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: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
why is it that when the subject of 911 comes up , that
most people check their common sense at the door ?
you can compare all the photos you want but truth is that
when it comes to a plane crashing directly into the ground at
500mph , it's never happened before . that's the answer to
all the "why doesn't it look like this picture " question.
500mph is extreme and no tests have been done at that speed.
although there may be now or in the works to test that kind of damage.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by rainking]




posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by rainking
you can compare all the photos you want but truth is that
when it comes to a plane crashing directly into the ground at
500mph , it's never happened before


Bolded by me. I guess you didn't read the thread?



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy



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



Here's another photo of the smoke. This was taken from the PA emergency response website, and the photos were taken on 9/12/01.

The smoke is not coming from the crater, as was reported, but from the trees. There was no visible fire in the trees on 9/11, but on 9/12 there was still smoke coming from the trees?

This still isn't making any sense...


Smoke Coming From Crash?



No, Smoke is Coming From Trees



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by rainking
why is it that when the subject of 911 comes up , that
most people check their common sense at the door ?


Because some people take comfort in the notion that the government is like their parent, and is here to protect them and take care of them. They believe whatever their "parent government" tells them because it makes them feel better, even if it doesn't make any sense.


you can compare all the photos you want but truth is that
when it comes to a plane crashing directly into the ground at
500mph , it's never happened before .


Give me a break... that's seems to be the standard answer to exlpain everything that doesn't make sense about 9/11. It doesn't make any sense, so it must be because it didn't happen before.

I posted photos of *VERY* similar, high-speed, nose-first crashes. They left a ton of visible debris, not to mention huge scorch marks all around the crash site.

Try this for common sense...

How did the trees get burnt with a huge fireball, but the ground surrounding the impact crater doesn't show any burn marks? Is this because the plane was going 500 mph???



that's the answer to
all the "why doesn't it look like this picture " question.
500mph is extreme and no tests have been done at that speed.
although there may be now or in the works to test that kind of damage.


So a 300 mph crash into the earth is going to look substantially different from a 500 mph crash into the earth? The 300 mph crash is going to leave burn marks, but the 500 mph crash isn't???

And you say people who question this left *their* common sense at the door?



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 12:41 PM
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...


For the poster who said this has never happened before. If kix is correct with his/her statement.

A plane falling from 33,000 feet would take 45 seconds to hit the ground at normal gravitational acceleration.

t=square root(2xd/g)=SR(2x33000/32)=45.415 sec

The velocity (disregarding terminal velocity) would be 1453 feet/second

V=gt=32x45.415=1453 ft/s

Converting this to miles per hour we get 990 mph.

So, even if terminal velocity is considered, this plane would have been traveling alot faster than 500 mph.

So, yes, it has happened before.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I don't know, Griff. The terminal velocity of a skydiver is around (614, not 125) mph. I'm not saying that a skydiver should have the same terminal velocity as a passenger aircraft, but 1000 mph?


Edit: Found a better source than 125 mph, which was obviously a much bigger difference:

hypertextbook.com...

Now it's more debatable.


I could see an airliner facing straight down having a higher terminal velocity.


Another edit: There's lots of missing info, so I'm just going to say "nevermind" and "no idea".


[edit on 22-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I'm not sure what the terminal velocity of an airliner is either. So, I admit, I could be wrong.

I had a big edit here but it didn't get posted. Anyway, I got all my info from here anyway.

www.grc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 2/22/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 2/22/2007 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

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.


Whatever the truth behind this crash, I believe this is probably the main reason for the story we've heard. The 9/11 Comm. added a little twist of "reality" by deciding they actuallysaid "roll it," referring to a beverage cart they ere trying to break down the cockpit door with. either way, grand or futile heroics, it's inspirational. A shoot-down isn't.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Re-posting this from another thread to help clarify:
"This was not an ordinary crash. it looks like a shoot-down, one obv. interpretation, but there are other explanations. In fact one argument against a shoot-down is that compared to the miles-long debris field that would cause, most of the plane was found, I believe, in this fairly small area, and it was intact enough, or part of it was, to dig that gouge. Soft soil there explains the engine looking like early settlers buried it there. But otherwise, the gouge should perhaps be thought of less as the crash site than as a feature of the overall site, which expands well into the burnt woods. Velocity took the explosion, burning fuel, flying debris into that area, which explains both the burn trees and the lack of burning right around the crater. In short, from what I see, the plane didn't entirely end up there, most of it just passed the spot. "

Imagine the plane plowing into a sandbox. It's a little like that. Heavy parts bury themselves deep, the crater collapses in and winds up looking all smooth, and the lighter burning parts hurtle forward. You want debris in the field? I'd guess you'd want to look at the span up to the woods.

