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.

 

IMPOSSIBLE: Only ONE debris shows UA livery and it's the largest photo'd

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Sorry, spikey....

That scenario you imagined might describe a very, very poor script idea for the next movie with Bruce Willis ("Die Hard ALREADY"!!) but, in view of the facts of that day, AND the incredibly silly notion of a "poison gas" in the airplane (wrong on so many levels) then the "story" you suggest is, just a story.

Point for you to ponder....based on your "story"....the transponders did NOT squawk again, after the hijackers had taken over. SO, that destroys your idea right there, and that was just the easy part, to show what was wrong with it.

As I said, rest is just too fantastic....IF it were made into a movie, it's something I (and also many who know better) would boo, in the theatre. Same reaction I had to one of the "Die Hard" sequels, by the way.....total crap story, and laughable...but audiences ate it up.


@@ the OP?

Hate to tear you down again ( actually I DO like to
) but....this is quite the non-starter as a thread topic, as suggested by you.

The logic fails, because of the reductio ad absurdum attempt to argue...it isn't going to work.

Intelligent observers will see why....I hope I don't have to insult their intelligence by explaining in detail.

In case a HINT is required, though....I would suggest, in order to "argue" your case, you show an example from ANY OTHER airplane crash to support your claims, in the OP of this thread..

Specifically....show an airplane crash example (any case) where ALL of EVERY little piece of aircraft debris, each and every part, was photographed, and the photos were made available ON THE INTERNET for the average layperson to come along and examine....in order, it woudl seem, to ":check up" on the duties of the trained and experienced investigators who were actually on scene.

Keep in MIND the sensitivity of the victims' families, and the sensibility and simple DIGNITY to be preserved by NOT showing EVERY BLOODY FRAGMENT!!!

Have some compassion, after all!!! AND, show some basic human diginity...

The preponderance of evidence (willfully ignored by some) is sufficient. Too bad it isn't mentioned in the OP.....










[edit on 15 June 2010 by weedwhacker]




posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Hate to tear you down again

When did you ever tear me down before?



show an airplane crash example (any case) where ALL of EVERY little piece of aircraft debris, each and every part, was photographed, and the photos were made available ON THE INTERNET for the average layperson to come along and examine

I really think you should read my OP again before spouting off your usually tripe that ends up making yourself look foolish.

I never said only one piece of debris of the entire claim 95% recovered sports UA livery. I said "only ONE of the pieces of plane debris photographed at the scene shows UA logo colors."

Btw, can't produce me another piece of debris with UA livery on it from the scene, can you?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   
If you supply me with all the photos taken at the scene then I'll have a look.

If you can't do this I'll have to assume you haven't seen them either, and that this whole thread is thus a waste of time. Indeed you'd have to retitle it "Only ONE debris that I've seen shows UA livery", and I'm not sure how interested the world would be in that.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by KillenfizzenHumboflorator
reply to post by trebor451
 


Sooooo why resort to insulting the guy when you can't produce anything to help your case. At least he has a photo and a thread proving his point.

You just seem like a shill to me...


No, he (ATH911) did NOT prove his point. His point was specifically that the photo in the OP is the ONLY photo that shows UA logo coloration. That affirmative statement begs the question - did the author see ALL the photos taken of the crash site? I don't think so. The author, more accurately, should say that this is the only photo he/she has seen with the UA logo coloration on it. Which is an accurate statement. Meaningless, but at least it is accurate. The author is NOT the human measure of all things.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
You debunkers claim that the image is the largest piece of wreckage found yet their is video showing a much larger piece out in the open @ 1:33 in the following video.


What is that piece and why haven't we seen pictures of it? Is it a piece from an unmanned aerial vehicle which were air born over that airspace and were involved in the mock hijacking, cruise missile acquisition scenarios that day?


Here is a women who was one of the last people to see what crashed. She describes a craft no bigger than her van and was smooth, white and silent. She is describing either a 1 manned craft, cruise missile or unmanned aerial vehicle.



[edit on 16-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 





What is that piece and why haven't we seen pictures of it? Is it a piece from an unmanned aerial vehicle which were air born over that airspace and were involved in the mock hijacking, cruise missile acquisition scenarios that day?


Video is so low resultion can not recognize anything

Here is piece of debris from Shanksville



Notice windows?

Since when do UAV (Umanned aerial vehicles) have windows or carry
passengers for that matter?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


I think your lack of intelligence on the subject and blind trust in the media has left you blind to the truth.

The picture you are showing is out of context, released in 2006 and was used as false evidence in a trial. It is quite easy to take a picture of a piece of plane in 2006 and label it as flight 93 'evidence' and the sad part is they knew that people like you would parrot such pathetic evidence in almost a trollish fashion on forums such as this one which I might at takes pride in rational, intelligent discussions.

