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: 105
24
<< 102  103  104    106  107  108 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I posted it Ultima

Here is the:

Specialist Factual Report of Investigation Digital Flight Data Recorder:
www.gwu.edu...

In addition here is the NTSB's Flight Path Study:

www.ntsb.gov...




posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
There is info on fuel consumption and airspeeds.....AND the FDR records autoflight activity!!!!!!!


Thats ok, i would rather have thre FDR data from the NTSB.

It should not take too long to get it, it only took a couple days to get the Flight 77 FDR data.



The link from Boone IS to a report by the NTSB!!! Why, oh why, do you continue to obfuscate....others can read, in fact, I wish everyone would print up that NTSB report, from middle of page 101, on THIS THREAD....and see how you are behaving, ULTIMA. Bobbing, weaving, ducking questions....passive aggressive to the max, since you have nothing of importance to post, after all......



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Should I have expected anything else from you?... a commercial plane equipped with a jammer? Wow... just Wow.


Did i say a commercial plane had a jammer?

Why must you twist and misquote what i post?



IT was a commercial plane that they heard. Unless you have evidence to support it wasn't?

Oh wait...im asking YOU for evidence. Sorry.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Thanks, Boone, fabulous work!

ULTIMA, if you need help interpreting the data, and the acronyms, just ask me. Happy to help out...

WW



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terrorcell
I have to admit I had a heard time getting passed the first couple of pages due to the alarming amount of disinfo being sprouted from both sides of the fence. Although I have been hesitant to interact on these forums due to many negative things said about it, I'm going to attempt to engage in a real Shanksville/Flight 93 discussion.

First I highly recommend you watch the following presentations to catch you up to date on any information you are unaware of and we'll take it from there.


Google Video Link


EYEWITNESS VIDEO - CRUISE MISSILE?




Google Video Link

BLACK BOX has BEEN PROVEN FRAUDULANT.




Reichstag 911 : Shanksville Part I


Reichstag 911 : Shanksville Part II


[edit on 27-4-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 27-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
IT was a commercial plane that they heard. Unless you have evidence to support it wasn't?



Where did i state a commercail plane had a jammer? Can you show me where i stated that?

You must be forgetting that most eyewitnesse saw another plane, or is that you do want to remember that point?

If you like i can refreash your memory about the other small jet that peopel saw. and do not forget about the C-130 that was in the area.






[edit on 27-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 

This is what it should of looked like.


How about it Ivan, any comments on your misleading photo?

I would guess that you have posted it over 100 times on this thread alone.

Why would you compare the tail section from a 737 that slid to a stop and burned to an aircraft that hit the ground at 580 mph at a 41° angle?




[edit on 27-4-2008 by Boone 870]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The C-130 was AFTER the crash.

Now.. please supply info or evidence that a "jammer" was used to flicker lights.

(on ANY plane)



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The C-130 was AFTER the crash.


Gee i thought you did research, didn't the C-130 supposidly witness the crash?

Still wating for you to show me where i stated a commercial plane had a jammer.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

You must be forgetting that most eyewitnesse saw another plane, or is that you do want to remember that point?

If you like i can refreash your memory about the other small jet that peopel saw. and do not forget about the C-130 that was in the area.


Yes, eyewitnesses saw another plane after the crash. It was a Falcon 20 that air traffic control vectored to the crash site to see if they could locate it. I'm sure you knew that already, but you like to recycle old garbage over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


YOU stated the possibility of A plane having a jammer.

YOU back it up.

Forget it... asking you for evidence? I have a better chance of seeing God.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Dbl post


[edit on 27-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

Gee i thought you did research, didn't the C-130 supposidly witness the crash?


Using your superior research skills, please show me the evidence of Gopher 06 witnessing the crash of Flight 93.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Ivan,

Are you still insisting on ignoring the questions presented to you with the evidence that you seek?

Well??

Been almost 5 months and you keep on your cut and paste posts over and over.

When are you going to answer the questions Ivan?

We are waiting.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
dble post


[edit on 27-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
dbole post


[edit on 27-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 
Maybe the dump truck was dumping off your tail section.


This is what it should of looked like.


How about it Ivan, any comments on your misleading photo?

I would guess that you have posted it over 100 times on this thread alone.

Why would you compare the tail section from a 737 that slid to a stop and burned to an aircraft that hit the ground at 580 mph at a 41° angle?



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
[YOU stated the possibility of A plane having a jammer.

YOU back it up.


Unlike you i can psot evidence to support what i post.

complete911timeline.org.../11=dayOf911&startpos=500

When he later describes this incident while on a training course in Atlanta, Fleegle will be told that what happened means Flight 93 “was shot down.” A man there who says he is a retired Air Force officer will tell Fleegle, “[W]hen your lights flickered, [it was because] they zap the radar frequency on everything before they shoot. Your lights didn’t flicker from the impact—your lights flickered because they zapped the radar system before they shot it.”





[edit on 27-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 102  103  104    106  107  108 >>

log in

join