Also a question for Nick: when presented with the debris from Flight 93, you acted as if it was news to you. I'd wonder then if I were you about where you were getting your groundbreaking research that you hadn't seen them yet?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Velocity took the explosion, burning fuel, flying debris into that area, which explains both the burn trees and the lack of burning right around the crater. In short, from what I see, the plane didn't entirely end up there, most of it just passed the spot. "


I'm not sure this makes much sense to me. If the wings gouged the earth, and the engine buried itself in the dirt, then the jet fuel would have had to splatter everywhere between the hole and the woods. It couldn't very well pass over the ground between the hole and the woods because the wings apparently dug directly into the hole.




Also a question for Nick: when presented with the debris from Flight 93, you acted as if it was news to you. I'd wonder then if I were you about where you were getting your groundbreaking research that you hadn't seen them yet?



No, I knew about the debris photos from the Moussoui trial. What I said was this: If the theory is the government is complicit somehow in 9/11, then evidence of debris that the government produced, which was not independently verified, might not have much evidentiary value.

That fact remains that there was NO visible debris at or around the crater, nor were there any burn marks near the crater. Except for planes that crashed into water, I've never seen any photos of another plane crash that didn't leave ANY debris or ANY burn marks near the crash site.

Maybe your explanation about the sandbox theory is right... I don't know.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:47 AM
link   
I don't know enough to contend any points. It probably should have been burned worse. I only first looked at and thought about the crash site the other day. Just food for thought on my first pass.


Originally posted by nick7261
I knew about the debris photos from the Moussoui trial. What I said was this: If the theory is the government is complicit somehow in 9/11, then evidence of debris that the government produced, which was not independently verified, might not have much evidentiary value.


True enough. And I was just checking. FYI, IF you hadn't heard about it, y'know, diversify sources. But you're a good researcher. I was wrong to doubt you. I just heard no debris at crash site, and no explanation of why the pieces I'd seen didn't count but I guess it's in diff. definitions of "site."


Maybe your explanation about the sandbox theory is right... I don't know.

Sandbox theory.. heh... yeah it sounds silly, but that engine was buried, and the area was filled, so I think that might be a good partial metaphor. A densely packed sanbox with sod over it. whatever. Just food for thought again. Carry on.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Funny, i was just watching this, described as, "Never again seen footage of witnesses claiming on live T.V., they never saw any plane at the crash scene."

Apparently never again seen footage, the reporter says they cant find any piece of debris bigger than a phone book.

Video.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I don't know enough to contend any points. It probably should have been burned worse. I only first looked at and thought about the crash site the other day. Just food for thought on my first pass.


How about this for a theory... let me know what you think...

The "crash site" photo might have been the where the tail section of the plane hit if the plane broke in half before it hit the ground. This would explain the small crater described by the first witnesses on the scene, and also why there were no burn marks.

Of course it wouldn't 'splain anything about where the rest of the plane went (exploded in midair?)... or the engine buried by early settlers...



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
That photo that the original poster showed still gives me the impression every time of being computer generated. The ground looks like something out of a low-res satellite photo, with the smoke super-imposed on top.

At 500 MPH (or 434kts) the aircraft is going approximately 80kts faster than its maximum design speed (approximately 350kts for that altitude).

If the 727 fell from 33,000ft and crashed within 45 seconds, that is a rate of descent of around 40,000ft/min. For reference, the Lockheed C-17 GlobeMaster III when employing in-flight reverse thrust, can make 20,000ft/min as a tactical maneuver.

Put an out of control passenger aircraft in a nose-down orientation, and it is entirely feasible that it could attain those speeds.

One issue that I have with those other photos, looking across at the crash site is that we can't see into the ground. We are presented with an image with something that looks like a mound of earth created from a crater, told that the fire in the woods is due to the crash, and see a few (what I presume to be) firefighters on the scene dealing with a fire. This sets the scene for a crash. Could it in fact be a simple mound of earth, and they are in fact dealing with a small fire in the woods caused by an innocent camp fire?



