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.
Originally posted by thedman
in a 40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude.
Crash scene was reclaimed (filled in) old strip mine
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"
Originally posted by ATH911
Awesome, let's see it.
Awesome, let's see it.
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.
Originally posted by Six Sigma
Why would he?
Why are you shying away from the fact that there was a similair crash 20 some years ago?
You have yet to show ONE SINGLE crash scene investigator that was on the sscene, to agree with you.
Originally posted by Six Sigma
Contact the persons who were [blah blah blah]
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.
Originally posted by ATH911
You'd staged a 44-passenger plane crash without leaving any remains behind?!
Who said they linked, the FBI?!.
You should read my OP again and "do the math."
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.
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.
No, actually, the flight recorder that had been recovered at the crash site says it's linked to flight 93. 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.
Originally posted by ATH911
Huh? So you'd stage it, but let others not in on it to clean it up? Talk about risky.
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!
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.
That's wasn't the question. Nice try.
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?"
You have yet to show ONE SINGLE crash scene investigator that was on the scene, to agree with you.
Love this logical fallacy.
-Firefighter Keith Curtis
"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."
"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."
Got a link to all the investigator's write-ups about what they witnessed at the scene?!
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Of course it'd be risky, not to mention completely pointless becuase it would serve no goal driven purpose.
There is no disagreement on our side that it was in fact flight 93 that crashed at Shanksville.
I mention this becuase flight 93 is the topic of this thread
The flight recorder recovered from Shanksville shows it came from flight 93
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.
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.
As a matter of fact, I can do one better, I have the truthers best friend ....a youtube video....
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??
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.
Originally posted by ATH911
How do you know?
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.
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.
Um, if you had staged a plane crash, would you have you employees say it wasn't?!
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,
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.
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?
Was this supposed to be a Shanks video?
"There's a couple of major differences [compared to Flight 1771 crash] that helps prove Shanksville crash was staged.
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?