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.

 

Does anyone have pictures of the flight 93 crash? Do any exist?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Just curious...

Where WAS that plane? I've never seen the wreakage and would love to see it today.

Any pictures? I was told there werent any.

Am i wrong?




posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:37 AM
link   
I remember seeing it on the news when it happened. The field was covered with debris. I cant find any good ones, theyre all too small to see, but there are tones of workers by the crater where it hit. This is the best one I could find.




posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Thanks, Ludachris, but WHERE IS THE AIRPLANE?

My point.

What kind of debris was it? Anything having to do with airplane stuff?

I'm looking for airplane debris.

Got any?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:46 AM
link   
I found another




I dont know, I know that the debris was spread for miles though. My uncle is a fireman in DC. He himself didnt get to see the wreckage in Penns. or the Pentagon, but some of the guys he works with did, they said the wreckage was everywhere. These may have been during or after the clean up.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Where WAS that plane? I've never seen the wreakage and would love to see it today.

Am i wrong?


You see, I was pressing "Post Reply" with the fac the plane had been shot down in mind. Now, even if it was shot down there'd be debris, and so you bring up an even higher point.

Maybe the person who shot down United 93 was told to write a fake confession by the government...because there WAS NO UNITED 93! Or I shouldn't post on ATS when it's 2 am
.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:52 AM
link   
I'm going to persue this debris and wreckage today. Stand by.

THERE WAS NO WRECKAGE.

Anyone want to take me on? What happened to flight 93?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   
How much wreckage do you think would be left of a plane that can weigh well over 200,000 pounds travelling at 500 mph slamming into the ground at a 90 degree angle? There have been planes that did a nosedive like that, where they found a 10 foot long engine, 3 feet in the ground, compressed to 4 or 5 feet or less. It's not like certain members are suggesting where you're going to have the tail section sticking out of the ground. There WAS wreckage found there. They recently released some pictures of it in the Moussaui trial. There just weren't many pictures of it, or there weren't many released.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:59 AM
link   
A 757 fully loaded with fuel has a range of 3900 nautical miles. This plane took off fully loaded with fuel, went about 500 nautical miles, and crashes, thats still a lot of fuel. And a big book, it would probably have burned quick and hot, if it didnat all go up at once in an explosion. Ill ask my uncle about it next time I talk to him, why didnt you do this thread sooner, they just came to visit this past weekend.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Sorry


There is always wreckage and the carcass of the airplane, at the very least.

What do you think, the plane went "poof" and dissintegrated? NO.

Airplanes dont do that. Dont beleive it for a minute.

So, what really happened to flight 93?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 04:13 AM
link   
It was abducted by aliens.

But no really though, It was shot down, we know that %100, we have proof.
Maybe the wreckage was all cleaned up, never shown because it could of been obvious that it was shot down? I.E. Extremely bent pieces of metal, and yes, there are differences between missle-havoc-wreaked-metal and plane-crash metal.

My question: Why are firefighters and such wearing jeans and a small shirt at WTC, after cleaning up the debris, yet at United 93 it looks like a scene from a horror movie where they're finishing off radioactive zombies?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Wreckage

For those who are up to it, this thread points to a site which offers several 9-11 photos, including photos of the wreckage, in addition to some audio:

Nearly 5 minutes of Unedited audio from within WTC on 9/11.

Please be aware that photos of any crash scene are generally not pleasant.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Ok, Magic, thanks!

This is about the best one


Still, there isnt much, is there? There's been fully loaded airplanes full of fuel and the wreckage is enormous!

There isnt much in the way of wreckage except for tons of papers, liscences, and little things.


I couldnt bring myself to listen to the audios.

:shk:



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   
You're also comparing two completely different types of crashes. In most plane crashes, they hit at a relatively shallow angle, so the force is spread out along the airframe, so there are large parts that survive. In a nosedive crash, you have a lot of force and a very small area, so you get a lot smaller amount of wreckage. I've spoken to crash investigators before, who were amazed at how small the wreckage was in a nosedive crash.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Sorry


There is always wreckage and the carcass of the airplane, at the very least.

What do you think, the plane went "poof" and dissintegrated? NO.

Airplanes dont do that. Dont beleive it for a minute.

So, what really happened to flight 93?

What's your line of work, air crash investigation? Or are you just relying on layman's knowledge of the physics of planecrashes?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Lanton,

Its too early to troll and stalk people thread to thread. OK?

I asked and Magic gave me something which satisfied my curiosity.

Simmer down.

FYI, i worked for Delta airlines for 5 years, Cape Air for 2 years, and i hate to date myself but i also worked for Eastern Airlines part time. I do know something about airplanes, if seating arrangements make me an expert.
I doubt it.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You're also comparing two completely different types of crashes. In most plane crashes, they hit at a relatively shallow angle, so the force is spread out along the airframe, so there are large parts that survive. In a nosedive crash, you have a lot of force and a very small area, so you get a lot smaller amount of wreckage. I've spoken to crash investigators before, who were amazed at how small the wreckage was in a nosedive crash.


I think Zaphod's hit on the difference here, dg. According to the eye witness accounts, 93 basically went almost vertically into the ground - at 500+ mph. That's nothing like the "typical" commercial airliner crash which, if the pilot is trying to rescue the plane, will hit the ground a lot slower and in an attempted gliding angle-of-attack.

The debris was over 20 feet down in the ground.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Hello all, I have an Airframe and powerplant ticket--(licence), if a plane crashes and burns you Will have at least 3/4 ths of the wreackage still visible let's figure the plane did weigh 200,000 lbs that leaves 150,000 lbs of wreackage left when you deduct paint ,textiles ,cushins ,fabric ,fuel,food,you would be surprised that the paint is probably has the most weight of all.


The plane actually weigh's a little more than 200,000 lbs -272,000 to be exact, there will be alot more palne left on the ground than what they show.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Again, in a NORMAL plane crash. I've heard of nosedive crashes that they couldn't even tell it was a plane, let alone what the pieces were. In a crash where it hits at a shallow angle, yes you'll find most of the plane, but like Valhall said, the debris was 20 feet straight down in this crash.

Just how much do you expect to find if it's 20 feet down?

[edit on 4/13/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe


Lanton,

Its too early to troll and stalk people thread to thread. OK?

I asked and Magic gave me something which satisfied my curiosity.

Simmer down.

FYI, i worked for Delta airlines for 5 years, Cape Air for 2 years, and i hate to date myself but i also worked for Eastern Airlines part time. I do know something about airplanes, if seating arrangements make me an expert.
I doubt it.

So you're (or at least were) a pilot by profession? Would you claim that, as a result of working in the airline industry for so many years, that gives you an intimate knowledge of the mechanics of plane crashes?

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Lanton]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   
I do believe this plane was shot down because of the so called scattered wreackage . The piece with the windows that was shown above is a prime example of this theory. If it just crashed this piece would have been found many feet below the surface,infact most of the wreackage would be concentrated in one spot. Showing pieces that are scattered all over the place for MILES is a sure sign of an explosion befor final impact.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join