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: 16
9
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Sean48
in a nutshell , this 34 year vet of airplane crashes says theres no way in
hell those planes crashed as the OS states


He also made the statement but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site

So it appears he or someone he knew wanted to go and visit the site but they were apparently not allowed! Do "private investigators" normally visit FBI controlled crash sites?


Ok that is one - maybe. What exactly does he mean? Does he think no planes crashed? Does he thinks someone else crashed the planes? And that is simply an appeal to an indirect authority. Does really mean much unless he has something more specific to add.




posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Im an older guy, not comp friendly, in search of the truth, maybe one of

you younger whipper snappers can link the rense "page open"

I see it done in threads , i can link 2 tubes and sites , after that ,nada



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Point to consider people:

Depends on which 95% the gov is claiming. If you start with less than 100% of anything then pick up just 95% of what you have, that is 95% BUT not 95% of the complete puzzle.

So the gov's claim that they collected 95% of the wreckage may be true, but how many peices did they start with first?

And, how do they know it is 95% of the 100 percent of the wreckage if they never performed a reconstruct per the OS????



[edit on 3-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 





And, how do they know it is 95% of the 100 percent of the wreckage if they never performed a reconstruct per the OS????


You weigh the containers you placed the wreckage in.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


But if you don"t have all of the peices to start with, how do you determine how to tare the container holding the peices you do have to arrive at an accurate determination?

And if you don"t have all of the peices you can't claim 95% of the wreckage was recovered.

Weighing it would not be accurate at all. Reasons? Incomplete peices due to stress, impact, fire etc. Not accurate at all.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


You are kidding right? You dont think that maybe United Airlines might have known exactly how much that airplane weighed when it was intact?

If something weighs 1000 pounds...someone breaks it up....and you find 950 pounds of wreckage....have you not recovered 95% of it?



As a side note, I have said that using "95%" wasnt the wisest choice of words.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
Point to consider people:

If you have only a small amount of peices then only collect 95% of them, did you begin with 100% of the peices or just a few peices?

So the gov's claim that they collected 95% of the wreckage may be true, but how many peices did they start with first?

And, how do they know it is 95% of the 100 percent of the wreckage if they never performed a reconstruct per the OS????



Well, I think this whole 95% thing came about because of a statement made an FBI agent at the crash site to the local press. I don't think he was trying to make an archealogically precise statement, more like trying to make a general statement about the results of their recovery effort.

To give it as much weight as has been given in these threads borders on the silly.

Another point. The plane in question weighed in at about 200,000 lbs. I know this sounds like a lot but I don't think it really is. A plane is like a balloon. Lot of surface area and airspace, but once you take it apart its not as much as you think. For instance, a railroad car filled with coal weighs 100,000 lbs but you spread it our over a few acres and you would hardly see it. There are other examples, a house, a bus, etc.

Take any one of these, slam it into the ground at 500 mph and throw in a massive fuel explosion and you are lucky to find anything, let alone big recognizable chunks.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Thank you for your repsonse. Have a nice day.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Take any one of these, slam it into the ground at 500 mph and throw in a massive fuel explosion and you are lucky to find anything, let alone big recognizable chunks.

But yet, the FBI found 95%, right?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


You haven't been paying attention?

Hundreds of people searched area repeatedly for weeks - much of what
they found was small, often no more than a thumbnail. Other parts
were fairly large including jet engines, forward fan section of one engine
which weighted in at 1000 lbs and some sections of fuselage

Put it all together and came up at about 125,000 lbs - enough to fill 10
large construction containers with debris.

Large pieces








Small pieces








posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ATH911
 


You haven't been paying attention?

Hundreds of people searched area repeatedly for weeks - much of what
they found was small, often no more than a thumbnail. Other parts
were fairly large including jet engines, forward fan section of one engine
which weighted in at 1000 lbs and some sections of fuselage

Put it all together and came up at about 125,000 lbs - enough to fill 10
large construction containers with debris.

Large pieces








Small pieces








The photo link in the "small debris" section states a computer chip found over a mile away. A peice that small, I'm supposed to believe did NOT come from the inside of the plane at altitude (shot down) yet impacted the ground and by the force flew up and away (even though the plane buried itself at the impact site) and landed over a mile away?

Sorry, can't fall that at all.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

enough to fill 10 large construction containers with debris.

Are you saying there were 10 large containers at the site filled with debris?




Look, the old-looking engine part fits in the scooper! So that's how they planted it.

And ain't this the only photo showing parts allegedly being dug out of the ground even though most of the plane was supposedly buried? Wow man, just wow.



Another old-looking part (photographed who-knows-where) that looks totally burned out, yet the ground around it is pristine. Hmm. No, that doesn't look planted.



