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: 27
26
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ATH911
 


"prove" what "case"??

That you have no understanding of what happens during a high speed impact with the ground? I think that is definately "proven".

If reasonable adults can't comprehend the amount of kinetic energy and forces involved, and the actual fragility of the airplane's "skeleton" in those instances, then there is nothing left to say to those same people.

Again Weedy, just what point do you think I'm trying to make with that post?




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Uh, because that's all the photos that were made available to the public?

Oh, so it's just another huge coincidence that supports the TM's argument. Funny how there are a lot of those.


How many photos would satisfy you? And since you're implying that the scene was staged by secret little government gnomes, why would you believe any number of photos.

Two for starters and the more photos of debris being unearthed would be more evidence for your side, because it would really difficult to plant evidence by burying them. Staging fewer unearthed debris would be less risky, that's why they only did one staging of unearthed debris. It's not rocket science, hooper.


Here's a chanllenge:
Without using the word staged, explain why there is the part of a jet engine embedded in the ground in Shanksville on 9/11/2001.

It's not embedded. It's just laying on top of the dirt. More proof it was planted.



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

Thats your call. You're pretty much alone.

Most truthers think that too (who know what the official story is). You skeptics just show how easily fooled you guys can be by being convinced from only one photo of a certain thing when logically there should be many more than one (such as one photo of one piece being unearthed when tons and tons of debris supposedly was AND one photo of one piece of logo debris when 95% of the plane was supposedly recovered).



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Oh, so it's just another huge coincidence that supports the TM's argument. Funny how there are a lot of those.

How is that a coincidence? Coincidental to what? You wanted to see a photo of them extracting material from the earth at the impact site and you have it. You call the whole thing faked, phony, staged yet you imply that there is this secret number of photos that would satisfy you - how does that work? And let us not forget that besides parts of the plane there were also remains of the passengers.

Two for starters and the more photos of debris being unearthed would be more evidence for your side, because it would really difficult to plant evidence by burying them. Staging fewer unearthed debris would be less risky, that's why they only did one staging of unearthed debris. It's not rocket science, hooper.

No its not rocket science, rocket science is based on logical and factual observation. Your speculations are based on an accute knowledge of x files episodes. How is staging more buried debris riskier? Who was going to question it? Who were they staging it for? How would they control who saw what? Who is staging it?

It's not embedded. It's just laying on top of the dirt. More proof it was planted.

Try looking at the photo that you didn't edit. You know the original.

Most truthers think that too (who know what the official story is).

In my opinion most "truthers" actually think that they are part of the majority and that the only detractors are a handful of "debunkers" on the internet.

You skeptics just show how easily fooled you guys can be by being convinced from only one photo of a certain thing when logically there should be many more than one (such as one photo of one piece being unearthed when tons and tons of debris supposedly was AND one photo of one piece of logo debris when 95% of the plane was supposedly recovered).

Again, you are confusing the internet with reality. The results of a google search does not express the total extent of reality. In the end, you can't explain the reality of that photo without delving into your own imagination. And I, like rest of humanity, will hold one sliver of reality to be of infinitely greater in value and weight than the totality of your imagination.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Pretty fancy wordsmithin' there, hoop. Problem is, you don't speak for me. I pray for your forgiveness because you need it. Yours is a lost cause. We will win this fight.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 



Pretty fancy wordsmithin' there, hoop.

Thanks, I try my best.

Problem is, you don't speak for me.

Sure I do, you just don't realize it yet.

I pray for your forgiveness

Thank you.

because you need it.

As do we all.

Yours is a lost cause.

But a worthy one. And a just one. And a good one. And thats all I need.

We will win this fight.

What's your game plan? Because it sure isn't by outnumbering your opponents.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


You need a better challenge...hopefully one to OPEN YOUR EYES to your own foolishness:


....you guys can be by being convinced from only one photo of a certain thing when logically there should be many more than one ....



