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: 24
26
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeauExactly! Why do we have to prove anything? Why do you guys have to waste hours and hours trying to convince people that there is an entire 747 in that hole? Why? Because it's unbelievable, thats why. I'm ok with the fact that you believe it, for whatever reason, What I'm not ok with is you telling me I'm too stupid to understand your argument. We do hear what you are saying. That's why we continue to push for the truth. To the other guy who gave a list of names and numbers: Save your breath, because ANYONE who tries to advance the OS as truth is suspect. God only knows what means have been used to alter peoples testimony or affect their memory of that day.
 




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   


God only knows what means have been used to alter peoples testimony or affect their memory of that day.


Are you starting a new conspiracy theory? Or just using one conspiracy theory to cover the short comings of another?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Good post...and I welcome me to it.

Thanks OP for raising yet another "How did that happen" issue.

Well, I for one, with my good half a brain concluded waaay long ago that no plane crashed because if a plane did crash there would be debris. Two things are apparent...

One: All known laws of physics do not operate in Shanksville
Two: All manner of explanations, regardless of believability are in operation on this issue.

Please accept my sincere apologies if this offends all those readers who still believe in suspended animation.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 
Maybe. What I do know for certain is, that you will do everything you can to further confuse this issue. I have zero respect for your opinions on this matter, based solely on your posts in the past. This is not meant to do anything other than to clarify my contempt for those of you who continue to push your agenda. If the mods find this response too personal, then I give up.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 



Save your breath, because ANYONE who tries to advance the OS as truth is suspect.


And welcome to the wonderful world of circular logic:

"I want proof of the OS"!

"Here's some proof"

"It proves the OS, therefore its not proof of the OS"!

Ad nauseum.

Good Luck with the New Investigation!



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
One month later and the skeptics are still no closer to proving that most of Flight 93 buried in that field.

Who'd a thought that a 757 mostly burying (supposedly) would be so hard to prove.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
One month later and the skeptics are still no closer to proving that most of Flight 93 buried in that field.

Who'd a thought that a 757 mostly burying (supposedly) would be so hard to prove.


Actually, lets be accurate - the burden isnot trying to prove what happened at Shanksville, PA on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, the burden is trying to prove it to someone (you) that has already decided that it was all staged - even though the only "proof" you have of the staging is that, well, you won't accept any proof that denies your "staging" reality.

Otherwise, it has been well proven to everyone else in the world with only a microscopic handful of full time conspiracist to the exception.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by youngdrodeau



Dude,why should we even have to do all that?Every other plane crash in the world is undeniable.Every other time,all you have to do is see the breaking news footage to see all the wreckage everywhere.One look at the crashsite & you can tell a plane crashed there.So why not this time?Why do we have to take somebody's word for this & just hear stories about all the wreckage we don't see?


A truther that doesn't want to do research outside of a conspiracy theory website... shocking!

A truther that can look at a picture and know all!

Did you ever look into Flight 1771? Most truthers run away from that conversation. Go do a google search on that. Go to YouTube. Come back and tell us what you think.

You ask should you do all that? You guys are the one asking questions. The information I provided will give you the answers. Why are you so afraid to call or write them? Killtown has proven how much research he is capable of. Hopefully, you can do much better.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

A truther that doesn't want to do research outside of a conspiracy theory website... shocking!

We didn't think if a 757 mostly buried it would be so hard to prove. Can you prove it?


Did you ever look into Flight 1771? Most truthers run away from that conversation. Go do a google search on that. Go to YouTube. Come back and tell us what you think.

Here's what I think, I think most of that plane did NOT bury, since aerial footage shows a tremendous more amount of debris scattered across the field even though it was a much smaller plane, so comparing that crash is apples and oranges.


You ask should you do all that? You guys are the one asking questions.

We thought you skeptics were smart enough to provide us answers. Guess we were wrong about that.
edit on 18-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


Dude,I'm on your side of the argument.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by youngdrodeau



Dude,why should we even have to do all that?Every other plane crash in the world is undeniable.Every other time,all you have to do is see the breaking news footage to see all the wreckage everywhere.One look at the crashsite & you can tell a plane crashed there.So why not this time?Why do we have to take somebody's word for this & just hear stories about all the wreckage we don't see?


A truther that doesn't want to do research outside of a conspiracy theory website... shocking!

A truther that can look at a picture and know all!

Did you ever look into Flight 1771? Most truthers run away from that conversation. Go do a google search on that. Go to YouTube. Come back and tell us what you think.