Another photo photographed who-knows-where. So 95% of the plane was recovered and this piece is the only one with United logo colors still on it? Yeah, right.



Quite the weathered-looking seatbelt, huh?!



Who says that's even plane debris?



Are you seriously suggesting those are bones from the passengers of Flight 93?!? PLEASE tell me you're not serious!

[edit on 4-1-2010 by ATH911]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   
I'm a little late to the party, and haven't necessarily taken sides, but I would like to bring up a bit of history here.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that many countries around the globe have had reasons for False Flag attacks. Typically they have to do with reasons of war, but also have happened in times of peace.

War can lead to a transfer of wealth, land, and power. It can create industry, and jobs. t can have many beneficial effects, with the only real negative being the death of our own countrymen(some who are no longer counted since many now work for private military companies.)

Operation NorthwoodsCIA Iran BombingsGulf of TonkinCIA Italy BombingsAntrax blamed on Muslim Terrorists

I am not even including the multiple times radiation, syphilis, and other chemicals have been used on us. I also have not brought up the quote from Donald Rumsfeld about needing a "new Pearl Harbor" as a reason to go into Iraq.

I bring this up, not as a straw man argument, but to show that anything is possible., even by the people who are supposed to lead us. This could include a planned even so impossible to believe by a "rational" mind.

There has been plenty of benefit for a small few since the attacks on 9/11. It created HLS. It made many rich men richer.

Haliburton - CHENEY RICHER
Bush Oil Family - RICHER
Dude who owned the WTC's for a few months - BILLIONS paid on double terrorist attack.

The list could go on. Did I forget to mention a loss of our own freedoms? Did I mention a domino effect of events which has led us to an utter collapse of our economy? Many people played a role, but the war got the ball rolling.

I believe the proven false flag attacks of the past, the experiments, and the like would have been laughed at as implausible in their day as well, usually by the "rational" people.

Yes this is a bigger event. Yes it would have taken much more time and planning then the others.

There are reasons, motives, and I simply don't believe in coincidences. I also don't believe a couple of yahoos with a handful of flight lessons could find new york and fly two planes directly---smack dab---into those towers...without help. I also like that they supposedly found a passport that fell from the plane on the ground upon impact from one of the highjackers.

Now back to flight 93...it COULD have been staged. Nobody has proof other then their rational mind, which could easily be proven wrong with good staging. At this point you just have to trust your government and their official story and evidence.

By the way, has anyone tried using their cell phone midflight lately?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper

Take any one of these, slam it into the ground at 500 mph and throw in a massive fuel explosion and you are lucky to find anything, let alone big recognizable chunks.

But yet, the FBI found 95%, right?


Yep, that's what they said. Can you prove otherwise or are you just expressing your personal incredulity?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by brocket99
 



Now back to flight 93...it COULD have been staged. Nobody has proof other then their rational mind, which could easily be proven wrong with good staging. At this point you just have to trust your government and their official story and evidence.


You think? Please explain exactly how.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by brocket99
 


No, you don't have to "trust your government" brocket.


Now back to flight 93...it COULD have been staged. Nobody has proof other then their rational mind, which could easily be proven wrong with good staging. At this point you just have to trust your government and their official story and evidence.



It "COULD" have been staged (actually, IF that had been the case, there would be a heck of a lot more than two or three people here on ATS claiming it is so...)

But, anyway...WHY???!!! Why "stage" it?


Three other crashes sites weren't "staged".

Perhaps because you were late to this party, as it was mentioned quite a few pages ago, there is little doubt and seems to be no argument from anyone that a command and control decision to authorize a shoot down of United 93 had already been made.

So, there is no need for this "cover up" that Truthers keep raving about.

It is a simple fact: The airplane was intentionally augered in by the hijackers. The incredible forces at work, rarely seen in airliner crash scenarios, pulverized the airplane and its contents.

The point of this thread is, when the area was dug up, sifted and searched, and any little piece that was recognizable as having not belonged there do to being of natural origin was determined to be brought there as a result of the airplane, then the MASS of the debris, when weighed, was determined. The "95%" figure is latched upon, by the Truthers, because they have NO OTHER way to complain, except to demand an extreme "proof" of EXACTLY 95%, and if not given that, then, (to them) the entire event at Shanksville is therefore "obviously faked".

Can anyone else not see how ridiculous that stance is??

SO, if some official, in a news conference, makes an off-the-cuff remark and spews "95%" because it's a best estimate, and it turns out to be 93.6% exactly (or any number, 89.2%?? It doesn't matter...). Except, to these rabidly inane and uncomprehending lunatic truther websites that stir this crapolla up, and hope to rile people to "follow" their "crusade".



@@@By the way, someone mentioned a figure of around 200,000 pounds total for the weight of the airplane that was United 93.

