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 are the planes?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
Ok, let's look at it another way. Can you find ONE photo of another plane crash anywhere that looks even remotely similar the the hole that Flight 93 supposedly made?



How about Valujet Flight 592, May of 1996? This aircraft was carrying 105 passengers and crew, as well as a cargo of oxygen cannisters that supposedly caught on fire in-flight, bringing down the plane in a vertical nose-dive. It's that dark blue hole in the center of the photo.



— Doc Velocity




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   
LOL,I beat you to these pictures but you got the fresh page



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
Per Project Northwoods, the theory could include the possibilty that these flights were both CIA flights right from the start, and that the passengers and crew were all CIA operatives that went back to being undercover somwhere.

This theory really doesn't fly (morbid pun intended)... "CIA Operative" certainly doesn't describe Barbara Olson, the outspoken TV commentator and author, who booked a seat on Flight 77 the night before the crash. Does anybody really think that Barbara Olson would take part in a CIA plot, then change her name, abandon her family, and keep her mouth shut, too?

The weakest part of the Pentagon conspiracy theories I've heard is this absence of explanation for what happened to the passengers of Flight 77 if the jet didn't actually strike the Pentagon. If there was any question, I can assure you that Ted Olson, who was Barbara's husband as well as the newly-appointed United States Solicitor General, would have spearheaded a Justice Department inquiry for a proper account of his wife's death.

I mean, this must have shattered Ted Olson. His wife was killed on his birthday, Sept. 11... I'd be spitting fire. For Olson to accept the evidence presented to him as fact, it must have been some pretty damned convincing evidence.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/21/2007 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
LOL,I beat you to these pictures but you got the fresh page


That's because I took 6 minutes to capture the photo, increase the dimensions, enhance the contrast, compress it to 24k and upload it to ATS. Still, there's something suspicious about your posting the same thing only 6 minutes earlier...

Hmmm... Samblack... UNCLE Samblack... UNCLE SAM BLACK OPS!!

I knew it!! ATS has been infiltrated!!


— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity





How about Valujet Flight 592, May of 1996? This aircraft was carrying 105 passengers and crew, as well as a cargo of oxygen cannisters that supposedly caught on fire in-flight, bringing down the plane in a vertical nose-dive. It's that dark blue hole in the center of the photo.









— Doc Velocity


Do you really not understand the difference between a plane crashing in a field and in the water?? The "blue hole" you pointed out is water... duh...


The ValueJet crash was in the Florida everglades. And they did find bodies and wreckage.









And there's really two of you who are racing to put up this photo of the everglades? Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to try to pass of the ValueJet crash as anything comparable to Flight 93? Flight 527 crashed into the water. Flight 93 is supposed to have crashed into a grass field.

Or do you belong to the same "debunker" site and the swamp photo is your text-book come-back when you see the hole in the ground (and nothing else) that Flight 93 left?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Well if that Value Jet would of hit dry land it would of more then likely been very simular to flight 93.The Everglade's at that spot was no more then a couple feet of water and maybe 2 feet of muck and the plane for the most part disinagrated just like flight 93.

It's nearly impossible to find a photo of a jet-liner crash that resulted from a nose dive,this type of accident obviously doesn't happen that often.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
Do you really not understand the difference between a plane crashing in a field and in the water?? The "blue hole" you pointed out is water... duh... The ValueJet crash was in the Florida everglades. And they did find bodies and wreckage.

Duh... How condescending. Do you not understand that hitting the water at 300 mph in a full-power nose dive would be like slamming into concrete? Very little difference from slamming into the ground. The Valujet was pulverized on impact, very few pieces of recognizable debris remained, and no complete human bodies were ever recovered. VERY similar to Flight 93.

Here, educate yourself


Originally posted by nick7261
And there's really two of you who are racing to put up this photo of the everglades? Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to try to pass of the ValueJet crash as anything comparable to Flight 93? Flight 527 crashed into the water. Flight 93 is supposed to have crashed into a grass field.

For your information, the water at the crash site of Flight 592 was only waist-deep. Beneath that, a few feet of mud and then bedrock. At full engine power, the Valujet might as well have crashed into a solid steel barrier.

And don't you think it's more than disingenuous to ask: "Can you find ONE photo of another plane crash anywhere that looks even remotely similar the the hole that Flight 93 supposedly made?"...and then go on a snide little rant when somebody does produce such a photo? That's not only disingenuous, it's sour grapes, little man.


