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: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by hooper
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 look up the words CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, you might learn something

[edit on 26-4-2010 by REMISNE]




posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper why is it that we have had the "criminal investigation" discussion on others threads, yet your still debating the idea of it here?

The meaning hasn't changed.

Here to refresh the meaning:


An investigation refers to the process of collecting information in order to reach some goal; for example, collecting information about the reliability and performance of a vehicle prior to purchase in order to enhance the likelihood of buying a good car. Applied to the criminal realm, a criminal investigation refers to the process of collecting information (or evidence) about a crime in order to: (1) determine if a crime has been committed; (2) identify the perpetrator; (3) apprehend the perpetrator; and (4) provide evidence to support a conviction in court. If the first three objectives are successfully attained, then the crime can be said to be solved.

Criminal Investigation Defined

I like Number 4 the best: To support a Conviction in court.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 



But I give you a thumbs up for sarcasm!


Thank you, that makes it all worthwhile.

And what do you mean, sarcasm?

It wasn't really all sarcasm. It represents the general impression I get when I read the complaints about all the investigations by all the investigative boides.

It expects the investigators, professionals, to be repsonsive to every possible suggestion that can be imagined and published on the internet and when lacking a thumbs up reponse from those professionals the internet crowd immeadaitely calls "inside job" and further accuses the investigators of being co-conspirators, and in this case co-conspirators in the worse case of mass-murder in US history.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



And what do you mean, sarcasm?

It wasn't really all sarcasm. It represents the general impression I get when I read the complaints about all the investigations by all the investigative bodies.


I ment sarcasm because I posted this:

Hooper why is it that we have had the "criminal investigation" discussion on others threads, yet your still debating the idea of it here?

The meaning hasn't changed.

Here to refresh the meaning:


An investigation refers to the process of collecting information in order to reach some goal; for example, collecting information about the reliability and performance of a vehicle prior to purchase in order to enhance the likelihood of buying a good car. Applied to the criminal realm, a criminal investigation refers to the process of collecting information (or evidence) about a crime in order to: (1) determine if a crime has been committed; (2) identify the perpetrator; (3) apprehend the perpetrator; and (4) provide evidence to support a conviction in court. If the first three objectives are successfully attained, then the crime can be said to be solved.


Criminal Investigation Defined

I like Number 4 the best: To support a Conviction in court.



and you posted this in return:

That's funny, I like Number 5 the best.

"To chase down any theory, scenario, alternative viewpoint, reinvestigate previously established facts, prove the negative, assume all parties as guilty, vigoursly follow and disprove all conspiracies as found on the itnernet, and never doubt any rumor, hint of a rumor or ghost of a possibility and immeadiately publish all results, fully and completely together with any and all accusations against any person, organization or group wether they are founded, unfounded or fully imaginary on the internet without delay with full and open advertisement".

Ooops, that not actually in there, is it?

sarcasm

Sarcasm is the rhetorical device of using irony in the characterization of someone or something in order to express contempt toward that person or thing.[1] A common form of sarcasm, for example, in conversation, involves what seems to be praising some action that actually is intended to be interpreted, instead, as a ridiculing it; this interpretation is usually surmised through the obvious irony of such a comment.


You comment was to press contempt if I might say.

The dialogue flow suggest the same!

Now would you like to actually discuss something relating to a thread?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Boy oh boy. These threads always get more and more absurd.

I'll go with the reporting of PSA 1771 and what they said about THAt aircrash:


A Call comes in to the San Luis Obispo County, California Sherrif's Office citing a small plane crash in the mountains of southern California. Detective Bill Wammock is the first to arrive on the scene. He recalls "nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”

Two days later, an FBI Agent working the scene found what appeared to be the barrel and trigger of a handgun. Forensic Analysists examined the pieces, and found a small peice of skin wedged between the trigger and the barrel. By matching the skin prints to the passenger manifest, investigators were able to conclude that the gun had been in the hand of USAir employee David Burke at the time of impact.

www.airdisaster.com...

Now I'm willing to bet the farm, that had the believers of the TM, had they been around during the time of this crash and read the accounts, (like the one above), we would be hearing the same nonsense they are saying today about Flight 93. See the bolded parts. Just reading that and they'd be screaming bloody murder that there was no plane at Cayucos.

I can already hear them now. "Oh, see? he said, "nothing resembles an airliner." And the debris scattered about? Where is the tail? Where are the engines? There are four engines! Did they vaporize? Disappear? It was faked. No plane crashed at Cayucos."



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Yes - seen this in real life right down street from me

From NY Times article on incident....



Four people, two crew members and two passengers, were believed by Federal investigators and the police to have been aboard the Lear 35 jet. The police could not confirm the number, or identities, of the victims ''We're dealing with body parts, not bodies,'' Chief Joseph Ranney said. ''Identification will be very difficult.'' Airplane parts were scattered in small pieces throughout the site on Garrett Mountain





At the site, at Rifle Camp Road and Washington Drive near the Great Notch Reservoir, Federal, police and fire investigators sifted through the remains. The parts of the plane were scattered beneath trees, shrubs and rocks, and the smell of jet fuel permeated the air. The residents of nearby homes and the condomnium complex said the explosion rattled their homes and the flames lighted the early morning sky.


Wow - just like Shanksville.....



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


No cant you see? There was no crash at your location too! Those were planted eyewitness accounts!

Where are the bodies? Where are the engines? Did the plane disappear into the woods? It just sounds like someone dumped a bunch of trash around the woods and set off a fuel-bomb to trick you! There was no plane. The crater is too small! The fireball was a bomb!





