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.

 

Claim of only 8% of UA93 passenger remains found supports conspiracy

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

in a 40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude.

Crash scene was reclaimed (filled in) old strip mine

OK, now that you know the official story stats of the UA93 "crash," maybe you'd like to amend this statement of yours:

"Talking about high speed, high angle crash scenes similar to Flight 93 or PSA 1771 where aircraft impacted ground at steep angle and high speed"




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by thedman

in a 40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude.

Crash scene was reclaimed (filled in) old strip mine

OK, now that you know the official story stats of the UA93 "crash," maybe you'd like to amend this statement of yours:

"Talking about high speed, high angle crash scenes similar to Flight 93 or PSA 1771 where aircraft impacted ground at steep angle and high speed"


Why would he? Why are you shying away from the fact that there was a similair crash 20 some years ago? Not exact mind you, but enough to send a few shivvers up your spine.

You have yet to show ONE SINGLE crash scene investigator that was on the sscene, to agree with you.




[edit on 27-5-2010 by Six Sigma]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Awesome, let's see it.


Contact the persons who were in charge of the investigation.



Awesome, let's see it.


Contact the persons who were in charge of the investigation. Oh, and by the way. In regards to the badge, if you bothered to do any research you would have learned that FAA regulations were changed due to this discovery.


Ya know, you might wanna go back and read my OP so you don't come across as so ignorant. No one is saying things shouldn't have survived at all.


So, your issue is with the condition of the bandanna? Becasue you assume THAT bandanna was worn on the head? How do you know this? How many hijackers were on the plane? How do you know they ALL had theirs on? How do you know they all had them on their HEADS?

Really, the OP does nothing but recycle the same old tired basless and non supporting CT's.



[edit on 27-5-2010 by Six Sigma]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Why would he?

Why would he want to correct one of his factual errors? Oh gee, I don't know.



Why are you shying away from the fact that there was a similair crash 20 some years ago?

I haven't. I asked you this and you've avoided answering it:

"There's a couple of major differences [compared to Flight 1771 crash] that helps prove Shanksville crash was staged. Let's see if you can guess?"


You have yet to show ONE SINGLE crash scene investigator that was on the sscene, to agree with you.

Love this logical fallacy.

Got a link to all the investigator's write-ups about what they witnessed at the scene?!



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Contact the persons who were [blah blah blah]

If you are going to introduce something as your evidence, don't tell me to go research it. That's on YOU to do.


So, your issue is with the condition of the bandanna? Becasue you assume THAT bandanna was worn on the head? How do you know this? How many hijackers were on the plane? How do you know they ALL had theirs on? How do you know they all had them on their HEADS?

(Oh geez, just like with hooper)

Do you actually think whether this red bandana was around the heads of one of the alleged hijackers, in one of their pockets, in one of their carry-on bags, was a passengers in their suitcase under the plane, or ANY other scenario of it being from that alleged plane, that I believe that would make an iota of difference in what condition it supposedly survived a fiery plane-shattering crash in?!?



Really, the OP does nothing but recycle the same old tired basless and non supporting CT's.

And you do nothing but post the same of tired troll posts.


[edit on 27-5-2010 by ATH911]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
You'd staged a 44-passenger plane crash without leaving any remains behind?!


No, actually, I wouldn't stage a plane crash *at all*. It'd be a complete waste of time, effort, personnel, and resources, it serves no mission critical purpose, it increases the danger of discovery, and it adds unnecessary layers of complexity to an already absurdly convoluted plot. Even if I did stage it, I wouldn't make it look suspicious by turning around and covering up the crash site I just staged.

In fact the only reason why anyone would seriously think the flight 93 crash was staged is if they're so unreasonably paranoid that they WANT it to be a conspiracy. On the scale of pointlessness, arguing over the precise percentage of human remains recovered is right up there with argung whether the toilet seats were up vs down when it crashed. It's simply grasping at straws to keep the conspiracy claim alive.


Who said they linked, the FBI?!.


No, actually, the flight recorder that had been recovered at the crash site says it's linked to flight 93. Nice try.


You should read my OP again and "do the math."


No, to be more precise, *you* need to read your OP again. I've said it before and I'll say it again- if you conspiracy theorists would ever analyze your own conspiracy claims with the same exacting high microscopic level of critical analysis that you do the commission report, you wouldn't be conspiracy theorists for very long.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by GoodOlDave]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
The Shanksville incident was a disposal of a craft in use during the 911 wargames that was taking place over the skies of Penn.

