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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
The wreckage was scattered for miles, yet they found a legible visa of the supposed hijacker!

www.propagandamatrix.com...

Plant?
I'm thinking so....

Just like the passport they found in the WTC wreckage.




posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Take a minute and use a search engine. It has occured before that there was not alot of wreckage from a airliner crash.

If something is travelling 500 mph + and slams into solid earth, there will not be much left. There are a few wrecks from running into mountains that has caused the same type of scene as Flight 93.

Lanton, what are your thoughts on this issue?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   
The plane may have started to break up because of the speed before it hit the ground that could explain why some debris was scattered for miles.

mikell



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Did Donald Rumsfield say this flight was shot down? Then later say he misspoke? I cant remember the news program he was on when he said that, but I am sure he said it. Is this the flight that was going to fly into the Whitehouse, the flight where we got the now infamous saying, LETS ROLL? If I am not mistaken, then the plane was shot down, hence little or no wreckage.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Flight 93 wreckage is one the front page of my local newspaper. There was lots of wreckage. When there is a plane crash, the debris gets scatterd, ripped up, and also continues moving after the initial hit. There will be a final resting crater, and lots of debris will be in that portion. Hence, not seeing burning hulks in the photos.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Eight miles away in New Baltimore, Melanie Hankinson said she found singed papers and other light debris from the crash, including pages from Hemispheres Magazine, United's in-flight magazine. Stoe said authorities initially insisted crash debris could not have traveled over a mountain ridge more than eight miles from the crash.

theyhad somewhere between 30 and 55 minutes after Flight 93 was "suspect" to intercept it. The current official story is that 3 F-16 fighters had been scrambled at 9:24AM and were airborne over Washington D.C. by 9:40AM. AWACS and a Tanker were scrambled also. These pilots saw the Pentagon on fire, the President had OK'd a shootdown, the Secret Service had advised the pilots to protect the White House at all costs, and Flight 93 was the only aircraft off course - heading toward D.C. - with it's transponder off. Flight 93 crashed at 10:06AM


Air Traffic Controllers in a Nashua Telegraph article report an F-16 was circling Flight 93 and was in visual range at the time of crash - and why does the Government currently DENY that?


Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene


It is no mystery we did shoot that ill fated flight down, why not admit it .



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   


Did Donald Rumsfield say this flight was shot down? Then later say he misspoke? I cant remember the news program he was on when he said that, but I am sure he said it. Is this the flight that was going to fly into the Whitehouse, the flight where we got the now infamous saying, LETS ROLL? If I am not mistaken, then the plane was shot down, hence little or no wreckage.


Yeah, I recall hearing this somewhere online. There was a downloadable audio clip where he had a slip of the tongue during some speech where he had said that Flight 93 was shot down. I will try and find it, come back, and post the link.

*Edit*

Haven't found the audio clip as of yet, however if you run a search for "Rumsfeld Flight 93 Shot Down", or something to that effect, you will bear a large number of hits.

*Edit*

Here it is (audio):

www.npr.org...

It is at the end.

[edit on 4/13/2006 by Rizin]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   


TextHere's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

www.wnd.com...


[edit on 13-4-2006 by airtrax007]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Yes, Donald threw a monkey wrench on this when he said it was shot down.

I suppose he made a mistake.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
It's kind of funny that the list of evidence in the Moussaoui show trial (oops! my show is slipping) includes declassified documents that demonstrate that the POTUS was briefed about terrorist activity all the way up to 9/11.

Oh, and having just watched that 9/11 Eyewitness thing, it was amusing hearing Dubya - within the hour of the attacks - announcing that there would be a full and (get this) INDEPENDENT investigation into "the folks" who perpetrated this atrocity.

I know it's not exactly on topic, but it does arise from something posted in this thread...



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I have an even better question:

Who dug that GIGANTIC crater ! ? .