Take these photos for example. Are they even of the same location? Look at the trees in the close-up. They don't look the same, and even accounting for differences in white balance, contrast and brightness, the smoke looks to be the wrong color between the two. Above all, who took the photos? Where are they and what do they say about it?

Whilst there are SIMILARITIES between the two, the bit of wood sticking up and to the side at \ angle, is inconsistent in proportion with the people standing around it. Even allowing for the camera lens, perspective etc.. this does not add up at all.





[edit on 23-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 23-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 23-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 23-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 23-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 23-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit


...and even accounting for differences in white balance, contrast and brightness, the smoke looks to be the wrong color between the two.







[edit on 23-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]


I'll say the smoke is the wrong color! I would expect that the smoke from the plane crash would be black, not white! Look at the Pentagon pics, or the WTC1 and WTC2 pics. The smoke from the initial plane crashes was black.

Do you realize that except for the Val McClatchey photo, there is not a single photo of the smoke from the burning plane? How could this be possible????

You mean not ONE other person who saw the crash and the smoke thought to take a photo??? Or did they take the photos, and then have the FBI confiscate their memory cards and tell them not to talk about it??



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   
To add another little point based on the above:

If the plane struck where we are supposed to believe it struck
and as Caustic hinted at earlier that the plane went in smoothly
into this surprisingly small hole in the ground, would that not in turn re-raise
the conspiracy question surrounding the McClatchey photograph ie. if the crash itself was not a significant impact surely the resulting explosion / fireball would not have been so dramatic /large.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer
To add another little point based on the above:

If the plane struck where we are supposed to believe it struck
and as Caustic hinted at earlier that the plane went in smoothly
into this surprisingly small hole in the ground, would that not in turn re-raise
the conspiracy question surrounding the McClatchey photograph ie. if the crash itself was not a significant impact surely the resulting explosion / fireball would not have been so dramatic /large.


Great point.

You can look at the photos near the hole in the ground. Here's a close-up that shows grass within *inches* of the crater not even slightly disturbed, let alone scorched by a giant fireball.

And you can tell this photo was taken within minutes of the impact because of the shadows, and because the only vehicle at the scene was the red firetruck.

Notice the edges around the hole:



Now, just as a reminder, here's what a *real* crash site looks like.

This is the wreckage of Flight 427, which also crashed nose-first, coincidentally, just outsite of Pittsburgh:






And here's how scorched the ground was when Flight 585 crashed nose-first near Denver:





And once again, here's the hole from "Flight 93"





Seriously, if the government didn't tell you that a plane crashed here, what would you think this looked like?

BTW, were any parts of the "wreckage" ever positively identified through serial numbers as belonging to United Flight 93?

I will predict that this will be the first "seam" of the conspiracy that opens up. I also think that the focus has been intentionally directed towards the Pentagon and the WTCs just to divert attention away from Flight 93.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Here is another point: Notice how the smoke conveniently obliterates most of the the view of the crash site, and most importantly, the bit that matters, so you can't really see anything anyways? Can't see the smoke for the .. errr .. smoke.

I still think that thing is computer generated.

It is also inconsistent with the other "official" photograph. In addition, when and how was this aerial photo taken, and by whom?

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Here is another point: Notice how the smoke conveniently obliterates most of the the view of the crash site, and most importantly, the bit that matters, so you can't really see anything anyways? Can't see the smoke for the .. errr .. smoke.

I still think that thing is computer generated.

It is also inconsistent with the other "official" photograph. In addition, when and how was this aerial photo taken, and by whom?

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]


If you go to YouTube you'll find several aerial videos from apparently news crews. And you're right, there seems to be something not consistent about the aerial veiws as compared to the ground views. For example, in the aerial views on 9/11, the trees don't seem as burnt as the ground views from 9/12.

It's also interesting that the smoke is white, is mostly coming from the trees, and is still coming from the trees the next day.

It's also odd that witnesses from Indian Lake, including Val McClatchey, claim to have heard the plane fly overhead from the west of the crater. The official story is that the plane came from the north.


But let's not get bogged down in the minutia... just look at the crater! A 757 didn't explode in this hole in the ground!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join