It WAS NOT a Boeing 757. Fact.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Even if I did stage it, I wouldn't make it look suspicious by turning around and covering up the crash site I just staged.

Huh? So you'd stage it, but let others not in on it to clean it up? Talk about risky.


In fact the only reason why anyone would seriously think the flight 93 crash was staged is if they're so unreasonably paranoid that they WANT it to be a conspiracy.

-Snip-, we go by the evidence that's overwhelmingly against the official story. Hell, half you skeptics on here can't even agree on the official Shanksville story!


On the scale of pointlessness, arguing over the precise percentage of human remains recovered is right up there with argung whether the toilet seats were up vs down when it crashed.

See, this is where you fail. You are taking ONE aspect of the OP and arguing it separately. The complete opposite of you mentioning "critical analysis." More like biased analysis.


No, actually, the flight recorder that had been recovered at the crash site says it's linked to flight 93. Nice try.

That's wasn't the question. Nice try.


No, to be more precise, *you* need to read your OP again. I've said it before and I'll say it again- if you conspiracy theorists would ever analyze your own conspiracy claims with the same exacting high microscopic level of critical analysis that you do the commission report, you wouldn't be conspiracy theorists for very long.

I've shown many times throughout this thread that you skeptics are cherrypicking the evidence I presented in the OP and disregarding the rest. No wonder you skeptics can't see a conspiracy, it's like you got one eye closed when looking at our evidence.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by ATH911]

[edit on 28-5-2010 by ATH911]

Mod Edit - Civility And Decorum Are Required on AboveTopSecret.com

[edit on Sat, 29 May 2010 23:11:09 -0500 by MemoryShock]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Huh? So you'd stage it, but let others not in on it to clean it up? Talk about risky.


Of course it'd be risky, not to mention completely pointless becuase it would serve no goal driven purpose. That's why noone would do it.



No troll, we go by the evidence that's overwhelmingly against the official story. Hell, half you skeptics on here can't even agree on the official Shanksville story!


There is no disagreement on our side that it was in fact flight 93 that crashed at Shanksville. The only person here producing false and inflammatory claims in order to provoke an emotional response is you.


See, this is where you fail. You are taking ONE aspect of the OP and arguing it separately. The complete opposite of you mentioning "critical analysis." More like biased analysis.


I mention this becuase flight 93 is the topic of this thread...but if you insist, I'll also include the fact it's idiotic and pointlessly dangerous to launch a cruise missile at the Pentagon, plant fake aorcraft wreckage on the front lawn in broad daylight, and employ hordes of secret gov't agents as fake eyewitnesses, when using an actual passenger jet would achieve all that for real. There, I've now addressed fully half of the conspiracy claims being proposed.


That's wasn't the question. Nice try.


The flight recorder recovered from Shanksville shows it came from flight 93, necessarily meaning the recovered human remains were from flight 93 as well. I shouldn't have to point the blatantly obvious out to you.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911



I haven't. I asked you this and you've avoided answering it:

"There's a couple of major differences [compared to Flight 1771 crash] that helps prove Shanksville crash was staged. Let's see if you can guess?"


I believe there are several differences in the crashes. If you want to play guessing games, I'm not the one to play with. Please thrill me with your proof, however.


You have yet to show ONE SINGLE crash scene investigator that was on the scene, to agree with you.


Love this logical fallacy.


Nice dodge.... doesn't quite work though. There were over 1,500 crash scene workers at Shanksville on and after 9/11. NONE of them... ZERO... ZILTCH... NADA.... do NOT think anything but flight 93 crashed there.

Were they all told to lie? To cover it up?

Does that strike you as odd?

Do you read? Have you ever read the book Courage After the Crash: Flight 93?

I highly recommend it.

It has statements from people that were there. REAL people. They say things like:


"I walked up to where the tire was on fire, probably a hundred feet past the crater. It was a big tire. I was thinking that this is a big jet. I hit it good with the hose and put it out. I stopped and 'poof,' it just started on fire again."
-Firefighter Keith Curtis


"We stopped and I opened the door. The smell of jet fuel was overpowering. I will never forget that smell; it is really burnt into my mind. ...I walked down the power line and got my first glimpse of human remains. Then I walked a little further and saw more."

- Mr. King


Got a link to all the investigator's write-ups about what they witnessed at the scene?!


As a matter of fact, I can do one better, I have the truthers best friend ....a youtube video....

I apologize in advance if it does not work. I am in my office and Youtube content is blocked. If so, I will fix it when I get home.

www.youtube.com...