You ask should you do all that? You guys are the one asking questions. The information I provided will give you the answers. Why are you so afraid to call or write them? Killtown has proven how much research he is capable of. Hopefully, you can do much better.


1)I don't get ANY info from conspiracy websites & have said nothing to suggest I do.I get my info from official,confirmable sources & the OS,as I know the best way to catch a liar is to use their own words against them.Stop ASSuming things.

2)Well,seeing is believing,isn't it?Live footage is the most damning evidence there is,right?And isn't your case for there being plenty of wreckage found based on pictures you've seen?Now,whats more convincing?....Live video footage from minutes after the 'crash' or a few snap shots taken days & weeks after the fact?

3)I've seen Flight 1771.Not impressed.I suspect that was PSYOPS pre-testing.Too coincidental that the few times this happens,it's always been in some secluded dirt field in some small town with a tiny population.Also,very coincidental that this took place in '87,around the end of the Cold War,which is when the military industrial complex would wanna start planning the next big war......
But even if I'm wrong,doesn't matter.This is still an EXTREMELY rare case.It is the least likely thing to happen in a plane crash.Even if it is possible,it's highly improbable.Of course,highly improbable things do happen.Every once in a while,you may drop a quarter on the ground & it'll land on its side & stand up.So,maybe you could just call Flight 93 an anomaly.Chalk it up to coincidence.But problem is,these kinda anomalies are present all through the Official story.Ya got:
TWO atomized planes.
THREE buildings collapsing straight down into their own footprint by accident.
NORAD happening to be running drills that impair proper defense.
Bldg 7 becoming the FIRST & ONLY building to collapse from fire (And into its own footprint,mind you.Double scientific anomaly).
The 'terrorists' unnecessarily flying past the Pentagon and happening to hit the section that holds financial records,killing the whole staff,one day after $2.3 TRILLION is reported missing.
The 'terrorists' hitting the only section that is under renovation.
Larry Silverstein having just leased & insured the WTC.
And there's plenty more.

That alone is TEN occurences that are highly improbable & some even questionably impossible.Its just too much coincidence.Its like dropping 10 quarters and all 10 landing on their side.Or hitting the Mega Millions Jackpot 10 times in a row.Or 10 armed men shooting at you,and all of their guns jamming.Its just not possible.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 
I know that Young, you may have me confused with someone else. By the way, are you paying homage to 'The Big Lebowski'? Great flick.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


Oh okay.I must've been confused by one of your post.

Big Lebowski?Never seen it.But what did I say that suggest that.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 



TWO atomized planes.

No plane atomized on 9/11/2001. None. 0 Repeating this little bit of hyperbole isn't going to make it so.


THREE buildings collapsing straight down into their own footprint by accident.

No building collapsed into their own footprint. See above.


NORAD happening to be running drills that impair proper defense.

NORAD, like the rest of the military is always engaged in exercises and there's no evidence it intefered with defense.


Bldg 7 becoming the FIRST & ONLY building to collapse from fire (And into its own footprint,mind you.Double scientific anomaly).

So unitl Building 7 no other building had ever collapsed as a result of fire - pure BS.

The 'terrorists' unnecessarily flying past the Pentagon and happening to hit the section that holds financial records,killing the whole staff,one day after $2.3 TRILLION is reported missing.

It didn't kill the whole staff - and there is no missing money and accounting problems at the DOD were a topic long before 9/11.


The 'terrorists' hitting the only section that is under renovation.

1 in 5 chance. Big deal. If they had hit any other you would be able to come up with some conspiracy theory involving that.


Larry Silverstein having just leased & insured the WTC.

So?


And there's plenty more.

Yep, there is no limit to the human imagination.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 
The part played by Jeff Bridges is named "Dude". Very funny movie, I recommend watching if you ever get the opportunity. Regarding our struggle with the trusters, I wonder what happened to Varemia? Maybe he gave up trying to push the rope, or as we call it "The Official Story".



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 



TWO atomized planes...

No plane atomized on 9/11/2001. None. 0 Repeating this little bit of hyperbole isn't going to make it so..


Flight's 93 & 77 have left no large,recognizable pieces of debris.This has been rationalized by DEBUNKERS by siting a test video of an F4 Phantom flying into a wall.In this video,very little debris is left of the plane (As is the case in Shanksville) & it is described by the narrator as being "Atomized".So ACCORDING TO YOU DEBUNKERS,they "atomized".Or disintergrated or vaporized or whatever you wanna call it.


THREE buildings collapsing straight down into their own footprint by accident.



"No building collapsed into their own footprint. See above." ~Hooper

Yes they did.They didn't fall to one side or another.They fell straight down into their own footprint.This is undisputable.I don't think even most debunkers would agree with you on that.