I would also like to see some good photo's of the wreckage.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton

Originally posted by airtrax007
val,

I understand your theory ,but the crater is just not big enough to explain the CRASH THEORY.With all that fuel and an intact aircraft at the point of contact with the ground that crater would be huge ,and the trees that are in the picture would be gone, vaporised along with all the grass that is still visible .


Any supporting evidence to back up that claim; e.g. scientific studies? Or are you just thinking 'well that was a big plane, full of fuel, that must've hit the ground pretty hard...so the resulting ignition of the aviation fuel must've burned down, at the very least, a couple of acres of woodland'?


Often one uses logic before science, because science in the past has also told us the the earth is flat, that we're the center of the universe, and that we think with our hearts rather than our brains.

Logic is loaded with past knowledge, including sciences such as physics. And so assuming this member has taken a physics class, it would more plausible to use logic rather than conduct hundreds of useless tests and still have noone believe you.

"OH BUT TE WHOLE WHO R U SAHAS" Shut up.

It's logical, 272,000 pound objects that fly require a lot of fuel, if it had 3/4ths of its fuel supply when it supposedly nose-dived into the ground, then those trees that, at most are 100 meters away, WOULD CATCH ON FIRE.

If you think otherwise, please tell me how we landed on the moon. Oh, right we didn't



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   


she found singed papers and other light debris from the crash, including pages from Hemispheres Magazine, United's in-flight magazine.


I've got a question about this.

So far the only items that I have seen mentioned are pages of paper. Would it not be possible for them to be blown there by the wind?
Certainly there should be something other than paper if the plane was breaking up over that area.





Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene


I see more paper here, wind blown?
Was it human remains? Or just mistaken for human remains.
Appeared to be crash debris? Was it or wasn't it? Was it more paper?

Any more paper sightings we should know about?

Any reports of actual stuff, like plane parts etc, that doesn't have any other logical explanation for?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
SIX MILES?!?! Are you mad?

What he's getting to is the plane was shot down, missle made a gap in the plane, thus an air vacuum, papers everywhere. Why papers? papers are light and at that altitude can go far about, considering the plane had yet to crash as the papers flew out, the distance grew to six miles. Otherwise, the crash theory says that the plane disinigrated on impact, yet tons of papers can be found six miles away? Slow motion explosion or something?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   


yet tons of papers can be found six miles away


Tons? There were tons of paper found miles away? I have a hard time believing that.

Gotta link to several thousand pounds of paper being found or is that just you exaggerating?



So we have pieces of paper found miles away, how does that translate to a shoot down, wind could have very easily blown the paper there after the crash.




Otherwise, the crash theory says that the plane disinigrated on impact


How does that makes it impossible for paper to survive the crash?



[edit on 13/4/06 by Skibum]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum



yet tons of papers can be found six miles away


Tons? There were tons of paper found miles away? I have a hard time believing that.

Gotta link to several thousand pounds of paper being found or is that just you exaggerating?



So we have pieces of paper found miles away, how does that translate to a shoot down, wind could have very easily blown the paper there after the crash.





Naw, not tons obviously, just papers.

My point was that the wind could not have very easily blown a paper 6 miles after the crash. Magazines are heavy. So those can't of been blown off simply in the wind. Also this is a foresty-area, the trees would prohibit that 6 mile journey.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   


Magazines are heavy


Yes they are, from what I have seen in this thread, pages from a magazine were found. Big difference between a magazine and pages friom several magazines.




she found singed papers and other light debris from the crash, including pages from Hemispheres Magazine, United's in-flight magazine.


PAGES, not the whole magizine.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Even if it's a few papers, six miles is still impossible.

But wait, when did she find these papers?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I too believe it was shot down or, this is a big OR, Maybe when the passangers decided to confront the highjackers (the one with the bomb strapped to his belly ),remember the one in the back,he detonated the bomb before it was shot down by our own government.


That to would explain why debri was found miles away .and the crater being so small, because the tail section (aft of the wings) was broken loose after the explosion . When that occurs the wing's are emptied of the fuel and there is a small explosion after impact ,thats why the trees and grass are still visible.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Picutures of what was left of flight 93















new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join