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.

 

Evidence no plane crashed & buried in Shanksville; piles of dirt, but no piles of plane debris

page: 19
26
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



So I'm not hearing two different things, yet you mention the article where I hearing something different from what you are saying. hooper, you're too much.


You said that the fuel buring and some not buring was a contradiction. Its not.


Why can't you answer my simple question of are you saying most of the fuel blew up on/above ground?[

It just requires a simple yes or no hooper.


The fuel blew up above/on ground - exact distribution unknown. Why?




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 



So I'm not hearing two different things, yet you mention the article where I hearing something different from what you are saying. hooper, you're too much.


You said that the fuel buring and some not buring was a contradiction.

You know I agree with something you said early hooper, this why, after almost ten years now this is going nowhere. You don't have basic understanding. I said some of you OCTs say most of the fuel blew up on/above ground, others say most of the fuel got buried in the ground along with most of the plane. Pay attention next time.


The fuel blew up above/on ground - exact distribution unknown. Why?

As to your theory that most of it blew up on/above ground, why is there only small amounts of soot residue inside the crater, hardly any scorching of the tall dry grass around the crater and in the field, no visible jet fuel pools, and how did the fuel jump up and over the service road and land in that small section of forest? There was supposedly over 5,000 lbs for fuel onboard UA93 upon impact. The photographic evidence DOES NOT support your theory that most of the fuel blew up on/above ground.


.
edit on 3-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



I said some of you OCTs say most of the fuel blew up on/above ground, others say most of the fuel got buried in the ground along with most of the plane. Pay attention next time.


Based on what I see in your post you have reading problems. This may be why your confused. Please list all the "OCT's" and there exact distribution quotes.

"The fuel blew up above/on ground - exact distribution unknown. Why?"


As to your theory that most of it blew up on/above ground,


Please read the above - wherein my statement "The fuel blew up above/on ground" do you see the word MOST ???????????

As to your inquiries: Please refer to that article you posted a link to. Lots of those people were on the scene - why not give them a call? I am sure they would be glad to tell you all about their experiences that day.

Please prove that none of the grass was burned between the impact crater and the nearby wooded area.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Based on what I see in your post you have reading problems. This may be why your confused. Please list all the "OCT's" and there exact distribution quotes.

Game playing.


Please read the above - wherein my statement "The fuel blew up above/on ground" do you see the word MOST ???????????

Um, from your previous post...


Originally posted by hooper

I don't know why you can't understand that any given amount of the fuel aboard that plane may have had different experiences. Some burned and some didn't. Some exploded and some didn't. It happens. Fuel, again, is a liquid. It is fungible. Any amount has the same potential as any other amount of the same, greater or lesser amount. One gallon will burn. Ten gallons will burn. One gallon can explode. One once can explode. Or not.




Please prove that none of the grass was burned between the impact crater and the nearby wooded area.

Before I do, are you saying some of the grass outside the crater got burned from your jet fuel blast?


.
edit on 3-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Skeptics, most of this was supposedly dug out of the ground in that Shanksville field...



Why did we only see one piece of it (a smashed-up engine part that conveniently fit in the backhoe's bucket) coming out of the "hole"?



Seems to be a severe lack of evidence most of a 757 was buried under that field.



(Thanks to weedwacker for the photo that helps prove my case.
)


.
edit on 3-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
I cannot help support the thread with pictures or anything but when 9/11 occurred I was 12-13. I was extremely interested in anything and everything law enforcement and counter-terrorism. Hijacked planes and buildings crumbling at the hands of the terrorists peaked my interest and I was on board with everyone else who said "to hell with the Taliban!"

One thing struck me as very, very, odd though. In fact, it did my whole family...We are only ~20 miles from Shanksville so we saw pictures. Lots of pictures. SURE, they told us there were human remains, and they showed pictures of debris but never a lot of anything. One picture showed a charred stuffed animal. One picture showed pieces of an engine, and another the black box.

Look, all I am asking is "where is the rest of the debris?" I understand not showing human remains on local (or national) media, but what about the other debris. I also understand much of it could have disintegrated...but not all but a handful of pieces. If most of the metal and engines of the plane disintegrated...why didn't all of the human remains? Why didn't the stuffed animal burn to molecular ashes?

I feel very sorry if a plane full of passengers went down there, and I'm not ruling that out completely - I never have...but if a 12-13 year old can tell there's something fishy with the amount of debris shown by the media...shouldn't that put up a red flag?

Just food for thought I guess, please continue with your regularly scheduled thread



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by philosearcher
 



Look, all I am asking is "where is the rest of the debris?" I understand not showing human remains on local (or national) media, but what about the other debris. I also understand much of it could have disintegrated...but not all but a handful of pieces. If most of the metal and engines of the plane disintegrated...why didn't all of the human remains? Why didn't the stuffed animal burn to molecular ashes?


Bin with aircraft debris - recovery crews filled 10 of these. Recovered some 60 tons of aircraft debris



Plane was mostly reduced to fragments - some larger pieces were found Sections of fuselage





People onboard would have been reduced to "human hamburger"

Seen this is person when did recovery on crash scene of Lear 35

Largest part we found was half of chest, a hand and some severed fingers. Rest was scraps of tissue

At Shanksville recovered some 600 lbs of remains



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Game playing.

Thats not an answer.

Um, from your previous post...

Wherein that "previous post" can you find the word "most"?

Before I do, are you saying some of the grass outside the crater got burned from your jet fuel blast?