NORAD happening to be running drills that impair proper defense.

NORAD, like the rest of the military is always engaged in exercises and there's no evidence it intefered with defense."~hooper

Yes they are.However,from what I've gathered through research,exercises of this kind,in which almost all fighter jets in the US are sent away,and that mirror the actual events of 9/11,are not a normal thing.I may be wrong.But if they are,that would be a further indication that Bush & others lied when claiming "We never anticated planes as weapons." and beg the question "Why are ya lyin?"....And according to senior govt officials,this did indeed impair proper response.There are videos all of YT of them saying this in their own words.


Bldg 7 becoming the FIRST & ONLY building to collapse from fire (And into its own footprint,mind you.Double scientific anomaly).

So unitl Building 7 no other building had ever collapsed as a result of fire - pure BS."~hooper

Thats absolutely correct.No other STEEL FRAMED building has ever collapsed from fire.Matter of fact,I'm pretty sure no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to anything but explosives.Earthquakes maybe,IDK.


The 'terrorists' unnecessarily flying past the Pentagon and happening to hit the section that holds financial records,killing the whole staff,one day after $2.3 TRILLION is reported missing.

It didn't kill the whole staff - and there is no missing money and accounting problems at the DOD were a topic long before 9/11."~hooper

Didn't kill the whole staff?Not too sure about that.I've got a YT video of a Pentagon survivor saying "All the guys on that floor died" in reference to the Budget Office.He might've been stretching "all" to mean "most",but the point still stands.....And yes there was missing money.Donald Rumsfeld said it himself.All you gotta do is YouTube search "2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon 9/10/01".See for yourself....And accounting problems don't account for $2.3 TRILLION dollars missing in one fiscal year.You'd have to lose track of about $6.3Billion+ a day.Not that much error in the world.


The 'terrorists' hitting the only section that is under renovation.

1 in 5 chance. Big deal. If they had hit any other you would be able to come up with some conspiracy theory involving that."~hooper

I didn't say side.I said section.There's 5 sides.Each side has 3 main sections.Each section has 3 main sections,that have 3sections.This Budget Office was only in this sub-section.So we're talkin 1 in 45 chance by total sections.1 in 9 by side.Keep in mind that the 1 in 5 odds of hitting a certain side are different than those of hitting a certain section on a side.That all depends on direction you're coming from.And this plane shouldn't have been coming from that direction.There's no plausible,conceivable reason why 'terrorists' would fly past the building & hit a U-turn to hit this side,instead of just nose diving down into the closest side (Which would've been on the opposite side).After all,these 'terrorists' wouldn't have known that NORAD was in such disarray.They'd probably wanna go a. and hit their target ASAP before fighter jets came to blow them out the sky,right?


Larry Silverstein having just leased & insured the WTC.

So?"~hooper

So that's rather suspicious,isn't it?Wouldn't the cops suspect a man who's wife was murdered 3 months after buying a big life insurance policy on her?Wouldn't you?Especially if there were other weird 'coincidences' coming from his direction?Such as,he just happened to have given her bodyguards the day off.
And ya gotta look at how Silverstein came to hold the lease....The WTC was owned & operated by Port Authority of NY/NJ since its creation.It was Neo-con NY Gov.George Pataki (And to a lesser extent,NJ Gov.Christina Todd Whitman [Bush's infamous EPA .] & a few others) who lead the push to privatize it.Him & Silverstein are longtime friends.He helped Silverstein get the lease in July 2001.Pataki moves his office out of the WTC around this time.Silverstein gets a multi billion dollar insurance policy on the WTC through a few insurers,one of which Marvin Bush is a board member of (HCC Holdings).This policy is worth double due poor wording regarding acts of terrorism (Did Marvin Bush help write this policy?IDK.Just speculating.). So just 3 months after leasing & insuring the WTC,9/11 happens and makes him rich.And he luckily avoids it all because of a 'dentist appointment' that morning.How lucky is Larry?If his buddy George hadn't made it a point to privatize the WTC & helped him get the lease right before this all happened,he would've missed out on billions.Wonder if he thanked Good Ol Georgie with a couple greenbacks from that insurance money?Hmmm?

Hypothetically speaking,if you were George Pataki & knew that the towers were gonna come down,wouldn't you wanna capitalize on the situation?Wouldn't you find a buddy to lease them out to,under the condition that he split the insurance money with you?


And there's plenty more.

Yep, there is no limit to the human imagination.



