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: 30
9
<< 27  28  29    31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
The source - the FBI! As you well know - a spokesman for the FBI stated that 95% was recovered. Prove him wrong or prove he is a liar.

Shouldn't those who make extraordinary claims (like 95% of UA93 being recovered) and those who support those extraordinary claims prove them? I mean after all, if 95% of a 757 was recovered, it shouldn't be too hard to prove!

[edit on 13-2-2010 by ATH911]




posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


You're right - United Airlines has the material in storage - have you asked to see it yet? Have you contacted the FBI and the NTSB and requested information?



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You're right - United Airlines has the material in storage - have you asked to see it yet? Have you contacted the FBI and the NTSB and requested information?


If your next post does not contain real evidence that the materal is in storge then you must concede you are wrong.

If you make a claim you must provide evidence.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Once again, you are citing from a source that has ZERO credibility anymore (Pilots for 9/11 Truth). They've destroyed what little cache' they allegedly started out with by the outlandish mistakes of late.

A "truther" who actually was seeking facts would have realized, by now, where "P4T" made their mistake on that issue you raised (again - and again - and again...)

A) The FDR times that are referenced from the NTSB reports need to be understood. The FDR on that airplane, that day, had as its only source of time reference the Captain's clock. Some pilots don't bother to set it [exactly] each and every flight, because...

B) We all wear wristwatches (could be off equally too, depends), but...

C) It doesn't matter because the real, and accurate time comes from the ACARS. Because the ACARS is what transmits constantly to Arinc, and gets its time updates from Arinc. ACARS automatically sends the Out, Off, ON and In times (sometimes called 'OOOI' -- pronounced "ew wee") times via the Arinc network to the airline's computers (and to FAA BTS departments).

The FAA ATC computers, of course, are all on the same time as the Arinc system.

THAT is why there is a few minutes' discrepancy!!

Seems I have to keep explaining this, because once the erroneus and highly irresponsible info was put "out" by P4T in their usual haste, and with lack of a full understanding of all the facts, it continues to pollute the actual truth in this field.

BUT, since it is far, far more complicated, even than that explanation that I tried to shorten, it is usually pointless to try to describe it to non-aviation types (laypersons).


FWIW...the ACARS is not considered 'required' equipment. It is a convenient device because it automates what still has to be done manually, via the radio, IF ACARS is not installed or is INOP on a flight. It's an FAA requirement called "flight following".

ACARS has many more functions, nowadays...adding more convenience.

Real-time weather, ATIS, pre-departure clearances, gate assignment info...(and more) and when paired with the onboard printer cuts down on the need for one pilot to go 'off' on the other radio, and be 'out of the loop' for the minutes needed, in past, to get that info. So, it is a safety enhancement.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Once again, you are citing from a source that has ZERO credibility anymore (Pilots for 9/11 Truth). They've destroyed what little cache' they allegedly started out with by the outlandish mistakes of late.


And you are citing sources (FDRs) that ARE NOT considered evidence.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

Feel free to hooper.

We are still waiting for you to show us where all that 95% wreckage was before cleanup. You say most wasn't buried, yet you've FAILED to show where most of it was above ground.

The scene photos seem to show only 5-10% of wreckage equal to a 757. Where was the remaining 70-80% that should still be above ground that you seem to suggest?



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


This is ridiculous, as are the claims of "faked FDR and CVR data"!!!!

IT ALL TIES into the other outside ATC data...not only the ATC audio tapes, all from the various ATC facilities involved....AND their other conversations on landlines with NORAD...(also on tape)...BUT also the radar tapes that are recorded, as part of normal operations, by ATC.....even TODAY!!!! Nothing much has changed in the last 8+ years...except for awareness....and other aspects of inflight security that I won't talk about, in this forum....

BUT, again, I fear a 'backlash of tsunami' about to blow from the "truthers" after I post this.... so be it!



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



The scene photos seem/quote]

There's your answer. You want that opinion. Well you got it. Its just your opinion. You've been shown all the photos. You want to believe that, I guess you will.

