the shanksville incident flight 93

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


If you really want to know the answers to your questions, then go to this thread.

It is still ongoing and John Lear has posted on that thread about the transponders and radio communications.




posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   
So, regarding the mining scar - the 1994 scar does look similar - could it be that the 'plane' simply disapeared into another mining scar? Has anyone really researched the possibility of the crash site being made by machinery prior to the event?

I think this argument is dead in the water as no matter what happened that day, a plane did not crash in Shanksville as there was no wreckage. Cars, planes, boats, rockets, bodies all leave clearly visible wreckage after crashing.......

But it is interesting, this look into the world of conspiracy...... Is this just a forum for rather bitter argument, like most other forums on the net I have viewed, or are people seriously searching for answers and so are open to debate.

I do not have a fixed opinion on any of this an I am willing to go with th best evidence that I am made aware of. What is it with all of the vociferous arguing that takes place here - why do so many feel thay have a monopoly on the truth..... I say this haveing fully read another thread which seemed to be similar in tone......



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by welshlamb
So, regarding the mining scar - the 1994 scar does look similar - could it be that the 'plane' simply disapeared into another mining scar? Has anyone really researched the possibility of the crash site being made by machinery prior to the event?

I think this argument is dead in the water as no matter what happened that day, a plane did not crash in Shanksville as there was no wreckage. Cars, planes, boats, rockets, bodies all leave clearly visible wreckage after crashing.......

But it is interesting, this look into the world of conspiracy...... Is this just a forum for rather bitter argument, like most other forums on the net I have viewed, or are people seriously searching for answers and so are open to debate.

I do not have a fixed opinion on any of this an I am willing to go with th best evidence that I am made aware of. What is it with all of the vociferous arguing that takes place here - why do so many feel thay have a monopoly on the truth..... I say this haveing fully read another thread which seemed to be similar in tone......






From what i have seen this forum becomes something of a think tank a lot of the time and yes it is serious, you have some people who use it just to attack for the sake of it but that is what the ignore button is for, you can post the facts as they are and i promise someone will come along and debunk, but on the whole its a fantastic site always something going on and like this thread people get to air their views and bring evidence together that others didnt know about, in my mind this allows the pieces of the puzzle to go together quicker.
its addictive also so be careful!!



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by welshlamb
I do not have a fixed opinion on any of this an I am willing to go with th best evidence that I am made aware of.


That is a very good way to look at things welsh.

So far, the only evidence posted here for either side of the argument has been this:


Originally posted by robert z
Miller collected both body parts and plane parts from the scene and identified the human remains, matching the body parts with the victims.

www.post-gazette.com...

www.post-gazette.com...


and this:


Originally posted by thedman


I would love to see hard evidence, like photographs or statements from people who were on the scene, for the other side(s) of the argument (no plane theory).

[edit on 10-10-2007 by craig732]



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I remember reading an article years ago saying that the fragmentation of debris was so complete that bits and pieces are still turning up in trees and fields. I wonder what a couple sidewinders might have done to a large object before what the remaining intact piece(s) hit the ground. Hard to say.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by welshlamb

I think this argument is dead in the water as no matter what happened that day, a plane did not crash in Shanksville as there was no wreckage. Cars, planes, boats, rockets, bodies all leave clearly visible wreckage after crashing.......


I do not have a fixed opinion on any of this an I am willing to go with th best evidence that I am made aware of. What is it with all of the vociferous arguing that takes place here - why do so many feel thay have a monopoly on the truth..... I say this haveing fully read another thread which seemed to be similar in tone......



Your post is internally contradictory, as well as a mistatement of fact.

You say there was no wreckage at the crash site of FL 93, yet there WAS wreckage. Do you not know any better, or are you intentionally misrepresenting the facts?

Second, you claim to have no fixed opinion, and yet state as if you have the monopoly on the truth, that no plane crashed at Shanksville. You do not show any inclination to go with the best evidence because you ignore the best evidence -the reports of those who were at the crash site picking up pieces of bodies and plane material.

If you really want some insight call up the Somerset Coroner, Wally Miller, and ask him about the human remains he collected, along with all the plane parts. Then report back here what Mr. Miller tells you.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732

I would love to see hard evidence, like photographs or statements from people who were on the scene, for the other side(s) of the argument.


Why not call Wally Miller and talk with him?

