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.

 

The Wreckage of FLT 93

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I know this is out of band in topic, but using PhotoBucket to share images is just not a good option any more. As far as I am concerned , they shot themselves in the head. If you want your linked images to last in posts, upload them to ATS, or find a better external storage site.
edit on 25-10-2014 by charlyv because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Yeah i cant see the pics on the page either. Whats going on?



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

The FBI alone spent more money investigating 9/11 than was spent investigating Monica's dress. Then, there was the money spent by the ATF, CIA, NSA, NYPD, FDNY, NIST, the 9/11 Commission....... Only ignorant people think what you posted.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

That is why I am here, to overcome my ignorance. So with all these organizations and money spent on 9/11, where are the results consistent with a standard air crash investigation for flight 93?



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev


Flight 93, was not a "standard" air crash. It was an intentional act, confirmed by the physical evidence.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I am not aware of any air crash that is standard, they all have their own causes, faults and implications. What I was asking for was the standard methodology used to assess the incident and identify the causes. Flight 93 is not the only incident that day to get its investigation mistreated with rumor and innuendo throughout the media. The reasons of national security that stopped further investigation of very important questions throughout the 9/11 commission highlights a deep and systemic problem.

While some of the polling results do vary, over 50% of Americans know there are big problems with the 9/11 story. In Germany it is around 80-90% that put the blame within the US government, either by intentionally allowing it to happen or performing it all. Iran has been saying it for years at the United Nations, generally causing the US, Britain and Australia to walk out.

It is in the national interest to look like a goose on the international stage? Is it in the national interest for the worlds police force to be bent and corrupt without any standards of investigation? Is it in the national interest to have some kind of Hitler complex and go on campaign? Is it in the national interest to have to lie and deceive ourselfs for the sacrifice?

When looking at the amount and quality of investigation that goes on for one murder trial, surly the death of millions does deserve as much, if not more.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I see pics of a trailer full of metal scraps, most under a 1' in size.
I thought flight 93 crashed in to the ground, not flown in to a blender.
History? Maybe.
Evidence? Not so much.
Not even PBS or the Smithsonian are immune to political pressures these days.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

The FBI, gathered evidence, studied records, and interviewed witnesses. Standard terrorism investigation. Only people who did not pay attention think there was a mystery there.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I do agree, the evidence is pretty clear when you take the time to go through it. So where to from here? Do we continue with a morally defunct, dog eat dog, might has right rule or do we move towards something based on a more common rule of law, basic standards of humanity where the right has the might?

I know the world it a tough and ugly place at times, but when you have the worlds largest and most advanced military do you overcome it by playing to these tough and ugly rules or do you overcome it by setting a higher standard? When seeing our culture is becoming what our grandparents fought against it is sad and hurts.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:24 AM
link   
baloney. this is evidence of nothing. keep telling yourself it matters. i know the truth hurts sometimes. hence your inability to cope with it, and your incessant bleating. on one subject. you have an agenda. not a good one.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Thanks for posting these, waypastvne. I remember reading about the Flight 93 debris being stored in containers at an airport near Shanksville several years ago, but I lost the link and never could refind it. Also, that is the 1st time I've seen pictures of the debris in the containers.
edit on 1-11-2014 by Boone 870 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to:I have a question about the general crash area terrain. Is it a lot of square footage of previously mined land or was this a really lucky shot to find a small section of loose soil? It doesn't really matter but what with the coincidence with where the Pentagon was struck in the one renovated section too, it makes me curious.
Also, the debris field to me could very well be from a ground impact as opposed to being shot down. My curiosity here is again peaked though only because we hear in the tapes released of the pilots and the commanders I think talking to each other, they say negative clearance to shoot and they seem understandably genuinely hesitant to commit to a shoot down. Yet when someone, I can't remember who but it's a commonly quoted conversation, is confirming to Rumsfeld about whether they have planes scrambled or not, this person states something like "and I believe we already shot a couple down" or close to it. Then repeats it. If that was such a shocking and difficult thing to do, I'm troubled by the reaction to this news on the part of Rumsfeld, the lack of attempt to ask more questions and get more details on this bold statement, and how someone can just calmly relay this news to the Secretary of Defence without being 100% sure. It's not like he said "don't worry, Johnny picked up the milk." He says "Johnny shot down a civilian aircraft, or maybe two." Where did he get the idea that this happened and have it be relatively possible enough to include in a verbal update with the secretary of defence himself?

Ivar_Karlsen



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

As for the Pentagon, look at it. That wedge, was renovated first because it would be the LEAST disruptive to day to day operations. The other wedges have heliports, entrances, or other features that would be disrupted by construction. (and before you mention the heliport on that side, it was actually considered part of the adjacent wedge.

