lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Feb 11, 2007 9:01:54 GMT -4
Theories, a) did it happen pretty much as we’ve been told, b) was it shot down or c) did no plane crash in that field near Shanksville PA?
I choose option “a)” of course. If you back “b)” or “c)” or another theory please provide evidence.
Len
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 11, 2007 11:37:28 GMT -4
This suspicious. Is it true that no bodies were found? killtown.911review.org/htb2.html(excerpt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. There was just nothing visible. It was the strangest feeling." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Feb 11, 2007 12:23:47 GMT -4
No "bodies" were found. Body parts...yes. When you hit things at 400mph+, the human physiology does not stand up well. I would hope that folks aren't surprised that there weren't bodies lying around the crash site. I suspect that there was little recognizable as human without pretty detailed examination.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 11, 2007 12:45:33 GMT -4
How can we verify that body parts were found. killtown.911review.org/htb2.html(excerpt) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you explain how paper, fabric, plastic, and other fragile items survived the crash relatively intact when witnesses could not find any traces of a large airplane or its passengers at the scene? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll do some looking around. If you have any pictures or something else, please post it. There might be something in here. z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showforum=20
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Feb 11, 2007 12:58:18 GMT -4
How are you so convinced that no body parts were found at the crash scene? Plastic is tough, paper doesn't shatter, and fabric, assuming it isn't burned, just tears. Did you read the accounts of the firefighters, and their horrific accounts of what happened to the poor souls who jumped from the towers? This as "only" impacting the ground at around 120mph. The human body is terribly fragile.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 11, 2007 13:07:22 GMT -4
How can we verify that body parts were found. killtown.911review.org/htb2.html(excerpt) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you explain how paper, fabric, plastic, and other fragile items survived the crash relatively intact when witnesses could not find any traces of a large airplane or its passengers at the scene? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll do some looking around. If you have any pictures or something else, please post it. There might be something in here. z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showforum=20 They found fragile pieces of paper and fabric (patches) from the Columbia shuttle breakup. That was moving many times the speed of sound and parts fell hundreds of thousands of feet. How many bodies did they find? It is not surprising at all to see a similar thing in a high speed aircraft crash.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 12, 2007 7:14:33 GMT -4
You misunderstood me. I found an article that seems to say that no body parts were found and I want to find out for sure. My position is that I don't know whether body parts were found or not. Is there any evidence such as pictures? It's hard to determine what actually happened if we weren't there.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 12, 2007 8:41:34 GMT -4
Is there any evidence such as pictures?
Yes there are, and I'm sure that if you google about for them you'll find them
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 12, 2007 8:48:26 GMT -4
Any source that tells you no bodies were found is totally wrong. There were literally hundreds of people, both first responders and people walking with buckets, who picked up tiny pieces of body parts.
There are some pictures of this, actual pictures of the plastic buckets with charred bones and other body parts, and of course of the lots of volunteers who were involved.
I won't post any links to these because it's not appropriate for this forum, but even a cursory search will find them if you are interested.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Feb 12, 2007 9:01:47 GMT -4
If Rocky follows his usual lines of thinking, he'll just claim the body parts where planted. After all, if his organization of hypothetical individuals can plant a large number of plane parts in a burning building without being noticed, then mere body parts ought to be a cinch.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 13, 2007 8:56:36 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Feb 13, 2007 12:19:01 GMT -4
Wow! You proved my point!
Something "good" from the Loose Change forum? Sorry, but that's a bit of an oxymoron. After being told from someone that water is one of the densest substances known, I have little faith in those people there (especially after the incidents they had with their admins and moderators).
I'm sure you can figure out what to Google, Rocky. Why not try "Flight 93, bodies"?
Not that anything you find will convince, as anything can be planted, according to your world.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 13, 2007 13:20:22 GMT -4
Rocky, why don't you do some real investigation and find out how the crash scene could have been planted under the noses of residents, especially since it would have to be done well enough to fool everybody from the first couple of people to rush to the scene, the first emergency responders, and the hundreds of volunteers scouring the ground for weeks picking up bits and pieces of bones.
Unless of course they're all "IN" on it...
What is it with you people who just deny any bit of evidence that contradicts your theory by saying "it could have been planted"?
Rocky, if you aren't American, then the education system in your country is a screwed up as it is here. And if you are, I'm sending my kids to private schools as of NOW!
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Feb 13, 2007 14:00:14 GMT -4
What I don't understand is why the Flight 93 crash site would be anything but an airline crash site. What possible reason would they have to fake a plane crash in the middle of a field? Even if there is some reason to do it, why not just crash a freakin' plane into the field?
Why must every part of 9/11 have some elaborate underlying conspiracy? Why can't some things just be as they seem, especially in the case of Flight 93?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 13, 2007 16:04:28 GMT -4
|
|