Then call up the Shanksville Volunteer Fire Department and ask to speak with some of the men who arrived on the scene first. There are photographs of plane debris from Shanksville. There was a lot of personal belongings collected and given back to relatives. These people are not hard to find. Do some research, look them up, talk to them, and then report back to everybody your opinion.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
robertz is post banned until he calms down. A polite request for civility from a site owner is met with the oh so typical and vitriolic "double standard" reply the overly emotional and lacking in social grace seem to toss up whenever their lack of manners is brought to their attention.

Civility is not an option or an "as you feel like it" proposition on ATS, it's a requirement those of us who work hard to keep this free venue available demand.

IF robertz can gain some composure and manners (s)he will be let back in, if not then so be it.


Springer...



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
That goes double for me! You tell him Spring. (Standing 10 paces behind)



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
This plane certainly has a unique story in the 911 saga. It stands out from the rest in so many subtle ways. I'm sure most of us have seen the movie, which intentional or not serves as a great propaganda piece and allows people to nod and say "see, that is what happened there".

If the plane came down the way they said it did, then it certainly fits the story. A plane that had been 'shot down' would in fact leave large pieces of wreckage as it would simply fall from the sky. This is a very different crash result than if the current explanation is true - that of a plane under full throttle, belly rolling into a vertical plunge. In those situations the extreme lack of recognizable plane parts is quite understandable, depending on ground density, etc.

My own personal theory on what could have happened to Flight 93 is that the plane was taken over by remote control, and crashed when the pilots onboard damaged the controls in an attempt to bypass the over-rides. I have always thought it was extremely suspicious that the planes that hit the towers were so 'dead on', even though the aircraft had both made a pretty fast turn shortly before nailing the buildings - at full throttle. This would be a lot more difficult than people realize, the combination of the laggy controls of a large airliner and the trick of perspective that travelling in the air at those speeds gives you... *shrug*

Finally, as for John Lear, I can't be the only one tired of his routine by now. Being insultingly polite as you mock people gets old. Be careful John, you seem to be skating out onto thinner ice by the day as far as your credibility is concerned. I understand, appreciate, and fully respect all the experience you have through-out your life as a pilot - your bio makes for great reading. This does not give you license to descend into a tail-spin of rambling, of which I am sorry to say you appear to be heading. I know these forums are as much entertainment as they are knowledge and debate, but... David Icke watch out!


admin edit: removed "rude', non ATS quality, namecalling... Please review the courtesy requirements of ATS.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by Springer]



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pigchunks
thank you


[snip]


plzkthanxbye


MOD EDIT - removed insulting remark.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 10-10-2007 by elevatedone]


but left the other [snip] offbased undeisred comments in thread

[snip]


MOD NOTE:
You should have reviewed that link...

[edit on 11-10-2007 by elevatedone]



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I've thought about this a few times, and considered making a thread, but I'll ask here since there are some people in this thread that don't believe a flight 93 crashed as per the official story.

If you don't think they were in the crash - What do you think happened to those passengers?

This isn't a facetious remark, it's an honest question - and the same goes for the passengers of the planes (or none-planes) that hit the Pentagon and WTC.

If you believe that whatever hit these targets were not the passenger planes as per the official story, then what do you think could've happened to the people on those planes? Murdered? On a paradise island with their memories wiped a la the TV show Lost? Toiling in the reptillian underground caverns? -- Sorry, couldn't resist that last one! Serious question!



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by VelvetSplash

If you don't think they were in the crash - What do you think happened to those passengers?

This isn't a facetious remark, it's an honest question - and the same goes for the passengers of the planes (or none-planes) that hit the Pentagon and WTC.

If you believe that whatever hit these targets were not the passenger planes as per the official story, then what do you think could've happened to the people on those planes? Murdered? On a paradise island with their memories wiped a la the TV show Lost? Toiling in the reptillian underground caverns? -- Sorry, couldn't resist that last one! Serious question!


I have never understood that question "What happened to the passengers?"

First I am not a no planer...remote control is possible...and the Pentagon is still up for grabs. But my last question would be what happened to the passengers??? They were murdered.

If you are going to attack the WTC why would you think the perps would balk at killing the passengers? Sorry I have never understood the implication of that question.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Hello everyone,

Well this is certainly a charged discussion...

