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: 21
30
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


a makeshift lab was set up at the Pennsylvania National Guard Armory near the Somerset County Airport. the majority of the remains were identified.



Was Somerset County Airport the "crash" site? No. Now what was identified, by whom, and how did they obtain it?




posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


who cares if it was the precise crash spot? are they supposed to make a morgue in a field?

and who? read the links. it's all there.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


who cares if it was the precise crash spot? are they supposed to make a morgue in a field?

and who? read the links. it's all there.



I care because there is a big difference between something being found then identified and something that is dropped off and said to be found. What is it you do not understand about chain of custody?



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


that's because the remains are small.

read the links i posted.

is the coroner a liar?

it's pretty illing to me that folks here care more about reinforcing their beliefs than in respecting the (identified) dead.

was it hit by gunfire? did a bomb go off inside?

i have no clue.

but it with without question that it crashed where the OS said it crashed, and that the remains were identified.

that much is iron clad.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Kevin --- if this bothers you so much, then do this:

Find ANY example of an airplane crash where the coroner set up the temp morgue to identify remains ON SITE.

Just one example, please.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


you can talk about chain of custody all you like.

since when do people process remains AT a crime scene?

the coroner helped pick the remains from teh wreckage with his own hands.

is that not good enough for chain of custody?

and if you have a point with this issue - spell it out. flesh out this supposed custody issue. who did what with the remains?

and don't forget - the coroner was right there, on the scene.


this is another dead end.

for what point?

to shelter your egos, folks. nothing more.

it's ok to be wrong.

it's not ok to pretend you're right in the face of conclusive evidence.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by hooper
The remains of the all the last known occupants of the plane invovled in Flight 93 were all positively identified at the crash site.

Oh, I'm sorry, that's not real because you refuse to acknowledge it, and as we all know, you and you alone are the measure of the all things and the master of reality.


Well I am the one one that is sorry here because this is some pretty sad stuff. Not one body was actually identified at the crash site. You apparently have no clue what chain of custody means because there was no lab at the "crash" site.

What you just said is plain incorrect but I am sure you have an excuse for that.


Sorry, for a moment I thought I was addressing rational adults who would know that, of course, the actual identification process was handled off-site for remains collected at the site.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


Do I have to keep bringing this link to everyone?

DAVE....I believe it when you once wrote that you're not some youngster...so, apply your open-minded critical thinking skills to this, please:

www.ntsb.gov...



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   


What some of you blind believers of the official story are doing is ignoring the evidence that the small crater was NOT CAUSED BY A BOEING 757.

As you can see in the image above, there is no evidence of wings striking the ground and the diameter of the crater is much too small for a massive commercial jet crashing at a 40 degree angle at over 500mph. If this were true, it would of burrowed itself leaving a massive trench at least 2x larger than the diameter of the fuselage and the dirt displacement would be evident which is not the case at all. This still doesnt account for a lack of wing impacts and engine impacts.

As been shown before, what is confused for wing impacts were there prior to the crater being caused. Images and witnesses say that the trench had unburnt, unbroken grass and the trench was weathered as the images show.


As Wally Miller, the somerset coroner stated multiple times " It look like someone gouged a 10 foot x 10 foot deep hole and dumped scrap in it". IN other interviews he said it was 6-8 feet deep and around 15 feet wide.

The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is over 143 feet, the diameter of the fuselage is 15 feet and the tail fin is over 43 feet tall. None of the dimensions are possible considering the small crater. So in conclusion using common sense and physics. The crater was not caused by a Boeing 757.







[edit on 8-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Kevin --- if this bothers you so much, then do this:

Find ANY example of an airplane crash where the coroner set up the temp morgue to identify remains ON SITE.

Just one example, please.


That is a pretty poor attempt at deflection. Who gave you permission to use my first name? Apparently you do not know how things work in polite society but you are not familiar enough to go there.

I have little use for anything you have to say because you are a proven liar. I am not sure why you are confused by that.

