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 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

page: 100
24
<< 97  98  99    101  102  103 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


For CO's sake, is that and apples to apples or apples to oranges comparison?
Flight 427, which I posted a link to above, hit the ground at an 80 degree angle at 300 mph.



Definately identifiable as an plane crash. If the fuel didn't cause a subsequent fire, then why was there no fuel contamination found by the EPA? Where did it go?




posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


What was the speed of flight 93? What was the angle? What difference does this translate in joules?

What I found interesting:


There were sections from the tail, cockpit and wings, but much of the plane had smashed into pieces no larger than graham crackers.



An odd assortment of items survived with no damage. There were thousands of BusinessWeeks with "THE GLOBAL INVESTOR" on the cover, and suitcases that looked as if the passengers of Flight 427 had set them down in the forest and walked away.


www.sptimes.com...


"Where's the airplane?" somebody asked.

"It's here," said NTSB engine expert Jerome Frechette. "It's all around us."


www.sptimes.com...



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


CO....your quote about the suitcases struck me.

Obviously order can occur from chaos....a random suitcase....a barely damaged passport....

I am continually reminded of a crash in Detroit....NorthWest Airlines....ONE survivor! Every one else killed (including two on the ground) but one little girl survived!

Why? Because of the inimitable, unexplainable law of chaos. Just as a suitcase or a passport or a credit card or a dollar bill can survive, so can a little girl. It is random, and completely unpredictable beforehand.

WW



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


WW... this happens in virtually ALL airline crashes. But since it happened on 911..there HAS to be a conspiracy.

I'm not sure if you realize it, but the quotes are not from the flight 93 crash.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


CO, I know. I'm on your page here.

This is a thread about UAL93, but it carries a current, it attracts others who question AAL77 and AAL11 and UAL175.

AAL77 has a thread....one that annoys me, since I knew the FO on that flight, David Charlebois. AND there were children, from a school in Maryland, excited about their trip to Los Angeles.

So, I get very, very annoyed by people who wish to 'deny' the reality of AAL77, based on some silly 'conspiracy' idea.

The road goes both ways, in these 9/11 forums (forae)?

Why the 'jump' to 9/11 'conspiracy theories'?? Why?

Is it so hard to consider the ability of determined Muslim terrorists to carry out this deed?

WW



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


W.W.,

what I found with most truthers, is that they have to have the criminals/reasons match the magnitude of the event.

For example. One goon could NOT have shot our president. It had to be more than Lee Harvey Oswald. It was the CIA, the Russians, Johnson...etc.

Same goes for 911. 19 "cavemen" could not have inflicted the damage to our country the way they did.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
IF you are seek more evidence regarding what hit the towers, then my friend you are questioning the validity of the news media AND amateur videos...


So in other words you cannot post any evidence to support your theory or the official story.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
ok, i'm open minded but what would the purpose be in faking a plane crash?



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by stepfoy
 


stepfoy, that is the $64,000,000 question!!

Where are the people (who gives a fig about the Saudis!) I mean, the people on that airplane. Two pilots, four Flight Attendants.....a group of school children, for Chrissakes!!! Where are they? Did the family of David Charlebois (the F/O, co-pilot) fake his service at the largest Cathollic Church in DC? (I'm not Catholic, but I attended his service -- in UNIFORM -- in his honor).

I dare these 'monday morning quaterbacks' to come here to DC, and Maryland, and Virginia, and meet these people who lost loved ones, and tell them to their faces that they are lying.

WW



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

what I found with most truthers, is that they have to have the criminals/reasons match the magnitude of the event.

For example. One goon could NOT have shot our president. It had to be more than Lee Harvey Oswald.


So I take it you believe in the magic bullet then?
Figures. Even the House select committee in the 80s admitted it was a conspiracy with more than one gunman. Shows your objectivity, Cap'n.

And BTW, did you know Jimmy Carter's attempted assassination was carried out by two guys named Lee and Harvey? Just a little fun fact to ponder. What a curious world we live in!


Same goes for 911. 19 "cavemen" could not have inflicted the damage to our country the way they did.


No, they had the help of all those war games!

And as for the thread topic, I asked 5 pages ago how the plane that made that silly hole managed to spread debris over an 8-mile radius on impact. Care to answer, Cap'n?

[edit on 24-4-2008 by gottago]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


gottago....the iconic picture used so often on the Internet was not the entry hole....it was/has been shown to be a picture of inside the Pentagon, on the interior of the 'C' Ring...if I'm not mistaken.

Hey! I drove past the Pentagon for days in, days out....all I could see was the outside, and it was a huge mess....not some little 'hole'!

WW



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


WW, I was referring to the silly hole in Shanksville, not the silly hole at the Pentagon..that's for another thread.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Oh, yeah....like the 'silly hole' outside Pittsburgh when USAir 427 did a 'lawndart' maneuver.