Can't argue with that.You debunkers go to the far reaches of Imaginationland to rationalize & believe the OV.My favorite is "The 175 ft airplane that buried itself into a 15 ft ditch".Most people wouldn't believe somethin so absurd.But then again,the OV did say that this was "very loose soil".Well,that explains it all.This dirt was special.Magic even.Super-special,magical,plane eating soil.Its like quicksand to the 10th power.HAHA.

Seriously man,give it up.9/11 was an inside job.You know that.You just don't wanna admit it to yourself cuz it's too scary & you've got too much invested into being a debunker.Never too late to admit you're wrong.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 



Flight's 93 & 77 have left no large,recognizable pieces of debris.

Please look up the word "atomize".


Yes they did.They didn't fall to one side or another.They fell straight down into their own footprint.

The footprint of a building equals the physical limits of its foundation. Not the general neighborhood. Things falling straight down here on the planet earth is not news. At least to most people.


Yes they are.However,from what I've gathered through research,exercises of this kind,in which almost all fighter jets in the US are sent away,and that mirror the actual events of 9/11,are not a normal thing.I may be wrong.

I think you need to do some additional research. Beyond the typical conspiracy websites.


Thats absolutely correct.No other STEEL FRAMED building has ever collapsed from fire.

Can you direct me to that database of all buildings that have been subjected to fire, their construction type and size and the scope and consequences of the fire? You must have it at your fingertips, because I am sure you would not make such an absolute statement without having carefully reviewing ALL the data.


Didn't kill the whole staff?Not too sure about that.I've got a YT video of a Pentagon survivor saying "All the guys on that floor died" in reference to the Budget Office.He might've been stretching "all" to mean "most",but the point still stands.....

Yes, the point that you make absolute statements and then have to back way off when challenged because you know they are basically BS.


And yes there was missing money.Donald Rumsfeld said it himself.All you gotta do is YouTube search "2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon 9/10/01".See for yourself....And accounting problems don't account for $2.3 TRILLION dollars missing in one fiscal year.You'd have to lose track of about $6.3Billion+ a day.Not that much error in the world.

Did you ever try and follow up with that? See if they did any more accounting, see if any of money was found? Or are you just assuming that because you saw something on a Youtube video that it must be true and the end of the story.


So we're talkin 1 in 45 chance by total sections.

So? 1 in 45 an lets face it, no matter where it hit you could invest it with some conspiratol meaning.


So that's rather suspicious,isn't it?Wouldn't the cops suspect a man who's wife was murdered 3 months after buying a big life insurance policy on her?

Nope. Your analogy is, well, nonsense. Silverstein leased and insured a building complex in NYC. That was his business. The WTC property was not the first or only property he owned or leased or insured. Also, please prove that he has financially benefitted from the sitaution. Kind of like Brad Pitt taking out a $300,000 life insurance policy on Angeline Jolie. Nice little of chunk of change but not nearly what she is worth.


And ya gotta look at how Silverstein came to hold the lease....The WTC was owned & operated by Port Authority of NY/NJ since its creation.It was Neo-con NY Gov.George Pataki (And to a lesser extent,NJ Gov.Christina Todd Whitman [Bush's infamous EPA .] & a few others) who lead the push to privatize it.Him & Silverstein are longtime friends.He helped Silverstein get the lease in July 2001.Pataki moves his office out of the WTC around this time.Silverstein gets a multi billion dollar insurance policy on the WTC through a few insurers,one of which Marvin Bush is a board member of (HCC Holdings).This policy is worth double due poor wording regarding acts of terrorism (Did Marvin Bush help write this policy?IDK.Just speculating.). So just 3 months after leasing & insuring the WTC,9/11 happens and makes him rich.And he luckily avoids it all because of a 'dentist appointment' that morning.How lucky is Larry?If his buddy George hadn't made it a point to privatize the WTC & helped him get the lease right before this all happened,he would've missed out on billions.Wonder if he thanked Good Ol Georgie with a couple greenbacks from that insurance money?Hmmm?

You better do a little more research is all I've got to say. Silverstein was a reluctant leasee. I don't believe he even bid on the lease. The buildings are still owned by the Port Authority. The Port Authority insisted that the insurance have a terrorism rider due to the events of 1993.

Hypothetically speaking,if you were George Pataki & knew that the towers were gonna come down,wouldn't you wanna capitalize on the situation?Wouldn't you find a buddy to lease them out to,under the condition that he split the insurance money with you?

So, I assume you have some evidence that Silverstein is splitting this imaginery insurance windfall with George?


Seriously man,give it up.9/11 was an inside job.You know that.You just don't wanna admit it to yourself cuz it's too scary & you've got too much invested into being a debunker.Never too late to admit you're wrong.