When I was a child I too believed everything I was told but then I grew up.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Funny you insult me, but you can't even produce ANOTHER photo of debris with UA livery on it at the scene!
Way to go Mr. Smartypants.


And.....how old are we? What grade are we in?

I continue to be gobsmacked at the absolutely astronomical level of intellectual discipline on display within these posts and topics. "Way to go Mr. Smartypants" has got to win some sort of award for higher thinking or for the advanced use of brain matter.

I stand in awe.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



What is that piece and why haven't we seen pictures of it?


I've seen that video before - what's the big deal? Also seen stills of that area.


Is it a piece from an unmanned aerial vehicle which were air born over that airspace and were involved in the mock hijacking, cruise missile acquisition scenarios that day?


No.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 




Is it a piece from an unmanned aerial vehicle which were air born over that airspace and were involved in the mock hijacking, cruise missile acquisition scenarios that day?


No.


We are entitled to our own opinions no matter how ill informed and ignorant they may be most people agree that the crater was not caused by a Boeing 757. It also ok to be a minority on the subject too.



[edit on 16-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



We are entitled to our own opinions no matter how ill informed and ignorant they may be


Finally we agree.



most people agree that the crater was not caused by a Boeing 757.


I am assuming in your response that you will present evidence to support that conjecture.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

You skeptics need to read what I say more closely, you guys are just making yourself look more foolish. Read more than just the title. Sheesh.

Btw, could you produce another piece of debris with UA livery? No? Didn't think so.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Here is piece of debris from Shanksville


Notice windows?

1. Exactly where at the scene was this piece taken?

2. Does it have UA livery still on it?

3. Why is none of the foliage around it burned?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

I stand in awe.

I stand in awe of two things:

1. People who insult and then complain when retaliated against.

2. OCT's who believe 95% of UA93 was recovered, yet still can't produce one more piece of debris with UA livery on it.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Playing games aren't we?

Surprised haven't asked for serial numbers.....

I suggest direct questions on location to the NTSB/FBI - they would have a map.

As for United Airlines Livery - they normally paint the EXTERIOR of the fuselage with the company colors. Look again this in INTERIOR section
of fuselage.

Why isn't area burned - probably because wreckage was thrown clear of fireball

Aircraft crashes are violent affairs - debris often hurled for considerable
distance from main impact point

Seen this myself- found landing gear light 75 yards from impact point of
Lear 35A, only reason didn't go farther was that hit parked car!

Also found piece of tail fin

Again not burned

News account of the crash - notice describing aircraft parts scattered for wide area



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.



Here is piece of landing gear from Shanksville



Again not burned because thrown clear



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ATH911
 


Playing games aren't we?

Surprised haven't asked for serial numbers.....

I suggest direct questions on location to the NTSB/FBI - they would have a map.

As for United Airlines Livery - they normally paint the EXTERIOR of the fuselage with the company colors. Look again this in INTERIOR section
of fuselage.

Why isn't area burned - probably because wreckage was thrown clear of fireball

Aircraft crashes are violent affairs - debris often hurled for considerable
distance from main impact point

Seen this myself- found landing gear light 75 yards from impact point of
Lear 35A, only reason didn't go farther was that hit parked car!

Also found piece of tail fin

Again not burned

News account of the crash - notice describing aircraft parts scattered for wide area



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.



Here is piece of landing gear from Shanksville



Again not burned because thrown clear



SPECULATION isn't evidence or statement of fact.

there's absolutely no verifiable evidence any debris was from flight 93, especially the one above and its amazing the OS perp defenders don't seem to understand why its not valid evidence or proof of anything other than to help fuel the TM and show why the OCT is most insane conspiracy theory in the history of the world.

the lengths these debunkers go to make excuses to perpetuate the hoax and for lack of evidence is truly bizarre.

and for some reason the skeptics STILL either can't seem to comprehend the OP's question and challenge, or haven't answered because the OP's premise is valid.

I think the answers obvious... its BOTH

so thank you for proving the OP once again


[edit on 17-6-2010 by Orion7911]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

You skeptics need to read what I say more closely, you guys are just making yourself look more foolish. Read more than just the title. Sheesh.

Btw, could you produce another piece of debris with UA livery? No? Didn't think so.




I read the whole thing, which was a waste of time. You're telling us that you've only seen one piece of debris with the United livery on it.

So what?



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by thedman
Here is piece of debris from Shanksville


Notice windows?

1. Exactly where at the scene was this piece taken?

2. Does it have UA livery still on it?

3. Why is none of the foliage around it burned?


Truther logic! It hurts my head!



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



1. Exactly where at the scene was this piece taken?


Why?


2. Does it have UA livery still on it?


Why?


3. Why is none of the foliage around it burned?


Uh, there was no fire where it landed?




top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join