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.

 

Missing other halves of Shanks black boxes and other obvious signs of planting

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Here's the alleged Flight 93 black boxes "found" at the Shanksville field:



Here are some obvious signs these two black boxes were planted:

- Notice both of the "found" black boxes are missing their other halves they are bolted on to and that these two other halves were never photographed.




- Notice of the two photographed halves, both are the main units and both have been positioned so the labels show in the shots. These halves could easily just be the shells, which would make them lighter and, therefore, easier to plant instead of lugging the heavier full units, especially if they were still attached to the heavy and bulkier other halves.



- Notice both photos are closeups, so there's no way to know where they were actually taken.

- Notice in the following shot the box has been perched up on a piece of metal to be level for the shot and is the only photograph at the scene that shows wires, even there a 757 has miles of wires in it (you'd think there'd be tons of wire scrap strewn throughout the scene). It also looks like its been photographed down in the excavated hole which is ridiculous to think they'd stop the excavation process and have a photographer jump down, stepping on alleged passenger remains, just to snap a photo of it instead of just waiting until they hauled it out of the ground before photographing it, like they allegedly did with that other black box.




- Notice is this shot it looks like they tucked a little piece of tin under the rocks next to the box as if they were trying to make it look more real.




Is it just coincidence that there are so many signs that these black boxes were planted?




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Thats because the other halves are expendable.

The important info is stored in what they found.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Well, I can neither support or dismiss the idea that they were planted. I see no evidence that definitively shows them to be planted. However, I see nothing solid in the photographs to say 100% that these are the genuine article.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


The parts that survived are the only parts of those units that are intended to be crash survivable. The remainder are power supply boxes and are not constructed to survive the crash. In other words, the fact that the portions that were designed to survive the crash, indeed survived the crash is further evidence that Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, PA on the morning of September 11, 2001.

As to the matter of them being photographed with the labels clearly showing them to be CVR and the FDR is just a matter of realizing that those labels are pretty much on all sides of the items. Also, since we do not have a precise narrative by the persons who found the recorders may have moved them before the photograph was taken in order to show what they were. And please don't read me the riot act about disturbing evidence at a crime scene, that's just sillines.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnteBellum
Thats because the other halves are expendable.

The important info is stored in what they found.

Why would that matter for a photograph?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by AnteBellum
Thats because the other halves are expendable.

The important info is stored in what they found.

Why would that matter for a photograph?


It doesn't matter. They are not in the photograph because, unlike the items that were designed to survive the crash intact, they did not survive the crash. They were not designed to survive the crash, they were the power supply units were the power from the plane was transfered to the recorder. Which, of course, does not need to survive the crash because if the plane crashes then it probably doesn't need to keep recording and therefore does not and cannot have power, from the plane.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 


The parts that survived are the only parts of those units that are intended to be crash survivable. The remainder are power supply boxes and are not constructed to survive the crash.

Too bad they weren't made out of this material that survived unscathed:




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
unlike the items that were designed to survive the crash intact, they did not survive the crash.

How do you know?

.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
unlike the items that were designed to survive the crash intact, they did not survive the crash.

How do you know?

.


I stand corrected, I meant to say survived intact. And no, I don't know for sure, unlike you I was not there. They photographed the recorder portions. The power supply units were not attached when the recorders were photographed. They connections to the power supply units, like the power supply units were not designed to survive the crash. Should we parse the word "survive" for a little while? If you took a fine tooth comb through all the recovered wreckage for the next twenty years I'm pretty sure you may be able to re-assemble a large portion of those power supply units, to that extent and within that frame of reference they therefore survived. But as recognizable units, probably not. If they did, they were not specifically photographed as I am sure a lot of other things were not. And if they were photographed then the photos have simply never been posted on the internet. The photos you refer to were posted as evidence in a criminal trial. There may be othere photos. I do not know, nor do I have any compelling desire to see them. You obviously do, have you ever made any effort to petition persons or organizations to determine if there other photos? That may be an excellent starting point in your search for the truth - research outside of the Google function on your web browser.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Too bad they weren't made out of this material that survived unscathed:


Yep, too bad. Let me ask you this - if I dropped the power supply unit out of plane at, say, 20,000 feet and that hankerchief, which is more likely to be found in one piece on the ground and why?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Yep, too bad. Let me ask you this - if I dropped the power supply unit out of plane at, say, 20,000 feet and that hankerchief, which is more likely to be found in one piece on the ground and why?


How are those conditions even close to what the official story states?

You seem to be implying that the plane suffered damage/impact while in the air.....shoot down?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


If UA 93's flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder were planted isn't it more likely they would have planted with their attached units still attached ?

It seems to me that if you are alleging they were faked and planted then you are opening up a can of worms you can't answer :-

(a) If it is possible to fake and plant these units why was AA 77's cockpit voice recorder recovered from the Pentagon too badly damaged to retrieve anything from ? and why were the black boxes for the WTC flights not recovered at all ?

(b) How do you fake a flight data recorder which records multiple parameters per second and, in the cases of UA 93 and AA 77 also recorded flights prior to 9/11.

(c) How do you fake a cockpit voice recorder for UA 93 which marries up exactly with air traffic control tapes which recorded what was said in the cockpit when the terrorists thought they were addressing the passengers but were in fact broadcasting ?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ATH911
 


If UA 93's flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder were planted isn't it more likely they would have planted with their attached units still attached ?

Would you think it would be easier to plant heavier, bulkier full BB units, or just their unattached lightweight shells? I'd pick the latter.


(a) If it is possible to fake and plant these units why was AA 77's cockpit voice recorder recovered from the Pentagon too badly damaged to retrieve anything from ?

Who said it was AA77's CVR?


and why were the black boxes for the WTC flights not recovered at all ?

Good question, why were NONE of those FOUR BBs found? Maybe no planes hit there after all.



(b) How do you fake a flight data recorder which records multiple parameters per second and, in the cases of UA 93 and AA 77 also recorded flights prior to 9/11.

I'm guessing with a computer.


(c) How do you fake a cockpit voice recorder for UA 93 which marries up exactly with air traffic control tapes which recorded what was said in the cockpit when the terrorists thought they were addressing the passengers but were in fact broadcasting ?

Who said that data was extracted from the CVR again?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


You haven't answered my point. If it is perfectly possible to fake and plant these things, and to do so was important to the plot, why was the CVR from the Pentagon unreadable and why no boxes from the WTC ?

You guess that a flight data recorder can be faked by a computer but do you have any evidence to support that ?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

For all I know, they could have taken the pictures to show the state the CVR/FDR were in prior to transportation to whereever they were going.

Oh, and it's not entirely unique for the CVR/FDR units to separate from its chassis. In fact, the same thing happened to the FDR from Air France flight 447: www.bea.aero... And that was a relatively less violent impact (from what we know of it) than that of UA93.
edit on 26-5-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
While you make a good argument that isnt evidence.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
delusion - (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary

Everything in your post is an assumption, based on your preconceived assumption, that the big bad Govt. is lying to you, all day every day.

Isn't this getting old yet? Making up theories, that are impossible to disprove, simply because they are based on 0% reality?

"Look how they "placed" the tin under the rock"



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   


Good question, why were NONE of those FOUR BBs found? Maybe no planes hit there after all.


I think he's back to the hologram theory again.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
pilotless drones wouldn't need voice recorders.........
just sayin'..............



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join