Why the terrorists picked that side....again, the easiest side to hit, the other sides all have issues that would complicate the approach. Look at an aerial photo, half of the building lies in the approach/departure area of Reagan National Airport...too big a chance that you would have an airliner in your way.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596 I must say this is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that pentagon's point of impact was the easiest side to hit. You make some great points (high air traffic volume, etc) to back that up. I understand about the wedges vs the heliport, and I have always said that one thing in the government's favor was that if in fact the impact point was so unlikely a target as people say, why was it the very first wedge chosen to upgrade? Obviously someone in the Clinton administration thought it was such a probable target that they started here. I wonder if they got their money back on that job though since the plane apparently was able to completely penetrate this newly upgraded wall.
I also would still like to learn more about the topography surrounding the flight 93 crash zone. Any insights on that?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

The exterior wall, wasn't completely torn apart and rebuilt, most of it was the same as the day as it was constructed. It was accessed from the inside and they added materials to make it resistant to car bombs.

Now, during the rebuild, they discovered a...flaw....in the construction. In the haste of its wartime constructions, the bricklayers would stack two and sometimes three bricks before they added mortar instead of having mortar between each layer. The result? A weaker wall.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I didn't really want to expand on this topic on this thread, but either way there was supposed to be an upgrade. The original wall had flaws sure but the renovation wouldn't have. This plane was COMPLETELY inside the building, wings included apparently because if not, where are they? In one sense the wall held up miraculously well for a large airline strike what with the windows in very close proximity to the impact point not being broken and the wall not collapsing until around 45 minutes later. That was great and likely saved a lot of lives. Yet somehow the wall failed miserably enough just a few feet away at the direct point of impact to allow a piece of tin, the nose, two large wings and a tail, and the majority of two huge engines to be swallowed entirely. Id be having a serious interview with the contractors is all I'm saying. Either way, no matter what wall you were aiming for, wouldn't it have been easier, less time consuming, less risky, and more damage inducing just to get in the general vicinity of the Pentagon and then fall down directly on top of it?
This swallowing effect is also present in the topic of this thread which is flight 93. If it's not suspicious at all, it's still curious that the only plane to hit the ground just happened to of all places hit a spot of earth that was softened from mining and ready to swallow all the evidence. I haven't found any information on whether it was a wide area of old mines or if it was like one strip and the plane mailed it dead on. The more expansive the mining grounds are, the less curious I'll find it.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

Dive bombing is almost impossible in a 757 sized aircraft. Even in purpose built dive bombers in WWII, they missed, a lot. As for the wall, the keel beam is what punched through. That's the strongest part of the aircraft, as it's basically just an I-beam laying on its side in the bottom of the aircraft. Short of being feet thick, there's not a wall out there that would resist it.

From what I have heard about Shanksville, it was a pretty big mine that covered a large area. They were on the very edge of the mine when they hit the ground.

There's a map on the right side of this page that gives an idea of the size of the mine.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596
I would also like to thank you for patiently answering my questions and not biting my head off. I tend to believe the "official story" as it's referred to but I still have some questions that thanks to you and the more willing responders to I am now starting to see from a different angle.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Thanks for the answer and the map. an interesting reference point about the dive bombing from you with regard to the war. Having never piloted a plane before I guess I would have thought diving onto the top of a large building a spot easier than barley clearing a highway and then flying at near ground level at a target with comparatively smaller area and less freedom of movement with the plane. Something certainly accomplished this feat though because whatever one believes, that five frames of footage at least shows something coming across and making the strike.
I appreciate the map of the shanksville terrain. it is what it is I guess. The plane had to hit somewhere. I don't know if you saw my earlier question from another post but it was that if there was no shoot down order at this time and with the fact that, understandably, the transcripts from conversations show the military hesitant to take such action, why then was it reported to Donald Rumsfeld that there were fighter jets in the air and that it was believed they shot a couple planes down. Not even one. It said a couple. Rumsfeld just takes it on stride. How could someone report this type of thing so casually without being 100% sure, if it wasn't true(which I believe it wasn't) where did he even get the idea from, and how can a Secretary of Defense not ask more about it or seem more surprised, especially when that authorization was never issued?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

It seems like diving would be the easiest way to do it, but if you look at the specialized dive bombers, they all have large tails, and ways to slow down while diving. The forces involved tend to push the plane around a good bit more than people realize, and something like a commercial plane you'd have to be a better pilot than you would flying it the way they did.

As for the shootdown thing, there WERE fighters in the area that could have done it, and even among the military there was a LOT of bad information going on, and missed communications that day. It exposed a huge problem with the Command and Control for the military. Someone was probably told that planes were down, assumed that they were shot down, and passed it on to Rumsfeld.




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join