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.

 

Flight 93 Did Not Crash In Shanksville or Shot Down.

page: 15
30
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
First you are assuming that the photos were taken "down in the hole", you don't know that - you are making the assumption based on the background in the photo.

OK hooper, where was that photo taken then?


The photos were taken on-site

You are assuming that too, unless you can show me concrete proof that is was.


As for going down in the hole to photograph them and disturbing human remains - as stated above - they were probably very careful about, as you can imagine.

Um, can you describe to me how they did they "very carefully" as opposed to not very carefully? I'm just trying to imagine that since if the plane crash, turned to confetti, and would be randomly jumbled up in the soil, the passengers remains would be too.




posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Weedwhacker, you side-stepped my question:

So why did the Shanksville investigators feel the need to do the most unordinary and unnecessary thing by jumping down in a hole and trampling on passenger remains just to photograph a black box when they simply could have done the ordinary thing of waiting until it was brought up out of the hole, like the other black box?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

OK hooper, where was that photo taken then?


Why? I just simply pointed out that you were basing your entire argument on an assumption. Just wanted to note that little shortcoming.


Um, can you describe to me how they did they "very carefully" as opposed to not very carefully? I'm just trying to imagine that since if the plane crash, turned to confetti, and would be randomly jumbled up in the soil, the passengers remains would be too.


No, being careful where you step and how you act should be something you know about from your experience as a human being.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Why? I just simply pointed out that you were basing your entire argument on an assumption. Just wanted to note that little shortcoming.

But it's OK for you to have shortcomings by assuming too? Are you a hypocrite hooper?


No, being careful where you step and how you act should be something you know about from your experience as a human being.

This is my point, why would they even bother having to "tip-toe" around and on passenger remains just to get a shot of one of the black boxes when they could have easily (and more humanely) waited until they brought it out of the hole to photograph, like they apparently did with the other black box?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



waited until they brought it out of the hole to photograph, like they apparently did with the other black box?


Again, you are assuming that photos were taken exactly where the devices were found. I don't know that and neither do you. Given that, exactly how would they have gotten the devices out of the hole except the same way they would have taken the photos? Hell, for all you know maybe the person had a telephoto lense and the photo was actually taken 30 feet away.

This whole line of specualtion is irrational nonsense that is leading nowhere and offers nothing to prove anything other than there are photos of the recording devices from Flight 93.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Again, you are assuming that photos were taken exactly where the devices were found.

Hey, you skeptics have made that argument before. I wish you guys would get your stories straight.


I don't know that and neither do you.

Based on your expert opinion, where do you think that photo was taken where they had to prop it up with a piece of metal to make it level and with all those wires mangled around it?




Given that, exactly how would they have gotten the devices out of the hole except the same way they would have taken the photos?

By that gentle backhoe bucket?


Hell, for all you know maybe the person had a telephoto lense and the photo was actually taken 30 feet away.

They just couldn't wait to get a photo of that black box, but could with the other one.



This whole line of specualtion is irrational nonsense that is leading nowhere and offers nothing to prove anything other than there are photos of the recording devices from Flight 93.

Not doing to well in this debate, aye hooper?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


I just acknowledge what I see, you are obsessed with arguing with your own opinions and assumptions.

The photos are of the two recording devices from the crash of Flight 93. Please tell me more about them.

You stipulate they were taken in the "hole" - Why?
You stipulate that this action is unprecendented - Why?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

Oops, you "forgot" to answer my question first:

"Based on your expert opinion, where do you think that photo was taken where they had to prop it up with a piece of metal to make it level and with all those wires mangled around it?"



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper
 

Oops, you "forgot" to answer my question first:

"Based on your expert opinion, where do you think that photo was taken where they had to prop it up with a piece of metal to make it level and with all those wires mangled around it?"


My guess would be somewhere near the impact point.

The known facts are insufficient to make a conclusive statement. There is also no evidence that the item was "proped up", ergo that is your assumption. There is no evidence that the item is "level", ergo that is your assumption.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
all this rambling and debating over planted evidence still does not prove that a large boeing 757 crashed in that tiny little 10 ft hole. Science and physics proves that one (Boeing 757) didnt..... take alook at the image


It has been proven years ago that a Boeing 757 did not crash here in Shanksville. Why must you 3-4 debunkers or believers of the overly-debunked official story regurgitate such nonsense?

Look at the image again. Realize that your suspicions that people come to this website with poor intentions and goals of misleading, lying, and ignoring the truth are quite valid.

