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: 31
9
<< 28  29  30    32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Please look at the transcript from the mossawi trial. Doesn't take a lot of effort, it is readily available on the internet.

OBL is named as a co-conspirator in the indictment. That means is equally charged with the crime. Don't be relying on 9 year old statements made off hand in tv interviews.




posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
OBL is named as a co-conspirator in the indictment. That means is equally charged with the crime.


Sorry but i have to stick with the FBI's and DOJ's statments about OBL.

I notice you avoided the following.

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.




[edit on 17-2-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



Sorry but i have to stick with the FBI's and DOJ's statments about OBL.


Well its pretty obvious you are avoiding reality, I don't know what to say. The government named OBL as a co-conspirator in a murder trial. Yet you insist that the government has no interest in OBL and does not think he was linked to 9/11. That is simply delusional.


I notice you avoided the following.

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.


Translation: I have not seen them because nobody will drop them in my lap.

75% of evidence? Where and how did you come up with that little gem? How do you determine precentages of evidence?



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


Nope. You are engaging in the age old practise if quote mining. When I said that it was in a completely different context. You claimed that the items we were talking about would never be accepted as evidence in a court of law and I corrected you by noting that everything we were discussing at the time was submitted as evidence in a court of law and the evidence result in a guilty verdict. Then you moved some goalpost around to try and avoid admitting that you were wrong and here we are again.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Well its pretty obvious you are avoiding reality. Yet you insist that the government has no interest in OBL and does not think he was linked to 9/11. That is simply delusional.


Funny you are the one living in a safe fantasy world, not wanting to admit when facts and evidence are shown.


Translation: I have not seen them because nobody will drop them in my lap.


Why are you so afraid to admit that most of the evidence and official reports have not been released? Are you really that afraid of the truth?


Nope. You are engaging in the age old practise if quote mining. When I said that it was in a completely different context.


Wrong again. The reason you cannot post evidnece is becasue most of it has not been released. Everyone knows its still an ongoing investigation.


You claimed that the items we were talking about would never be accepted as evidence in a court of law and I corrected you by noting that everything we were discussing at the time was submitted as evidence in a court of law and the evidence result in a guilty verdict.


How many times can 1 person be wrong about so many things?

As proven the evidence you quoted was not get enough to charge OBL with being behind 9/11 according to both the FBI and DOJ.

Also as proven the FDRs would not be accepted as evidence in court.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



Also as proven the FDRs would not be accepted as evidence in court.


You are obviously in a deep state of denial. Short of putting you in time machine and taking you to the court I don't know what else to do. The photograph of Flight 93 Data Recorder was submitted as a trial exhibit in a court of law without objection, the trial proceed and resulted in the defendant recieving 6 consecutive life terms without the possibility of release. The data from the recorder was authenticated by the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder Division of the NTSB.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
The data from the recorder was authenticated by the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder Division of the NTSB.


Sorry but there are no serial numbers matching FDR to the plane.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


You wanted authentication - you got it. Now you just want denial. You obviously have plenty of that in supply. The data and the recorder have been authenticated and accepted as evidence in a US court of law. The deal is done.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You wanted authentication - you got it.


Without serial numbers their is no authentication.

Please wake up and face the facts.

www.ntsb.gov...
Recorder information shall be sent/emailed to the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder
Division and the FDR specialist, as soon as possible. This information can be obtained
from the airline and/or the airframe manufacturer. Specifically, the following
information is required to facilitate data readout:

! FDR manufacturer/model (Fairchild, Sundstrand, Allied Signal, L3, etc)
! FDR Part number and Serial Number
! FDAU (flight data acquisition unit) manufacturer/model and part number
! Parameters recorded
! Word(s) and bit location(s) of each parameter
! Conversion algorithm for each parameter
! Parameter range
! Original owner/upgraded retrofit history
! Airline, recorder maintenance/readout facility contact phone number

[edit on 17-2-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Weedwacker,

If UA93 mostly buried as you claim, what empirical evidence do you have that most of UA93 was buried?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



If UA93 mostly buried as you claim...


That was never MY claim!!!!

I love how this gets twisted around!


The ONLY place I have seen this "95%" claim was here on ATS, and was repeated by "truther" who started thread!!!

My impression is, that an offhand remark, made by either an FBI official or someone else, to the media, at some point, (possibly early on in the investigation of the Shansksville site, as clean-up proceeded) has been grasped by the "truther movement".

It is, again grasping at straws, by the "TM" folks, as they desperatley hope to "catch" a 'lie'.

The area was scoured for as much aircraft (and human) debris that they could manage to find and recover. We have reports of smaller pieces, scattered in a wide range, and this makes sense as the destruction of the airplane, at impact, progressed, and forces worked in chaotic ways.

ANYONE who has bothered to look into aviation disasters will see how NONE of them look the same!!!

Too many variables.

This "95%" off-the-cuff comment may have been in the person's mind, based on other similar high-speed airplane impact crash sites and their recovery history....(you can look up many examples on the 'net).

This person, attributed to this comment, may have simply blurted out a figure off the top of his/her head!!!!

