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.

 

Flight 93 Crash Fraud???

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Sometimes things are TOO obvious. After looking at photos of other crash sites similar to Flight 93, I'm seriously having a hard time believing that there is **ANY** chance that Flight 93 crashed in the hole where they say it did.

Here's what the Flight 93 crash site looked like on 9/11 just after the crash:


Flight 93 "Crash Site"


Flight 93 "Crater"



Is this possibly what a normal crash site looks like???



Flight 585

Some argue that Flight 93 left no debris field because it crashed nose-first at high speed. So did Flight 585 when it crashed near Denver.




"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...



Did Flight 585 leave a debris field? Did the explosion scorch the earth?

Here are the photos of the crash site of Flight 585:


Crash Site Flight 585 -Notice Scorched Earth



Flight 585 Debris



Flight 585 Debris



Does this look ANYTHING like the crash site at Flight 93???

Source:
www.pulitzer.org...



ValuJet Flight 592

Other people have claimed that the crash of ValuJet Flight 427 shows a similar crash site with no debris. This is because it crashed into water in the everglades. There was plenty of debris. Here are photos of the ValuJet Crash:


Crash Site -Where's The Plane??? Under Water!!



Here's the debris that was recovered:


Debris in Hanger


Debris in Hanger


Engine



Do these photos look ANYTHING like the crash site at Flight 93??


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



Flight 427 Pittsburgh

Flight 427 is a well known crash because the rudder failed, causing the plane to nose-dive straight into the earth.


Flight 427 Crash Diagram



However, unlike Flight 93, Flight 427 left plenty of debris.


Flight 427 Debris


Flight 427 Debris



Flight 427 Engine



Again, compare these photos to the Flight 93 crash site:

Flight 93 "Crash" Site



Where is the debris from Flight 93? Why aren't there any scorch marks on the grass around the crater? If you look at the pile of dirt from the crater, the dirt isn't even scorched.

Now look at the photo that supposedly captured a black smoke plume from the crash of Flight 93:


Flight 93 Smoke Plume (source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)



So how could a crash that created a 2000 foot wide smoke plume fail to leave a black mark on the dirt and grass at the crash site?? How can the ground at the crash site not be burnt??


Here's the challenge:

Can anybody provide a single photo of a plane that crashed onto land that didn't leave any sign of debris, and/or didn't scorch the surrounding earth??

(Water crashes don't count!)

Can anybody provide convincing evidence that the hole in the ground where Flight 93 is supposed to have crashed is actually the site of a plane crash?


Explain how the explosion strong enough to vaporize the entire plane failed to burn the grass 3 feet away from the explosion???

Where Are the Burn Marks???




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
What are the chances that a plane crashes into the ground and by the time someone is overhead to take a picture the grass has regrown where the plane crashed.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jotfish
What are the chances that a plane crashes into the ground and by the time someone is overhead to take a picture the grass has regrown where the plane crashed.




Zero.

Are you thinking that the overhead pic was taken much later, or are you suggesting that the crater doesn't look like what you'd expect it to look like?

I'm going to find the dated photo of the crater just to double verify what it looked like on 9/11.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Its simple, the plane crashed into the ground. Only leaving a -seemingly- dubious amount of evidence simply due to the ammount of Bull$*1t that was generated on that perticular day. (Bull$*1t being particually sticky and hard to remove)

Permit me to explain further, it takes apx 30 mins to clear up after a healthy bull/horse/geraffe etc. Due to freak a 'need to know' hold up at the shoveling department - YOU DONT NEED TO KNOW. (also a little more time than expected will be required for poopy pick up)

So please refrain from common sense, be a good kiddie and just put a peg on your nose, you'll be like all the other good boys and girls. (pat on the head for good measure)



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I have never seen photo that even show's the smallest bit of wreckage!!! It seems that more than one plane totally dissappeared that day



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then
Its simple, the plane crashed into the ground. Only leaving a -seemingly- dubious amount of evidence simply due to the ammount of Bull$*1t that was generated on that perticular day. (Bull$*1t being particually sticky and hard to remove)

Permit me to explain further, it takes apx 30 mins to clear up after a healthy bull/horse/geraffe etc. Due to freak a 'need to know' hold up at the shoveling department - YOU DONT NEED TO KNOW. (also a little more time than expected will be required for poopy pick up)


That answered nothing.

