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.

 

Skeptics, what are the official crash details of UA93?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
That's one example. Funny, but I saw no mention of the location of passenger remains, one of the questions that you asked.

Well one up the NTSB by showing them how a plane crash report should be.


I asked you to produce the NTSB accident report for PSA 1771.
It is your belief that they all contain this info.

Where did I say the NTSB releases detailed accident reports on every plane crash?




posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Where did I say the NTSB releases detailed accident reports on every plane crash?


So then they don't, correct?

Which makes your line of questioning a non-starter, since your own personal incredulity that these details weren't released means something.

You just admitted they don't especially in a case like PSA 1771, since it was a crime scene and under the jurisdiction of the FBI.

Sounds kinda like Fl93, don't it?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So then they don't, correct?

Did I ever say they did?


You just admitted they don't especially in a case like PSA 1771, since it was a crime scene and under the jurisdiction of the FBI.

I never said they didn't in certain kinds of cases. Quit lying.


Sounds kinda like Fl93, don't it?

Hence the point of this thread Sherlock.


Why do I get the feeling that the skeptics are afraid to write up a detailed crash report of the alleged UA93 crash?! You'd think if they were so confident UA93 crashed there that they'd have no problem producing what I'm asking for.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Because in order to debunk the official story, we must know what the official story is.

When I show evidence that I say contradicts the official story, I keep hearing in return from skeptics that isn't the official story. So to prevent any moving of the goal posts, I've simply asked skeptics to tell us what they think the official story is.



But sceptics didn't put together the "Official Story". It's an aggregation of reports and data from lots of different sources.

Asking them to provide you with a collection of all those data just so you can attempt to debunk it is unrealistic.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

But sceptics didn't put together the "Official Story". It's an aggregation of reports and data from lots of different sources.

True, but when I put together the "official story" from news reports and such, the skeptics say I have the official story wrong. I show where news reports say most of UA93 had buried, but some skeptics disagree with that. Some skeptics who believe most of UA93 was buried don't believe 95% of the plane was recovered as the FBI claims.

So this is why I'm asking them to give their interpretation of the official story, so they won't keep moving the goal posts.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


What if two "sceptics" have different interpretations of the data? Are there then two "Official Stories"?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


No, the problem is that you like to take a lot of disparate quotes, some obviously presented metaphorically, and try to create "facts" about the dynamics of the crash of Flight 93.

Like the preposterous notion that since the plane was "buried" then so must be most of the passengers.

An FBI spokesman once said that they recovered about 95% of the physical remains of the plane and obviously some of the plane, after fragmentation from the explosive force of the fuel blast and the tremendous kinetic load of the impact became embedded in the earth in and about the impact point and aggregated into the ejacta.

Other fragments and contents of the craft were dispersed about the area from the two forces cited above. The exact distribution of material by volume and weight between dispersed and embedded materials is irrelevant and not the subject of in-depth forensic analysis. You are more than welcome to speculate about those percentages. Most interviews that you have posted, from press sources, seem to indicate that a substantial amount of the remains was subjected to embeddedment. But you offer nothing more than a repitition of your own specualtions. Nothing more. There is nothing here that detracts from the knowledge that Flight 93 was hijacked and crashed in a former strip mine in Somerset County, Pa. on September 11, 2001.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

What if two "sceptics" have different interpretations of the data? Are there then two "Official Stories"?

There can only be one goal post planted in one spot.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No, the problem is that you like to take a lot of disparate quotes, some obviously presented metaphorically, and try to create "facts" about the dynamics of the crash of Flight 93.

Such as?


Like the preposterous notion that since the plane was "buried" then so must be most of the passengers.

Why is that "preposterous"?


An FBI spokesman once said that they recovered about 95% of the physical remains of the plane

So was he speaking "metaphorically"?


The exact distribution of material by volume and weight between dispersed and embedded materials is irrelevant and not the subject of in-depth forensic analysis.

Says who, you?


Most interviews that you have posted, from press sources, seem to indicate that a substantial amount of the remains was subjected to embeddedment. But you offer nothing more than a repitition of your own specualtions. Nothing more.

You just said I posted many press sources that said this. How is that me speculating?!!



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Obvious troll is obvious.


I can't believe anyone is entertaining this guy anymore.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Skeptics,

If you can't write your own detail crash report, can you at least link me to the most detailed report you are aware of?



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

That's not downloading for me right now.

Can you jot down or copy/paste some of the crash details it lists?



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 


www.ntsb.gov...



You're joking right hooper?

thats the extent of the "details" you're relying on and standing by that you think satisfies ath911's request or contains a valid and remotely basic crash detail log?


tell me theres another page or two right?



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


Yes. It details where and when the plane crashed, attitude and speed.

ATH911 wants some kind of forensic analysis of the crash site hoping to find some irrelevant minutae that he can exploit as a supposed "smoking gun" based on his in-depth knowledge of the physics of plane impact dynamics.

As far as I know and I care, they never did any such thing becuase it was irrelevant. That kind of forensic examination is reserved for instances where there are questions regarding the CAUSE of the crash. There is no doubt here as to cause and there certainly is no doubt about whether or not the plane crashed.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
ATH911 wants some kind of forensic analysis of the crash site hoping to find some irrelevant minutae that he can exploit as a supposed "smoking gun" based on his in-depth knowledge of the physics of plane impact dynamics.


As their should be a forensic analysis of the crash site. I mean we are talking about a crime scene.


As far as I know and I care, they never did any such thing becuase it was irrelevant.


Its only irrelevant to you becasue we should have evidence of a proper investigastion of a crime scene.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



As their should be a forensic analysis of the crash site. I mean we are talking about a crime scene.


Why? What is learnable about the crime (hijacking and suicide) from a forensic examination of the impact crater and the location of the debris.

Please don't repeat the "proper investigation" mantra. We're over that.

Tell me what you would learn about the motivations of the hijackers by determining where exactly the bevarage cart ended up after the plane hit the ground.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Yes. It details where and when the plane crashed, attitude and speed.

That's your most comprehensive Shanksville crash report?!

You need help.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
Yes. It details where and when the plane crashed, attitude and speed.

That's your most comprehensive Shanksville crash report?!

You need help.


Well, I, unlike you, are far from alone in my considerations. I, and the rest of humanity, are satisfied with the data provided. You, and not I, are pretty much alone in thinking that the world owes you a detailed foresenic analysis of the crash debris that resulted from a hijacking.

You are alone in thinking Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville, Pa on the morining of September 11, 2001. If the two of us were presented to mental health professionals for review and recommendation, which one of us do you think would warrant further examination?



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

There can only be one goal post planted in one spot.


What does that even mean?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join