Sheesh!!!

Mountain out of a molehill!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ooops, apologies, just went and checked...


Originally posted by weedwhackerand was repeated by "truther" who started thread!!!


It is YOUR thread!!!



[edit on 17 February 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

I'm not talking about the 95% recovered claim, I'm talking about the official claim that most of UA93 was buried, a claim you support:


post by weedwhacker

The airpolane impacted, and mostly buried into the soil. What happens to a bullet, if fired into dirt or sand?

A small bullet, even with such low mass, moves at tremendous velocity. Basic physics, velocity/energy....look it up.


I'm simply asking for you to prove this claim that you support.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Well, first of all....

We are discussing, here, UAL 93 at Shanksville.

BUT, I have to bring up, from other threads on ALSO...what ATS (and other venues) that 'eyewitness' accounts, while important when collated and taken in context, should NOT be taken literally, in all instances.

The 'eyewitness' account I am referring to is the one made by (was it a Sheriff?) that he saw the 'cockpit', or the 'forward one-third' of the fuselage break off on impact.

I do not recall that ANYONE was actual witness, at the scene, at ground level, with full 'eye' view as the airplane hit.

This is a commonly-repeated 'meme', by the "TM".

It is based, simply, on what ONE person heard another person say, and it's like that game "whisper"....

However, like the ever decreasing straws to grasp, this is merely parsing of comments made, that are on the record, and taken out of context --- especially after all of these years have passed.

ANYWAY....no, I seriously doubt the reports that the "cockpit" broke off, and tumbled away.....because that is the first point of impact.

AS THE DESTRUCTION progressed??? Well, we would need a computer program to simulate the force vectors involved. That is beyond my abilities.

At some point, there would have been an explosion, as the fuel ignited.

THOSE forces would have (possibly) contributed to the perception, by the (Sheriff?) who likely is not very familiar with a Boeing 757, in any case.

Remember, my admonition about 'eyewitnesses'???

We simply have NO OTHER similar high-speed impact to compare to...and as I said earlier, maybe another thread....every airplane crash is different, different variables, different terrain (or water) different speeds, different angles of impact, etc, etc, etc.....



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well, first of all.... We are discussing, here, UAL 93 at Shanksville.

Um yeah, I know.


no, I seriously doubt the reports that the "cockpit" broke off, and tumbled away.....because that is the first point of impact.

That is an absurd official claim, isn't it?


We simply have NO OTHER similar high-speed impact to compare to

You mean like Flight 1771 that crashed into a field at the reported speed of around 700 mph?


So are you now backing away from your statement of "The airpolane impacted, and mostly buried into the soil"?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Please do NOT attempt to put words into my mouth, or twist what I have previously written, to fit your warped view!!!

BACK OFF!!!

As to:


You mean like Flight 1771 that crashed into a field at the reported speed of around 700 mph?


Again, you bring up PSA 1771, from 1987??

Yes, it impacted at a high velocity, since in a sense, it was a 'suiciide' perpetrated by the criminal who caused the whole thing.

However, as I've said before, EVERY crash is going to be different, regardless of speed, or angle of impact, or any of those factors, and BECAUSE of the differences in the terrain at impact, too.

How often must this basic fact be repeated???

FWIW, PSA 1771 was a sort of 'watershed' incident, in that, an airline employee, with proper airline ID (and thus access behind security doors) got onboard PSA flight 1771, form KLAX-KSFO, and (because of his access) had a handgun. He shot and killed both pilots, and then whether HE crashed the airplane, or he allowed it to crash???

Either way, it was done.

This 'perp' actually had already been fired from the airline, but in the course of his employment he had acquired a second company ID badge (claiming he had "lost" the first one). He spught 'revenge', and that seemed to be his motivation.

Procedures are in place, now, so that this won't ever happen again, using the same 'ploy'.

However, I can tell stories (privately) even today, about holes in "security" that will curl your hairs....

Obviously, I choose NOT to discuss them openly in this forum.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Adding, for all to read for background:

en.wikipedia.org...


www.airdisaster.com...




[edit on 17 February 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please do NOT attempt to put words into my mouth, or twist what I have previously written, to fit your warped view!!!

BACK OFF!!!

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm simply asked you a question. Don't get your panties in a knot.

Are you now backing away from your statement of "The airpolane impacted, and mostly buried into the soil"?

Requires a simple yes/no answer.

If you are not backing off that statement, what proof do you have for that statement?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Are you now backing away from your statement of "The airpolane impacted, and mostly buried into the soil"?


No, I am not. (Only thing I regret is the 'typo', there, that I missed...)

I think it's obvious that MOST of it buried....but what is "MOST"??? Anything over 50% would be 'most'....

Doesn't mean, by implication that ALL "95%" (a figure which, as I've already pointed out, was a pure estimation) was 'buried'!!!

THIS is a false argument that is perpetrated by the "truther movement" in order to attempt to deflect, and ridicule, by distracting away from facts with innuendo and derision.

Components of a certain mass and density, on a certain trajectory, would certainly tend to continue moving on the original trajectory.