Its lame, but self-deception seems to work for you. Like the idea that the trees in Shanksville should have been dripping with blood.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Let the record show that Hooper cannot show evidence of the 95% of Flight 93 recovered.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Your constant state of denial is not my failure. That must have other sources.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Your constant state of denial is not my failure. That must have other sources.


Let the record show that Hooper cannot show evidence of the 95% of Flight 93 recovered.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
THAT is why there is a few minutes' discrepancy!!


If the Pilots for 9/11 Truth website had commercial pilots, surely they would know why there was a difference in the time? Have they no proper commercial pilots, or do they ignore those pilots?

Why didnt a organisation that claims "of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. " know the reason for any time difference?



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ProRipp
 


I guess the most curious thing to me is how conspiracy believers like to apply "common sense" to things like airplane crashes and building collapses. Exactly how many people are "commonly" confronted with these experinces wherein they can develop a common knowledge? How did you develop your baseline from which you were able to deduce that these things are extraordinary?


Probably because the aircraft in question miraculasly crashed into a small, isolated, natural earth depression which was already there before the event, according to google earth anyway.


MSM news footage showed smoke rising from the site but absolutely no fuselage, 6 tonne engines, landing gear, luggage, fags, booze or bodies. maybe it was all thrown into the back of chevvies before the cameras got there by locals wearing asbestos oven gloves.

Check around the internet, why do you think it is that there are many more sites calling foul than backing up the OS?

This is what a genuine "common sense" crash site normally looks like before it gets cleared:



PEACE,
RK



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ProRipp

Probably because the aircraft in question miraculasly crashed into a small, isolated, natural earth depression which was already there before the event, according to google earth anyway.


Wherein exactly is this miracle? What is miraculous? That the plane crashed into the ground? Uh, don't think that is quite a "miracle". That at some point in the past somebody had done some earthwork in the the area? Not really all that astonishing, the plane crashed in Pennsylvania not Antartica.


MSM news footage showed smoke rising from the site but absolutely no fuselage, 6 tonne engines, landing gear, luggage, fags, booze or bodies. maybe it was all thrown into the back of chevvies before the cameras got there by locals wearing asbestos oven gloves.


Wait - "absolutely no"? When did that happen? All the photos and video I saw showed debris - now its all gone? Boy for people who are supposedly searching for the "truth" it would seem like the truth is taking quite a beating from your side.


Check around the internet, why do you think it is that there are many more sites calling foul than backing up the OS?


Because the truth only needs to be said once.


This is what a genuine "common sense" crash site normally looks like before it gets cleared:



PEACE,
RK


Yeah, right. And if I posted that pick you would ask where the plane was.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


your image of a 757 Jet Engine. are you sure you want to claim it as a 757 engine...? take a close look. the bucket is a standard 30" or 36" what which do you think it is... 34" if that.

ts2.mm.bing.net... 62_d083f15d0d.jpg

sort of punnie dont you think... betcha could stand up in that engine bell.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Wait - "absolutely no"? When did that happen? All the photos and video I saw showed debris


Please list the photos and videos with proper sources showing the debris is from Flight 93.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Wait - "absolutely no"? When did that happen? All the photos and video I saw showed debris


Please list the photos and videos with proper sources showing the debris is from Flight 93.


Follow the thread. The claim refers to MSM video and photos. I think the photos show debris. Period.

You prove that is from something other than Flight 93.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You prove that is from something other than Flight 93.


Please be mature enough not to try to turn it around on me.

If you are going to claim something as fact you must provide evidence.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


All the evidence has been presented. It has also been accepted in a court of law as I've told you a thousand times. The burden is now shifted unto you to prove these people are liars.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
All the evidence has been presented. It has also been accepted in a court of law as I've told you a thousand times.


WRONG, about 75% of the evidence and most of the official reports have not been relased yet due to the fact of the ongoing investigation.

So you are being dishonest when you state that all the evidence has been presented.

Also as you have been told a thousand times the evidence used in trail was not enough to charge OBL with beiong behind 9/11.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 27  28  29    31  32 >>

log in

join