Here is the challenge:

Do you remember ValueJet 592 (radio call sign was "Critter")? Just outside Miami? High speed, nearly vertical impact into, in that case, a swamp.....the Florida Everglades. Only about 4 to 5 feet of standing water, at its most....the majority was much shallower.


NOW....using online only, find every photo of every piece of wreckage that was recovered, AS it was being recovered, on site. It happened in daylight, mid-morning. People were on scene very quickly. There should (according to you....because you have unrealistic expectations) be photos plastered all over the Internet, for any voyeur who wishes to view them.

SO, go find them, and post the link. (You may wish to repeat that [futile] exercise with any number of other airplane crash examples). But, I'd focus on ones that at least bear a passing resemblance to United 93, in terms of velocity on impact....

.....in other words, don't try to shoehorn in the slower-speed crashes, that spread (due to momentum) along the ground, and break apart (slowly) into big chunks, as part of the crash sequence. Those are entirely different circumstance. THOSE would be red-herring/strawman examples....

edit on 27 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by amy2x
 


Because his mother was visiting her brother - he didnt know who would answer the phone.....



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

You saw this where, exactly? On "Mission: Impossible"?

Firstly, Mark Bingham was known to use his full name, when on the phone...force of habit. Everyone who knew him says so. ONLY the idiotic "truthers" have focused on this, and haven't bothered to ASK anyone else...they toss it out there as if it's some sort of "proof"....

Secondly....let's say you ARE the "evil government" and you DO have that "Mission: Impossible" voice-morphing technology....are you going to fudge it up that badly?? LOL!! I mean, unless you knew Mark Bingham, and his habits....would you be THAT stupid??? Try applying some logic, here....

-----speaking of logic....any idea, yet, how that other person knew the combination to her own safe....IF it was a "fake" voice, and someone else speaking???


Regarding the seat phones. Not sure whether they were there or not. I believe it is flight 77 that has been reported not to have had them.

Government relies on people like you that think government would never do such a heinous things.

Maybe she is still alive and a government agent or prisoner. Perhaps she was gleaned for information before they killed her.

Short video segment from the program Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory show. 1st 3.5 minutes covers the morphing technology and a few other points.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


So is this planted ?












This is evidence from federal court trial

Not all the debris was buried - forward section of plane wound up in woods



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Those items in picture look planted.

Any pictures of arms,legs or other body parts?Cargo,Suitcases?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by amy2x
 



Those items in picture look planted.

Damn! You beat me to it. I was just going to say that was what you were going to say. Its a one size fits all response to anything. OK, I lie a little bit, I was going to use the word "staged". Same difference though. Can you possibly describe what an "unplanted" photo looks like? Lets take the first photo - the fusealge section - what makes it looked "planted"? I am just confused - planted is a verb, an action word, and we know that the piece of aricraft got there by some action, how does one distinguish between them in the past tense. I mean, I can look at a fire in a fireplace and know it was started by something, but you seem to able to look at the same fire and determine that it was started with a match and not a lighter - how do you do that?


Any pictures of arms,legs or other body parts?Cargo,Suitcases?

Couldn't those be planted as well?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by amy2x
 


You really are determined to resist any rationality aren't you. So the evil perps set about Linda Gronlund and beat her safe combination out of her ? That sounds most likely to you ? How did they know she had a safe in her closet.

But you keep avoiding this ; how did the perps morph voices for last minute UA 93 passengers, some of whom only switched from Flight 91 that very morning, bearing in mind that you obviously have to have voice samples ?

How, for anyone, let alone last minute passengers could the perps gain all the deeply personal info. pet names, manners of speaking to fool 100 % of the spouses, siblings, parents etc called ?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

How is that a coincidence? Coincidental to what?

Why doesn't it surprise me you don't know?


You wanted to see a photo of them extracting material from the earth at the impact site and you have it.

Maybe if they said only one piece was buried.
You just don't get it, hooper, you just don't get it.