OTHER items, of various composition, mass, density, etc, would be more likely to be deflected, during the crash sequence, in the chaos.

This is basic physics, and has been seen repeatedly, in various forms, in OTHER airplane crashes, of all kinds.

There are NO hard and fast set 'rules' that can model and predict EVERY item, in the forces involved...WHERE it will go, how it will be affected, HOW other forces (fuel explosions, etc) come into play....to expect such is ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
No, I am not.

OK, so can you now answer my 2nd question, what proof do you have that most of the 757 buried in Shanksville?


I think it's obvious that MOST of it buried

Curious, why do you think it's obvious most had buried? Btw, your skeptic buddy hooper disagrees with you that most had buried. You two might want to clear that up since you guys can't have it both ways.


Doesn't mean, by implication that ALL "95%" (a figure which, as I've already pointed out, was a pure estimation) was 'buried'!!!

I never suggested that. Not sure where you got that I did.


THIS is a false argument that is perpetrated by the "truther movement" in order to attempt to deflect, and ridicule, by distracting away from facts with innuendo and derision.

Dude, chill out. Don't get your panties in knot. I just said I wasn't suggesting that.


There are NO hard and fast set 'rules' that can model and predict EVERY item, in the forces involved...WHERE it will go, how it will be affected, HOW other forces (fuel explosions, etc) come into play....to expect such is ridiculous.

Um, I never expected such. Not sure why you brought this up.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by weedwhacker
No, I am not.

OK, so can you now answer my 2nd question, what proof do you have that most of the 757 buried in Shanksville?


I think it's obvious that MOST of it buried

Curious, why do you think it's obvious most had buried? Btw, your skeptic buddy hooper disagrees with you that most had buried. You two might want to clear that up since you guys can't have it both ways.


so WW... many are sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for your response...

what actual proof do you have that most of the 757 was buried in shanksville? and please pay particular attention to the term PROOF.. or iow, what it means to PROVE something to be TRUE, FACTUAL AND CORRECT.

secondly, we would all appreciate your clarification since indeed, you cannot have it both ways.

thanks ahead of time



[edit on 18-2-2010 by Orion7911]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


'Orion', if you care to refer back to my original post you will see that 'ATH911' truncated what I wrote, in choosing to "quote" only a portion, which YOU now repeated.

Please read it in full context, and not be perpetuating a misrepresntation of my words.

IF merely 51% was buried, then to most reasonable people that would meet the definition of "most".

I make no claim as to the exact figure --- and, really this is a silly thing to 'argue' about, anyways.

Perhaps, as I suggested, the "95%" figure attributed to someone, when pressed by a reporter, blurted it out...and, as usual, it has morphed into this silliness, from (usually) the "TM" side. A distraction, and a childish one, at that.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Problem (as you have stated) is "truthers" looking for some hook to
claim conspiracy

The 95% figure comes from the FBI agent in charge of the scene who
stated that some 95% of the aircraft debris had been RECOVERED

Thats RECOVERED as in found, Not buried as the lunatic fringe is claiming



At a news conference, FBI agent Bill Crowley said that the field near Shanksville, Somerset County, has been turned over to the county coroner and that 95 percent of the plane found at the site has been turned over to United Airlines.




Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI, according to FBI agent Bill Crowley.

Crowley said the biggest piece of the plane that was recovered was a 6-by-7-foot piece of the fuselage skin, including about four windows. The heaviest piece, Crowley said, was part of an engine fan, weighing about 1,000 pounds.


The quote about forward section breaking off comes Somerset County
Coroner Wallace Miller, the local offical in charge of the recovering the remains of those on board.

The forward section, including cockpit separated on impact (plane was upside down at 40 deg down angle at impact) and impacted the tree line
ahead of the impact crater.

The "forward section separation" theory is backed up by the debris found
in the woods




To the casual eye, it looked like solid, consolidated ground but in reality the reclaimed expanse was loose and uncompacted. When flight 93 hit the ground, the cockpit and first-class cabin broke off, scattered into millions of fragments that spread and flew like shrapnel into and through the trees 20 metres away.


Debris pictures

Fuselage





Aircraft tire



In addition much of the contents of the aircraft was also projected into the trees by impact



In Pennsylvania, Somerset County coroner Wallace E. Miller and his team scoured the "halo"—the field and woods surrounding the crater left when United Airlines Flight 93 plunged into the ground. The debris was everywhere. Trees were draped with scraps of luggage, clothing, bits of the fuselage and human remains.


Some of the heavier sections which held togather were projected into the
ground by the force. This included the jet engines (sans one of the fans
which broke free and rolled downhill from the main crash scene some 300 yards) and flight recorders

These were dug out of the impact crater







The recovered debris was put into 10 large recycling bins aka dumpsters

Recovered debris



Prolem is lunatic fringe twisting the evidence to fit their conspiracy
fantasies

So we get "95% aircraft cant be buried in tiny hole"

Or Why is there only one picture of jet engine, arent there 2 engines? OR
Why are there no pictures of bodies?

And other inane (and often insane remarks)

Hope this helps



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 28  29  30    32 >>

log in

join