If you don't believe him, here is some more information for flight 1771:

NTSB Identification: DCA88MA008 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 34799.
Scheduled 14 CFR PACIFIC SOUTHWEST AIRLINES
Accident occurred Monday, December 07, 1987 in SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 1/4/1989
Aircraft: BRITISH AEROSPACE BAE-146-200, registration: N350PS

here is the video:



[edit on 28-5-2010 by Six Sigma]

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Six Sigma]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Of course it'd be risky, not to mention completely pointless becuase it would serve no goal driven purpose.

How do you know?


There is no disagreement on our side that it was in fact flight 93 that crashed at Shanksville.

And you bark at us about "critical analysis."


See this is where you fail again, you skeptics just try to prove a plane crash, BUT you don't try to prove it to fit the official story.


I mention this becuase flight 93 is the topic of this thread

See, you're doing it again, trying to debate "Flight 93 crashed" and not the SPECIFIC evidence we bring up that contradicts the official story and/or physics.


The flight recorder recovered from Shanksville shows it came from flight 93

Um, if you had staged a plane crash, would you have you employees say it wasn't?!

Also, evidence has been shown on this forum that the black boxes were planted.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I believe there are several differences in the crashes. If you want to play guessing games, I'm not the one to play with. Please thrill me with your proof, however.

1. 1771 crashed at 90 deg going reportedly 720 mph into ground that wasn't "soft" and "loose" with most of the plane staying above ground. So it crashed steeper and faster into a harder surface, thus expecting to shatter into smaller pieces on average.
2. No wing scars even though it still hit dirt.
3. Luggage remnants reported everywhere, none reported at Shanksville.

So why do you keep bringing this crash up again?


Nice dodge.... doesn't quite work though. There were over 1,500 crash scene workers at Shanksville on and after 9/11. NONE of them... ZERO... ZILTCH... NADA.... do NOT think anything but flight 93 crashed there.

Why would they not think it did?


As a matter of fact, I can do one better, I have the truthers best friend ....a youtube video....

Was this supposed to be a Shanks video?



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
the increasingly desperate tone and deflection of the 'bunkers hilights their untenable position....


Ask yourself....

Have you ever heard of a plane crash on dry land that had no visible signs of a plane wreck, because, according to the Official Story the plane buried itself 45 ft below the surface, then conveniently self- filled the very same hole the plane supposedly made when it impacted..further concealing itself??

I and thousands of others dont believe it because its ridiculous...plain and simple.

My earlier "photoshopped" photo of the plane impacting is to scale....even though hoop and david may not agree and make a lot of noise, the fact remains that the image is an accurate representation of their Official Story that they defend...which common sense shows is pure BS.

You guys need to re evaluate your ability to sort through evidence yourself, rather than believe your lying government....yes siree....you have been lied to....most surprising is you cannot see it...loves blind eh!!



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 



no visible signs of a plane wreck, because, according to the Official Story the plane buried itself 45 ft below the surface, then conveniently self- filled the very same hole the plane supposedly made when it impacted..further concealing itself??


Too bad none of this is true.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by benoni
 



no visible signs of a plane wreck, because, according to the Official Story the plane buried itself 45 ft below the surface, then conveniently self- filled the very same hole the plane supposedly made when it impacted..further concealing itself??


Too bad none of this is true.

You mean too bad the part about no wreckage is isn't true (although I don't know how benoni is defining that), but everything he said is true, according to the official story. I've showed you this many times hooper.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
How do you know?


It ought to be self evident. Just what purpose WOULD it serve? The WTC and Pentagon impacts shocked the hell out of everyone and it was cause enough to go to war against Al Qaida, so unless there was some cow these secret conspirators needed to assasinate out in some field in Shanksville the crash served no purpose whatsoever.


See this is where you fail again, you skeptics just try to prove a plane crash, BUT you don't try to prove it to fit the official story.


Ahem. We don't NEED to prove plane crash. Plane crashes aren't any rare and exotic events so we can irrefutably show that planes do in fact crash. You're the one who's attempting to show planes don't crash but are in fact staged by secret gov't conspiracies, despite the fact that you can't show a single instance of anyone trying to fake a crash site.

Or am I incorrect?


See, you're doing it again, trying to debate "Flight 93 crashed" and not the SPECIFIC evidence we bring up that contradicts the official story and/or physics.


Would you mind terribly pointing out this supposed specific evidence that shows that no plane crashed in Shanksville? All I'm seeing are the uninformed opinions from people with zero experience in crash site forensics and the abject paranoia being shoveled out by these damned fool conspiracy web sites created by college kids making internet videos in their dorm room.


