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: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

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

Regardless if that was the main/only reason or not, it worked, didn't it? Bushco used that incident to galvanize the country to war.


pay off all the nearby witnesses

Where did we ever suggest that?


No, all you showed is speculation you've made up off the tops of your heads.

No, we showed you EVIDENCE of how it was planted and the signs it was planted. You choose to deny it.


The black box had been recovered showign that it was in fact flight 93, so there is proof that the crash site is real.

You really think they are going to plant black boxes that say they weren't from UA93?! Use a little common sense buddy.


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

See, this is why you'd never believe it was a conspiracy, because you "out priced" yourself with the number you believed would had to have been involved. Remember, this is only YOUR speculation and you're stuck on it.




posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
This thread is going off-topic a bit.


The point of this thread is calculating the odds of the reported facts of the incident:

95% of plane found
but only 8% of total passenger remains recovered
100% ID'd out of that tiny 8% recovered
not a single drop of blood reported by coroner
Bandana is perfect condition, no rips or blood


I'm sure the skeptics will scoff it off by saying "So? Unpredictable stuff happens in these types of crashes!"

But I'm confident most unbiased and rational people can see that list of official facts don't add up.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Regardless if that was the main/only reason or not, it worked, didn't it? Bushco used that incident to galvanize the country to war.


No, they used the 9/11 attack as a whole as a reason to go to war, not the Shanksville crash site. The WTC attack/collapse and the Pentagon attack upstaged United 93 crashing out in the middle of nowhere to the point where the country would still have gone to war without the Shanksville crash. In fact the only reason you conspiracy people are even mentioning it is because you peopel enjoy speculating the crash site had been faked so much.


Where did we ever suggest that?


You're not suggesting it, you're coming right out and saying it. The 9/11 attack couldn't have been pulled off without a hell of a huge infrastructure of active participants. What, you think the crews clearing out the wreckage at ground zero were all low grade idiots who drool on themselves, and wouldn't recognize steel demolished by controlled demolitions lying all over the place?


No, we showed you EVIDENCE of how it was planted and the signs it was planted. You choose to deny it.


Mostly becuase your evidence is speculation you made up off the tops of your heads. Tell me, what expertise do you have in crash site forensics or aeronautical engineering that you're basing your professional analysis on? We both know the answer to that: ZERO.


You really think they are going to plant black boxes that say they weren't from UA93?! Use a little common sense buddy.


This argument is circular logic, in that you're simply repeating the original statement in different terms in an attempt to explain itself. "The crash had been faked and all the evidence showing it's a crash site has to be fake" is like saying "the Bible is real becuase it says right in the Bible that the Bible is real". Do I presume correctly that you DON'T believe the world is only 10,000 years old...?

Did it ever occur to you that if it was the real crash site of flight 93, it actually WOULD have the flight recorder of flight 93 there? "Use a little commons sense" is damned right.


See, this is why you'd never believe it was a conspiracy, because you "out priced" yourself with the number you believed would had to have been involved. Remember, this is only YOUR speculation and you're stuck on it.


It's not speculation, it's a fact. When we gave our intelligence reports to our NATO allies linking the 9/11 attack with Al Qaida, they compared it to what their own intelligence services reported, and it convinced them enough to invoke article five. It's going to take a HELL of a lot more than two or three guys to pull off something like that, guy.

Did it ever occur to you that, rather than my "outpricing" myself, it's really the case that you're so entrenched in make believe that you really have no inkling what it would take to pull off something like that for real?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Ummmm....I know I'm late to this party, but I really have nothing much to add, since it's been hashed so many times. I guess folks don't understand about how the human body can be terribly devasted, in such high speed inpacts.

BUT, purpose of butting in, here, is this:


Originallyposted by Draget53
BTW Boeing 757 top speed is : 609 MPH

Now convert it to mach speed and it is: 0.8001


Glad to see you're trying, but it isn't quite right. No matter, at least you're paying attention.

Your above calculations for Mach number (converting 609 MPH - or 529 kt) IS true, at standard temperature for sea level (15 degrees C).

Your "top speed" comment isn't relevant, though...because, firstly, the "top speed" will have many different definitions, and will vary under different circumstnces...but, no matter, since you're referring to something else, here:


No way in hell that plane went mach 1.2.


Earlier, in comparing the UAL 93 crash scene, ANOTHER airplane crash was mentioned. PSA 1771. THAT was where the figure of M1.2 came form it was NOT meant to suggest that UAL 93 ever got that fast.

We KNOW its top speed, from teh DFDR information. It did not exceed Mach 1.

I like to try to keep things straight, because otherwise....we get "conspiracy theory" runaway meltdown. Oh, wait...it's already occured...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Adding....there WAS a case, well documented, of a Boeing 727 that went transonic, briefly...and the crew recovered, and eventually landed safely.