Reaction sounds about right, eh thedman?



In all seriousness, I've never been to a plane crash or seen one happen, thank God. I would not want to be anywhere near something tragic like that!



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


C'mon, you should know by now that ALL plane crash scenes the volume of the crater always = the volume of the aircraft, no exceptions. All the bodies are arranged in a semi-circular fashion about the center of the impact crater, the fuel burn is always perfectly and evenly dispersed about the crater, the tail section always remains upright, resting securely near the crater and well lit for easy photographing.

The first thing the crash scene investigators do is retrieve all numbered plane parts and check them against the owner/operators maintenance records in order to verify that the scene has not been staged. And of course all of this is meticulously recorded and documented and all photos and documents are immeadiately posted to the internet and immeadiately emailed to all known and future email addresses.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



C'mon, you should know by now that ALL plane crash scenes the volume of the crater always = the volume of the aircraft, no exceptions.


Could you explain this please how volume of the aircraft has anything to do with the crater left by the accident?

Cite some references while your at it too!

I'd think that every crash scene is dependant upon nothing to do with volume, but circumstances surrounding the accident.

Lockerbe didn't leave to much of crater did it!


[edit 2 many toos!]



[edit on 29-4-2010 by theability]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


Sorry, again being sarcastic. However, this is a typical argument of those who believe that no plane crashed in Shanksville, Pa.

The refrain is "the crater is to small"!!

But like you said, every situation is different. However, as I pointed out to others there are accepted mathematical forumulas that can be applied to estimate the proper size of the crater. They are commonly used by geologists and astronomers and any other persons interested in derive the size of the impacting object by examination of the crater.

In this case they would be used inversely, the size and speed of the impactor are known and from that one should be able to deduce the appropriate size of the hole or crater.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


No worries btw.. moving on:


But like you said, every situation is different.


This is very true, and that is a reason to stand back and look at things with an open mind, if things don't always fit then, someone must look for the reasons that responsible, not dismiss them and close the case, right?



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


You are right General - just like Shanksville THERE WERE NO BODIES!

AND NO PLANE EITHER! Just lots of shredded metal strewn around

About the bodies - all that was left were bits and pieces. The average
Mommy's basement truther doesn't realize the violence of such an
event - The plane is destroyed leaving "metallic confetti" with occasional larger pieces surviving.

Bodies are reduced to "human hamburger" - gruesome, but accurate
description.

Once it got light enough were walking the crash scene marking out body
parts for the coroner to recover

Not something want to see again....



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


If, in fact, Flight 93 fell out of the sky on a clear blue day without waring and without any other context or predecessor activities. However, that was not the case here. Not by a long shot.

Before the plane crashed it was alredy established that it had been hijacked and it was already established that three other planes that day had been hijacked and flown purposely into buildings in a well-orchestrated suicide mission. This was information that was known to the investigators.

The plane had been tracked on radar, communications had been established between the passenegers and persons on the ground describing the situation, the airline had reported the plane as hijacked, etc, etc.

The idea of ignoring all this information and attending to the site as if it were an undeveloped mystery would not be proper.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by ATH911
There can only be one goal post planted in one spot.

What does that even mean?

You've heard the debate phrase "moving the goal post"?

With Shanksville, the official story goal post seems to be multiple goal posts moving all over the place. Kinda hard to debunk it when there is no single planted goal post.

You skeptics need to get your Shanksville official story straight and stick to one.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Can I ask, what the HELL are you talking about??


Moving what goalposts? Where? What stories?

The only story is the one that happened. Flight 93 was hijacked, passengers attacked the terrorists, the plane crashed into the field at Shanksville at a nosedive at nearly 500mph. obliterating the aircraft and turning it into shards and turning the passangers into hamburger meat. That has been the position from day one.

Its you people who are having a hard time coming with a plausible alternative story. One that makes sense. But gee, what have we heard? No plane, small plane, fake plane, no crash, all planted debris, no human remains, some, no airplane debris, some airplane debris, fake mushroom cloud, shoot down, no shoot down, different flightpath, no plane at all, just everythign faked, shoot down real but faked crash site. I mean damn these are the ones off the top of my head.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
The only story is the one that happened. Flight 93 was hijacked, passengers attacked the terrorists, the plane crashed into the field at Shanksville at a nosedive at nearly 500mph. obliterating the aircraft and turning it into shards and turning the passangers into hamburger meat. That has been the position from day one.

1. Was about 95% of the plane recovered?
2. Where was most of the plane wreckage before the cleanup started?
3. Where were most of the passenger remains before the cleanup started?
4. Did the front end of the plane break off at impact and land in the woods while the rest of the plane tunneled down into the ground?
5. How did the forest get more fire damage than the grass surrounding the crater?
6. How did the tail section vanish while only leaving a faint mark in the ground?
7. How could 44 humans be turned into "hamburger meat," resulting into only 8% total mass, and not leave a single drop of blood behind?

There are just some unanswered question off the top of my head, due to the lack of crash details.


Its you people who are having a hard time coming with a plausible alternative story. One that makes sense. But gee, what have we heard? No plane, small plane, fake plane, no crash, all planted debris, no human remains, some, no airplane debris, some airplane debris, fake mushroom cloud, shoot down, no shoot down, different flightpath, no plane at all, just everythign faked, shoot down real but faked crash site. I mean damn these are the ones off the top of my head.

That's what happened when you have moving goalposts.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join