What you have said here neither adds nor detracts from anything I said. It is simply something else to say for no reason.

SHOO.

As long as you are back to trolling the boards so early after a good night's sleep, go answer to your latest attempt at distorting the truth and leave me alone if all you have is nonsense distractions to offer.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Sorry, for a moment I thought I was addressing rational adults who would know that, of course, the actual identification process was handled off-site for remains collected at the site.



No no, my bad. See, I know that the actual identification process was handled off-site but I thought I was dealing with someone who understood the language they were typing in.


The remains of the all the last known occupants of the plane invovled in Flight 93 were all positively identified at the crash site.


I most certainly apologize if my error was taking the words you used to mean what they actually mean.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Why are you not reading the information that is continually provided you?

May I ask, have you taken the time to look at the NTSB link that I posted, just up above, for DCDAVE?

What if I look at the photo you posted there, "M-CSP-00009952" and said I thought it looked like it was one hundred feet wide, to me?

I see it is triangular-shaped...so that makes sense, to me, since when you consider the height of the vertical fin, you get a triangular cross-section of the B-757.

Also, the airplane impacted at an angle, so the entire geometry of the impression will be skewed somewhat.

The FDR and CVR was found buried there. Pieces, on impact, careened in may other directions, as well...some into the woods beyond.

These are facts, and no amount of armchair monitor-scrutinizing from a handful of Web photos will alter those facts.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


you can talk about chain of custody all you like.

since when do people process remains AT a crime scene?

the coroner helped pick the remains from teh wreckage with his own hands.

is that not good enough for chain of custody?

and if you have a point with this issue - spell it out. flesh out this supposed custody issue. who did what with the remains?

and don't forget - the coroner was right there, on the scene.


this is another dead end.

for what point?

to shelter your egos, folks. nothing more.

it's ok to be wrong.

it's not ok to pretend you're right in the face of conclusive evidence.



You call yourself a "truther" and then spend all your time arguing with bsbray and defending the OS about this and the Pentagon??????

I am not sure you can get any more confused.

You can get upset and rant all you want as well but what you cannot do is positively prove there was a consistent, uninterrupted, clear chain of custody with the identified body parts. This was a CRIME SCENE. Not sure what you do not get about that. Ranting will not make the OS true. Showing that they had a clear and solid chain of custody might. When you can do that, get back to me.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


"Deflection"?

Please answer my question.

Enough with the ad homs.

Please, don't avooid the question.

Everyone would like to know why the procedures for identifying remains at the UAL 93 crash site should have been different from the procedues at any other airplane crash site...including other cases where criminal activity was suspected.

Isn't it reasonalbe to understand that the identification process, especially in the case of a suspected criminal case, be handled in the best facilities possible, not some make-shift on-site tent?



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


"Deflection"?

Please answer my question.

Enough with the ad homs.

Please, don't avooid the question.


What ad homs? Start pointing things out when you make accusations. For a liar you start with zero credibility you know?

Why should I answer your question? The question and the answer are completely irrelevant here. We are not talking about any and all plane crashes. We are talking about this one in particular. What is it about that you do not get?

I have an answer and I am sure it is exactly the answer you want but the problem is that it has nothing to do with anything I have said here. People want to claim that all the bodies were positively identified here at this crash scene. Fine then, I want to know how they can be so certain. If you want to discuss the same concept about any other plane crash, start a thread and I will join you.


Everyone would like to know why the procedures for identifying remains at the UAL 93 crash site should have been different from the procedues at any other airplane crash site...including other cases where criminal activity was suspected.


Everyone? Including you? Unfortunately, that is not even remotely what I have said. Try reading my posts before present your fallacious arguments to them.

This is a joke, right? Perhaps I said this in another dimension and you can go find a quote for me. Otherwise, take your nonsense back because I have more than enough from you already.