Originally posted by nick7261
Or do you belong to the same "debunker" site and the swamp photo is your text-book come-back when you see the hole in the ground (and nothing else) that Flight 93 left?

I don't belong to any other conspiracy-oriented sites, and I don't archive photos of plane crashes, because I'm not sick in the head like some folks who revel in such morbidity. It took me perhaps two minutes to locate such a photo on the web — at your request. Which tells me that you didn't even try to locate a similar photo before shooting off your mouth. You'd better adjust your attitude, boy, before I snatch you bald.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/21/2007 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   
So where are the plane's? I guess were going to have to wait for super-clear video,unfortunately nobody seem's to believe anything nowaday's unless it's on video.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
I found these images of that Value Jet that crashed in the Everglades a few year's ago.I know it hit a swamp so there wasn't much of a fire,but the airliner for the most part disinagrated/pulvarized on impact.They found very little debris of this crash,this airliner nose dived at a high rate of speed resulting in a pulvarized debris field simular to flight 93.


Pulverized or sank into the swamp! Not sure this is the best illustration... And yes, the crash site of 93 IS quite odd and strangely - vacant. Looks more like the work of a drunken backhoe operator with a few smoke bombs. I'm too ignorant to offer much beyond that, but this pic then helps illustrate why THAT crash is odd.

But it has about zero bearing on the Pentagon attack, where such images are often used in conjunction with the few reports that the plane hit the ground and then the building. These were basically guesses, impressions - it was only a foot off the ground after all, and who could think it's level out that low rather than hit turf? But it did level and didn't hit the ground, as all evidence indicates and all sides ultimately have agreed. Comparing a plane crash into the ground with a crash into a building just doesn't offer any useful comparisons.

Just in case anyone was gonna try that.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Were not comparing the Pentagon crash,were comparing the Shanksville,Pennsylvania crash.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

I mean, this must have shattered Ted Olson. His wife was killed on his birthday, Sept. 11... I'd be spitting fire. For Olson to accept the evidence presented to him as fact, it must have been some pretty damned convincing evidence.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/21/2007 by Doc Velocity]


Perhaps not the intended effect, but, DAMN! Do you folks realize just how many "odd" coincidences coincided that day? I mean really. One day from Flight 77 pilot's birthday. The 60-year anniversary of the Pentagon's groundbreaking. The seven year anniversary of frank Corder's plane crash into the White House. Possibly the first anniversary of the PNAC's "New Pearl Harbor" report. The 11 year anniversary of Bush's Dad using the "NWO" word for the first time. I'm not even digging here.

But that's why we're so wierd. We just can't acept that the world is chaotic and totally random, unpredictable, and at any given moment reality can invert and a billion weird things can happen with no connection. Not that I see any mechanically necessary connection w/Olson's birthday, just some things beyond the realm of coinkydinks, smacking of psyops, and way off subject. Sorry.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Pulverized or sank into the swamp! Not sure this is the best illustration.

Yes, pulverized. Again, the water depth at the crash site of Flight 592 was only about 3 feet, with a few feet of mud and solid bedrock below the surface. Recovery teams were able to wade through the shallows to retrieve small debris and body parts, but the wings, fuselage and other large components of the Valujet were reduced to shrapnel by the enormous impact.


Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Comparing a plane crash into the ground with a crash into a building just doesn't offer any useful comparisons.

We were responding to Nick's request for another example of a nose-dive crash site with a very small footprint, such as that of Flight 93. Which is what we provided, much to his displeasure.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Pulverized or sank into the swamp! Not sure this is the best illustration.

Yes, pulverized. Again, the water depth at the crash site of Flight 592 was only about 3 feet, with a few feet of mud and solid bedrock below the surface. Recovery teams were able to wade through the shallows to retrieve small debris and body parts, but the wings, fuselage and other large components of the Valujet were reduced to shrapnel by the enormous impact.


So you saying shrapnel can't sink in three feet of mud?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Yes, pulverized. Again, the water depth at the crash site of Flight 592 was only about 3 feet, with a few feet of mud and solid bedrock below the surface. Recovery teams were able to wade through the shallows to retrieve small debris and body parts, but the wings, fuselage and other large components of the Valujet were reduced to shrapnel by the enormous impact.


You seem to be taking your Avatar saying too literally...

Do you even bother doing any research yourself, or do you just read what other "debunkers" say and repeat the party line? I guess I'm going to have to show that you're totally wrong on this. I'll try not to be condescending, but it might be tough....