Non-aviation people use its TAKEOFF weight as a starting point, and then likely might be confused as to the weight of the recovered debris. You have to factor out the FUEL weight!

As an FYI, the OEW (Operating Empty Weight) of a B-757 is in the ballpark of 127,000 pounds. (OEW is defined as the weight with all required equipment installed --- including minimum crew --- before adding usable fuel and payload).

Oh, and a chuckle, if you wish to know what some airline employees call passengers --- "SLF".**


**"Self-Loading Freight"







[edit on 4 January 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by brocket99
I also have not brought up the quote from Donald Rumsfeld about needing a "new Pearl Harbor" as a reason to go into Iraq.

Dude who owned the WTC's for a few months - BILLIONS paid on double terrorist attack.

The list could go on. Did I forget to mention a loss of our own freedoms?

There are reasons, motives, and I simply don't believe in coincidences. I also don't believe a couple of yahoos with a handful of flight lessons could find new york and fly two planes directly---smack dab---into those towers...without help. I also like that they supposedly found a passport that fell from the plane on the ground upon impact from one of the highjackers.

By the way, has anyone tried using their cell phone midflight lately?


So lets take a look at your post shall we?

"A New Pearl Harbor"--came from a document written by PNAC, and it referred to the fact that our military was designed to fight the Cold War and that for our nation to spend the money to remodel our military into a more lightweight, easily deployed force was going to take a catalystic event. "a new pearl harbor" That phrase was never once issued by Donald Rumsfeld in conjunction to going into Iraq.

Dude who LEASED the WTC. Yes, may have been awarded billions, but it was nowhere NEAR the amount of money needed to rebuild the buildings AND keep up on his payments to the Port Authority as required by his contract with them. He has been paying millions since 9/11 on a property that is not generating an income. Does that sound like he is going to come out ahead?

Couple of yahoos with an handful of flight lessons.....You mean the guys that had obtained commerical pilots licenses? They were far more than a couple of "yahoos".

Then there is finding NYC....anyone that has a little bit of experience can enter the GPS coordinates for a city into the nav systems on an airplane...and the airplane will pretty much fly itself there.

As for finding the passport.....not really all the strange....considering the amount of personal effects that were recovered...bank cards, driver's licenses...purses...wallets....

Then there is the cellphone issue again. The majority of phone calls made from the jets that day, were using the airfones installed onboard. Of the cell calls that actually connected, those were made at a time where the jet (flight 93) was low enough that it was in range of cell towers.

I think I figured out why you have such a hard time accepting what happened on 9/11/01.....you've spent too much time reading crap...instead of checking out the facts.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Oh for gawd sake people....the whole entire day of September 11th 2001 reeks of controversy.
Why doesn't our supposed government help put things to rest? Why not? Because I really think they love a country divided.

The wreckage in Shanksville was scattered over 8 miles. How the HELL does that happen?

The plane's aluminum nose in Washington, penetrated reinforced steel rings/walls of the Pentagon. How the HELL does that happen?

Two buildings crumble after being hit by planes in less than an hour in NYC. How the HELL does that happen. The third building, crumbled too just for the hell of it.

Nineteen men boarded 4 planes without a ONE, making it onto a passenger list. How the HELL does that happen?


C'mon government o'mine. Help me to understand these simple areas of confusion. No answer? Well then that speaks volumes then!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 

You may want to air these views in this thread :-
» 9/11 Conspiracies » A New Enquiry into 9,11 would it work ?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TwoPhish
Oh for gawd sake people....the whole entire day of September 11th 2001 reeks of controversy.

The wreckage in Shanksville was scattered over 8 miles. How the HELL does that happen?

The plane's aluminum nose in Washington, penetrated reinforced steel rings/walls of the Pentagon. How the HELL does that happen?


Nineteen men boarded 4 planes without a ONE, making it onto a passenger list. How the HELL does that happen?


C'mon government o'mine. Help me to understand these simple areas of confusion. No answer? Well then that speaks volumes then!



And on to your post....

The wreckage of Flight 93 that was "scattered" was lightweight things that would blow in the wind. The more substantial items engines, fuselage pieces etc...were all located in and around the impact zone.

Flight 77's impact on the Pentagon. How do you think missiles penetrate armor? A pointed nose and a lot of speed. (Yes I am simplifying things) The Pentagon wasnt nearly the impregnable fortress you think it was. Yes, it was reinforced, but more to help resist a car bomb...not a "missile" attack (because in the end, Flight 77 was turned into a large missile by the suicide jockey in the cockpit)

Finally, the old tale that the hijackers dont show up on the passengers list. I thought we had settled that long ago. The CNN list that people get their undies in a knot over, is a list of the VICTIMS on the flights. The actual manifests (of which there are copies available online) show all of the hijackers with the exception of Hani Hanjour.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join