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: 101
24
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
4 months - 100 pages - eta 101 now, sheesh - hat's off, Ivan. I haven't read it, but it's about the no debris, no plane theory, correct? I haven't studied this as close as the Pentagon, but it seems about the same. Where is the plane, Flight 93? Translate inside the building to under the surface of that sandy absorbent soil filling in an old strip-mine - that's where the heavy parts were. Ever seen a baseball land in a sand box? Do people give up and call it missing, or just dig in and retrieve it? Translate the 'pentalawn' to the woods of broken burnt trees. That's where the light parts went. Maybe there's no plane, but it just sounds too stupid to me after everything else. We've seen the relevant Moussaoui trial evidence photos by now, right? Engine and fuselage pieces and FDR? Alright, that's my .02.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]




posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


Caustic,


Try reading posts from Beachnut, myself, or weedwacker. Our posts involve FACTS. Not fantasies created by Ivan who was asked several questions regarding evidence since January and all he does is re-post his OP. Thats it. He offers NOTHING.

I suggest you read a little before you pat this guy on the back.

Thanks,

CO



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

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.


Well, first explain how that engine was blown by a 9 mph wind 2000 feet from the silly hole after impact. Or did it bounce and roll that far?


Local officials stated that crash debris was spread over a wide area. According to the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, state police Major Lyle Szupinka "confirmed that debris from the plane had turned up in relatively far-flung sites, including the residential area of Indian Lake." 1 The residential areas of Indian Lake range from three to six miles from the crash site. As noted on the pages describing Flight 93 and its crash site, there were a number of debris fields. Small debris descended over Indian Lake and New Baltimore, about three and eight miles from the primary crash site, and an engine core was separated from the main impact crater by about 2000 feet.

Some officials have suggested that wind scattered the debris once on the ground, but wind certainly couldn't have blown a one-ton engine a half-mile, nor could the 9-mile-per-hour wind have blown debris for eight miles.


Source.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 

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


No.

But I can say that people who post images and statements like this

This is what it should of looked like.
are suspect disinformation agents.


Would you care to explain why you think that a tail section from an aircraft that slid to a stop and burned should look the same as an aircraft that impacted the ground at 580 mph at a 41° angle?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


Caustic,


Try reading posts from Beachnut, myself, or weedwacker. Our posts involve FACTS. Not fantasies created by Ivan who was asked several questions regarding evidence since January and all he does is re-post his OP. Thats it. He offers NOTHING.

I suggest you read a little before you pat this guy on the back.

Thanks,

CO


To all new users and new readers......

THe thre amigos mentioned above are what forums call... debunkers.....

They hold to the official story and troll forums insulting, derailing, and ingnoring facts.

They have ignored 100's of pages of Facts showing without a shadow of a doubt that No Plane Crashed In Shanksville on September 11th, 2001.

Thas why there is 100 pages in this thread. These debunkers have failed time and time again in trying to convince people that a plane did crash in shanksville when we all know the NO PLANE CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE.

Nice agenda.....

Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the impossible magic bullet was invented. You invent theories on how a Boeing 757 and all its fuel 'Atomized' and"de-materialized" on impact without burning any surrounding grass around the small 10x30ft hole, when there has been not one shred of evidence from the crash investigation to support it, and in fact, actual photos of the crash site disprove you.




CONCLUSION: No Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville on September 11th,2001.
The pseudo crash site was to be used in the terror drill exercises. Some of the exercises included crashing a plane into the Pentagon and the WTC, some of the simulated a terrorist plane crash complete with bodies, ground pigs meat ( to act as body parts), plane parts, raging fire.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


IVAN, you forgot to mention Boone! I can only imagine if his/her feelings are very hurt!!

IZ, this is your thread (I think). Aren't you glad it has gotten so much attention?

IZ....let's see the real pictures, not the one you keep posting and re-posting. Let us see the aerial views, to see just how large the impact area really was.

IZ, a fire will not occur at avery aircraft accident site. Jet-A will ignite when it is atomized, and there is an ignition source. Throw a match on a bucket of Jet-A, and the match will go out, extinguished by the liquid.

IZ, your personal attacks, unwarranted as they are, are also a sign of incredible insecurity, IMO.

(ps....the 'three amigos' quip was a clever touch....kudos)

WW



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 

To all new users and new readers......

THe thre amigos mentioned above are what forums call... debunkers.....

They hold to the official story and troll forums insulting, derailing, and ingnoring facts.

They have ignored 100's of pages of Facts showing without a shadow of a doubt that No Plane Crashed In Shanksville on September 11th, 2001.

Thas why there is 100 pages in this thread. These debunkers have failed time and time again in trying to convince people that a plane did crash in shanksville when we all know the NO PLANE CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE.

Nice agenda.....




To all new users and readers...

The one amigo mentioned above is what forums call... truthers...

They hold to conspiracy theories and troll forums insulting, derailing, and ignoring facts.

They have ignored 100's of pages of Facts showing without a shadow of a doubt that Flight 93 Crashed In Shanksville on September 11th, 2001.

Thas why there is 100 pages in this thread. These truthers have failed time and time again in trying to convince people that a plane did not crash in shanksville when we all know that Flight 93 CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE.

Nice agenda.....