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
The Valujet was pulverized on impact, very few pieces of recognizable debris remained, and no complete human bodies were ever recovered. VERY similar to Flight 93.


I'll get right to the point and avoid any condescending remarks.

You're wrong.


"Crews have recovered almost 75 percent of the DC-9 that crashed in the Florida Everglades May 11, killing all 110 aboard."

www.cnn.com...

Apparently the ValuJet wasn't pulverized like you said.


Here's the photos of the ValuJet debris and bodies. Notice that the plane wasn't pulverized. There was a hanger full of plane parts. They even re-constructed the cockpit. They also found both flight data recorders.


Engine


Body


Morgue


Debris Hanger


Debris Hanger


Sources:
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.ntsb.gov...


Here's a diagram of the debris field of Flight 427. Notice how large the debris field is in comparison to the helicopter. Also notice that they found the flight data recorders.







For your information, the water at the crash site of Flight 592 was only waist-deep.


Airplane parts will sink in waist deep water. They were also embedded in the crater.




And don't you think it's more than disingenuous to ask: "Can you find ONE photo of another plane crash anywhere that looks even remotely similar the the hole that Flight 93 supposedly made?"...and then go on a snide little rant when somebody does produce such a photo? That's not only disingenuous, it's sour grapes, little man.



Actually, it's not disingenous to point out that the photo of the water surface in the everglades is in no way similar to the grass field in Pennsylvania. Sour grapes? I think you're self-projecting now...

"Little man ???? "

Now I know you're self-projecting.






It took me perhaps two minutes to locate such a photo on the web — at your request. Which tells me that you didn't even try to locate a similar photo before shooting off your mouth.


Maybe you should have spent 3 or 4 minutes looking.

Flight 427 crashed outside of Pittsburgh, nose-diving straight into the ground at high speed, almost exactly like Flight 93 was supposed to have crashed.

Here's a diagram of Flight 427's nose-first crash:





Here's the debris field from Flight 427. Notice the scorched earth and airplane parts. Also notice that this looks nothing like the debris field, or lack of debris field, where Flight 93 is said to have crashed.


Flight 427 Crash Site



Flight 93 "Crash" Site




Here's the engine that was recovered from Flight 427. Notice it wasn't pulverized.

Flight 427 Engine



Source
www.pulitzer.org...


Flight 585

As long as we're on the subject, here's another example of a nose first crash. This one was Flight 585 in Colorado.


"Four days later, on the blustery morning of March 3, 1991, Captain Harold Green and First Officer Patricia Eidson were bringing N999UA down for a routine landing in Colorado Springs. At 1,000 feet, the jet suddenly flipped to the right and dived straight down, smashing into a city park and killing all 25 on board."

www.pulitzer.org...


Here's an overhead view of the crash site. Notice the scorched earth and the visible plane debris:

Flight 585 Crash Site



Here are close-ups of some of the debris. Notice how large the debris is in relation to the size of the people in the photo.

Flight 585 Debris







Once again, compare the above photos with the small crater allegedly produced by Flight 93. Notice there is NO burnt grass. Even the photo in the everglades shows burnt grass. The 585 photos show blackened earth all around the crash site.


Flight 93 "Crash" site







So again, the question remains, why is the site at Flight 93 SO MUCH different than the other crash sites?? Why aren't there any parts to be seen, or any debris, and why aren't there ANY scorch marks near the hole in the ground??



PS:


You'd better adjust your attitude, boy, before I snatch you bald.

— Doc Velocity




You're maturity is only rivaled only by the depth of your research and the logic of your arguments.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
The point is not whether shrapnel can sink in mud. The point is, Nick bluntly asked if we could find a photo of a crash site that even remotely resembles the crash site of Flight 93, and at least 2 of us out here were able to quickly and easily locate such a photo. Crash footprint is roughly the same, aircraft and passengers/crew totally obliterated on impact, no complete human bodies recovered, very little debris remained.

The contention that Nick seems to be putting forward is that the absence of body parts and heavy debris at the crash site indicates that a "real impact" didn't occur in the case of Flight 93. However, in the case of Flight 93, there was indeed debris and human carnage — blasted into tiny fragments by an almost imcomprehensible 580 mph vertical impact.