Or UAL in Colorado Springs....

WW



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


My point is not the silly hole in and of itself, but the combo of the silly hole and the debris field of stuff from the plane found all about the area, rather than in the immediate vicinity of the silly hole.

If, as the Official Story (and the Official Movie) goes, flight 93 plowed into that silly hole after losing control, why all the debris found all over the place? Miles 'round?

This is so basic to disproving the OS that the case is closed right there.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Zaph, good research....but you and I know most of the fuel was in the Center fuel tank....whether PA 103 or AAL77.

WW


Actually, at least for Transatlantic flights with a 747 they carried the fuel in the wings. That's what happened to TWA 800. The center tank had something like 200 gallons in it, if that. All the fuel was loaded in the wings. That was pretty standard practice at HNL too. They'd load the wings first, and THEN if necessary the center wing tank. You could watch the wings drooping as the weight went it.

We had the Prime Minister of Japan come in with a pair of 747-400s, and when we went over the plan on where to park them, the Japanese advance team told us it wouldn't work, because when they were fueled each wing was 13 feet longer, because of weight.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
And as for the thread topic, I asked 5 pages ago how the plane that made that silly hole managed to spread debris over an 8-mile radius on impact. Care to answer, Cap'n?


Sure gottago... First you need to tell me what the debris were? My understanding that the debris that were found were nothing but very light weight things like papers and stuff like that.

If you have a problem with a 9 mile and hour wind blowing papers around ...well then I cant help you.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Zaph, with respect....I am not typed on the B747, nor have I ever flown it.

And as to TWA800, yes! The center tank was not fueled for its JFK-ORY flight.

In the case of the B737/B757/B767....the wing tanks are fueled first. Depending on the amount of fuel required per the Flight Plan, after the wings are full, any excess goes into the center tank.

So, when we are conducting the 'Before Engine Start' checklist....this is the checklist we run just after the cabin door is closed, and we receive the final paperwork from the GSC....right about this time the Forward Flight Attendant hands us the count...of the passengers, so we can make sure it jives with the paperwork we got from the Gate Agent (the GSC)

So, the 'checklist' has, among one item.....'Fuel Pumps'. We turn on the appropriate fuel pumps (actually, it is a 'flow' we perform before reading the checklist). If it is a short flight, and there's no fuel in the Center tank....we don't turn those pumps on!

Not jumping down your throat, Zaph....just saw an opening to explain to the more aviation-challenged how it works, in the real world.

(Hint for all of youse....when the 'SeatBelt' sign is turned on, just before push-back, that means we have reached the end of our "Before Start" checklist....the SB sign indicates imminent movement of the airplane)

WW



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
In this Flight 93 DID NOT CRASH IN SHANKSVILLE thread, NOT ONCE has any GROUP or person has been able to prove that a plane crahsed in shanksville.


These misinformed, ignorance has been trying to prove the flight 93 had the force of 1000000 joules or whatever but they cant explain how everything of the plane 'vapourized', that means nothing left, no seats, no air frames, no wings, no fuel, no luggage but yet........

the terrorists passport survives.....

The commission released pictures of hijackers' visas -- including the charred remains of Ziad Jarrah's visa, plucked from the wreckage of United Flight 93 near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.




The Saudi passport of Saeed Alghamdi, said to be discovered in the wreckage of Flight 93. [Source: FBI]According to the 9/11 Commission, the passports of two hijackers are discovered in the wreckage of Flight 93. One passport, belonging to Saeed Alghamdi, is damaged but still readable. The other passport, belonging to Ziad Jarrah, is burned most of the way through, but part of his photograph is still visible



Would you kids like to explain how plane rims, wings, tail, stabilizers, hundreds of windows, luggage, hundreds of seats, miles of wire, carpeting, piping, 1000's lbs of aluminium........ Yet the PASSPORTS SURVIVE.....?


Can you say" The evidence from Shanksville is fraudulant and has been planted"?



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Nice vid.



Professionals agree " No plane crashed or was found in Shanksville, PA, on September 11th, 2001."

[edit on 24-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


The video missed the angle of impact. Why is the video unable to get anything right? How can someone do such a poor job? It looked like 5 degrees, not 41.1. Why is the video so far off!?

The impacts of other aircraft were slow speed, and shallow angles; as if the crashed at landing or takeoff. Why is the video trying to mislead people?

Not a single graduate from an aircraft accident investigation class. Why?

So far you present hearsay, when you need some facts. Your video fails to make correct analogies.

You got a list of your experts?

The aircraft accidents I have already looked up prove you are only trying to mislead others. Sorry, this video is as bad as your attempts at misleading, with faulty analogies and no evidence that is applicable.

You must present some energy comparisons that make sense.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 97  98  99    101  102  103 >>

log in

join