TWA it was long time ago...I'll find a link. **TWA 841, April 1979 -- www.ask.com...(1979)

More recently, the Egypt Air flight 990....suicide, it is supposed, by one of the First Officers (no motive, none publicly known anyway). The DFDR indicates that IT exceeded Mach 1 moments before impact...but, since the suicidal pilot was intent on crashing, no recovery occured. However, I expect that, if properly managed, it would have been recoverable. Damaged, yes...but not fatally, not instantly. Airplane probably would have ben scrapped, though...but, these are mere guesses in that case.


[edit on 4 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



But I'm confident most unbiased and rational people can see that list of official facts don't add up.


See, there is your philosophical problem.

Everything you report as "suspicious" is, in fact, common knowledge. The bandana, the human remains, the plane recovery. And here we are almost ten years later and no one but a microscopic sub-cult of the conspiracy sub-culture thinks anything is wrong.

So, you have basically two choices here. Either finally admit that your suspicions and speculations are wholely ungrounded and based on a persistent need for some kind of recognition or you must believe that, with the exception of yourself and handful of "fellow travelers", the rest of earth's human population is irrational and biased.

Now, I know that you don't think things can happen wherein the odds are in favor of them not happening (like the survival of the bandana) so what are the odds that you and few others are correct and the remaining 99.9999999999999% of the human population is not capable of rational thought?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
95% of plane found


I may be reaching here, but does anyone have the transcript of the press conference the FBI had speaking of this?

Why do I ask?

The reports I have read state that the FBI handed over 95% of the airplane to the airlines. The only parts they didn't hand over were the black boxes.


At a news conference, FBI agent Bill Crowley said that the field near Shanksville, Somerset County, has been turned over to the county coroner and that 95 percent of the plane found at the site has been turned over to United Airlines.


www.thepittsburghchannel.com...

Although CNN stated this:


SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- The FBI announced Monday that its investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered.


archives.cnn.com...

I have yet to see Bill Crowley's words actually in quote form. I'm not claiming he didn't say it, I am only looking for the appropriate quoted verbiage or video.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Crowley says the FBI has finished its investigation at the site, collecting about 95 percent of the Boeing 757 from a field near Shanksville, 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

Crowley says the biggest piece found was a six-by-seven foot section of the fuselage, including four windows.

www.wxii12.com...

What's the problem with this quote (other than there being absolutely no evidence that much was recovered)?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Mostly becuase your evidence is speculation you made up off the tops of your heads. Tell me, what expertise do you have in crash site forensics or aeronautical engineering that you're basing your professional analysis on? We both know the answer to that: ZERO.

Stop lying [snip] You're just a bad as hooper. We showed simple common sense evidence that you don't need to be a forensics/AE "expert" to realize or understand.

- We showed that the engine piece supposedly being unearth was not embedded in the ground at the time of the photo (no expertise needed to understand that)
- We showed that there was no dirt covered on the engine piece after it supposedly burrowed through the "soft" dirt there (no expertise needed to understand that)
- We showed that the engine piece looks aged/weathered as if it was a old piece (no expertise needed to understand that)
- We showed that the engine piece "coincidentally" fits in the backhoe's bucket seen right next to it, suggesting that the perps simple lowered that engine piece down in the bucket, dumped it in the partially excavated hole, and then took a photo of it as if they were actually unearthing it from the ground (no expertise needed to understand that)
- We then showed that's the ONLY photo of plane debris supposedly being unearthed from the ground which is remarkable considering a 80% of the plane was supposedly buried and there should be a LOT more photos showing various debris being unearthed from a reported depth of 45-50 feet (no expertise needed to understand that)

But if you still want to continue with your troll games, do it on your own thread.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by ATH911]

[edit on 8-6-2010 by elevatedone]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
What's the problem with this quote?


They are not "quoting" him. Let me use an example from the same article you posted:


Bush announced what he calls a "strike on the financial foundation of the global terror network."


What I am looking for are his quoted words. Again, read the article from the Pittsburgh ABC affiliate:


At a news conference, FBI agent Bill Crowley said that the field near Shanksville, Somerset County, has been turned over to the county coroner and that 95 percent of the plane found at the site has been turned over to United Airlines.


ABC Pittsburgh does not state that 95% of the plane was found. They are reporting that 95% of the plane that was found was given to UA.

I have searched for the actual press conference, but to no avail.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
What I am looking for are his quoted words. Again, read the article from the Pittsburgh ABC affiliate:


At a news conference, FBI agent Bill Crowley said that the field near Shanksville, Somerset County, has been turned over to the county coroner and that 95 percent of the plane found at the site has been turned over to United Airlines.


ABC Pittsburgh does not state that 95% of the plane was found. They are reporting that 95% of the plane that was found was given to UA.

Oh Lord, this SINGLE typo news report again?