Isn't it reasonalbe to understand that the identification process, especially in the case of a suspected criminal case, be handled in the best facilities possible, not some make-shift on-site tent?


Sure is. Unfortunately it adds an element of doubt into that identification process. Since this story is fraught with doubt, pretending to know for a fact that there was no doubt in this aspect is intellectually dishonest.

P.S. How are you doing with that molten concrete question?

[edit on 8-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



I most certainly apologize if my error was taking the words you used to mean what they actually mean.


All apologies are mine, I do understand the language, I just continually overestimate the target audience.

To clarify:

The human remains found at the crash site were identified.

As to the chain of custody - moot point entirely. The chain of custody docs would have been completed by those whom you consider prime suspects, so to provide you with any "evidence" is simply an exercise in futility.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Isn't it reasonalbe to understand that the identification process, especially in the case of a suspected criminal case, be handled in the best facilities possible, not some make-shift on-site tent?



Originally posted by hooper
The human remains found at the crash site were identified.



Its just too bad NIST had to come up with new DNA testing for 9/11. Testing that was no ready untill 2002.

www.nist.gov...
Due to the nature of the World Trade Center disaster, it quickly became evident that traditional methods for performing DNA typing were not likely to be fully successful in identifying all of the recovered remains. Traditional DNA ID methods depend on the presence of long, intact segments of DNA in order to accurately type the sample. The DNA in many of the samples recovered in this situation were so fragmented that these standard methods were ineffective.

In early November 2001, Dr. Robert Shaler, the director of the WTC DNA identification effort, contacted me and asked if I would be willing to develop some new DNA tests to help in the identification effort. I agreed to fast track our research efforts over the next several months and produce some test materials for his laboratory to try by January 2002.



[edit on 8-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper


All apologies are mine, I do understand the language, I just continually overestimate the target audience.

To clarify:

The human remains found at the crash site were identified.


Overestimate? Excuse me? I read the words that you used. I even reposted them for you. If you were right and I was just too stupid then you could explain what I did not understand. Instead you need to clarify so that tells us that you know you were wrong. Nice bluster though. I am sure this behavior fools a few people.


As to the chain of custody - moot point entirely. The chain of custody docs would have been completed by those whom you consider prime suspects, so to provide you with any "evidence" is simply an exercise in futility.


No, that makes my point right there. You just did it, bravo!

If you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there was a solid chain of custody then there is doubt about the identification process. Is that too complicated a premise for you? I can dumb it down.

Your logic is faulty as well. A solid chain of custody would actually be quite easy to prove. That is one of the major benefits of that type of procedure. That is why we have chain of custody rules in criminal investigations.

Please educate yourself about these things and get back to me.

Let me know if you are still confused and I will try to be more simple.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
hi, i lived 5 miles from Lockerbie and i drove by the crater made by part of the fuselage of the plane that came down,on numerous occasions.The crater was far larger than this one and i know the wings, cockpit,engines etc were found miles apart.This section of the plane would not be coming down as fast as the one on 911 so why was the crater at Lockerbie far larger.Im new to this posting but if you google photo of Lockerbie crater you will see what i mean.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by themove1904
hi, i lived 5 miles from Lockerbie and i drove by the crater made by part of the fuselage of the plane that came down,on numerous occasions.The crater was far larger than this one and i know the wings, cockpit,engines etc were found miles apart.This section of the plane would not be coming down as fast as the one on 911 so why was the crater at Lockerbie far larger.Im new to this posting but if you google photo of Lockerbie crater you will see what i mean.


Thanks for your post and you are absolutely right.

Lockerbie. Broken plane caused this crater as it plummeted to earth in pieces.


A boeing 757 ("flight 93") had a fuselage diameter of 15 feet and the crater was said to have been around 15 feet to 10 feet deep which makes the crater in Shanksville a physics impossibility. Also, no wings with the span of the b757 144 feet hit the ground. Fact. No Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville on 911.


[edit on 8-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]




top topics



 
30
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join