Yes, in the case of Flight 93, some 700 lbs of pulverized human body parts were recovered from the surrounding area and in the crater itself:

“Apart from, here and there, a finger, a toe or a tooth … were small pieces of tissue and bone.” — John Carlin "Unanswered Questions: The Mystery of Flight 93," The Independent, August 13, 2002

"The largest piece of human tissue reportedly found was “a section of spine eight inches long.” — Richard Wallace "What Did Happen to Flight 93?" Daily Mirror, September 12, 2002

Which is probably consistent with what happens to a jet plane partially filled with human bodies in a 580 mph near-vertical impact — everything either vaporized or reduced to bite-size chunks. I'm not even terribly concerned with the "cloud of confetti" that fell over an 8-mile area from Flight 93. If you had ever seen a major ground explosion in person, you would know that crap keeps falling for a long time over a wide area.

The only thing that really gives me pause about the case of Flight 93 is the fact that wintnesses described seeing "parts falling off" of the plane as it descended to impact. What this says to me is that the integrity of the plane's outer skin was compromised somehow — possibly by the sheer mishandling of the plane at near-maximum speed (it was barrel-rolling, upside-down just before impact, indicating that it was out of control). And, yes, planes tend to fall apart when they are mishandled at max speed.

However, the witness accounts do not describe a commercial airliner that has been blasted to pieces by a missile attack. An air-to-air missile might pop the passenger jet like a balloon, but that's not what the witnesses described — they saw an intact plane rolling over and descending at high speed. In none of the witness accounts is there a description of fighter jets tailing Flight 93 to confirm a kill.

Unless, of course, you also think that all of the witnesses were also "CIA plants," in which case the conspiracy theory just becomes more convoluted, more diluted, and all the less convincing.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
The point is not whether shrapnel can sink in mud. The point is, Nick bluntly asked if we could find a photo of a crash site that even remotely resembles the crash site of Flight 93, and at least 2 of us out here were able to quickly and easily locate such a photo.


I thought people would have enough common sense to realize that a crash in water was not the same. How can you possibly suggest that a crash crater and debris field under 3 feet of water compares to the crash site of Flight 93?

By the way, you're totally wrong about the ValuJet crash not having much debris. They recovered 75% of the plane. Look at the pics in my other post.



The contention that Nick seems to be putting forward is that the absence of body parts and heavy debris at the crash site indicates that a "real impact" didn't occur in the case of Flight 93.


Not exactly. I was talking about the actual crater that was alleged to have been made by the impact. It's not right. There is no debris, and there are no burn marks surrounding this crater. The other flights I referenced also crashed straight down. The smoke cloud was 2000 feet in diameter if the McClatchey photo is legit.

How could grass 3 feet from the hole not be blackened?





Unless, of course, you also think that all of the witnesses were also "CIA plants," in which case the conspiracy theory just becomes more convoluted, more diluted, and all the less convincing.


Just out of curiousity, how many witnesses saw Flight 93 actually hit the ground where they say it hit?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
I'll get right to the point and avoid any condescending remarks. You're wrong.

I'm sure that you're accustomed to telling people that, probably quite often, so I'll take that with a grain of salt. You still haven't proven yourself right, and you're the one making the extraordinary claims, not I.


Originally posted by nick7261
"Crews have recovered almost 75 percent of the DC-9 that crashed in the Florida Everglades May 11, killing all 110 aboard." Apparently the ValuJet wasn't pulverized like you said.

Are you even looking at the photos you're posting? The plane is in thousands and thousands of small pieces. I said pulverized (as in reduced to very small bits), not vaporized on impact. If you need a dictionary, I'm sure there are several available online.


Originally posted by nick7261
Here's the photos of the ValuJet debris and bodies. Notice that the plane wasn't pulverized. There was a hanger full of plane parts. They even re-constructed the cockpit. They also found both flight data recorders.

Funny, I'm not seeing bodies. I see a couple of body bags, which are undoubtedly filled with human parts, but that morgue shot appears largely empty to me.

According to Ivan Apfel, the professional photographer whose photos you lifted: "I was called and airlifted to the crash sight [of Flight 592] within 45 minutes of the crash. I spent the next 4 weeks, 19 hours a day, 6 days a week photograhing everything that happened at the site and in the ME's office."

And Mr. Apfel didn't take a single photo of a single intact human body, which is why you can't find any.


Originally posted by nick7261
Airplane parts will sink in waist deep water. They were also embedded in the crater.