Um, if you had staged a plane crash, would you have you employees say it wasn't?!


This is not an argument. This is circular logic, in that you're attempting to repeat the original statement in different terms in order to explain itself.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the moment your conspiracies have to consistantly rely on hordes of secret agents planted thoughout all walks of life in order for it to be pulled off, it's the moment you're all but admitting you're just making up stuff as you go along.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
hooper..It IS TRUE!!

your ignorance of the OS is quite apparent...

As ath stated, its part of the Official Story that the plane "self- buried" itself 45 ft down, then filled in the hole somehow so the plane was not visible...

So its rather telling that you happily state publicly that its not true....your lack of knowledge seems inversely proportionate to the amount of noise you make here at ATS...

Of course its not true....its insulting everybody's intelligence to argue such a ridiculously impossible position...yet thats the OFFICIAL STORY!!

Hooper...go read up some more on your govt sponsored OS sites ...you need to brush up on the OS 'cos you lookin' like a fool boy, considering your vocal support of all this OS !!!!



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The WTC and Pentagon impacts shocked the hell out of everyone and it was cause enough to go to war against Al Qaida,


Laughable.

GoodOlDave, which National Flag does Al Qaida use to identify itself as a sovereign country?

If war was declared on Al Qaida, then why were Iraq and Afghanistan invaded by the Coalition of the Willing?

I can't understand the mentality of people who hold their hands on their hearts and believe that the 'War on Terra' is justified, pure, true or even the right thing to do.

Try reading Cinderella, at least it's a fairy tale with a happier ending.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

1. 1771 crashed at 90 deg going reportedly 720 mph into ground that wasn't "soft" and "loose" with most of the plane staying above ground. So it crashed steeper and faster into a harder surface, thus expecting to shatter into smaller pieces on average.


I am impressed...so you agree that both planes were traveling at a high rate of speed and at pretty steep angles when they crashed.


2. No wing scars even though it still hit dirt.


Actually there are. Were you expecting perfect cut outs?







3. Luggage remnants reported everywhere, none reported at Shanksville.


So, there were no reports of luggage. What does that prove? There were several other personal belongings found that were returned to loved ones.


So why do you keep bringing this crash up again?


It was a similar crash with similar results. Truthers often say there wasn't a plane there or that it was shot down. That the evidence shows there was not a plane there.

The crash of flight 1771 shows that the results of the crash of flight 93 were indeed typical for a high speed crash.


Nice dodge.... doesn't quite work though. There were over 1,500 crash scene workers at Shanksville on and after 9/11. NONE of them... ZERO... ZILTCH... NADA.... do NOT think anything but flight 93 crashed there.


Why would they not think it did?


So, tell me...was the debris field consistent with a high speed nose down crash? I realize this thread is about the bandanna and the lack of blood and human remains.... But not one member of DMORT was concerned with the amount of human remains.

Can you please tell me why DMORT wasn't concerned?



Was this supposed to be a Shanks video?


Nope, flight 1771.

Regarding flight 93, would you like a link to the NTSB website with their findings?
www.ntsb.gov...

How about the FBI summary?

www.911myths.com...

The ATC recordings?

www.ntsb.gov...

How about the radar studies?

www.ntsb.gov...


So, please tell me how you came to this conclusion:



"There's a couple of major differences [compared to Flight 1771 crash] that helps prove Shanksville crash was staged.




[edit on 29-5-2010 by Six Sigma]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by ATH911

1. 1771 crashed at 90 deg going reportedly 720 mph into ground that wasn't "soft" and "loose" with most of the plane staying above ground. So it crashed steeper and faster into a harder surface, thus expecting to shatter into smaller pieces on average.


I am impressed...so you agree that both planes were traveling at a high rate of speed and at pretty steep angles when they crashed.


2. No wing scars even though it still hit dirt.


Actually there are. Were you expecting perfect cut outs?









Sorry dood. It has been proven for years now that what you are confusing for wings scars were not caused by wings and were present before the oblong crater was made.

Research this yourself before you make such false claims.

What is confused for wings scars were not caused on 911 for there is dry, unbroken grass and unbroken ground. Therefore what caused the crater did not have wings anywhere near the span of a Boeing 757.

Thanks for playing.



Here is an image looking down what was confused as a wing scar. As you can see it was not caused by wings and was present long before the crater was made.



[edit on 29-5-2010 by Shadow Herder]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join