Well, when we've seen something weird in video before, one possibility usually raised that hasn't been here is doctoring of the video. It may sound silly. but... they just messin with us? Otherwise, it could be a partial debris field from a factor not in the othe crashes, like a shoot-down, where this is really ony the gouge of a single large piece like he nosecone, and was reported as THE crash site cause it's the biggest mark anyone could find in one spot. It's also possible the shot is just too far away to show small debris? Most that was found was well buried in the dirt, which looks like some kind of filled-in area that amy almost work like quicksand (?) where the engine was found. Lighter parts were found in the woods. The photos that show plane parts.



www.vaed.uscourts.gov...
That one as found in the woods, apparently, a ways from the mystery pit.

Planted? Or could it be as prosaic as most of the plane hit and skidded here, breaking up along the way, and scattered into the trees? Admittedly a quick jump from intact to scattered...

[edit on 21-2-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Apologies Caustic, my response was not supposed to answer anything.

Only to express my on going frustration, and interest in this cover up.

After a while this screen starts to look rather small, and I’ve resigned myself to the fact that we will probably never meet anyone who will know the truth in their life time - even if they are born tomorrow.


kix

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   
I have been to a crash site, and let me tell you debris everywhere, parts of plane, human , lugage and such are all around, nothing nice (the plane in quetion a 727 -200ADV, that fell from 33000 feet to the ground at high speed....

That is one of th emain reasons I dont believe any of the 2 "crashes of 757´s" on 9/11 photos or not...



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by kix
I have been to a crash site, and let me tell you debris everywhere, parts of plane, human , lugage and such are all around, nothing nice (the plane in quetion a 727 -200ADV, that fell from 33000 feet to the ground at high speed....

That is one of th emain reasons I dont believe any of the 2 "crashes of 757´s" on 9/11 photos or not...


I live in Pittsburgh, and I worked with a EMT who helped clean up the Flt. 427 crash, and he said the same thing (which the photos seem to support). He said it was like they put the plane through a blender, with body parts everywhere.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Isn't it true that the coroner who arrived at the site didn't even find a drop of blood?I think I remember reading that somewhere.If that is true then something is very with the official explanation.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt
Isn't it true that the coroner who arrived at the site didn't even find a drop of blood?I think I remember reading that somewhere.If that is true then something is very with the official explanation.


I remember the coroner was quoted as not seeing any blood. Here's another quote I found from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette from Oct. 2001.



Even in the middle of it all, where trees were scorched and the Boeing 757's fuselage disintegrated in a crater that collapsed on itself [to leave a gouge maybe 14 feet across,/b] the destruction was so complete that it was hard to imagine what happened.

"It was as if the plane had stopped and let the passengers off before it crashed," Miller said.


www.post-gazette.com...

WTF???

The gouge was only 14 feet across because the crater collapsed on itself?

And notice that the coroner's quote was in reference to when he first arrived at the crash site, which was almost immediately taken over by the FBI.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

"It was as if the plane had stopped and let the passengers off before it crashed," Miller said.


www.post-gazette.com...

WTF???


Maybe the plane did stop and let the passengers off. It suppossedly touched down in Ohio but that is another thread.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   










Whatever it was, not only it disappeared. It made a fire too.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Whatever it was, not only it disappeared. It made a fire too.


In all your pictures, I see smoke but no fire. I guess it's like WTC7 though. Massive smoke means massive fire right?



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by nick7261

"It was as if the plane had stopped and let the passengers off before it crashed," Miller said.


www.post-gazette.com...

WTF???


Maybe the plane did stop and let the passengers off. It suppossedly touched down in Ohio but that is another thread.


256.com...

Already debunked. It was Delta flight 1989.


After our emergency landing, our plane was directed to go to an isolated area of the airport, and we waited for over two hours in quarantine before FBI agents and bomb sniffing dogs came out to the plane. Just after we landed, the pilot gave us permission to make one very brief telephone call before we were banned from any further telephone use. The sixty or so passengers were thus able to gather some alarming details of the unbelievable fates of the other two LA-bound planes and the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, the suicide bombing of the Pentagon as well as reports of other plane crashes in PA and LA (LA proved unfounded) before we were cut off from any further communication. Unfortunately, all this information only added to the alarm and confusion we felt as we waited for over two hours far away from the gates of the airport.