Waist-deep water, mud and bedrock — again, my point is that the density of the impact surface is moot when a passenger jet nose dives into it at hundreds of miles per hour. It's like concrete, either way. In fact, the area of the Everglades where Flight 592 crashed is probably far denser than the impact site of Flight 93, in that 93 slammed into the loose soil of a strip mine that had been worked by the hand of man to a depth of over 40 feet. There was no bedrock encounted by Flight 93. Flight 592 found bedrock just a few feet below the surface.

– Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/21/2007 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
Just out of curiousity, how many witnesses saw Flight 93 actually hit the ground where they say it hit?


"It came in low over the trees and started wobbling," said Tim Thornsberg, a resident of Somerset County, who was working near an old strip mine when he saw the plane... Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees. It was just unreal to see something like that."
www.pittsburgh.com...

Eric Peterson, 28, was working in his shop in the Somerset County village of Lambertsville when he heard a plane, looked up and saw one fly over unusually low. The plane continued on beyond a nearby hill, then dropped out of sight behind a tree line."It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets," Peterson said. "You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side... There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud."
www.post-gazette.com...
www.cleveland.com.../xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/100028703529429109.xml

"We didn't hear that plane coming until it was right on top of us," she said. "Then there was a roar." She said the plane appeared to be gliding into the ground. "All at once it just stopped. There was no engine noise, nothing. Someone hollered, Oh my God!' and then there was a real loud thud."
www.cleveland.com.../xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/100028703529429109.xml

Bob Blair of Stoystown was driving a coal truck on state Route 30 when he saw the jet plummet "straight down." Barn windowpanes for half a mile around shattered as the jet dived into a reclaimed strip mine and exploded at 10:10 a. m. “I saw the plane flying upside down overhead and crash into the nearby trees. My buddy, Doug, and I grabbed our fire extinguishers and ran to the scene,” said Blair.
www.dailyamerican.com...
sfgate.com.../c/a/2001/09/17/MN40630.DTL

A witness told WTAE-TV's Paul Van Osdol that she saw the plane overhead. It made a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then made a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashed.
newsandviews.tripod.com...

Meanwhile, investigators also are combing a second crime scene in nearby Indian Lake (2.5 miles from main crash site), where residents reported hearing the doomed jetliner flying over at a low altitude before "falling apart on their homes." "People were calling in and reporting pieces of plane falling," a state trooper said. Jim Stop reported he had seen the hijacked Boeing 757 fly over him as he was fishing. He said he could see parts falling from the plane. Some witnesses reported that the plane was flying upside down for a time before the crash; others said they heard up to three loud booms before the jetliner went down.
www.post-gazette.com...

Paula Pluta of Stonycreek Township saw the plane crash behind some trees about 1,500 yards from her home. She is the first person to report the crash to emergency services. "There was no way anything was left," Pluta added. "There was just charred pieces of metal and a big hole. The plane didn't slide into the crash. It went straight into the ground. Wings out. Nose down."

Bits of metal were thrown against a tree line like shrapnel, said state police spokesman Trooper Thomas Spallone of Troop A in Greensburg. "Once it hit, everything just disintegrated," he said. "There are just shreds of metal. The longest piece I saw was 2 feet long."
www.mypittsburghlive.com...

Most of the links are outdated, because the original online articles are some 6 years old. But the URLs still point to the sources, and you can inquire to the publication. And I know there were many other witnesses, I'm just not posting every single one.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/21/2007 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Waist-deep water, mud and bedrock — again, my point is that the density of the impact surface is moot when a passenger jet nose dives into it at hundreds of miles per hour. It's like concrete, either way. In fact, the area of the Everglades where Flight 592 crashed is probably far denser than the impact site of Flight 93, in that 93 slammed into the loose soil of a strip mine that had been worked by the hand of man to a depth of over 40 feet. There was no bedrock encounted by Flight 93. Flight 592 found bedrock just a few feet below the surface.


You're shifting the point of this entire topic by arguing whether or not Flight 592 had debris or not. Clearly, what was left of Flight 592 was under the water and not visible on the surface.

You tried to equate the crash site with Flight 592 with that of Flight 93. They aren't comparable since Flight 592's debris was under water.

The debris from Flight 592 was substantial -75% of the plane was found. The crash site at Flight 93 shows nothing that looks like any other crash site that I've seen -no pieces of plane, and no burn marks on the ground. To compare the crash sites of 93 and 592 is pointless.

Flights 427 and 585 also crashed nose-first, and left debris and burn marks. Why aren't debris and burn marks visible at the Flight 93 site?

Just askin...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join