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.

 

Smoking Gun! Flight 93 Rare News Footage From The Crash Site

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Yeah, that is one possibility I had considered - that it broke up in midair from overstressing it. But really, there isn't going to be any conclusive proof either way unless the military comes out and admits they shot it down. I don't know why they would hide it if they did, however. If there was a hijacked aircraft about to hit the White House or Capitol Building and it was possible to shoot it down, I would support that, as difficult as it would be to make the order.




posted on May, 8 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
[Mod Edit: removed Big Quote of Entire prior post]

see quoted post, here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...





Mod Note: You Have An Urgent U2U- Click Here.

[edit on 5/8/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Great thread. It jarred my memory as well. I remember sitting in my car in the parking lot at work listening to the radio and as soon as I turned the radio on, they were talking about a plane that made an emergency landing in Cleveland because of a bomb threat, and no bomb being found.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Here are a few questions for you:

1) if at a shallow angle i can see the enguine so far away, but no more debris is puzzling. Please explain the physics of how this could happen.

2) if a steep angle crash is what happened then the engines should have been closer. However due to the size of the hole and the aparent angle (and lack of size) it would have had to be be very steep. And if this were the case and the wings did break up, teh enguines should be underground and compressesd as said earlier. So where are the hole for teh engines. Why was the hole so small?

More food for thought. Enjoy


[edit on 9-5-2006 by scoobdude]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
www.airdisaster.com...

Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771


A Call comes in to the San Luis Obispo County, California Sherrif's Office citing a small plane crash in the mountains of southern California. Detective Bill Wammock is the first to arrive on the scene. He recalls “nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”

. . .

The sound of the gunshot is picked up on the cockpit voice recorder, and seconds later the sound of the cockpit door opening is heard. A female, presumed to be a Flight Attendant, advises the cockpit crew that “we have a problem.” The Captain replies with “what kind of problem?” Burke then appears at the cockpit door and announces “I'm the problem,” simultaneously firing two more shots that fatally injure both pilots.

Several seconds later, the CVR picks up increasing windscreen noise as the airplane pitches down and begins to accelerate. A final gunshot is heard as Burke fatally shoots himself. Airspeed continues to build until 13,000 feet, when traveling at a velocity of 1.2x Mach, the aircraft breaks apart and the Flight Recorders cease functioning.



No big pieces found there, either.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


www.airdisaster.com...




Several seconds later, the CVR picks up increasing windscreen noise as the airplane pitches down and begins to accelerate.



No big pieces found there, either.



Off topic here but. Did the CVR from Flight 93 pick up this increasing windscreen noise as the airplane pitched down and began to accelerate? I don't remember any reference to this. Shouldn't it have? Sorry to be off topic....back to your regularly scheduled program.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
When it was first talked about by the families they said you could hear a shrieking noise from the wind. It is used as evidence in the shooting down theory (which I can quite believe incidently).



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Not really, I showed before that if you compare various crashes from an air disaster database with the FAA records you often have aircraft continuing for long periods of time as 'active', like all massive databases it's pretty useless.
The problem is that people are quick to make such assumptions and statements without actually checking to see if the same anomolies can be observed in relation to 'ordinary' incidents. It's a fine example of the lack of research in putting together 9/11 conspiracy evidence, one of the first things you are taught at school when conducting experiments is to have a 'control' yet this does not seem to happen. The majority of the time if someone does bother to do this they'll notice that the data they think of as evidence is too inaccurate to be conclusive.

[edit on 7-5-2006 by AgentSmith]


For your information i am a former Air Force Crew Chief and i now work for NSA, Office of Weapons and Space as an analyis and know how to research aircraft. I have researched this and found out things like Flight 77 records were updated with the correct information when dregistered, like reason for cancellation was destroyed. Flight 99 record was left active for 4 years and then the reason for cancellation is just cancelled.

Also the dates for cancellation can be due to the reason for deregistration.

Source: registry.faa.gov...

Deregistered Aircraft:
An aircraft that has been removed from the U.S. Civil Aircraft Register at the owner's request. Aircraft are generally removed for the following reasons: exported, destroyed, salvaged, dismantled, or permanently retired from service

[edit on 14-5-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 14-5-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Er, yes but as I show in my entire post (just from two examples) not only is there one air crash from back in 2002 which is still registered as valid today, but there is another which just lists the aircraft as 'Cancelled' in the reason, not 'Destroyed'. These weren't the only examples I found as I stated either, I just don't want to keep restating everything I found every few weeks every time it comes up.
If you are as important as you say you are, you might want to speak to someone about keeping the entire records up to date and accurate, because it seems rather flimsy evidence of anything when there are many other glaring inconsistancies that don't have any connection with 9/11 or even each other.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join