Finally, a caravan of cars bearing FBI and Treasury agents and bomb sniffing dogs approached our airplane. About twenty or so armed FBI agents and police officers boarded the plane and said there were concerns about our flight and that they were taking precautions to rule out any further danger. We finally were allowed off the plane, told to take all of our personal items and leave everything at the edge of the tarmac. While our personal effects were examined we were taken to a secure building at the airport where for three hours we were interrogated at length about any unusual or suspicious activities we observed at Logan that morning or during our flight. We were all alarmed and distraught about the dribs and drabs of information we were slowly getting from our telephone calls (none of us was able to see a TV or listen to a radio) and feeling unbelievably lucky to be alive.

The agents interrogated two of the passengers at length and we later learned that one of them had an expired drivers' license and that the social security number on his license did not match the one he gave. Despite these unusual circumstances, we were all eventually released and went back to the airplane to gather our belongings. We were then escorted out of the airport without going through the main terminal to avoid what the FBI called a "media circus" because the mayor of Cleveland was holding a press conference stating that there was a bomb on our plane and a hijacker in the cabin. Fortunately we were unaware of these goings-on at the time or it would only have increased our alarm. (By the way, the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper the next morning confirmed all of this and reported that the mayor retracted his comments later that afternoon.)

Because we were in protective custody or detention at the Cleveland airport for so many hours I was not able to make phone calls to let our children know we were okay, and child [...] spent a couple of extremely distraught hours after the school assembly announced the horrific events of the morning. S/he knew [my spouse] and I were on an 8 am flight from Boston to LA and when s/he learned that the two airplanes that crashed into the two WTC towers were 8am flights from Boston s/he feared the worst. S/he called home but there was no one to take the call. S/he had to wait a couple of agonizing hours before we were finally able to call the school to let [them] know we were shaken but alive. Fortunately, I was able to reach [my other child's] school and they pulled [her/him] out of class to reassure [her/him] that we were safe before making the announcement of what had happened that day. We were also able to relay information to [our other child] that we were safe before s/he learned what had happened.


thepost.baker.ohiou.edu...


CLEVELAND - No explosives were found aboard a Delta flight from Boston that was forced to land at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport because of fears it had been hijacked, city officials said.

The Federal Aviation Administration had been informed at 9:45 a.m. of a possible hijacking of a plane headed for Cleveland, said FBI spokesman Mark Bullock.

Flight 1989 to Los Angeles was not hijacked but was grounded by Delta because it was in the same flight pattern as a plane that was hijacked and struck the World Trade Center in New York, Bullock said.

The plane landed about 10:45 a.m. today with 78 passengers aboard, airport officials said.

The Boeing 767 was evacuated and searched, said Della Homenik, spokeswoman for Mayor Michael R. White. Passengers were taken to a nearby NASA facility.

FBI spokesman Bob Hawk said that since the Delta plane left Boston about the same time as the hijacked plane, passengers were being interviewed to see if they saw anything unusual this morning.

After the plane landed, the airport was closed and bomb-sniffing dogs were brought to baggage pickup areas.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


In all your pictures, I see smoke but no fire. I guess it's like WTC7 though. Massive smoke means massive fire right?


Sooner or later those trees have to turn black.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Now I see what you mean Deltaboy. I hadn't noticed the black trees that were stripped of their greenery. I was focusing more on the smoke than the trees. My bad.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
your link

Here is a link to some other pictures and personal effects.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
IT does look suspicous,


but youve gotta ask yourself, why would they go to elaborate lengths to do something on this scale, when the towers had already been hit...

surely the towers would of been enough to stoke public outrage.. why crash a seemingly menial plane?



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
but youve gotta ask yourself, why would they go to elaborate lengths to do something on this scale, when the towers had already been hit...

surely the towers would of been enough to stoke public outrage.. why crash a seemingly menial plane?


My theory is that they needed the "Let's Roll" attitude from the public. It gave people a sense of "well we got one of them at least" attitude. Then we didn't feel so vulnerable.

Just my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join