You call the whole thing faked, phony, staged yet you imply that there is this secret number of photos that would satisfy you - how does that work?

Logic, hooper, logic.


And let us not forget that besides parts of the plane there were also remains of the passengers.

Got a photo?!


No its not rocket science, rocket science is based on logical and factual observation.

Yes, see above.


How is staging more buried debris riskier? Who was going to question it? Who were they staging it for? How would they control who saw what? Who is staging it?

If they didn't stage one photo of something supposedly being unearthed, what evidence would you use when us "nutty truthers" ask "There's no evidence anything was dug out of the ground."?


Try looking at the photo that you didn't edit. You know the original.

I did. It's not embedded. It's just laying on top of the dirt. That's why it was realized that engine piece was just lowered down there by the backhoe bucket. How else would they realistically stage it?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Weedy, why do you keep side-stepping my questions?

Answer before I answer any of yours:

just what point do you think I'm trying to make with that post?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ATH911
 

So is this planted ?



Can you draw a dot on an aerial photo of the area to show me where this piece was?


Why is this the only pieces that shows UA logo colors if 95% of the plane was supposedly recovered?!? And what are the odds that the only logo piece seen happens to be one of the largest pieces that supposedly survived?


Source?


This is evidence from federal court trial

So?


Not all the debris was buried - forward section of plane wound up in woods

Yeah, how did that happened?!?
And feel free to show some photos that show the woods littered with shattered remnants of the cockpit section.

So yeah, all those were staged.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Why doesn't it surprise me you don't know?

Because, unfortunately I am stuck here in reality and have no clue why you think it is a coincidence when they find a piece of the plane at the crash site.

Maybe if they said only one piece was buried. You just don't get it, hooper, you just don't get it.

I'm sorry, but you're the one who is all alone here. So, there should be a lot of photos of a lot of pieces of the plane being unearthed, but there are not because they only buried this one piece, so it must be staged, but then if you're going to stage a plane crash then why bury only one piece, unless of course there were more pieces buried but they just didn't photo every piece as it was unearthed, or if they did then they just didn't post them all on the iternet, or there is more to reality then what can be found on Google Images.

Logic, hooper, logic.

Yep, that sure is what your little fantasy is lacking, Stage a crash scene and then don't let anyone see it.

Got a photo?!

Why? Did you run out of your supply of the word "planted"? Sorry, that game is over. You pulled the "planted" card and dealt yourself out of the game.

If they didn't stage one photo of something supposedly being unearthed, what evidence would you use when us "nutty truthers" ask "There's no evidence anything was dug out of the ground."?

Well, if the whole thing is orchestrated, staged, managed, fabricated or artificated then the narrative choice is in the control of the fabricator in which case they simply say none of it was buried and then no nutty truther questions.

I did. It's not embedded. It's just laying on top of the dirt. That's why it was realized that engine piece was just lowered down there by the backhoe bucket. How else would they realistically stage it?

Silly me, I forgot you are only responsible to your own reality.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Cargo,Suitcases?

Couldn't those be planted as well?

Yes, let's see some photos of em. There should be an average of around 90 pieces of luggage if 44 passengers were on board.
edit on 27-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper

Cargo,Suitcases?

Couldn't those be planted as well?

Yes, let's see some photos of em. There should be an average of around 90 pieces of luggage if 44 passengers were on board.
edit on 27-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)


Couldn't they be planted? Is there some heretofore unknown law of physics that says that you can't stage luggage at a crash site only plane parts? Please explain why you couldn't stage the luggage or hell, just fake the photos - when your limited only to your imagination anything is possible.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Whyhi
 


If I were in charge, I would do things to create MISDIRECTION. Its doenst have to make sense. infact its not supposed to mae sense. Its supposed to make people, people like you, wonder why they would do this, and then question it.

Misdirection. Thats all it is. Or the plans changed during their execution.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



And feel free to show some photos....


AND


So yeah, all those were staged.


Oh yeah, he's on a search for the "truth"!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join