The only thing that makes sense to me is that flt93 was shot-down and was largely destroyed by the time it hit the ground, thus leaving a smaller foot-print, widely scattered debris field.

For obvious reasons the gov't does not want to admit it.

My conclusion does not exclude any of the other ideas expressed here, i.e. remote control, inside job, etc. Nonetheless it certainly does exclude any notion that the passenger and crew of flt93 were not killed.

Thank you for your kind consideration.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by blowfishdl
You say they died. Whow ere they? Who knows their names? Do you know someone who was on those lfights? I've searched the internet many times over trying to find someone who knows someone on any of those planes. Nobody is talking. Why.


Did you not read the 1st page of this thread? The list is posted there.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
If you are going to attack the WTC why would you think the perps would balk at killing the passengers? Sorry I have never understood the implication of that question.


Of course. Makes perfect sense to me, but there are plethora of theories about the crashes themselves, just wondered what theories people had about the people on the planes.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenFloyd
Hello everyone,

Well this is certainly a charged discussion...

The only thing that makes sense to me is that flt93 was shot-down and was largely destroyed by the time it hit the ground, thus leaving a smaller foot-print, widely scattered debris field.


And how big exactly, would the missile need to be to cause such a large break up? Completely destroying a fighter is one thing, but to cause a 757 to break up into small pieces needs a bit more power. consider TWA 800, or Pan Am 103. Regardless of the actual cause of the explosion, the main cause for the break up was the sudden depressurisation of the aircraft itself, the initial explosive only setting off the chain of evens.

And if it did break up in the way you suggest, how come there are no reports of big pieces of debris coming down like this?




posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by GreenFloyd
Hello everyone,

The only thing that makes sense to me is that flt93 was shot-down and was largely destroyed by the time it hit the ground, thus leaving a smaller foot-print, widely scattered debris field.


And how big exactly, would the missile need to be to cause such a large break up? Completely destroying a fighter is one thing, but to cause a 757 to break up into small pieces needs a bit more power. consider TWA 800, or Pan Am 103. Regardless of the actual cause of the explosion, the main cause for the break up was the sudden depressurisation of the aircraft itself, the initial explosive only setting off the chain of evens.

And if it did break up in the way you suggest, how come there are no reports of big pieces of debris coming down like this?



Dear apex,

I do not know if it was a missile, although it may have been. As for how big a missile, if it was indeed a missle, I have no idea.

Was flt93 a 757? I thought it was a smaller plane.

I'm not sure what explosion you reffering to but perhaps you are suggesting the plane blew-up in mid-air? Or from the impact of a missile?

Either would seem to explain the inital cause of a break-up. And as for no reports of big pieces, perhaps there were none?

cheers...



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenFloyd
Was flt93 a 757? I thought it was a smaller plane.

I'm not sure what explosion you reffering to but perhaps you are suggesting the plane blew-up in mid-air? Or from the impact of a missile?

Either would seem to explain the inital cause of a break-up. And as for no reports of big pieces, perhaps there were none?


With regards to explosions, I'm just wondering how big an explosion you would need to get the result that people suggest occurred, namely an in flight break up of the aircraft.

And if there were no large pieces, that suggests a large explosion in the air, which people would have heard, or a high speed impact, namely what supposedly happened.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by GreenFloyd

Was flt93 a 757? I thought it was a smaller plane.


With regards to explosions, I'm just wondering how big an explosion you would need to get the result that people suggest occurred, namely an in flight break up of the aircraft.


That's probably a very good question; the answer might help us determine the in-flight vs shoot-down possibilities. To give a satisfactory answer would require much more expertise than I possess.

However, we also have to consider the famous 3rd possibility; that the crew/passengers overcame the highjackers but in the process threw the plane into a fatal dive and sections broke off in the rapid descent.

Again though, I have no idea as to a specific amount of any particular explosive or type of missile that would result in this kind of near complete destruction of the aircraft and all those poor souls aboard.



And if there were no large pieces, that suggests a large explosion in the air, which people would have heard, or a high speed impact, namely what supposedly happened.


I guess a lot would depend on how high the plane was and where it was when it was hit/exploded. Can we state as fact no one on the ground heard anything? If it was a shoot-down, then we know there was at least one eye wittness. Sooner or later, if I'm right and any judge of human nature; anyone with a shread of humanity for the flt93 families will break and spill the beans. But God, I hope I'm wrong!

cheers...





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join