There are like 3-4 other news articles stating he said 95% of the plane was recovered.

Don't you think that ONE article just wrote the description badly? You think that, say, only 50% of a 757 was recovered there and of that, 95% of it was returned to the airlines?! You really think the FBI would announce such an insignificant fact like that? How would that be in the least bit newsworthy?!


Say, are you giving that one article credence because you, like all of us truthers, see absolutely no evidence that comes close to proving 95% of a 757 was actually collected there?!

[edit on 6-6-2010 by ATH911]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Oh Lord, this SINGLE typo news report again?

There are like 3-4 other news articles stating he said 95% of the plane was recovered.

Don't you think that ONE article just wrote the description badly? You think that, say, only 50% of a 757 was recovered there and of that, 95% of it was returned to the airlines?! You really think the FBI would announce such an insignificant fact like that? How would that be in the least bit newsworthy?!


Say, are you giving that one article credence because you, like all of us truthers, see absolutely no evidence that comes close to proving 95% of a 757 was actually collected there?!


I am not making a debate or an argument here. I am looking for his direct quote and to date, truthers and rationalists have not been able to come up with it.



I will take the words of the MANY PROFESSIONALS that were there over the rantings of an internet jockey.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Stop lying GoodOlTroll. You're just a bad as hooper. We showed simple common sense evidence that you don't need to be a forensics/AE "expert" to realize or understand.


Oh, rubbish. The only thing you've proved is that you're interpreting the photos in the way you want to interpret them. Are engines at crash sites normally supposed to be smashed up, or are they largely in one piece but horribly burned? Are they usually intact becuase they're usually shielded from flames by fuselage wreckage? You didn't say becuase YOU DON'T know. You have ZERO experience in crash site forensics, you have ZERO experience in aeronautical engineering, and you have ZERO time even being at crash sites. Answer truthfully, yes or no- were you ever at the Shanksville crash site yourself?

The only "common sense evidence" I'm seeing is that it's mind numbingly idiotic to fake a crash site out in the middle of the boonies and pay off armies of witnesses, investogators, analysts, manufacturers of fake evidence and black boxes, etc, etc etc, plus (presumably) murdering the real passengers at some secret location elsewhere, plus (presumably) sending the real plane out into the ocean somewhere, when a real plane can be crashed at that site and create all that for real, particularly when these imagined conspirators definitely had at least two real disposable planes under their command. It's adding unnecessary layers of convolusion to an already heavily convoluted conspiracy.

This isn't research. It's cherry picking to pursue a Rube Goldberg contest to see who can come up with the most convoluted conspiracy theory of all. I stand to be convinced there may have been some conspiracy behind the 9/11 attack, but your theories have no credibility whatsoever.
You could have said the plane were under remote control by the conspirators and was deliberately crashed, and even that would have made more sense.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



- We showed that the engine piece supposedly being unearth was not embedded in the ground at the time of the photo (no expertise needed to understand that)


So, you were able to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the thing that wasn't in the ground at the time of the photo - wasn't in the ground at the time of the photo. Just plain earth-shattering!!!


Obviously an inside job.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 

Those are the kind of responses I'd expect when someone knows they just got spanked . . . again.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Oh, rubbish. The only thing you've proved is that you're interpreting the photos in the way you want to interpret them.

OK then, let's here your interpretation of the ONLY unearthing of debris photo. (But do it on a different thread because we are going off-topic)


Are engines at crash sites normally supposed to be smashed up, or are they largely in one piece but horribly burned?

That's irrelevant. The photo shows what it shows and I'm analyzing what's shown on the photo and everything about that engine piece in that photo suggests it was never buried there, but they just staged the photo to make you think they just unearthed it.


pay off armies of witnesses

Stop lying. We've never suggested that.


This isn't research. It's cherry picking

Pot, meet Kettle.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Those are the kind of responses I'd expect when someone knows they just got spanked . . . again.


So, instead of offering the quote, you continue to posture. Thank you once again. Your ignorance surrounding the facts of 9/11 are quite apparent.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
well the way I look at it - thank GOD computers keep accurate records so we can find out who is starring and flagging these Anti-Justice remarks.
the truth of the matter is, the FBI delivered body parts... need I say more -
We were unable to locate a single person who found a body part that could not have been planted.

oh, and 92% stinks to high heaven just about 72 - hours or so.
dont think in these terms, you will wake up and we cant have that.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by Anti-Evil]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Evil

the truth of the matter is, the FBI delivered body parts... need I say more -




Anti-Evil, would you mind showing us how the FBI would plant body parts in broad daylight in front of thousands of witnesses?

Thank you.

(edited for off topic remark)


[edit on 8-6-2010 by Six Sigma]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
**** KNOCK IT OFF ****

GET ON TOPIC AND STOP DISCUSSING EACH OTHER



new topics




 
9
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join