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: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Alfie1
I asked earlier and my question has been ignored as I have come to expect. Can you give a reason why anyone would want to fake a crash site in a field in Pennsylvania ?


Not faked just not the type of crash site you think. More of a shoot down site.



Do you mean you think UA 93 was shot down there ?




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
[Do you mean you think UA 93 was shot down there ?


Yes, i do think there is a chance that 93 was shot down.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by hooper
 



Fine, look up the Mossaui trial exhibits. There they are. Presented and accepted in an American court of law as proof of the crash of Flight 93 in the fields and woods near an old open pit coal mine in Southwestern Pennsylvania. Done and done. Next?


These are trial exhibits ! Where are the photos of the wreckage in situ ? I can pick up a coke can and tell you i found it in siberia it does n't prove anything !

Where are these photos to prove your explanation ?

You don't have them or any source to them do you ? If you had said you were 'summising' thats where the wreckage was why didn't you say so ? As i have been taught many times here 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' !



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
These are trial exhibits ! Where are the photos of the wreckage in situ ? I can pick up a coke can and tell you i found it in siberia it does n't prove anything !


Most people on here cannot show proper sources for photos, believe me i have tried for years.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ATH911
 


I asked earlier and my question has been ignored as I have come to expect. Can you give a reason why anyone would want to fake a crash site in a field in Pennsylvania ?

It probably got ignored because this is not the appropriate thread for that. Start your own for your off-topic question.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Alfie1
[Do you mean you think UA 93 was shot down there ?


Yes, i do think there is a chance that 93 was shot down.



So, you evidently don't agree with the op.

What do you think about the fact that the FDR indicates all systems functioning normally to the end and various witnesses saw the plane very low and in one piece ?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
What do you think about the fact that the FDR indicates all systems functioning normally to the end and various witnesses saw the plane very low and in one piece ?

How does any of that go to answer this threads question, the one you've failed to answer so far?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ATH911
 


I asked earlier and my question has been ignored as I have come to expect. Can you give a reason why anyone would want to fake a crash site in a field in Pennsylvania ?

It probably got ignored because this is not the appropriate thread for that. Start your own for your off-topic question.


You started this thread by asking where the wreckage of UA 93 is and you said " the FBI lied ". The only inference has to be that you think UA 93 didn't crash there and that the site was a set-up.

How is it off-topic to ask you why you think anyone would do such a thing ? Anyway, your evasion is noted.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

You started this thread by asking where the wreckage of UA 93 is

Yes, where was most of that 95%?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Alfie1

You started this thread by asking where the wreckage of UA 93 is

Yes, where was most of that 95%?


Your OP stated:


Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?


Now you ask:


Yes, where was most of that 95%?


Why the change up? Or do you just not distinguish between the word "all" and the word "most"? And if you think it is just semantics then I have a proposition for you - you put all your money in a bucket and I'll put all of my money in the same bucket. Then I'll take "all" the money out and you can have "most" of what is left.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Apparently did not look at the photos I posted - the ones taken CLOSE UP!

You post a long range aerial photo and then ask where are the parts?

Go to here

Will see plenty of aircraft debris





posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Apparently did not look at the photos I posted - the ones taken CLOSE UP!

You post a long range aerial photo and then ask where are the parts?

Go to here

Will see plenty of aircraft debris





posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Apparently did not look at the photos I posted - the ones taken CLOSE UP!

You post a long range aerial photo and then ask where are the parts?

Go to here

Will see plenty of aircraft debris




I'll try and nip this one in the bud. ATH911 will argue that none of those photographs is sufficiently "sourced" and therefore there is no proof they were taken on the site. As far as I can tell the only reliable source would be if he took the photos himself.

That's the quality argument, then there is the quantity argument. Yeah that shows alot but he needs photos of 95% of the plane or else it is a conspiracy.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
But is unwilling to contact United Airlines to confirm with them how much of the aircraft was recovered?

Last I looked, UA owned the plane and to this day still owns the plane.

With a little effort, he could have found his answer on the day he posted this thread.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Why the change up?

Sorry Mr. Perfect.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Apparently did not look at the photos I posted - the ones taken CLOSE UP!

You post a long range aerial photo and then ask where are the parts?

Go to here

Will see plenty of aircraft debris

I did, I just didn't see enough to come anywhere close to 95% of a Boeing 757. More like 2%.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
But is unwilling to contact United Airlines to confirm with them how much of the aircraft was recovered?

Last I looked, UA owned the plane and to this day still owns the plane.

With a little effort, he could have found his answer on the day he posted this thread.

I'm not asking where is the 95% stored after cleanup. I want to know where all that 95% of a Boeing 757 was at the site before cleanup.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Play nice children. Nobody likes know-it-all a$$ holes.

On topic: The OS is deffinately fishy but arguing about it on an internet board is not going to make anyone right or make the truth come out.

You either accept the OS or you dont. Its not that difficult.

No need in fighting over it.

To sheep or not to sheep that is the question. BAAAAAAAAAA!

MessOnTheFED!



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I dont know why people believ that an aeroplane the size of a large boeing was ever at the shanksville site, the local sheriff even stated on a tv interview that "there is no plane here" he means that there is not a crash site here and that there is no plane.
I just know someone of challenged intellect will try and misconstrue his words to mean that there was a plane crash and the plane mysteriously vanished.
news.bbc.co.uk...

At the link there is a picture of the aircraft that crashed onto a hillside in greece and gives some indication of the size of the pieces that are missing.

The reason why the plane in the official story was reduced to parts smaller than a phone book is because to transport larger parts such as an intact wing or tail section would have caused its own problems as it is impossible to hide.

Tail sections are notorious for surviving disasters as they tend to seperate and survive fires due to structural failure and being deposited out of the general seat of the inferno that sometimes ensues after an aircrash.
Some people are obviously working hard to maintain the official lie use your common sense and dont feed the trolls it only encourages them.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by The X]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I am still waiting for someone to tell me which miracle weapon was used to bring down Flight 93, if it was in fact, shot down. The wreckage pattern does not support the use of any air to air weapon currently in use.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join