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: 22
26
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

You'd think if you really wanted answers you would consider asking the right questions to the right people.

I guess this finally proves you have no desire to learn anything.

Case closed.

Do you realized you were just putting yourself down?!




posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 02:11 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.
)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
surfnow2,

Where'd ya go?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


working alot
i am not sure if i even mentioned this or not
but i found out recently my friends uncle is the one
leading the investigation of 93 for the PSP. i asked questions about what happened and
i am satisfied with the answers. What also made sense is what ive been saying all along.
a plane slamming into the ground at close to 500 mph is going to vaporize most of the debris
you have to remember there was alot of debris found it was in tiny pieces



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


HUH???

You show the photo of a PORTION of a section of ONE of the engines....after being destroyed in the impact...compared to the line drawing of the internal structure of the AIRFRAME?????

And you say, to me....."Thanks"???

Honestly.....I don't think you have much of a clue anymore, about what you may be trying to convey.

Could you be more specific??? Could you also post photos or images of the engine, both before and after, as comparison??

Because, otherwise, your post is not worth anything. It is "suggestive", but not substantive...NOR "evidence" to support any of your many contentions......



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
I showed that the official story says most of Flight 93 buried underground, reaching a depth of about 45 feet where the 757 supposedly accordioned against a layer of bedrock.

On 9/13, officials started excavating the alleged hole the plane supposedly made and on the same day supposedly unearthed one of the plane's engines and one of the plane's black boxes at a depth of 15 feet.

On 9/16,* only three days later, they reportedly finished extracting all of the plane that buried, a total of about 80% of the Boeing 757. If Flight 93 weighed about 60 tons at impact (minus all fluids), 80% of it would have equaled about 24 cars-worth of debris.

Logically, there should have been numerous piles of plane debris collected outside of the hole waiting to be processed after extraction.

However, as you can see in the excavation photos below, there were no piles of plane debris collected, only numerous piles of extracted dirt.


* www.dep.state.pa.us... (use wayback)




And if you look at all the piles of dirt collected outside the hole, they look to be the exact amount to completely fill back up the excavated hole, meaning nothing came out of the ground, except dirt, and that means the official story that most of the plane buried is a lie, the official story that 95% of the Boeing 757 was recovered is a lie, thereby the official story that Flight 93 crashed there is a lie.
edit on 18-12-2010 by ATH911 because: typo

All the planes that day came from portals,that plane right there had bad corridantes,it came out the portal wrong.
portal wars coming soon.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfnow2
i am not sure if i even mentioned this or not
but i found out recently my friends uncle is the one
leading the investigation of 93 for the PSP.

PSP?


i asked questions about what happened and i am satisfied with the answers.

What did you ask him and what did he say?


What also made sense is what ive been saying all along.
a plane slamming into the ground at close to 500 mph is going to vaporize most of the debris
you have to remember there was alot of debris found it was in tiny pieces

How many times do I have to tell you that the official story say 95% was recovered and most of it was buried? That's in complete contrast from what you are saying.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Could you be more specific???

Why am I not surprised you don't understand, WW?

Go back and read my post more carefully.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


OH.....I understand YOU better than you realize, you can rest assured....


Why am I not surprised you don't understand, WW?


PAY very, very close attention. YOU (ATH911) have deceived and distorted and (dare I say it??) spammed this Forum, for months and years.....

....oh, I understand what YOU are, all too well.

Back to the assertion of yours, and the side-step and attempt of YOURS to avoid it.....

...EXPLAIN how the image of the interior three-dimensional "skin-off" technical drawing of the structure of a typical Boeing 757 has anything....ANYTHING at all to do with the image that prompted this exchange...that YOU posted, and inferred (disingenuously, and incorrectly) about the photo of a PORTION of one engine of United 93 as it was being excavated from its resting place, AT the crash site.

IF YOU WANT TO USE DIAGRAMS.....then, by all means USE THE PROPER DIAGRAMS!!!! Use the ones OF THE ENGINES themselves.....but, that is not your "style"....as those of us who have seen your posts are well aware.....

