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: 115
24
<< 112  113  114    116  117  118 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


hundreds of engineers and physicists disagree.
the collapses, especially tower seven, are definitely a mystery.
even the NIST ADMITS that their investigation is mostly a guess, and they barely scratched the surface regarding observed phenomena. some features were COMPLETELY ignored.

however, you seem to be one of the people who will believe anything if it's a government agency providing the information.
the government lies. constantly.
enjoy.

shanksville's debris field was 8 miles long.


Do you have a list of these Engineers?
Do these hundreds of Engineers have scientific proof to dispute the findings?

NIST has not released the WTC7 paper. There is a difference between a "guess" and a hypothisis. I trust you know the difference. what have they ignored?

What I "seem to you" is not relevant to the discussion. My research is based on facts.

As far as Skanksville goes, there was a 10 -11 mile per hour wind that day. The debris found 8 miles away were paper and things like that.




posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


i'll save my keystrokes and just say i agree to disagree with you, because i can guarantee we will never see eye to eye.

cheers.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Thats fine. I wouldn't expect you to back up your statements with facts.




posted on May, 11 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Do you have any reports from NASA that proves it was indeed the Space Shuttle Columbia that broke apart over Texas upon re-entry?

Completely off-topic and a slight-of-hand attempt to steer away from the fact that there are no official reports that match the alleged wreckage to the alleged planes used that day.

Columbia has nothing to do with this thread, so you might as well stop clutching at straws.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

Tezza...

Let me ask YOU. How many FBI and or NTSB reports have YOU seen? I brought up the Columbia disaster simply to make a point. Just becasue you do not have an FBI or NTSB report does NOT mean it didn't happen or an investigation didn't take place.

:TY:

[edit on 11-5-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
[edit on 11-5-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I brought up the Columbia disaster simply to make a point.

Yes, you did and it was an off-topic point.

This thread is about Flight 93, an alleged sub-orbital commercial flight with paying passengers that was allegedly hijacked.

This thread is not about a military space vehicle, breaking-up during descent while returning from time in orbit.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


It's about EVIDENCE and your failure (and others) to look at it.

Sorry you are not able to comprehend an analogy Tezzjw.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


the only 'facts' are the audio and video recordings of the day, and cross correlated data sets. some of the data sets are false, and some true. it is up to the user to glean what is what.

enjoy the post-human, post modern state of existence.

see yourself in a thousand inward facing mirrors. you're in the middle of a disco mirror ball with the mirrors on the inside. all your thoughts are confirmed by the images you see looking back at you.

THAT is 'reality', and fuzzy logic is the key out of the house of mirrors .



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Uh, ok. And you are posting your evidence of a massive cover up ... when? Thanks

:TY:




posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


you clearly don't understand.
the evidence, and even the proof is posted hundreds of thousands of itmes.
we live in a post-information society.
the truth no longer has teeth.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Of course there was no fuel fire or any fuel on site because......



There was no plane.

No fuel
No fire
No parts
No Plane
NO DOUBT.

THe wing scars were there prior to 911. There is no proof of a plane crashing in Shanksville.

Not one official source can prove a plane crashed in shanksville nor will they point out where the wings, fuel, stabilizer, fuselage etc went.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


That's a perfect overhead shot/photo of the imprint left in very soft ground of a jet airplane....you can see the imprint of the wings, and the major disruption where the fuselage and empennage 'accordianed' into the ground....

Ivan....you have repeatedly said 'the scars were there beforehand', or something of that sort....but I haven't seen you show proof of that claim.

Please try to find something to show that the 'crater' existed 'AS IS' before Tuesday, 11 September, 2001

Then, explain to your rapt audience the smoke cloud....the visuals of witnesses who saw....the audio testimony of witnesses who heard....

Finally, explain why there was DNA recovered from that site, to match the passengers and crew....

Incredible claims, as you make them, require incredible proof.

A jet impacting soft soil at over 500K will bury itself pretty deep....as to fires....have you ever been camping? how do you think a campfire is put out??? yup, soft sand and dirt...

So many times, people seem to think that stuff will bounce, like in a cartoon. Kinetic energy is an amazing force....try to study it, and the physics as well....



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Look, I have seen many plane crashes, its funny, how every other day in history, you would have a TAIL SECTION... they dont disappear..
show me a tail section - that you claim a plane crashed there...
no tail - no plane.. thats why they put the voice data recorder and the location beacon in the tail... because it survives accidents.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by 888LetsRoll
 


Yes, 888....that is true, why they install the recorders as far aft as possible, since so few airplanes crash tail first.

But, you must consider the evolution of the Flight Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder concept...as they didn't really become prevalent, nor were they required, back in the piston days of air travel....

The 'Jet Age' harkened new, more horrific crashes....this, in the 1960s....

Basically, if you factor out CFIT accidents, an airplane will usually crash during a take-off or landing phase of its flight. These are generally at fairly low speeds. The events of 9/11 were completely unprecedented....unimagined...yes, in the cases of AAL 77 and UAL93, the Recorders were recovered, and able to be read-out. The AAL11 and UAL175 recorders were crushed beyond recognition because of the forces of the Towers' collapse. There was NO chance of recovering those recorders, in Manhattan.....

Even, as I've mentioned, the terrible crash in Queens, NY of AAL587...the Recorders were able to be recovered, and read-out. They are designed to survive that sort of crash....but not designed to be crushed by millions of pounds of a skyscraper collapsing on top of them....



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by 888LetsRoll
 


888....I had to re-read your post again....

The tail usually survives intact....after the airframe break-up, and any subsequent fires....but again, those kind of accidents are entirely different from a suicidal dive into a building, or into the ground!!!

Check, for your satisfaction, a USAIR crash outside Pittsburgh, in 1987.

The B737 went straight in, while maneuvering to land at PIT. Of course, it didn't go in at 500 knots (like UAL93)....but it impacted soft ground....and the tail was NOT intact!!!



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Just adding some of my 2 cents.

i114.photobucket.com...

Will have more stuff later.

[edit on 22-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Please make sure you have the speed of that aircraft. And additional photographic evidence. Ivan has alread been caught posting fake pictures in this thread.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 

Please make sure you have the speed of that aircraft. And additional photographic evidence. Ivan has alread been caught posting fake pictures in this thread.


I second that. I'm curious to know the speed and angle of the aircraft at the time of impact.

Using my bachelors in vexillology I was able to determine that the flag on the vertical fin of Ultima's image is that of North Korea.

Using my black belt in Google-Fu, I was able to determine that the tail section is from a Mig-23.

I would be glad to help you, Ultima1, find some more information if you would like.

Here is a similar image from the same type of aircraft:



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 

Please make sure you have the speed of that aircraft. And additional photographic evidence. Ivan has alread been caught posting fake pictures in this thread.


I second that. I'm curious to know the speed and angle of the aircraft at the time of impact.

Using my bachelors in vexillology I was able to determine that the flag on the vertical fin of Ultima's image is that of North Korea.


Information on the conditions preceding the impact would be important if any corollary is to be found. I'd like to see proper citation for the photo as well. What time it took place, where it was taken and by whom before I can say that it isn't just photoshop. Also, to my knowledge the North Koreans have never released any official reports matching serial numbers from the wreckage to any known aircraft. How do we know they didn't plant the rear fuselage there?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 112  113  114    116  117  118 >>

log in

join