Crash debris were not tagged or numbered, no serial numbers were recorded, nothing, in fact the FBI was in such a hurry to get ride of all the airplane debris without allowing anyone to investigated or examine the contents.


Remind me again - exactly who does the FBI call to investigate its investigations?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join