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: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

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.


So, saying that it's been proven is okay with me! [/sarcasm]

Care to share the proof?


Research this yourself before you make such false claims.


Oh, I have.

img526.imageshack.us...

img522.imageshack.us...


..now, about those false claims?




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   


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.





This image proves that the crater was not caused by a Boeing 757 and it also proves that was once confused for wing scars was not caused by wings from a boeing 757 for the ground is undisturbed. There is grass and the dent is quite old and weathered.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

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.


Looking what? "Down?" Really? Down from where?

Show me the proof that the pictures I posted had the indentations previous to 911.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

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.


Looking what? "Down?" Really? Down from where?

Show me the proof that the pictures I posted had the indentations previous to 911.


I dont have to show you anything for it has been proven time and time again. I did not look at your links for they took too long.

You can use my images as an example on how the wings scars are not wing scars and that they were there before 911.

I recommend the search function here on ATS. Research for sometime.


I too was once ignorant of the facts. It happens.

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



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder


I dont have to show you anything for it has been proven time and time again.


No, it hasn't




I did not look at your links for they took too long.


Enough said...you have no interest in finding the truth.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
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 !!!!


Sorry, your personal spin on the products of you quote mining is not my "truth" or official story. You stated that there was NO plane wreckage found at the site. Care to show me where in the "official story" where the same is stated? That's a bald faced lie.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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.


Excuse me but anyone that stages something would indeed try to cover up the scene else the scientists would expose the lie.

9/11 stinks and i'm 50/50 on flight 93 crashing where they said it did because it would be easyer to crash the plane then not and it's not like they give a dam about the people on board the plane.

unlike the towers, building 7, petagon we don't have much to go on from flight 93 apart from some of the funney phone calls made back home by the passengers.

Sky phones work but cell phone don't work even a 100ft from the ground in a plane and i have that information first had from a senior piolet and it must be something to do with the faraday cage the body of the plane creates.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by LieBuster

Excuse me but anyone that stages something would indeed try to cover up the scene else the scientists would expose the lie.

9/11 stinks and i'm 50/50 on flight 93 crashing where they said it did because it would be easyer to crash the plane then not and it's not like they give a dam about the people on board the plane.


There's no such thing as 50/50. You've either enslaved yourself to the nonstop runaway circular logic of the conspiracy world or you are not.

I can think of a lot of of conspiracy oriented claims that would make a hell of a lot more sense- the remote control mechanism the conspirators used to sieze control of flight 93 went haywire and the plane took a nose dive into the ground, there was someone on board flight 93 the conspirators wanted to assasinate so they crashed it deliberately, and so on. But NOOOO you people insist on competing in these Rube Goldberg contests amomgst yourselves to come up with the most convoluted, outlandishly goofball sounding conspiracy stories this side of a mental hospital. Secret agents snuck out and dug up a hole with bulldozers in the middle of nowhere and planted manufactured wreckage, sent phony crash specialists to examine it, build a fake black box, murdered all the passenegrs elsewhere and plant their remains on the site, and presumably send the real flight 93 out in the ocean somewhere, all to trick you into thinking a plane crashed in the middle of nowhere, all to cover up their shooting it down...while turning around and admitting they were specifically trying to shoot it down to the 9/11 commission in some convoluted reverse psychology psyops scheme. It's completely mindless.

You have to WANT these conspiracy stories to be true, for you people to be bending reality into such distorted shapes like this.


Unlike the towers, building 7, petagon we don't have much to go on from flight 93 apart from some of the funney phone calls made back home by the passengers.


Incorrect. It's really the case that YOU, as in YOU CONSPIRACY PEOPLE, don't have much to go on becuase the gov't isn't handing you the bones of the remains to perform DNA analysis on, the black box to analyze, and components with serial numbers to trace. The reason is obvious- You people have ZERO expertise on performing DNA analysis, have ZERO experience in analyzing black box data, and ZERO experience in tracing serial numbers of plane wreckage.

Or, am I incorrect?


Sky phones work but cell phone don't work even a 100ft from the ground in a plane and i have that information first had from a senior piolet and it must be something to do with the faraday cage the body of the plane creates.


Then you've just thrown your own conspiracy theory into the trash. There were 35 sky phone calls and two cell phone calls from flight 93, and the information being sent out on the skyphones matched the information being sent out on cell phones. Those damned fool conspiracy web sites you're getting this abject paranoia from never told you that, did they?



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


But wait we are supposed to expect a plane to crash into a building and the fire from the office supplies were supposed to collapse the building? But cloth just can't catch on fire when it crashes or being shot down?



[edit on 2-6-2010 by dragnet53]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:37 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.


I am sorry but I am going with the guys here stating the official story was BS. You would also have scorch marks from the planes wings at going 1.2 mach speed from the impact. Critical thinking in America has gone down tremendously.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by dragnet53]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   
BTW Boeing 757 top speed is : 609 MPH

Now convert it to mach speed and it is: 0.8001

No way in hell that plane went mach 1.2. Who the hell gave that information needs to go back to math 101. I used a converter on my phone but still is pretty accurate.

www.boeing.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 



But cloth just can't catch on fire when it crashes or being shot down?


