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: 112
24
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


I'm curious, Ivan.....

You asked about an imprint from the 'stabilizers'.....ummm, the horizontal stab would likely be in the 'shadow' of the impact zone created by the wings.

The vertical stab....well that sticks up a bit....but it's just a piece of aluminum and carbon fiber......(the rudder is commonly composite, nowadays).

sidebar: Anyone ever seen photos of airplanes being assembled? Ever wonder why the rudder is painted, when the rest of the airplane isn't???

It's a balance issue....the weight of the paint must be precise, on both sides of the rudder. So, the rudder is painted, under controlled conditions, then mounted....later, the rest of the airplane is painted, and the tail logo is masked to fit the already-painted rudder....just So You Know!!!

where was I?.....Oh, the 'crater' in Shanksville.....I've seen a pic, from overhead, don't know how to find it and post it, but it sure as hell looked like a 757 made it, to me...just my opinion.

WW




posted on May, 8 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Except for the facts that plenty of aircraft wreckage was found, not to mention personal effects of the passengers and crew, and oh yes, the remains of said crew and passengers.........your theory might make sense.


Ha!



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Emma Smith
 


Ha? Care to clarify? Or are you another one of the CT'ers that cannot comprehend the evidence? Or you willfully choose to deny the evidence?



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Ill show this again for some new users who dont want to shuffle throught 100+ pages.



Remember, no plane crashed in Shanksville.



Wow. I am totally convinced now more than ever that NO Boeing Crashed in Shanksville, on Spetmeber 11th,2001.

Originally posted by IvanZana



This picture is avoided and undebunkable.


There is no proof of a boeing 757 crashing.

The shoot down theory is proven disinformation started by the people who brought you " Missile on the WTC " Pentagon Hologram ", WTC holograms, not controlled demo, NUKES,... etc.

These people actually start the silly theories so they can easily debunk them later looking 1/2 intelligent, but thats another thread.



As you can see no fuel, no fire, no parts, NO Boeing 757 at Shanksville on 9/11




Mabey they are looking for cruise missile parts?

???


THE SCREAMING THING

At the horseshoe-shaped Indian Lake, about a mile east of the official crash site, several eyewitnesses recalled hearing “a screaming thing” that “screeched” as it passed over the golf course and lakeside community immediately before a huge explosion shook the ground.

Chris Smith, the groundskeeper at the golf course, said something with a “very loud screeching sound” passed over in the immediate vicinity of the golf course before he heard a huge explosion.



Cruise missile video. Look like a small white plane.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


This looks like the same post that is in this thread many times.

It's also filled with hersay and specualtion.

What about all the evidence that was found by first responders?



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Ivan.....the airplane was asked to circle the area....it was a business jet, we've seen this before, but you wish to confuse the situation.....

the pilots of the Hawker have been interviewed, it is old news.....

I really, really wish real pilots would help on these forae.....

Instead, we get amateurs who have no idea, talking about subjects way over their heads......



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ivan.....the airplane was asked to circle the area....it was a business jet, we've seen this before, but you wish to confuse the situation.....


Yes it just happened to be in the area, just like the same C-130 that followed flight 77.

You do know those small jest can carry recon, ECM, or weapons pods?



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 



What about all the evidence that was found by first responders?


Like the thousands of pounds of fuel all over everything? And that enormous fire and thick black greasy column of black smoke?



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


hi Mr. J.I.B.,

I assume that you come to this thread with at least a little knowledge of the events at Shanksville? The OP (Ivan) posts are 100% speculation without a shred of evidence and spams his rhetoric with hearsay.

What is it about flight 93 do you find suspect? The lack of damage? Fuel? fire? Plane parts?

I have done quite a bit of research on this part of 911 and if I can't answer your questions, I would be happy to at least attempt to find the answers for you.

Please let me know if I can be of any assistance.

:TY:



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 



I assume that you come to this thread with at least a little knowledge of the events at Shanksville?


Just a tad.


And after a hundred pages or so, no one has been able to tell me where all the fuel went, except a few weak arguments that it "vaporized."



