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: 25
30
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



......and Flight data recorder evidence......


??OH?? Please explain that comment.

The rest of what you repeat is not worthy of mention, because it never changes, despite all the information that is provided you....

However, before I judge too harshly, I will sit in anticipation of this. I urge you to be specific in this regard.




posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   
The flight data recorder shows that the plane came in at 500+mph inverted at a 45 degree angle. Using these vectors, the plane which allegedly crashed hit soft soil. Adding in all the factors, the plane (if there was one) would of left a massive trench which didnt happen and a crater much larger then what was found in Shanksville.

What these supporters of the impossible official story ignore concerning the crater is that it is impossible to have been caused by something anywhere near the size of a Boeing 757.


Where the man is standing in the picture is where the top half of the fuselage and or cockpit should of hit then the tail fin or vert. stabilizer which is 44 feet tall and there is no evidence of that.

Considering the sheer size, weight, and velocity, there was no where near the sufficient amount of dirt displacement, cratering, or crater rim radius.

What caused the crater was not a Boeing 757. There are no wing impact marks. What is confused for wing impacts are trenches that were there much before September 11th.

The hole is much to small. There is a lack of dirt displacement, no wings hit the ground any where the span of 124 feet as the B757. and the crater rim is only about 10-15 feet with a depth of only 6-10 feet. A physics impossibility.

If you were to subtract the pre-existing trench which is often confused being caused by wings which has been proven to be not caused by wings of a boeing 757, then all you have is a elliptical crater with a radius of under 16 feet and depth of only 6-10 feet.





[edit on 12-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
then the tail fin or vert. stabilizer which is 44 feet tall and there is no evidence of that.


Check what you are actually measuring there, you are getting confused.


Considering the sheer size, weight, and velocity, there was no where near the sufficient amount of dirt displacement, cratering, or crater rim radius.


Please show the exact dimensions of the crater in the picture, and the size that you claim the crater should be, and the calculations you used to get that size.


and the crater rim is only about 10-15 feet


So how tall do you think the people in the picture are then?



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Using this picture

Where the man is standing is where the fuselage would of hit followed by the vertical stabilizer. As anyone can see this is not the case. The man is standing on an older indentation. What was once confused as 'wing scars' has been proven to be a much older indentation in the ground which is weathered and has grass growing in it.

If you would like to argue size by feet, no matter what size "YOU" claim it is, it is still too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757.



If you have any education or experience, you would know that the crater in shanksville is impossible to have been caused by the plane in question.

Here is an eyewitness who said she saw what crashed in Shanksville. She said it was no bigger than her van


The crater could not have been caused by a crashing 757 for the evidence proves this.



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
For comparison....
This is an image from a crashed plane that crashed in terrain similar to shanksville. Notice how large the crater is.


And now the alleged Boeing 757 crash in Shanksville



As you can clearly see, the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757. Impossible.

Not a conspiracy, Fact. The crater was not caused By a Boeing 757.


[edit on 12-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Not a conspiracy, Fact.


No, it is just a silly conspiracy theory, not based on any fact. Just like all the other silly conspiracy theories about 9/11.

How do you explain the passengers and crews DNA found in body parts at the site? Or is that just a fact that you ignore as it destroys your conspiracy theory!



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
How do you explain the passengers and crews DNA found in body parts at the site? Or is that just a fact that you ignore as it destroys your conspiracy theory!



When are people like this going to realize that you have to actually find DNA at the scene in order to claim that you FOUND DNA AT THE SCENE?

They did not find any DNA at the scene. The DNA was found at a lab where "body parts" were dropped off to be identified. They do not do DNA identification on-scene.



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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?



Oh yes. I completely understand that you know nothing of photography. In order to even attempt what you are trying to claim you need knowns and flat ground.

The ground is not flat here.

Now tell me what the standard size of a hole in the ground is.

Now explain to me just exactly how you determine the size of an unknown on uneven ground just because you know the lens.

In fact, get a photographer to explain it for you. Not just a friend that lies and agrees with you bur a real one so they can explain how far from logical what you just said is.

I know, you are a pliot, technical writer, liar, and now a photographer.

Please allow me to explain what it is you think you were trying to explain.

Given the lens type and level ground:

If you have the size of the hole and the truck, then you can determine their proximity to each other.

If you have the size of the truck and the proximity, then you can determine the size of the hole.

You do not have enough information (distance) to make the determination you are trying to. Please stick to quoting flight manuals as this only serves to discredit you.

Please do not bother even attempting to argue this point unless you actually intend to show your work.