They post statements and images like the one below.

This is what it should of looked like.
After people point out that the photoshopped tail section was in fact from a crash where the aircraft slid to a stop and burned, and is in no way similar to the crash being discussed, they continue on like nothing ever happened and refuse to answer questions.

CONCLUSION: A Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville on September 11th,2001.
The crash site was not to be used in the terror drill exercises. None of the exercises included crashing a plane into the Pentagon and the WTC, none of them simulated a terrorist plane crash complete with bodies, ground pigs meat ( to act as body parts), plane parts, raging fire.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Boone, BTW....we have not ever, ever met, correct? Not sure if we've even sent a U2U to each other (the Mods could confirm). So, we, you and I, are not a part of some 'cabal' in any way, shape or form.

I forgot to mention, from that 'photoshopped' picture you brought forward...I was wracking my brain to remember, and if I'm not mistaken that tail logo is from Garuda International Airlines.

Anyone who would even, for a moment, confuse THAT tail with a UAL logo is.....delusional, or lying. One or the other.

WW



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Boone, BTW....we have not ever, ever met, correct? Not sure if we've even sent a U2U to each other (the Mods could confirm). So, we, you and I, are not a part of some 'cabal' in any way, shape or form.
No, we have never met. I believe I sent you a U2U shortly after you joined here. I think I sent you a link to the NTSB auto pilot study.

None of that matters to the paranoid delusional types though.


I forgot to mention, from that 'photoshopped' picture you brought forward...I was wracking my brain to remember, and if I'm not mistaken that tail logo is from Garuda International Airlines.
beachnut will have take the credit for the Garuda Airlines photo, he beat me to it by couple of hours. I ended up finding it on about the seventh page of the airliners.net crash photos section.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Boone, Yes!!!

You did send me that link, I printed it up, have referred to it for the last few weeks.

Some of the charts didn't print properly, since I'm guessing they were formatted to 9"x14".....can you provide the link again, I couldn't find it from NTSB files....guess we need the FOIA!!

Long story short....the Hi-Jackers knew how to operate the autoflight system on the B757/767. Not difficult, I could teach you in a few hours....you would make mistakes, but you'd know the basics....

WW



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 12:41 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, 25 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Um.....IZ.....

Please look at more conventional airplane accidents. I know, I keep harping on the NW crash in Detroit, but I do that for a reason. Look it up.

A fully-loaded MD-80 crashed on take-off. Why? Because the pilots were distracted during the 'Taxi-Checklist' They were directed to a Runway that they didn't expect, based on what they had thought before push-back.

They allowed themselves to be distracted, by ATC (very common occurence). There was confusion, as they were sent to a Runway they didn't have in their minds.

As they referred to the Airport Diagram Chart (Jeppesen page 10-9) per ATC (ground contol) instructions, they interrupted the 'Taxi-Checklist'....and did not set the flaps/slats to the required position for their take-off.

For some reason (not yet determined) the 'Bitchin Betty' (take-off warning system) did not annunciate....if it had worked, it would have made a sound....three electronic 'buzzes', followed by the words, in a female voice.....'flaps'.....'flaps'.....as the throttles were advanced for take-off. What they did hear, after lift-off, was....'buzz', buzz', buzz'.....'stall'....'stall'....stall....

Because, the system went into 'flight mode' after the nose gear was fully extended, since that's how it's designed. The airplane stalled, and tragically crashed....it is history, it is not made up by myself or anyone else.

MY POINT is.....out of that tragic crash, a little girl survived. THE ONLY survivor!!!!

It was a chaotic event, all the passengers and crew died, as well as two on the ground, where it impacted....but one little girl survived!!!

So, you think a stupid PASSPORT can't surviive?!?!

WW



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Here you go. NTSB autopilot study.

Here is the link to all of the information that the NTSB released regarding 911.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 



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


No.

But I can say that people who post images and statements like this

This is what it should of looked like.
are suspect disinformation agents.


Would you care to explain why you think that a tail section from an aircraft that slid to a stop and burned should look the same as an aircraft that impacted the ground at 580 mph at a 41° angle?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:58 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"?




Care to answer the questions



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


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


No.

But I can say that people who post images and statements like this

This is what it should of looked like.
are suspect disinformation agents.


Would you care to explain why you think that a tail section from an aircraft that slid to a stop and burned should look the same as an aircraft that impacted the ground at 580 mph at a 41° angle?

Care to answer my question




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.....


So did these.


Congratulations! You just debunked yourself.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.


Still strange about Flight 800. Similar crash scene to Pentagon, (exept hitting water instead of building) but still able to find enough parts to do a recontruction.

Never hear about any reconstruction of flight 77.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

Still strange about Flight 800. Similar crash scene to Pentagon, (exept hitting water instead of building) but still able to find enough parts to do a recontruction.

Never hear about any reconstruction of flight 77.


Why do they reconstruct aircraft, ULTIMA1?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA....TWA 800 did NOT hit a building and burn!!!!

'very similar'?!?!?

There are two kind of lies...a lie, and a damned lie.

W



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Ivan,

Can I ask you once more to answer the questions that were presented to you back in January? It appears that you will keep repeating the same post over and over and over. You show some GREAT cut and paste capabilities.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join