The OP (Ivan) posts are 100% speculation without a shred of evidence and spams his rhetoric with hearsay.


I have to admit that Ivan can be a bit redundant and zelous in his beliefs. But to say he doesn't have any evidence is really only confirming his premise. The lack of evidence happens to be precisely the problem.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The vertical stab....well that sticks up a bit....but it's just a piece of aluminum and carbon fiber......(the rudder is commonly composite, nowadays).


The 757 was built in the 80s.
As shown the stabilizers are metal.

www.aeromec.com...

Project
Boeing 757-200

Basis
FAR 25

Components
Horizontal and vertical stabilizers

Materials
Metal


[edit on 9-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


JIB..
I will look into the fuel for you. I can not give you a 100% solid answer. I do know that there was a clean up done that was paid for by UA. The cost was better than 3/4 of a million dollars. If the findings are public, I will try to locate them. All i do know for certain is that the land was considered safe.

Give me some time though please, I have to start from scratch.

As far as Ivan goes, pointing out a lack of evidence does not mean there should be an indictment handed down. Should it? In other words, lack of evidence is not evidence.

That's exactly what I meant by speculation. Ivan simply ignores all the evidence. Points out what he THINKS should be there, and calls that evidence. He didn't see a fire...so it was a disaster drill? YIKES! that is a reach.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 



Give me some time though please, I have to start from scratch.


If you really can get some solid data on the fuel at the scene, that would be a big thing. No one has ever been able to do it. Not to mention the fact that no such fuel is apparent in any of the pictures, which show a lot of dry grass and dirt. Also, if there had been a lot of fuel at the scene, I would then question why it had not flashed during the burst for which we have a photo of. The color, and density of that plume are more in accordance with that of an ordnance detonation, whereas a fuel burst would more than likely have continued to burn with a thick and black column.



As far as Ivan goes, pointing out a lack of evidence does not mean there should be an indictment handed down. Should it?


It is certainly grounds for investigation at the very least in this case, considering that there should have been ample evidence. So either there really never was enough evidence to support the official conclusion to begin with, or the supressed evidence actually pointed to something more sinister and complex.



He didn't see a fire...so it was a disaster drill? YIKES! that is a reach.


I wouldn't call that a reach at all. I would call it logical speculation. It's as good a theory as any of the others out there, including the one we're "supposed" to buy in to.

[edit on 5/9/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
jib...

sorry I am not going to waste my time doing research for you. you have obviously made up your mind as to what happend.

Thanks anyway.

:TY:



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 



sorry I am not going to waste my time doing research for you. you have obviously made up your mind as to what happend.


Only to the point that I don't buy the official story.

Why would you do research for me anyway? Aren't you curious about where all that fuel went?

My own research has led me to the same dead end that everyone else has reached. That there may or may not have been a cleanup, but that the area was declared safe.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA......I glossed over that one, at first....so you're saying, now, that a random BizJet, a Hawker, who happened to be flying over the ShanksVille area, before the mandatory required 'landings' of all traffic......can carry missiles?!?!?!??!?!?


Are you comnpletely serious????? Or just continuing to obfuscate?????

OK.....you are the one who continually asks for proof.....no, what you claim is you provide 'reasonable doubt'......as if you have a law degree, or something....

Let's step back, for a moment, from the UAL93.....because, correct me if I'm wrong, you are claiming that a Hawker BizJet carries missiles.....????

Or, if not a Hawker.....a Gulfstream....that's a bigger jet, as BizJets go.....

Heck! There's the Boeing BizJet!! heard of it? Yeah, you'll go google it, so I'll save you the time.....it's a modified B737.....for the ULTRA-Rich.

Bill Gates' partner, in the Microsoft fortune, owns a B757.....does he have missiles too?!?!?!

Look......ULTIMA.....you claim to work at NSA.....anyone who actually works for NSA would not likely be claiming they work there....sorry, it sounds lilke circular logic, but you also seem to be good at that, so therefore you DO work at NSA....and you're playing mindgames. (my opinion....not accusing, just guessing.....)