Right back at ya.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 


Flight's 93 & 77 have left no large,recognizable pieces of debris.

Please look up the word "atomize".~hooper

According to merriam-webster.com:

Definition of ATOMIZE
transitive verb
1: to treat as made up of many discrete units
>>>>>>>2: to reduce to minute particles or to a fine spray



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 



$14 million down & $4.55Billion back.Yeh.He profitted.


You realize, of course, that he just doesn't pocket that money and walk away, right? That the money is used to rebuild the towers?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 



Atomize is clearly the best word used to describe Flights 77 & 93.

So they were reduced to a fine spray?

And if I were to use a word that technically wasn't accurate,you still get what I'm saying,so stop knitpicking & making strawmen.

No, I don't. Word usage is important. You are presenting a factual argument, not writing a love poem.

The twin towers wouldn't exactly constitute falling into their own footprint,because they threw debris for miles.Only WTC 7 did.

Now wait, we just went from falling into their own footprints to being spread out for "miles". How can you make a judgement, factual or otherwise, with such a large range of deviation in your understanding?

And THINGS falling straight down are not news.BUILDINGS doing so,is.There's a reason why only a select few experts are allowed do controlled demolition.Buildings don't collapse into their own footprint by chance.If that were so,ppl wouldn't pay demolition experts.They'd just pour some gas & light a match.

Yes, buildings will always fall into their own "footprint" unless otherwise acted upon. Things fall down. Or more precisely, except possibly on a cosmic level, gravity works in a straight line. Actually there are more than a few demolition experts out there. They are not a rare breed. And yes, many a contractor, charged with demolishing a building would love to just throw gasoline and a match on it and then haul away the ashes, but any thinking person could see some of the safety issues with that process. On a side note, did you now that a lot of the early Americans use to routinely burn down their log cabins before moving on to a new location? It was the easiest way to retrieve the very valuable iron nails used in the construction.

And while the Towers didn't fall into their own footprints & don't resemble the typical,SUCCESSFUL controlled demolition,they did fall in a very controlled fashion.Debris flying outward is not the desired outcome of a normal CD,but this wasnt the normal CD.It was blown from top to bottom for shock value.Of course,if you're gonna do it that way,you can't make it 100% safe.The debris is gonna fly out.But you can make sure the buildings don't tilt & destroy every building in its path and kill more people than necessary.This was as controlled as possible.

Wow, you are going to really hurt yourself trying to twist out of that logic. It was unsuccessful because some of the material fell out and away from its footprint, but it was successful because they intended to have some of the material fall out and away. But nowhere do you accept the possibility that it was not a controlled demolition because of the uncotrolled manner in which it collapsed.

Again,I don't visit conspiracy websites.So stop saying that.The research I've done comes from official news sources & websites.I'd rather go to debunker sites than conspiracy sites.

So which official new sources said that flights 93 and 77 "atomized"?

But like I said,I may be wrong.Its kinda hard for me being an average Joe to research NORAD test exercises,as that's top secret national security stuff.

So, you admit that you do not have any way to know, yet somehow you're sure enough that you feel obligated to repeat it.

Can you direct me to ONE link to prove me wrong?

World Trade Center Building #7.

Didn't kill the whole staff?Not too sure about that.

Then why say it?

Again,stop knitpicking at wording & using strawmen.Point still stands,alot of the staff were wiped out.Possibly the whole staff.That's nowhere near BS.Here's what a Pentagon worker had to say.You be the judge.

"Your Mom is dead"!
"Oh my God, how did she die, what happened"??
"Well, she's not dead, but she doesn't feel very good"
"Then why did you say she died"?
"Oh quit knitpicking"

And yes there was missing money.Donald Rumsfeld said it himself.All you gotta do is YouTube search "2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon 9/10/01".See for yourself....And accounting problems don't account for $2.3 TRILLION dollars missing in one fiscal year.You'd have to lose track of about $6.3Billion+ a day.Not that much error in the world.

Ok, seriosuly, you've got to do a little more reading about this issue. No one ever said that they lost 2.3 trillion dollars in one year.

Again,stop ASSuming things & drawing strawmen.And no,I wouldn't.If they'd hit another section and killed Dick Cheney,Rumsfeld or ANY prominent member of the administration,I'd probably doubt it.But then again,if alot of facts were different & made sense,I'd believe it.But thats not the case.

My assumptions are not unreasonable. I've seen just about every fact, pseudo fact and rumor involving the events of 9/11 turned into threads of a conspiracy.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join