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.
Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper
Nice side-stepping all my questions, hooper.
You're a real pro at that!
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.
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.
reply to post by ATH911
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah because hauling all that dirt away along with the excavated debris and having to separate and dispose the dirt at your facility, instead of conveniently separating it and burying the dirt back at the field you dug it out of, is real cost effective.
Huh?
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
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?
Please post the official government report that precisely delineates between airplane debris recovered from embeddment site and the material that was not. Been waiting.
Please elaborate on the rigourous training the Ambassadors recieved
Then what % of a 757 do you see lying on top of the ground in all the photos before the cleanup started?
71.6543568932%
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by DIDtm
Not according to ATH911, they should have just been throwing everything into one big pile so he could see it later on in the aerial photos.
Originally posted by Judge_Holden
They actually went through the crash scene "with a fine comb," as you suggested they should have earlier. In fact, the mere purpose of placing debris in such bins was to separate it from the human remains
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by DIDtm
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.
Not according to ATH911, they should have just been throwing everything into one big pile so he could see it later on in the aerial photos.
Originally posted by DIDtm
He is stating that if in fact 90%+ of the plane was dug up from being buried...as claimed by the 9/11 report, then there would be much more debris in that dumpster (if in fact you side with fellow trusters like Judge) that that particular bin contained debris that was dug up.
Because after all, according to the report, the plane DID NOT disintegrate (which fellow trusters believe it did) and they did in fact, find 90% of the plane.
Originally posted by ATH911
Originally posted by DIDtm
He is stating that if in fact 90%+ of the plane was dug up from being buried...as claimed by the 9/11 report, then there would be much more debris in that dumpster (if in fact you side with fellow trusters like Judge) that that particular bin contained debris that was dug up.
Because after all, according to the report, the plane DID NOT disintegrate (which fellow trusters believe it did) and they did in fact, find 90% of the plane.
The specific numbers were 80% of the 757 being dug up out of the ground and 95% of the plane recovered in total.
Your scenario:
- After processing each scoop, they hauled away tons and tons of plane debris, you just couldn't tell.
Originally posted by ATH911
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by DIDtm
Not according to ATH911, they should have just been throwing everything into one big pile so he could see it later on in the aerial photos.
hooper, stop lying.
No...post after post you either ignore his point or dont comprehend it.
He is stating that if in fact 90%+ of the plane was dug up from being buried...
as claimed by the 9/11 report,
then there would be much more debris in that dumpster (if in fact you side with fellow trusters like Judge) that that particular bin contained debris that was dug up.
Because after all, according to the report, the plane DID NOT disintegrate (which fellow trusters believe it did) and they did in fact, find 90% of the plane.
You see...us truthers as you call us, only have questions.
We often have different questions.
Like some of you claim the plane in PA disintegrated, while others claim that it buried itself and was dug it up. But none of you offer logical answers as to why there was 2 different crash sites miles apart, and luggage was found scattered for miles.
None of you can answer why no fires or smoke were seen by news crews and reported on, when a PLANE CRASHED.
None of you can answer how a plane can bury itself. 90% of it.
None of you can answer where the wing imprints are on the ground from crashing...for those that dont believe it disintegrated.
Instead, there is debate of what debris filled up a garbage bin....where it came from.
Was it dug up or was it collected from around the crash
No...post after post you either ignore his point or dont comprehend it.
He is stating that if in fact 90%+ of the plane was dug up from being buried...
Yes it's humorous because the official story says 95% of Flight 93 was recovered and most of that recovered debris was supposedly hidden in the ground, so if tons of plane debris *didn't* come out of that ground, then that means the official claim that 95% of the plane was recovered was a lie. Don't you agree?
then there would be much more debris in that dumpster (if in fact you side with fellow trusters like Judge) that that particular bin contained debris that was dug up.
Because after all, according to the report, the plane DID NOT disintegrate (which fellow trusters believe it did) and they did in fact, find 90% of the plane.
You see...us truthers as you call us, only have questions.
We often have different questions.
Like some of you claim the plane in PA disintegrated, while others claim that it buried itself and was dug it up. But none of you offer logical answers as to why there was 2 different crash sites miles apart, and luggage was found scattered for miles.
None of you can answer why no fires or smoke were seen by news crews and reported on, when a PLANE CRASHED.
None of you can answer how a plane can bury itself. 90% of it.
None of you can answer where the wing imprints are on the ground from crashing...for those that dont believe it disintegrated.
Originally posted by hooper
Well, you could tell...
Again, it all comes down to your own personal interpretation of what you think you can and cannot see in a handful of photos you found on the internet.
Originally posted by hooper
Just callin' them as I see'em. You think there should be a pile of debris big enough to be visible from an aerial photo, not me.
Originally posted by hooper
Really? Luggage sacttered for miles? Actual luggage? Where did you pick up that little gem?
Good Lord, there are photos -on the internet - showing the woods adjacent to the impact site smoldering.
Planes don't bury themselves. Planes hit the ground hard and then they break apart and the pieces....well, why even bother.
I didn't see a single piece of airplane anywhere... Little could be found. Because of the reclaimed strip mine, the ground was softer than other surrounding areas. The plane had pierced the earth like a spoon in a cup of coffee: the spoon forced the coffee back, and then the coffee immediately closed around the spoon as though nothing had troubled the surface. Anything that remained of Flight 93 was buried deep in the ground.
(Lisa Beamer, Let's Roll!: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Courage, July 2002, p. 231)
If you can't understand basic things like impact then there is no use in trying to explain.
The imprints on the ground are....on the ground.