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: 24
30
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I am just curious now, exactly how do you derive from me feeling it is a waste of time showing you the patently obvious that I don't believe that is a genuine photo of the crash site of Flight 93 in Somerset County, Pa on Sept 11, 2001 showing a large smoldering crater containing the wreckage of the airplane involved in Flight 93?


Either show me the photo with the actual planes parts highlighted or admit you are wrong.




posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper



Either show me the photo with the actual planes parts highlighted or admit you are wrong.


Sorry, this isn't second grade, not playing "Where's Waldo" with an obvious photo of plane crash site. Not going to get on the "serial number' merry-go-round. That is your cross to bear.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, this isn't second grade, not playing "Where's Waldo" with an obvious photo of plane crash site.


Let the record show that hooper cannot show proper plane parts or debris from a photo.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, this isn't second grade, not playing "Where's Waldo" with an obvious photo of plane crash site.


Let the record show that hooper cannot show proper plane parts or debris from a photo.



Let the record also show that I cannot teach a duck algebra. Or teach a pig to fly. Or show a blind man anything.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Let the record show that hooper cannot show proper plane parts or debris from a photo.


The record also shows that even when 757 plane parts are clearly shown, like at the Pentagon, Remisne refuses to look at them as they destroy his conspiracy theory.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
The record also shows that even when 757 plane parts are clearly shown, like at the Pentagon, Remisne refuses to look at them as they destroy his conspiracy theory.


There are no official FBI reports matching the parrts found at the Pentagon to a 757.

I have never stated anything about a conspiracy. Please be adult enough not to put words in my mouth.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



There are no official FBI reports matching the parrts found at the Pentagon to a 757


Could you please post all the FBI reports so that this can be confirmed? I mean, obviously you have all the reports and have thoroughly reviewed them otherwise the only way you could make this affirmative absolute statement is if you are.....



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Could you please post all the FBI reports so that this can be confirmed? I mean, obviously you have all the reports and have thoroughly reviewed them otherwise the only way you could make this affirmative absolute statement is if you are.....


Again proving your just a troll. As you shoud know, if you knew anything about 9/11 you would know that the FBI crime scene reports have not been released yet.

So there are no FBI reports matching parts to the plane. Or any of the planes on 9/11.



[edit on 11-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper


....FBI crime scene reports have not been released yet.



So there are no FBI reports matching parts to the plane.


You really, really see no logical contradiction with these two statements, really?

It is analogous to me saying "I have never seen REMISNE's house" and then saying "REMINSE's house is not blue".



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You really, really see no logical contradiction with these two statements, really?


No its very simple, the crime scene reports have not been released yet so there are no reports matching parts to planes.

In fact since the reports have not been released yet anyone saying they know what happened or has evidence to support the official story is being very dishonest.


[edit on 11-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
You really, really see no logical contradiction with these two statements, really?


No its very simple, the crime scene reports have not been released yet so there are no reports matching parts to planes.

In fact since the reports have not been released yet anyone saying they know what happened or has evidence to support the official story is being very dishonest.
[edit on 11-3-2010 by REMISNE]


OK, you are incurable then. There is no reason to go any further. You believe that you can ascertain the contents of a book without ever having read it.

There are plenty of other sources of information for what happened on 9/11. I don't even know if the reports are relevant. If you choose to ignore all other sources and rely instead on your incredible mental powers then so be it.

So tell me, just for giggles, what else is not in the reports that you have never seen?



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Ignore them, they offer nothing worth considering as rational considering they have been proven ignorant and misled.

Check this post out here
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Check this post out here
www.abovetopsecret.com...


You mean the picture with the about 4" high men in it.... as if that hole is 10' wide that is how big the men must be!



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


No, that wasthe other picture, the aerial view.

The one you referred to was the one of a portion of the crater (note how the photo is cropped on the left side) with a big truck, and humans for size perspective. The turck? What, 20 feet long?

YET, that "10-15 foot" crater is BIGGER than the truck!!

Guess it's a toy truck......



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


So you are comparing the size of a truck with a hole that is obviously some distance in front of it and not side by side? Curious if you know how far from the crater that truck is?



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
There are plenty of other sources of information for what happened on 9/11. I don't even know if the reports are relevant. If you choose to ignore all other sources and rely instead on your incredible mental powers then so be it.


The FBI crime scene reports are the only official reports for 9/11.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


???? Really, going that route, are ya?

Well, IF you wish to allege that the image in the photo is a case of "forced perspective" then I put the burden on you to show that to be the case.

But, since there exist other photos, including the aerial conveniently provided by 'SH' where he points out a human figue standing near the impact, for a size comparison, I think you will be hard pressed to make a case.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


???? Really, going that route, are ya?

Well, IF you wish to allege that the image in the photo is a case of "forced perspective" then I put the burden on you to show that to be the case.


You are a riot, you know that. This is not even remotely an example of "forced perspective." I am going to have to assume you do not know what that term means.

You want me to prove that the truck is not next to that hole? OK. Look at the picture. There you go.


But, since there exist other photos, including the aerial conveniently provided by 'SH' where he points out a human figue standing near the impact, for a size comparison, I think you will be hard pressed to make a case.



Not really. Let me try again.

Look at the picture.

Need me to prove the truck is not next to the hole again?

LOOK AT THE PICTURE.

How about a 4th time just for fun?

LOOK

AT

THE

PICTURE.

If you are going to even attempt to tell me that you see a truck NEXT TO the crater, then I imagine this is the last thing I will ever be reading from you.

I am not sure what case you expect me to be making either. I made no case. The truck is behind the crater. That part is obvious. I asked you how far you think it is. I want to know how you determine the size of the truck compared to that hole from that picture when you cannot tell me how far back it is. Sinking in yet?

[edit on 3/11/10 by evil incarnate]



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


In an overall view, one can surely estimate how far away from the camera the truck is --- IF one knows a little more about the lens used to take the photo.

Do you understand?

If the lens used had a short focal length (commonly called 'wide-angle') then objects in the background of the shot will seem to be farther away than they are in reality, at the time the pictiure was snapped.

Was that image a digital, or film?? What kind of camera/lens combination?

My point is, the use of that photo by "SH" does not support his/her claims. I interpret the picture a certain way, and don't accept what "SH" interpretation.

Also, we have to know the f-stop, would be useful, since the photo shows good depth-of-field. Of course, with bright sunlight, this is easier than in lower lighting conditions.

Once we have all of that info, focal length, f-stop and camera type (although camera type might be irrelavant, need to ask professional photographer) we'll be able to estimate better.

For me, and to me, when I look at it, I see a crater much larger than "10-15" feet wide, and I see that the entire crater is not captured in frame, so there is likely more, on the left, not pictured.

I certainly don't think the fire truck is right at the rim, or edge...and it would be pure guess to say how far, but I judge based on relative size perspective. The men in the photo aren't teeny tiny, so they are reasonably close to the camera, at that moment in time.

I do hope you know what I meant by "forced perspective"? I assumed you did. Because I see no such tactic used there....others seem to think they do, it would appear.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Now that is weak...lol

The evidence shows that the crater was too small to be caused by a boeing 757 coming in at 45 degrees inverted at over 500mph and you want to blame camera angles....lol


Face it weed. You and your 3 amigos have failed miserably in trying to support the official story ( where is the official story?).

In conclusion by eyewitness testimony, photographic evidence, and Flight data recorder evidence, the crater was not caused by a Boeing 757.

Susan M. (eyewitness to the cras) said what caused the crater was no bigger than her van.


[edit on 11-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join