I don't know, unlike you, I wasn't there and have to rely on a few inconclusive photos taken from some distance. You obviously have first-hand knowledge of the crash site, what with your ability to make such definitive and absolute statements about the conditions.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by philosearcher

Look, all I am asking is "where is the rest of the debris?"

but if a 12-13 year old can tell there's something fishy with the amount of debris shown by the media...shouldn't that put up a red flag?

See, if a 12 year old got it, why can't the rest of America?!



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
These photos again?



Originally posted by thedman
Bin with aircraft debris - recovery crews filled 10 of these. Recovered some 60 tons of aircraft debris


Wow, "10" of those large metal dumpsters were filled? Like to see the source on that one! And why do lots of the pieces look rusty/aged? And why do none show logo colors? Say, what was the nearest business to the "crash" site?!


Plane was mostly reduced to fragments - some larger pieces were found Sections of fuselage



1. How do we even know those were taken at the scene? They are both close-ups where you can't judge the surroundings.
2. Why is the windowed piece totally stripped of primer, the curled visible outside surface is stripped of logo paint, and looks more aged than the other piece?
3. What are the odds that logo piece IS THE ONLY logo piece photographed allegedly at the scene and it is one of the largest pieces photographed?!!!!!!!!!
4. Why no fire damage to the brush/ground in any of those two pics?

.
edit on 4-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by philosearcher

Look, all I am asking is "where is the rest of the debris?"

but if a 12-13 year old can tell there's something fishy with the amount of debris shown by the media...shouldn't that put up a red flag?

See, if a 12 year old got it, why can't the rest of America?!


Well, believe it or not, sometimes grown-ups have a little more insight and experience which allows them to make better factual and value judgments then pre-teens.

Like a grown-up may understand that the fragmented remains of an airplane are not going to occupy the same amount of space as a whole and intact airplane would. But even most 12 year olds understand that a balloon that is inflated will occupy more space than one that is deflated.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Thats not an answer.

Because it was a stupid troll-like question. I know, I shouldn't be surprised.


Wherein that "previous post" can you find the word "most"?

Um, by the fact that paragraph by you was you bitching to me that all of the fuel wouldn't have burned, therefore "most."



I don't know, unlike you, I wasn't there and have to rely on a few inconclusive photos taken from some distance. You obviously have first-hand knowledge of the crash site, what with your ability to make such definitive and absolute statements about the conditions.

Try watching the videos then. Maybe go buy some glasses first. It's clear as day.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Um, by the fact that paragraph by you was you bitching to me that all of the fuel wouldn't have burned, therefore "most."


Huh???????

So if I say I have a $100 and I am not going to give it all to you, then you assume I am going to give you "most"?????

Please read the paragraph again. The point was quite simple. The fuel is a fungible liquid, ergo, there was no pre-determined fate for any amount of the material.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



1. How do we even know those were taken at the scene? They are both close-ups where you can't judge the surroundings.

And if the photo was taken from farther away in order to include the surrounding area then you would be crying about a lack of detail.

2. Why is the windowed piece totally stripped of primer, the curled visible outside surface is stripped of logo paint, and looks more aged than the other piece?

I only see one very small section that MAY BE the outside of the fuselage - so how is it that you can make the blanket statement that the piece is "totally stripped of primer"???

3. What are the odds that logo piece IS THE ONLY logo piece photographed allegedly at the scene and it is one of the largest pieces photographed?!!!!!!!!!

Now wait a minute - first your crying about the lack of large visible debris with identifying colors and then when you are shown one - you start crying that the odds say it shouldn't exist!!!!

4. Why no fire damage to the brush/ground in any of those two pics?

Because the fire from the impact didn't follow the plane fragments around like a little puppy dog.

.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Are you saying those ambassadors, who are going to the site voluntarily out of the goodness of their hearts, are pulling facts out of their arses?


I didn't say that. I would like to know where they got their information from. I am not saying they are wrong or right. I just didn't know that volunteers at a memorial were representatives of the "official story."

Now, instead of your baiting, when will you source a government offical that makes the claims that you make regarding the "tons and tons" line?

Also, when will you be contacting the professionals that were on there on 9/11? Are you aftraid of the answers you may be given? You are starting to remind me of that Killtown person.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
What sickens me is what our government did to the passengers of this flight, and the pentagon flight, after they rerouted and landed these planes. They obviously would have had to been liquidated. I wonder how they did it? Gas chamber? Firing squad?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by tom502
What sickens me is what our government did to the passengers of this flight, and the pentagon flight, after they rerouted and landed these planes. They obviously would have had to been liquidated. I wonder how they did it? Gas chamber? Firing squad?


Where did they land ?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Good question. I'd guess a secret air base.
Maybe area 51?
It'd have to be somwhere they could land.
I seem to recall a newspaper claiming flight 93 did land?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by tom502
Good question. I'd guess a secret air base.
Maybe area 51?
It'd have to be somwhere they could land.
I seem to recall a newspaper claiming flight 93 did land?


You know an even more sure fire way to "liquidate" everyone on board those planes? They could have just crashed them.....



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

I just didn't know that volunteers at a memorial were representatives of the "official story."

Um, just what in the world do you think they're there for, sell the tourists food? "Hot dogs! Get your hot dogs here!"



Now, instead of your baiting, when will you source a government offical that makes the claims that you make regarding the "tons and tons" line?

I showed you the link. I guess you're like hooper and don't believe the part of the official story that says most of the plane buried. It's so funny that not even some of you skeptics don't believe the official story!



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join