Reason I say the above about NSA....is, it's one of those agencies that is never openly acknowledged. It's like.....oh.....GroomLake.....AKA Area 51.

Or, the Nellis area.....or 'Dreamland'......or any other moniker you wish to assign, in the 'top secret' world....

Ya know, most of the good stuff isn't at Groom anymore.....it's too obvious, and most that goes on is eyewash.....I know where the real stuff is......ha ha!!!

Oh dear.....now, I'm going to have the MIB knocking on my door in the early morning.....well, I hope Will Smith shows up, he'd be fun to hang out with!!!!

Well....see ya later, alligators......help me!!!!..............



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA......I glossed over that one, at first....so you're saying, now, that a random BizJet, a Hawker, who happened to be flying over the ShanksVille area, before the mandatory required 'landings' of all traffic......can carry missiles?!?!?!??!?!?


As stated small civilian jets can carry recon, ECM or weapons pods.

As proven by the following photos.
i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...


Do you need more or is that enough o show small jets can carry recon, ECM, or weapons pods.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


nice pics... now all you have to do is provide evidence that this was done in shanksville..

:TY:



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I have read through all the posts, but I do notice that everyone seems to be focusing on the plane crash itself, of which there are many questions which haven't yet been satisfactorally answered.

However, let's not forget that there seems to have been quite an amount of telephone calls between the passengers and their friends and family while flight 93 was in the air. One report (and I'm sorry I forget what passenger it was) is of said passenger calling their mom and describing the events. According to her testimony, on several separate occasions her son did keep saying "You do believe me mom, don't you?". Also, when she answered the call, he introduced himself by giving his full name and saying "I'm your son."

Now, who else here introduces themselves to their mother like that? Doesn't it strike you as odd? Also, who would have to ask if their mother believed them or not? Was he prone to lies and therefore knew she might think he was lying again?

Furthermore, many local reports at the time of the crash noted that there was a second crash site 8 miles away from Shanksville, where more debris was supposedly found. Is their any further info on this? It was reported by local media and then all further reports of what was at this second sites dissappear?



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alethia
I have read through all the posts, but I do notice that everyone seems to be focusing on the plane crash itself, of which there are many questions which haven't yet been satisfactorally answered.

However, let's not forget that there seems to have been quite an amount of telephone calls between the passengers and their friends and family while flight 93 was in the air. One report (and I'm sorry I forget what passenger it was) is of said passenger calling their mom and describing the events. According to her testimony, on several separate occasions her son did keep saying "You do believe me mom, don't you?". Also, when she answered the call, he introduced himself by giving his full name and saying "I'm your son."

Now, who else here introduces themselves to their mother like that? Doesn't it strike you as odd? Also, who would have to ask if their mother believed them or not? Was he prone to lies and therefore knew she might think he was lying again?

Furthermore, many local reports at the time of the crash noted that there was a second crash site 8 miles away from Shanksville, where more debris was supposedly found. Is their any further info on this? It was reported by local media and then all further reports of what was at this second sites dissappear?



Lets see...you speak of Mark Bingham and wonder if it is odd that he would say, "This is Mark Bingham" at the beginning of a phone call. Maybe to you its odd....to his mother, family and coworkers...that was how he started his phone calls. To them, it would have been odd if he HAD NOT said, "This is Mark Bingham"

Then you mention a second crash site...problem is, there wasnt a "second" crash site. The debris you refer to that was 8 miles away...wasnt chunks of airplane...it was paper items....light things that would blow in the wind. Despite Ivan's spamming, the truth remains, United Flight 93 crashed outside of Shanksville, PA on 9/11/01.


When asked about his supposed statement that were no bodies at the crash site, coroner Wallace Miller had this to say......




"It's all bull#," says Miller. "I'm not saying I was misquoted, but the quote was taken out of context. There were pieces of people. Trust me. I cleaned it up. The plane hit the ground doing 575 miles per hour. The rest of the remains were vaporized on impact. But we did ID everyone onboard."


www.freetimes.com...




top topics



 
24
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join