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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Not "if it was shot down", it was:


www.letsroll911.org...
"At precisely 0938 hours, an alarm was sounded at Langely Air Force Base, and those whom were on call, drinking coffee, were scrambled. Thus the 119th Fighter Wing was off for an intercept.

They, the Happy Hooligans, a unit of 3 F-16 aircraft, were ordered to head toward Pennsylvania. At 0957 they spotted their target; After confirmation orders were received, A one Major Rick Gibney fired two sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in mid flight at precisely 0958;

He was awarded a medal from the Governor one year later for his heroic actions. As well as Decorated by Congress on 9/13/2001. The Happy Hooligans were previously stationed in North Dakota, and moved to Langley Air Force base some months before 911 occured on a "Temporary assignment."


Full article on posted link.




posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
OK, going on what i have read so far, the lack of debris on the ground is causing some confusion as to what happened.

Cast your minds back to the Lockerbie disaster in Scotland. The plane was blown up at high altitude, yet, there was still sufficient debris on the ground to identify it. IE, the nose cone with the name on it.

There was also a vast amount of debris scattered across the countryside too.

As to a plane actually nose diving into the ground, i have no real comment, but i would think that there would be some tangible evidence of a plane or its cargo scattered around. Not everything would be disintegrated surely?

Ask yourselves this question. Compared to the Lockerbie crash, why are the men on the ground searching an empty crater supposedly caused by the plane? Are they looking for debris? or are they just going through the motions for the sake of the media?

The ball is now in your court..................


SMR

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
.......why are the men on the ground searching an empty crater supposedly caused by the plane? Are they looking for debris? or are they just going through the motions for the sake of the media?

The ball is now in your court..................

If this was all stanged, would that not be the ideal thing to do?
Remember, the Lockerbie event, that plane had bombs ON it.Being that it is believed this plane was shot down, we are looking at a plane being...shot down, not exploding from the inside out.I think it is safe to say there would be much difference in the end effect of both.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I have worked on aircraft crash investigations. The only one with a site similar to the one in question was a military suicide where a pilot took his fighter straight down from 30,000 ft. There was no burning after it bored in and made a hole in the ground. The approximately 3000 lbs of jet fuel apparently vaporized upon impact. It may have made a fireball, but there was no observers. There was no liquid fuel residue in the hole or sign any had burned there. There was no nearby wreckage except that in the hole, although the aircraft had lost parts as it went supersonic going down. The impact was in sandy loam and the engine was buried over 20 ft deep. They found some recognizable bones of the pilot but not many. Shallow angle crashes are very different from straight down.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
www.geocities.com...

GOTO the site above and spend some time.

It is well put together, with sources named, articles, newstorys, eyewitness accounts, theories, pictures, and timelines. Very provocative and well researched.

I am not a researcher or an expert on 9/11, but I have been paying close attention as things have developed. If one applies a little critical thinking and does not succumb to Knee jerk emotional responses like “It makes no sense” or “It is so absurd that it couldn’t be” then one is left with the very obvious evidence that things are being covered up, the public being lied to by it’s supposed leaders, (whose real agendas could very well be stranger than even this website explores.)

I noticed several responses on this thread that seem to be saying that the plane nose-dived (the official story) or that it was shot down and the debris spread out. Yet, I do not see any evidence presented. The original question is still largely unanswered. Where are the pictures? They simply are not there. Same with the Pentagon, as well as the pictures and film released within a few hours of the “attacks” on the towers. As I recall there was a moratorium declared on all off those pictures and film until recently. Even now, with the release of the so-called debris pictures and audio from the terrorist’s trial I am astounded that people are satisfied with the pitiful evidence as presented. For instance, is that picture of the windows (in this thread) proof of anything other than there is virtually no credible evidence being released to the public. It could be from the crash, but other than somebody’s word, how do we know it was even taken at the crash site?

BTW – I am a little confused about this person being tried as a terrorist. As far as I have seen he did not hi-jack a plane or fly into a building. He seems willing to admit that he would have liked to or was supposed to, but his plans were changed. I hear people talking about killing him. I guess that fits right in with all the new ways of doing things. Preventive war (called aggression if it is the other guy), no habeas corpus, domestic eaves-dropping with out court orders, etc... (But I digress. . .)

If the plane did not crash then what happened to those people? Does anyone want to believe that the powers that be would kill civilians to scare us into compliance with there goals? No, of course not. Would they? The evidence is clear. It happens all the time.

If it did crash or was shot down, why is there such a lack of evidence to that effect, and even more evidence that it did not crash? (Notice the pictures of smoke plumes from conventional military explosions as compared to the picture of the “crash” plume. They appear identical. If it impacted with all that fuel it would have been a huge explosion and plume. The evidence is quite clear that was not the case.

I’ll close with this – A wise man said: “Everybody’s truth is the truth, but not everybody’s truth fits the facts.”



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Ok-I just saw the pictures that were posted showing the debres that was entered into evidence at the trial. This is the first I have seen these. I am a little closer to accepting that a plane crashed. One has to assume that the photos are authentic and that it is fight 93. I so distrust our government and media these days that I am hard to convince. Check out the url posted above in my prior reply. I still find it curious that the Mayor of Cleveland released a story on the AP on the morning of 9/11, that flight 93 had landed and deboarded at Clevleand International. The story was pulled hours later. And the smoke plume thing still does not add up.

later



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   
I posted Audio from the United 93 shoot-down.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Might find it interesting.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nemithesis
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.
These are the kind of concidences that are too questionable for my little mind to comprehend. "As luck would have it"..........Atta's passport, along with maps.....