[edit on 3/12/10 by evil incarnate]



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
When are people like this going to realize that you have to actually find DNA at the scene in order to claim that you FOUND DNA AT THE SCENE?


If you had actually bothered to read the post you replied to, instead of your normal rant you would have read that I never said they found DNA at the scene.... I said "passengers and crews DNA found in body parts at the site"

Which was true, they found body parts at the site that contained the DNA of the passengers and crew from Flight 93...


They did not find any DNA at the scene. The DNA was found at a lab where "body parts" were dropped off to be identified. They do not do DNA identification on-scene.


Once again we have a "truther" just making things up as that is all they can do!



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Not a conspiracy, Fact.


No, it is just a silly conspiracy theory, not based on any fact. Just like all the other silly conspiracy theories about 9/11.

How do you explain the passengers and crews DNA found in body parts at the site? Or is that just a fact that you ignore as it destroys your conspiracy theory!


Please, you give him wayyyyy too much credit. There isn't even a silly conspiracy "theory" here. There is no narrative. Just a simple repitition of incredulity in the face of overwhelming facts. More like "conspiracy parroting", without even the benefit of a conspiracy.



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by dereks
How do you explain the passengers and crews DNA found in body parts at the site? Or is that just a fact that you ignore as it destroys your conspiracy theory!



When are people like this going to realize that you have to actually find DNA at the scene in order to claim that you FOUND DNA AT THE SCENE?

They did not find any DNA at the scene. The DNA was found at a lab where "body parts" were dropped off to be identified. They do not do DNA identification on-scene.


Sorry, the DNA was found at the scene. It was later typed and categorized in the laboratory, but it was found at the scene. The crew and passengers DNA was found at the scene of the crash. End of story.

You may now proceed with your rant of incredulity.



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, the DNA was found at the scene. It was later typed and categorized in the laboratory, but it was found at the scene. The crew and passengers DNA was found at the scene of the crash. End of story.


Please show proper source for finding DNA at scene and show the proper chain of custody for the DNA.



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, the DNA was found at the scene. It was later typed and categorized in the laboratory, but it was found at the scene. The crew and passengers DNA was found at the scene of the crash. End of story.


Please show proper source for finding DNA at scene and show the proper chain of custody for the DNA.


Join the FBI or file a lawsuit. Or option "B" - live the rest of your life thinking that everyone is lying to you.

You know that this kind of info is not released to the public, as is appropriate. Live with it or don't, doesn't matter.

And particularly why would anyone show you anything? So you can accuse them of lying and fabricating reports?



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You know that this kind of info is not released to the public, as is appropriate.


So you are lying when you state DNA was found and can prove it.



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


THIS is a Boeing 767.




posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
You know that this kind of info is not released to the public, as is appropriate.


So you are lying when you state DNA was found and can prove it.



No, you are lying, again.

I stated that DNA was found at the scene. I would never say "prove it" to you, that is a total waste of time. I realized that you are too emotionally vested in your fanatasy to ever accept any form of "proof".



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I stated that DNA was found at the scene.


Stated it but cannot prove it, so you are lying.



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
I stated that DNA was found at the scene.


Stated it but cannot prove it, so you are lying.


DNA is found all over the ground everywhere.



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by evil incarnate
When are people like this going to realize that you have to actually find DNA at the scene in order to claim that you FOUND DNA AT THE SCENE?


If you had actually bothered to read the post you replied to, instead of your normal rant you would have read that I never said they found DNA at the scene.... I said "passengers and crews DNA found in body parts at the site"

Which was true, they found body parts at the site that contained the DNA of the passengers and crew from Flight 93...


They did not find any DNA at the scene. The DNA was found at a lab where "body parts" were dropped off to be identified. They do not do DNA identification on-scene.


Once again we have a "truther" just making things up as that is all they can do!


Where is your proof that I am making things up? That is quite an accusation so I expect someone to back up such a claim.

Are you trying to say they were testing DNA in the field? Are you trying to say that the people doing the DNA tests also collected it and brought it back to the lab?

Please back up these things if you are going to call me a liar.

You can say things all you like but just saying things does not seem to be making any of them come true for you.

Now, I call you a liar for calling me a liar. I have articles and statements on my side, I can not wait to see what you have.

Either back it up or shut it up!



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, the DNA was found at the scene. It was later typed and categorized in the laboratory, but it was found at the scene. The crew and passengers DNA was found at the scene of the crash. End of story.

You may now proceed with your rant of incredulity.


How would you even know? Please explain to me why you are so sure.

Were you there? Did you follow the DNA collection? We know for a fact that it was not tested by the same people that "collected" it so I would really love to know how you are so sure of what you are saying.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join