Who said that cloth CAN'T catch fire? Of course cloth CAN catch fire, however, that does not mean it always will catch fire. What CAN happen and what DOES happen are two unrelated concepts. I CAN win the lottery, that does not mean that if I play the lottery I WILL win the lottery.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

I am sorry but I am going with the guys here stating the official story was BS. You would also have scorch marks from the planes wings at going 1.2 mach speed from the impact. Critical thinking in America has gone down tremendously.


May I ask what your background is in crash site forensics, or what your expertise is in aeronautical engineering? How many actual crash sites have you seen personally? I don't see how you can say "this should have happened" or "this couldn't have occurred" when you don't even have a shadow of an inkling of what should or shouldn't happen to begin with.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dragnet53

I am sorry but I am going with the guys here stating the official story was BS. You would also have scorch marks from the planes wings at going 1.2 mach speed from the impact. Critical thinking in America has gone down tremendously.


May I ask what your background is in crash site forensics, or what your expertise is in aeronautical engineering? How many actual crash sites have you seen personally? I don't see how you can say "this should have happened" or "this couldn't have occurred" when you don't even have a shadow of an inkling of what should or shouldn't happen to begin with.


What I stated is what I stated. There is a thing called physics. top speed of a boeing 757 is 609 MPH. That impact would of left big pieces of the air plane. I am assume it was shot down.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by dragnet53
 



But cloth just can't catch on fire when it crashes or being shot down?


Who said that cloth CAN'T catch fire? Of course cloth CAN catch fire, however, that does not mean it always will catch fire. What CAN happen and what DOES happen are two unrelated concepts. I CAN win the lottery, that does not mean that if I play the lottery I WILL win the lottery.


It will always catch fire. cloth is not a solid object. But yet we expect for a building office supplies to destroy a building? LOL



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 



It will always catch fire. cloth is not a solid object.


Ah - what??? Cloth is not a solid object??


It will always catch fire? Under any circumstances, and at any time? Anywhere?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I read somewhere Israel is advancing is propaganda and tackling the hate stuff about them in forums. If Israel is capable and doing that stuff in major forums, why would'nt US? Seeing that in government website of US they even opened a discussion about so called debunking conspiracy stuff, why wouldnt they spend and aim resources here?
My conclusion.
If Israel is advancing propaganda in forums and sites over internet, it is more than likely for US and 'shadow' people to finance such a thing as discouraging all the discussions by extreme skeptics who rather than argue logically they talk like a government officials. So people avoid these persons and do not respond to them if they are not prepared to discuss with open mind. I saw one such member's profile. All he posted was only in plane crash, 911, forest fire and related stuff. Absolutely nothing else. except 2 posts, which are also linked more or less tied with these incidents.
One more thing ATS members are not here to be sheeple. They are here to investigate and know what's going on with the world really.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Just what purpose WOULD it serve?

"Let's Roll!"


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?

Yes, very incorrect. You need to prove a plane crashed according to the official story. We also showed how they planted that engine being "unearthed" (hint: it fits in the backhoe)>


Would you mind terribly pointing out this supposed specific evidence that shows that no plane crashed in Shanksville?

Check out all my threads on here about Shanksville.


I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the moment your conspiracies have to consistantly rely on hordes of secret agents

When you say "hordes," about how many do you mean?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
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.

You think 40 deg (UA93) is a pretty step angle?


Actually there are. Were you expecting perfect cut outs?

I was talking about the Flight 1771 crash. Please pay attention.


So, there were no reports of luggage. What does that prove?

That should be self evidence it 37 passengers were on board.


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

Did most of 1771 get buried too? No? Then there are not alike in the most important way.


So, tell me...was the debris field consistent with a high speed nose down crash?

Officials said most of UA93 was buried. Please show me another large plane that crashed and mostly buried too.


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?

Link?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Just what purpose WOULD it serve?

"Let's Roll!"


You're telling me the gov't is going to go through all that trouble to fake a crash site, plant manufactured evidence, pay off all the nearby witnesses, send out hordes of disinformation agents to create a fake analysis, and god knows what else, all to invent the slogan, "Let's Roll".

You're telling me that you don't see how these claims would appear just a little excessively convoluted?



Yes, very incorrect. You need to prove a plane crashed according to the official story. We also showed how they planted that engine being "unearthed" (hint: it fits in the backhoe)


No, all you showed is speculation you've made up off the tops of your heads. The black box had been recovered showign that it was in fact flight 93, so there is proof that the crash site is real. The problem is that you conspiracy people don't want to believe the crash site is real so you don't want to believe the evidence is legitimate.

I invite you to prove me wrong- just what evidence *would* you accept as legitimate, and that you won't brush off in knee jerk reflex as disinformation?



When you say "hordes," about how many do you mean?


Essentially, everyone who'd have to make this into a real looking crash site as well as everyone who says this is a real crash site. Keep in mind these hordes would be over and above the hordes that would need to stage the Pentagon attack, which would be over and above the hordes that would need to stage the WTC attack. These in turn would be separate from the hordes planted throughout the FAA, NORAD, FBI, CIA, Air Force, NYPA, NYFD, NATO, etc etc etc who rubber stamp these scret plots.

I'm thinkign 10,000 at a very basic minimum who'd be involved in this supposedly "secret" conspiracy of yours.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join