Even if you want to beleive it, it just doesnt sit well, if you know what i mean.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   


TextI 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.


This is a great theory ,this is probably the best explaination so far.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   


TextThat 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.


These quotes are from timoothy



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Remember, the Lockerbie event, that plane had bombs ON it.Being that it is believed this plane was shot down, we are looking at a plane being...shot down, not exploding from the inside out.I think it is safe to say there would be much difference in the end effect of both.


as an aside, i thought id point out that having being a criminal act, some of the lockerbie plane was reconstructed with about 40000 found pieces, collected from over 100 square miles, to see what could be learnt ( news.bbc.co.uk... ).

thats what you do after a crime has been commited and didnt happen to ANY of the 911 planes. why is that do you wonder?



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
If this was all stanged, would that not be the ideal thing to do?

And every single person in the recovery/ground investigation was in on it?
"Pretend to look for stuff"
"But boss, there;s nothing here, the plane must've been shot down'
"Please look here"




I think it is safe to say there would be much difference in the end effect of both.

So if a bomb blows up in the plane, there's debris, but if there's an explosion just outside of it, then its vapourized??



At precisely 0938 hours, an alarm was sounded at Langely Air Force Base

There is no citation for this information. The people in the article got the name wrong. And apparently the guy they are saying did it hasn't confirmed this.


robin snyder
GOTO the site above and spend some time.

Killtown is a member of this site I beleive.


justyc
didnt happen to ANY of the 911 planes.

That does not happen in every plane crash.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
If a plane blows up in midair, or crashes at a shallow angle, the force of impact is spread out, and you get lots of big pieces, and you CAN rebuild it. If a plane goes straight in like this one did, you get a little hole, and the plane compresses into small pieces, and you CAN'T rebuild it. I've heard stories of engines being compressed to less than three feet long after a crash like this. ENGINES. The heaviest part of the plane, and they compress over 5 feet in some cases. How much WORSE do you think it would be for the fuselage?



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I've heard so many times that pieces of Flight 93 were spread out over a number of miles area. What's the bottom line on that? Is it a fact?

Obviously, if it can be proven that debris was spread out over a large area, it would appear the plane was either shot down or there was a bomb on board. Again ATS members, has it been established as a fact that pieces of Flight 93 were scattered over a large area???? That's all we need to know as a fact and the rest of the story is quite obvious.

Of course, it's possible our government shot the plane down. As of today, all hell has broken loose in Washington, DC, and the American public is asleep or drugged-up at the wheel.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Just for some perspective, here is a pic of what happens to an aluminum airframe with just a basic shallow impact into ground and trees. So you could imagine what would happen to an aicraft at high speed going into the ground at a steep angle. By the way i am a former Air Force Crew Chief and have been on accident sites.




[edit on 14-4-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Thats really good camo, I couldn't see his arm for atleast 30 seconds...it hurts my eyes


Anyway.

Noone's answered my question


At the WTC sites, there were firemen in short shirts and jeans, gloves and a helmet. Some weren't even wearing breathing masks.

At the United 93 shoot-down, it looks like they were finishing off a herd of radioactive zombies.

I understand that the WTC sites had a lot more time to die down as far as danger goes, after the collapse and all, but still many airborne chemicals were there, most of them unhealthy. Well, all airborne chemicals are unhealthy really. They ended up having brain tumors, lung problems, skin irratation, etc.

"Maybe that's why they were wearing suits at the United 93 crash"

Well, one would consider that unless you realise that one happened before the other, if they were searching United 93 shoot-down site a month after maybe, that'd be a good response.

And how exactly can there be a giant explosion that completely vaporizes ~250,000 worth of metal, flesh, etc....yet they find some random pieces of the plane UNDERGROUND? I understand that, hypothetically a blast that big would make all that dirt fling up and cover it all, but if you look at the exhibit photos, it's obvious the dirt was pretty packed in there, despite it supposedly being re-planted recently. (In the photo that is, back in 2001, replanted in 1996? Forgot the year.)

Edit: Oh, also they required a giant ass machine (forgot the name) thing to dig it up. If they reason that the reason half the plane was underground was because the dirt was recently replanted, and then there was a giant explosion to dig it all up, you could just use a shovel to dig that stuff up. Granted you'd need a machine to plant the evidence and cover it with dirt and such.

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Vinci]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

I understand that, hypothetically a blast that big would make all that dirt fling up and cover it all

The impact of a plane screaming into the ground from they sky is what jammed the portions into the dirt.


SMR

posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Nygdan,
What I am saying is, if it just crashed, you would end up with what peole here are saying.Compact area of plane in a hole.Yet in this issue, we have the plane scattered all over the place in little pieces, some even 1 mile away.The only way I see that happeneing is if it was shot during flight.If a plane crashes at an angle as we see in the images, it would not bounce small pieces a mile away.A few 'hundred yards at most, not 5280 ft away.

On who was at the cleanup looking, do we know who they are?
I dont recall any civilians working the area.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I thoguth that the distant debris was paper debris, which could be carried in an impact explosion. Also, I'd expect that some of the debris would be scattered no matter what, but that there'd be burial of material if it nosedived into the ground.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Is it at all possible for that crater to be caused by an engine alone? if it was shot down at 500+mph, could an engine become detached from the explosion? could explain the smaller crater and the small bits of smoke, lack of fire and lack of debris, the bits of debris that are in tact could of landed several seconds after the explosion and fell to earth at a lesser velocity than the engine.

What does an engine weigh? must be about 5-6 ton, looks feasable, what say the air investigators?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join