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: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Thats a question that has been answered more than once. Are you taking a poll on what individuals believe?




posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Radar tracks, airfone calls, witnesses and data recorders. Oh yeah, a lack of explosive residue on the wreckage as well.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Radar tracks, airfone calls, witnesses and data recorders. Oh yeah, a lack of explosive residue on the wreckage as well.


My question was WHY DID IT CRASH? and how did they know? This answers neither.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 




Care to provide your expertise on this subject; have you investigated and collected plane parts after a crash?


As a matter of fact I have:

DoD Law Enforcement. (Retired) GS12, step 3
28 years.

I'll spare everyone the long list of creds except one:
Forensic evidence recovery specialist / Trained & Certified.
I currently work as a Forensic Investigator with my local Police Department.

So, yea. I know a thing or 6 about the subject.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by REMISNE


You only do a reconstruction if you are not sure why the aircraft crashed. That is not the case with Flight 93.


Says whom?


Where is your proof to this allegation or are you given your opinion again and stating, it as a fact without given any sources.

I would like to know what FAA, or government documents that makes this claim? I am sure you have many internet sources to give us.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Sure it does. You have a voice recording coming from the cockpit stating that it is time to "finish it", you have a data recorder showing the position of the flight controls.....the ONLY thing you dont have is a video tape of the flight deck showing the pilot initiating the suicidal dive into the ground.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 





I would like to know what FAA, or government documents that makes this claim? I am sure you have many internet sources to give us.


NTSB manual 21-101 section 12 paragraph 3-6-1

"In the event where causation of incident can be determined by examination of flight data recorders, reconstruction of debris is not warrented."

Okay, so I made it up.

However, this is once again where YOU have to prove that it is a requirement for a crash investigation. Out of the five accident investigations I have been part of, we reconstructed ONE of the aircraft. (And that was only because enough of the airframe was intact that we repaired the aircraft and put it back into service)

[edit on 1-1-2010 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Just for my own edification, you are claiming that you are NTSB and that you (in your job with the NTSB) repaired a crashed aircraft THEN put it back into service?

Also, what was the air worthiness rating on the aircraft after it's repair?


Out of the five accident investigations I have been part of, we reconstructed ONE of the aircraft. (And that was only because enough of the airframe was intact that we repaired the aircraft and put it back into service)



[edit on 1-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ATH911
 


Thats a question that has been answered more than once. Are you taking a poll on what individuals believe?

Just curious what your opinion on the matter is, especially since we have conflicting opinions among your fellow skeptics.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 





Just for my own edification, you are claiming that you are NTSB and that you (in your job with the NTSB) repaired a crashed aircraft THEN put it back into service?


No, Im not claiming that I work for the NTSB. I did, however, help rebuild a crashed aircraft and return it to service. No airworthiness certificate was required.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


OK. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

You make up a lot of things don’t you swampy, I remember not too long ago you and I went round and round that you are a military man but now you are trying to pass yourself off as being or working with NTSB witch is it?


What proof do you have that the crash debris from United 93, although the CIA claims it was flight 98, was all found together. I don’t know because, these two branches of our government can’t seem to keep their stories straight, don’t you agree?



[edit on 1-1-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 





You make up a lot of things don’t you swampy, I remember not too long ago you and I went round and round that you are a military man but now you are trying to pass yourself off as being or working with NTSB witch is it?


More reading comprehension issues? Try reading the thread again. I specifically stated that I did not claim to work for the NTSB. I will, however, give you points for remembering I am in the military. We dont use NTSB to investigate our crashes.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Sure it does. You have a voice recording coming from the cockpit stating that it is time to "finish it", you have a data recorder showing the position of the flight controls.....the ONLY thing you dont have is a video tape of the flight deck showing the pilot initiating the suicidal dive into the ground.


So hearing "finish it" is all they needed in a crime scene investigation? You cannot cite the FDR as being a reason not to investigate since they had to investigate to get the data from the FDR to begin with but you can wrestle with that logic.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

So hearing "finish it" is all they needed in a crime scene investigation? You cannot cite the FDR as being a reason not to investigate since they had to investigate to get the data from the FDR to begin with but you can wrestle with that logic.


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.

Transcript:

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


You are kidding right? Did Impressme put you up to this post?

Investigations have a logical sequence. I have a voice talking about pulling the aircraft down into the ground, I have a data recorder that shows me the pilot manipulated the controls to throw the airplane into a dive, I have readings from flight instruments that verify the attitude of the airplane, in addition, I have other readings that show me the aircraft is intact up until impact....

The only ones not showing logic here, would be yourself and impressme with your inaccurate beliefs about aircraft crash investigations.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



More reading comprehension issues?


No, I do not have reading comprehension issues but thanks for the “insult” anyway.
You claim to be expert in just about everything when it comes to 911. Are you a know it all to? And BTW you never answered “Lillydale” question that we are all waiting on.


Originally posted by Lillydale
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale

Radar tracks, airfone calls, witnesses and data recorders. Oh yeah, a lack of explosive residue on the wreckage as well.

My question was WHY DID IT CRASH? and how did they know? This answers neither.


Swampy how come “only you” have this secret information of what cause and how flight 93 crashed.

The FBI refuse to release any critical data to the public, yet you act as if you have all the answers, yet you don’t share anything, humm….

Oh look, here comes the tag team.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Investigations have a logical sequence. I have a voice talking about pulling the aircraft down into the ground, I have a data recorder that shows me the pilot manipulated the controls to throw the airplane into a dive, I have readings from flight instruments that verify the attitude of the airplane, in addition, I have other readings that show me the aircraft is intact up until impact....


Only you would have access to the crash scene in Shanskville, PA are you now working for the FBI? They did not allow your military at ground zero in Shanskville Pa, stop making up stories.






[edit on 1-1-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 





Swampy how come “only you” have this secret information of what cause and how flight 93 crashed.




Why are you placing "only you" in quotes? Are you suggesting I made the claim (when I did not)? Now, what does ATS rules say about that....


Besides, I am not the only one with the information. Its public information for anyone who can set their hatred of the government aside long enough to listen to the facts.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 





Only you would have access to the crash scene in Shanskville, PA are you now working for the FBI? They did not allow your military at ground zero in Shanskville Pa, stop making up stories.


Okay, this is either a failure on your part to follow the conversation OR a willful attempt by you to misquote me. The subject was a crash investigation and whether or not a reconstruction was necessary.

You made the Evel Kinevel style jump in logic to decide I was speaking specificallly about Flight 93....and like Evel..all too often....you crashed.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join