AS TO the diagrams of the engines? Well.....I don't have the Pratt & Whitney images loaded up (as installed on the United 93 airframe)....but, I DO have the Rolls Royce engine images, as were installed on American 77 (another Boeing 757). You see, the engines while having a few minor technical differences, will still be essentially identical......HERE:

Here, as an indication of a "typical" interior cut-away view of a typical airliner engine (and the Pratt & Whitney installed on United 93 are very similar):




An idea of what it looks like INSTALLED and mounted on the pylon, and attached to the wing:



NOW......have you been educated yet? OR, will you desire to remain on this track of ignorance, distraction, and....well, I shudder to call you what I think is appropriate --- will let others guess......??



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Um, just what do you think my point was in my post?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhackerGo ahead Wack, shudder a lil' bit and call him what you want. You can show your diagrams over and over again, ad nauseum. As long as you're there stirring the pot, I'll be there to add some reasoning to the mix. You guys have fired your best shots and haven't even dented the argument for truth.
 



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
It's hilarious how Killtown keeps up with his same ol rhetoric. What is funny is that Killtown hasn't a clue as to what happened in Shanksville. He simply states there wasn't a crash there. The witnesses must have been planted! The picture was faked by the FBI! The personal belongings... staged! The DNA.. FAKED! The plane parts? PLANTED! The thousands of investigators? FOOLED! "hoodwinked!" ... FDR? Perps planted it! CVR? Der, the perps planted that too!

What about the phone calls?? OMG... obvioulsly.. VOICE MORPHED!

When will the Killtowns of the truthmovement come up with a theory of what happened in shanksville... and back it up with some facts?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 
And your point is? What we;re all saying is that we know what didn't happen in Shanksville. Are you to have me believe that you actually care about resolving this issue? If nothing else, you guys are relentless. That might work if you weren't defending a pack of lies, which in this case you are. There's no way you'll come out on top because cheaters never win. And that's the fact, Jack.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
And that's the fact, Jack.


You, like Killtown are not aware of what facts are. You continue to posture, yet refuse to offer any proof of a conspiracy.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 
You're right. I refuse to offer any proof of a conspiracy. Tough titties, what are you gonna' do about it? I'm your biggest problem. I don't need any proof of anything. You do. I'm the one who doesn't need a shred of evidence to strenghten my argument because I'm a nut, remember? Keep polishing your turd, and I'll keep screaming 'Foul'.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Six Sigma
 
You're right. I refuse to offer any proof of a conspiracy. Tough titties, what are you gonna' do about it? I'm your biggest problem. I don't need any proof of anything. You do. I'm the one who doesn't need a shred of evidence to strenghten my argument because I'm a nut, remember? Keep polishing your turd, and I'll keep screaming 'Foul'.


Spoken like a veteran Truther.

Thanks for proving my point.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
not aware of what facts are.

What are the facts then? We've asking you skeptics this for quite a while now. What are the crash details?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Six Sigma
not aware of what facts are.

What are the facts then? We've asking you skeptics this for quite a while now. What are the crash details?


The question is not "what are the facts" but, do you understand the concept of a fact? Do you know what constitutes a "fact"?

Don't have the crash "details". Too bad. Wouldn't matter anyway. You have established, without a doubt, that anything that denies your fantasy about no plane having crashed in Shanksville on the morning of 9/11/2001 will be dismissed as fabricated or insufficient.

You are shown a photo, that was submitted into evidence in a US court of law, of a large part of a jet engine embedded in the earth at the crash site and your response?

Its not dirty enough!

It fits in the bucket (with nicely photoshopped version attached)!

What are the part numbers?

So, congrats! You've managed to establish that offering you answers is as rewarding as talking to a wall.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Six Sigma
not aware of what facts are.

What are the facts then? We've asking you skeptics this for quite a while now. What are the crash details?


You won't listen to me or anyone else. You will continue with the same garbage that is spewed on Killtows blogspot. You will follow whatever that anti-semite has to say. I have offered you contact information countless times to get the facts FROM THE SOURCE. You, like Killtown have refused.

If you'd like, I will be more than happy to give you information again.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

You won't listen to me or anyone else.

Sure I will. What are the official crash details of Flight 93?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join