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: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by ATH911
 


So what do you think it was? A missile...?

I don't think it was a 757 and that's the only thing that really matters to prove a conspiracy, wouldn't you agree?




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


elaborate... well, from a conspiracy view, if what happened isnt what it seems, then why would the plane crash there? if the whole thing was a conspiracy then 93 would have something to it. what would be the reason for that location? why confiscate the land, or atleast attempt eminent domain? something would have had to have been there if it wasnt the OS.

does that help?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by hooper
 


Title of thread:

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

Posting pictures of plane debris is off-topic?

If it wasn't debris allegedly excavated out of the ground it is.


I know it isn't exactly what you are looking for, but would it be wrong to say that a dumpster full of--well, plane debris--qualifies as a pile of... plane debris?

How much of that debris came from underneath the ground?

And bonus question, how many pieces of debris in that dumpster has United colors on it?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


Would you be so kind to explain what exactly was located there? Or are you assuming that something had to have been there? I don't quite understand where you are going with this... yet.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by ATH911
 


I obtained the first picture from a 9/11 conspiracy website. Apparently I am not the only one who was wrong about that one.

If you can't see the scattered debris in the last picture, then I can't help you. It is not a shovel. Nice try, though.

Apparently you have nothing to say about the rest of the pictures.


OMG. The answer.
The waste bin filled about 1/10th the capacity.
Yes. How could we not have seen it before?
Thats exactly the size of a 757 if placed side by side.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



So your are debating something your don't even believe in?!

Buried and embedded are two different things, two different words, two different situations.

Too bad the official story says most of it buried and accordioned against a layer of bedrock 45 feet below.

No sorry, you are incorrect. There is no official numbers in that regard. I know you have pasted together a collage of newspaper articles, quotes from volunteers at the memorial, etc to try and construct some kind of model but that does not constitute an official "story". Besides, it is all irrelevant as it all comes down to you proclaiming "inside job" based on your review of some photos you found on the internet.


Why do you keep lying hooper? The official story tellers are saying 80% was buried and that's the ONLY logically explanation that 95% of a 757 was recovered, yet the photos of the ground debris only shows about 15% of a 757. Do the math hooper.


Ok, cut it out with the "lying" crap. The "official story tellers"? What department do they work for?

Again, it all comes down to your opinion about a few photos you found on the internet.

Told you who what and where with regards to the remains of the plane. Go look at them.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 



Thats exactly the size of a 757 if placed side by side.


Really? You think the remains of a plane that impacted the earth at over 500mph should occupy the same volume as when the plane was whole?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Waste of a post.

You are assuming many things by such a comment: that that particular dumpster was the only one at the site; that the excavation/retrieval process had been concluded; that that was the only debris found, and so on and so fourth.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by hooper
 


elaborate... well, from a conspiracy view, if what happened isnt what it seems, then why would the plane crash there? if the whole thing was a conspiracy then 93 would have something to it. what would be the reason for that location? why confiscate the land, or atleast attempt eminent domain? something would have had to have been there if it wasnt the OS.

does that help?


Maybe, a little. I don't know. There is nothing special about that location. Or at least nothing anymore special then anywhere else. It is rural, but then so is most of the US. As for the emminent domain, that only came into play when they were considering the memorial site.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



I don't think it was a 757 and that's the only thing that really matters to prove a conspiracy, wouldn't you agree?


If I don't "think" Shanksville Pennsylvania exists, that doesn't "prove" anything, I have to prove that it doesn't exist by falsifying the presented evidence. All truthers do is perpetuate their own biased questions and use this to prove a point, when in reality, all they're doing is showing how inept they are and why they shouldn't be taken seriously.

You're main point from the original post, in my opinion, was the hypothesis that there should have been massive piles of debris, and that there is no evidence of a plane crash, as shown by the title of the thread. You were given pictures of debris, to me, that would be evidence of a plane crash, and the assumption that there would be massive piles of wreckage is based on the fact that you presume to know the specifics of how a plane should act in an event such as this when it's extremely complex and chaotic.

My advice would be to go research the scientific method, study the evidence of the particular event WITHOUT bias, and use the scientific method to come to a conclusion.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 




How much of that debris came from underneath the ground?


I can ask the same question to satisfy my point, as well:

How much of that debris didn't come out of the ground?



And bonus question, how many pieces of debris in that dumpster has United colors on it?


A United Airlines plane is painted silver, blue, and red (with some white trimmings). The majority of the plane (I will take a guess and say about 80%) is silver. So, if you look at the pieces in that bin, it is obvious that the majority of them are silver. It would be expected that a minority of those pieces are blue or red, and, assuming my eyes are as good as yours, it is obvious that most of them are not colored pieces. So, I would say that all of the debris in the bin displays United colors.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by DIDtm
 



Thats exactly the size of a 757 if placed side by side.


Really? You think the remains of a plane that impacted the earth at over 500mph should occupy the same volume as when the plane was whole?