Look at the picture again. those willfuly ignorant people who support the official narrative have an agenda. they will call you names, use phrases like "dammed fooled" or "twoofers" and when faced with the inevitable defeat claim you are a anti-semite. poor tactics.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Flight 93 was shot down and that pic you keep posting is not the only debris site. That photo might add a tiny bit of credence to your theory for those who are not in the know but the fact is that it was shot down and the reason the other two debris sites have been disclosed is because they prove that it was shot down.

The NORAD tapes were edited as the controller states that the pilot does not have permission to fire but the pilot already did fire confusing their orders. This is a fact and one day you'll learn the whole truth and stop trying to force the "no plane" theory onto everyone who does not agree with you.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Oh yea, just so you get it right there son I'm not a skeptic, truther, debunker, truster or whatever the pet name of the month is for people who do not agee with you. I'm an American just as you and I do not believe the OS that those in charge shoved down out throats just as yourself is trying to do with your no plane theory.



[edit on 2/18/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


While I respect your opinion as far as the no plane theory is concerned I have a difficult time considering it to be factual given the overwhelming proof that the evidence pointing to the flight itself, the passengers, the radar images of the plane existed on that day. There is more to proving a theory than just posting pics of the site and going on saying that because the one pic don't show what we expect to see in a crash site that it simply didn't exist at all. I also readily admit that my opinion of the missile that struck the Pentagon, the WTC towers imploded on purpose and the shoot down of that flight falls into the same relm of consideration however, the circumstancial evidence that can be used to support direct evidence is more plausible to support the shoot down theory and the missile theory as well as the implosions at the WTC.

Flight 93 was shot down and the other two debris sites prove this in not only the fact that they exist but the fact that it falls within the known attirbutes of a shooting down of an airplane. Those who doubt this including many who say it would have torn the craft apart never remember that there were fighter in the air that day with training rounds along with aim 120 missiles. Using either of these weapon choices supports the shoot down scenario. Using training rounds the aircraft would have fatally disabled in flight and ripped her open and not just causing her to explode like others have stated. Using a missile would have targeted the engine (heat source) and that would explain why the engine was found in another debris site. It also would explain why the aircraft "rolled" prior to impact (wherever the primary impact locale is) and this is proven in many cases of shoot downs where the engine was disabled then ejected.

I have a difficult time believeing that after the terrorists went to all that trouble that they simply crashed the plane into an empty field instead of crashing it into other target that they could have struck. They were prepared to die that day so in my mind it begs the question, whats a few passengers really going to do to them that they feared so much that they simply crashed the plane without striking any target at all?

[edit on 2/18/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Okay, now I'm REALLY confused about flight 93. Up til now I was under the impression that 93 was shot down because either
a) the remote control technology used to force the planes to do what the insiders wanted failed and they had to prevent 93 from landing intact and spilling the beans about no hijackers or

b) Someone in the NORAD chain of command decided to use their own intitiative and order fighters to bring the plane down to keep it from crashing into the capital building or the white house. Either of these would explain the debris field that covered 8 spare miles (not the hole in the gound).

But after reading the ATC controllers' transcripts, I don't know what to think anymore.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by Beancounter72]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Hi mike I am on the fence too, but not wether the plane crashed or not but rather if you are a debunker posing as a 'truther'. Maybe not, maybe just misinformed. Classic truther vs. truther?

You believe that the plane was shot down and crashed in that little 10 foot hole but the evidence clearly shows that it wasnt shot down because the damage to the ground and the debris found doesn't show that a Boeing 757 crashed let alone one that has been compromised due to a missile or bomb.

I will tell you something mike. I have been in contact with people since 2001 who were in charge of the massive 911 disinformation campaign which involved numerous popular websites that push such theories in attempt to divide and muddy the truth movement.

If the plane had been shot down then the rate of speed would of been less and debris scatter would of been immense. The official story pushers on this site claim the reason there was no plane left to be found in that little 10 foot hole was due the rate of speed. The evidence show that what ever hit the ground didnt have wings and also had a fuselage much smaller than any Boeing 757. What caused the crater did not have a vertical stabilizer, wings, or engines that are found on a boeing 757 because none struck the ground as the images prove.

Whether or not the passengers or the plane (boeing 757) Flight 93 existed is another topic all together but one thing is true. It did not crash in the Rollock Scarp yard field where the images were taken on 911.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


mike, shadow....all I can do is shake my head in amazement, because neither of you seem to wish to learn, from all of the great contributions to this thread.

'mike', it is good to see that at least you acknowledge and comprehend the existence of UAL 93 --- that is a start.

NOW, you still haven't heard (or read) a word I've said regarding your "shoot down" theory!!!

First, your AIM 'theory'...of the heat-seeker taking out an engine?

