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.

 

Where did flight 93 really go?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Flight 93 supposivedly crashed into the field in south PA, but reports at Cleveland Hopkins airport said that 2 flights had landed after the twin towers were struck, one was delta 1989 and the other was flight 93. Wierd isnt it... could it be a mistake? I doubt it, a worker at Chicago airport said he saw flight 93 land in 2004 and another worker at a airport said they saw and docked flight 93 in West Virginia and it was brought to a hanger and he never saw it leave again. Do you really think flight 93 is in WV... or it may have been scrapped?




posted on May, 28 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I think there about a dozen threads on this subject already, so please do some searching, thank you



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Flight 93 went into that hole in the ground in Penn. With all the confusion that day I'm not surprised that they reported that it landed in Cleveland. How many planes did they say were hijacked that day? 6? 7? And everything from small planes, to 747s.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Whatever hit the ground in PA wasn't a 757. the wing markings in the ground are much too small.

My guess is the plane and the people were taken to a secret military installation and snuffed out. There were plenty of places where the planes could have been switched near military bases.

Hence the mysterious rapid ascent and descent of the aircraft on that day. I'm referring to the radar reports which are accessible by the net.

9/11 was operation Northwoods there is no doubt about that one.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
So you really think that as the wing gets thinner and MUCH weaker as it goes out, that it's going to leave a nice cartoon impression on the ground. Those wingtips are not anywhere NEARLY strong enough to leave an imprint in the ground. The only sections of the wings that WOULD are the wing root area, which are the thickest and strongest section of the wings.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I got news for you Zaphod whatever hit the ground in PA did leave wing impressions in the ground. Clear and visible and not long enough to match those of a 757.

Don't you find it kind of interesting how Flt. 93 left an 8 mile wreckage trail and yet the Bush administration said the passengers fought back causing the "terrorists" to nose dive?

Don't you find it rather interesting that it was illegal for any outside private investigations of the crash site?

[edit on 28-5-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Did you bother reading what I just said? I said that a PORTION of the wing would leave an impression, but that the outer section of wing, from about the engines out WOULD NOT leave an impression. The effect would be that the "wingspan" of the impact crater would NOT EQUAL A 757. The outer portions of the wings are WAY too flimsy and weak to leave an impact mark.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I saw on the news a lady said she saw a fireball in the sky and wing falling down in p.a. after that they never showed that lady on air or the news ever again and I knew she was telling the truth because I know when smeone is lying or not everything just comes from the inside.

It was probably shot down but they covered it up and lied and said it crashed.

People saw it didn't you see the wreckage?

[edit on 28-5-2006 by Hawaii_boy]



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
There's a movie in theaters about this called United 93. Just goes to show that the passengers on an airplane are responsible for their own safety.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Just because a movie about Flight 93 came out doesn't mean that the event happened that way. Even Roger Ebert voiced his concerns and doubt over the Flight 93 issue.



And Zaphod...The wingtips aren't as flimsy as you think. Sure they wobble in flight but I assure you they are still very strong in opposition to your idea that they are weak. Otherwise the plane wouldn't have gotten off the ground in the first place. The wingtips have mass and would have left a mark in the ground plain and simple.

Lets compare the WTC's for instance. Hitting the ground at that speed is like flying into the facade of the WTC. The wingtips of those planes left impressions into the building. Very visible. you can even check out the FEMA diagrams for yourself if you like.


Saying that the tips would have magically dissolved on impact doesn't make much sense.

[edit on 28-5-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]

[edit on 28-5-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley


My guess is the plane and the people were taken to a secret military installation and snuffed out. There were plenty of places where the planes could have been switched near military bases.


So, rather than crash Flight 93, killing all onboard, they crashed another aircraft which they pretended was Flight 93. Meanwhile, all those aboard Flight 93 were then killed to stop them spilling the beans....

Silly question: but wouldn't it have just been easier to crash or blow up Flight 93?



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
I know just how strong those wingtips are. I've walked on wings before while a plane was in the hangar. However comparing STEEL to the ground is completely wrong. The forces involved in the impact with the ground are going to be MUCH stronger than those involved in the steel.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Don't wings fold back on impact?

Seems like that's the simple answer to the lack of wingspan markings on the ground.

I agree with Essan.

Taking flight 93 somewhere and disposing of the passengers would involve too many people and word would have gotten out by now.

Theories aside, most times the simple and obvious answer is the correct one.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Desert Dawg

Theories aside, most times the simple and obvious answer is the correct one.



Usually I would agree with you on that DD, But none of the events of 911 are simple and obvious. The official story is unbelievable until the FBI releases all the
confiscated video tapes from the pentagon. Until then, the official story stinks.
I'm going to have to side with Crazy mr Crowley. 911=Northwoods. To me that is the simple and obvious answer.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mck3114
Flight 93 supposivedly crashed into the field in south PA, but reports at Cleveland Hopkins airport said that 2 flights had landed after the twin towers were struck, one was delta 1989 and the other was flight 93. Wierd isnt it... could it be a mistake? I doubt it, a worker at Chicago airport said he saw flight 93 land in 2004 and another worker at a airport said they saw and docked flight 93 in West Virginia and it was brought to a hanger and he never saw it leave again. Do you really think flight 93 is in WV... or it may have been scrapped?


I would have to lead with it landing at Cleveland. The section about this in 'Loose Change' was very eye-opening and made total sense. the hijacker anounces the bomb threat just before entering Cleveland air space and then announcing they will be returning to the airport. That airport looks to be Cleveland with that nice NASA center coincidentally right next to it!



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Why do people use the Loose Change Video as if it were gospel? its pure ficition. The "director" of that little video blog says so himself. ITs fake, has been from the beginning.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizy
Why do people use the Loose Change Video as if it were gospel? its pure ficition. The "director" of that little video blog says so himself.


and we are anxiously waiting for you to post a link to prove your claim!



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
already posted in another thread on this forum. Search for it. In fact i think it was posted by Howard I believe. The "director" had that idea from 2002/2003 that he wanted to make a ficitionalized account of what happened on 9/11.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Acutally this site is pretty good on showing what "loose change" is. total fiction:
screwloosechange.blogspot.com...



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizy
already posted in another thread on this forum. Search for it. In fact i think it was posted by Howard I believe. The "director" had that idea from 2002/2003 that he wanted to make a ficitionalized account of what happened on 9/11.



I did, couldn't find it. Please repost to support YOUR claim.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join