Absolutely not.
But the two HUGE engines wouldn't have disintegrated. (Oh...wait...they found one 15 feet underground, fully buried~LOL). A huge fire would have ensued after the crash. At least a very large explosion due to all the jet fuel. There would be large pieces of the airplane scattered for several hundred meters around. There would be wing divets in the ground. (That were not there prior to the crash).
And most importantly, the news crews may have seen some of this.



NO SMOKE...NO FIRE....



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Buried and embedded are two different things, two different words, two different situations.

Where you not defending what I said couldn't have happened, officials digging out 80% of the plane that had buried, but no piles of plane debris, just piles of dirt?


No sorry, you are incorrect. There is no official numbers in that regard. I know you have pasted together a collage of newspaper articles, quotes from volunteers at the memorial, etc to try and construct some kind of model but that does not constitute an official "story". Besides, it is all irrelevant as it all comes down to you proclaiming "inside job" based on your review of some photos you found on the internet.

Deny the official facts all you want hooper. But if I was trying to prove a 757 crashed there, I'd deny the absurd official story too!



Ok, cut it out with the "lying" crap. The "official story tellers"? What department do they work for?

Yes, the Flight 93 Ambassadors who have be rigorously trained about the official facts at the memorial operated by the National Parks Service. You were unaware of this government memorial at the official crash scene?


Again, it all comes down to your opinion about a few photos you found on the internet.

Then what % of a 757 do you see lying on top of the ground in all the photos before the cleanup started?

Let me remind you that the FBI claimed to have recovered 95% of the 757. The math has to add up hooper, wouldn't you agree?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Waste of a post.

You are assuming many things by such a comment: that that particular dumpster was the only one at the site; that the excavation/retrieval process had been concluded; that that was the only debris found, and so on and so fourth.


Waste of a post?
You showed a dumpster barely filled with debris that was picked up around the crash site.
That debris wouldnt have been in the hole that was dug.
They treated this as a crime scene...see above video I posted.
They wouldnt have went through what was being dug up to then dispose of pieces. They would have transported everything to a lab, where it was then combed through with a fine comb.
They supposedly found bone fragments (slivers) that they tested DNA through.
They sure wouldnt have disposed of possible slivers in the same container as metal and such.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
You're main point from the original post, in my opinion, was the hypothesis that there should have been massive piles of debris, and that there is no evidence of a plane crash, as shown by the title of the thread. You were given pictures of debris, to me, that would be evidence of a plane crash, and the assumption that there would be massive piles of wreckage is based on the fact that you presume to know the specifics of how a plane should act in an event such as this when it's extremely complex and chaotic.

Too bad you misinterpreted what I was talking about. What was that about not taking truthers seriously again?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Let me remind you that the FBI claimed to have recovered 95% of the 757. The math has to add up hooper, wouldn't you agree?


So, prove them wrong with something other than your opinion about photos you found on the internet. So how long were you at the scene?


signature:



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judge_Holden

I can ask the same question to satisfy my point, as well:

You brought that photo up as evidence. Why do I have to prove it? But that dumpster don't even look like it was near the crater, or 80% of a 757. Two pieces of evidence it wasn't debris allegedly excavated.



And bonus question, how many pieces of debris in that dumpster has United colors on it?
A United Airlines plane is painted silver, blue, and red (with some white trimmings). The majority of the plane (I will take a guess and say about 80%) is silver. So, if you look at the pieces in that bin, it is obvious that the majority of them are silver.
Too bad those United planes back then didn't have silver, but grey.


It would be expected that a minority of those pieces are blue or red, and, assuming my eyes are as good as yours, it is obvious that most of them are not colored pieces.

How many do you see show blue or red?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

Nice side-stepping all my questions, hooper.

You're a real pro at that!



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Where you not defending what I said couldn't have happened, officials digging out 80% of the plane that had buried, but no piles of plane debris, just piles of dirt?

I am not even sure what that sentence means. Didn't you admit that they probably would not have just thrown all the remains in one big pile so that you can see it in an aerial photo? Nope, no piles of plane debris -why? Because there were professionals in charge at the scene. Can you imagine that conversation?
Responder 1: "Hey -what do you want to do with the pieces we find from the plane"?
Responder 2: "Just throw them all in one big pile out in the open so that they can get good photos from the planes"
Responder 1: "Roger that"!


Deny the official facts all you want hooper. But if I was trying to prove a 757 crashed there, I'd deny the absurd official story too!

Please post the official government report that precisely delineates between airplane debris recovered from embeddment site and the material that was not. Been waiting.


Yes, the Flight 93 Ambassadors who have be rigorously trained about the official facts at the memorial operated by the National Parks Service. You were unaware of this government memorial at the official crash scene?

Please elaborate on the rigourous training the Ambassadors recieved, maybe you can then find that government report I keep asking you for.


Then what % of a 757 do you see lying on top of the ground in all the photos before the cleanup started?

71.6543568932% Prove I'm wrong.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Too bad you misinterpreted what I was talking about. What was that about not taking truthers seriously again?


The title clearing states:

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

Which means you're stating there is no evidence and assuming the "plane debris" would be in "piles"

You also said:


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



meaning nothing came out of the ground



thereby the official story that Flight 93 crashed there is a lie.


What part did I misinterpret?




top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join