'mike', it would have been EVIDENT on the FDR!

An engine being hit by a missile would show up in ALL of the engine instrument indications; It would show up in the Electrical system; The Hydraulic system; The Pneumatic system....I could go on and on...

Further, the airplane's control column positions are recorded. They show the intentional roll over, and pull to bring the nose 'down' to cause the impact.

The last words, spoken by the two terrorists in the cockpit, confirm that they are discussing, in Arabic, whether to "finish it" while the passengers were trying to break through the cockpit door.

Finally, at a high airspeed, such as in cruise flight, a loss of engine thrust on one side WOULD NOT cause an immediate roll-over. It just does not work that way, in the B-757. Rememberr, I have lots of experience flying them, and I know how they behave.

Even IF the terrorist flying did not have a multi-engine rating, any assymmetry, early on, from the loss of thrust on one side would be easily countered, intuitively, with aileron. This is not the proper technique, and a person trained properly knows this, but it would be effective, to maintain control (assuming structural integrity) in the short term.

ANY professional pilot will confirm this...

'shadow'....(sigh).

As to your claims --- "No Planers" have been laughed out of the discussion long, long ago.

YOUR challenge is to 'prove' this claim, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Using those aerial photos just doesn't cut the mustard, sorry.

Good luck!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

adding: @'shadow' again, surprisingly (and kudos) for getting some things correct...


Originally posted by ShadowHerder
If the plane had been shot down then the rate of speed would of been less and debris scatter would of
(sic) been immense.

Correct!!!

The official story pushers on this site claim the reason there was no plane left to be found in that little 10 foot hole...

Incorrect!!! Why does the size of the impression there keep shrinking each time you mention it??



The evidence show that what ever hit the ground didnt have wings and also had a fuselage much smaller than any Boeing 757.

Incorrect!!! You don't seem to have a good grasp of the scale of the impact site, and the entire scene.

What caused the crater did not have a vertical stabilizer, wings, or engines...

Incorrect!!! (see above)





[edit on 18 February 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Sorry weed, I guess you have a bad memory. After reviewing most of your contributions to these forums it is obvious that you are ignoring what has been proven and admitted to by many. Flight 93 (Boeing 757) DID NOT CRASH IN SHANKSVILLE.

Whatever caused the crater had no wings consistent with the size and span of a Boeing 757. Whatever caused the crater did not have a fuselage with a diameter anywhere near the size of a Boeing 757. Whatever caused the crater did not have a vertical stabilizer. Whatever caused that tiny crater proves that what caused did not have the kinetic force or inertia one would find in a Boeing 757 crashing at over 400 Mph at an angle greater than 40%.

You know this though. You are hoping new users or lurkers to this site will fall for your double speak or thought. But they dont, they claim here and there that this site is full of disinformers or trolls. Be it as it may... A Boeing 757 DID NOT CRASH in Shanksville. It DID NOT CAUSE the crater.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



You know this though. You are hoping new users or lurkers to this site will fall for your double speak or thought.


Only one poster in this thread is bringing "double speak or thought".

And that person cannot provide actual, reliable physical dimensions of the actual crash site, it would seem, but resorts to insubstantiated 'impression' based solely on photgraphs that lack any relative sense of size or scale.

That person also seems to ignore thousands of data bits of evidence that all corroborate the existence of, and impact of, UAL 93 at the site under discussion.

This also includes the simple fact that there were hundreds of individuals who examined the crash site for months afterward...where are THEY? Why has not ONE of them come forward, or spoken up to support this alleged "claim"?

ATS is a 'conspiracy' website, yes....but it should be reserved for valid conspiracies --- not something that can be so easily refuted.

I add this to any fence-sitting 'lurkers' out there...examine ALL of the facts and evidence. Ignoring anything that disagrees with a "pet theory" or "belief" does no one any good.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Weed, hooper, you both have been caught spreading lies and debunked material. You bother cling to the official story so blindly that most people understand that you 2-3 people cannot believe such bunk material unless you have an agenda or are just plain ignorant, but we admire your persistence. That is ok. We can disagree. That is where we stand.

You believe something that most people do not. That is fine. Kudos.

You believe a massive commercial airliner caused a small little round 10 ft x 20 ft crater with no wings or engine damage to the ground when all the evidence shows that one didn't.

We all believed in Santa one time or another, and it was parents and authorities that sold us that story. When did you stop believing and began to know the truth?



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



You believe something that most people do not.


I think you may need to do a little reality check on that statement. In fact it is only the fringe of a fringe group that believes otherwise and even then there is no consensus (shoot down vs. no-planers).



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join