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: 18
24
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Nickdfresh
 


Then you will have to explain how to prove a double negative, when no one else throughout history has ever been able to prove a double negative. Therefore, I have no idea how to go about doing that? Do you?




posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Nickdfresh
 


How would I know the name of the reporter without researching it as easily you can? I know for a fact an AP satellite office manned by a reporter is in Cleveland, Ohio. Because they were listed in the Cleveland telephone directory I had in my possession.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Nickdfresh
 


If you search the archives and find the story, it will give you the reporter's name. I do not have a hobby keeping stats on which reporters write which news articles in newspapers. Unless I need to know the name for some reason or other, I do not need to know. At the time, it was not a need to know basis. It did not matter who wrote the article. It was the article maintaining my center of attention.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   
The debate on whether a plane crashed in Shanksville is a shut case. I will provide this pic one more time with a question.



Where the photographer is standing is where the fuel ladened wing, engine, and fuselage is said to have crashed.

Do you notice the wing scars?

Do you notice no wings? parts? fuel? fire?

Do you notice the grass is not even broken where the wings are said to have "penetrated the ground"?


Do notice there is no plane crash there.

The old methods of 911 confusion and hypnotization are over friends. Welcome to the new year of truth.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   
The following is a link to two aerial photos of the alleged crater made by alleged Flight 93. As I recall, commercial jetliners have wings angled back slightly toward the rear of the plane, and set quite far back from the forward area, at the mid-plane section of the fuselage. I do not see the outline of an actual commercial jetliner in those aerial photos.

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
""2. When you arrived at the crash site who else was there?""
I didn't arrive, I was there to begin with.

""7. Did you touch any piece of wreckage?""
Well, since it was about a mile away and extremely hot, no, no I didn't...

""10. How long after the crash did your arrive at the crash site?""
I didn't, since I wasn't allowed...

Thanks for the chuckle, I needed it today.

Point 2, you were at the crash site from the beginning. If you were already there, then the implication is that you saw the plane crash. If you didn't see it crash, then you couldn't have been there from the beginning, right?

Point 10, you were not allowed to arrive at the crash site, yet you were there from the beginning? I love the smell of logic burning up in jet fuel filled dreams. CONTRADICTION. If you were there from the beginning, then why weren't you allowed to arrive there????????

Point 7, you were a mile away from the crash site so you couldn't touch anything, BUT you were there from the beginning? Who never let you touch anything - the agency that had already roped off the scene? How can that be, if you were already there from the beginning (see point 2)??? You would have been there BEFORE the agency that roped the scene off, if you were there from the beginning!

You can't consistently answer 10 questions where the answers support each other. Wow, I didn't think that John's 10 questions were all that hard???

John Lear, you're so unfair, as you clearly asked 10 tough questions. Tone them down a little, so that next time, the answers will make sense!



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
One, of many of the aspects I find utterly amazing, is that a plane is alleged to have crashed there, and what appears to be a wood frame building, so close to an alleged aircraft crash, did not appear to have one iota of damage...

Although it appears to be made from wood, it could have been concrete and steel reinforced. We all know how resistant those structures are to surviving plane crashes - unless it has a number 7 on it, then it will topple like dominos without even being hit.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


OK then since you insist this image is proof there was no plane there, how do you know? If you are some sort of expert, can you tell us who you are, maybe verify it with the site owners, so we know your evidence should be taken as actual evidence, not someones opinion who may or may not have anything to do with the aviation industry?



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
opps


[edit on 26-12-2007 by IvanZana]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
It was not hit with a missle. It was hit by a 30mm gun. The planes did not have ATA weapons at the time.

This would fit how people saw it rolling over and that there was a debris field miles wide.

There is no yada yada about it. There was a plane. There were real people. They died. This is the coverup that the government does not want to release. Why do you think they made that movie so quick for release?



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

I am GLAD you all agree no plane crashed in SHANKSVILLE.

The biggest smoking gun.


The debate on whether a plane crashed in Shanksville is a shut case. I will provide this pic one more time with a question.



Where the photographer is standing is where the fuel ladened wing, engine, and fuselage is said to have crashed.

Do you notice the wing scars?

Do you notice no wings? parts? fuel? fire?



Do you notice the grass is not even broken where the wings are said to have "penetrated the ground"?


Do notice there is no plane crash there.

The old methods of 911 confusion and hypnotization are over friends. Welcome to the new year of truth.






posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Great UsaToday article. www.usatoday.com...

"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."


Here is another pic PROVING WITHOUT A DOUBT the FLIGHT 93(Boeing 757) DID NOT CRASH in Somerset County, Shanksville, Pennsylvania on SEPTEMBER 11th,2001.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Originally posted by esdad71




It was not hit with a missle. It was hit by a 30mm gun. The planes did not have ATA weapons at the time.

This would fit how people saw it rolling over and that there was a debris field miles wide.

There is no yada yada about it. There was a plane. There were real people. They died. This is the coverup that the government does not want to release. Why do you think they made that movie so quick for release?


Thanks for the post esdad71. Let me respectfully suggest you are less than well informed.

The only aerial delivery vehicles with a 30mm chain gun are the Apache helicopter and the A-10. Neither of these was fast enough to shoot down a Boeing 757 travelling at 580 mph.

Maybe you meant 20mm which is the machine gun on an F-16?

In either case, having been through the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) there is no indication of any system being harmed on Flight 93. Both engines where running at the time of the alleged crash and none of the other 156 parameters recorded on the FDR showed any signs of malfunction.

Now if any 20mm bullet had hit any part of the Boeing 757 it would have shown up on the FDR. Let's say it hit the fuselage. There would have been an immediate depressurization noted on the FDR. Let's say it hit the wing. Fuel would have come streaming out and it would have been indicated on the FDR. Let's say the bullet hit the right aileron. The position and servo sensors would have indicated it on the FDR instantly.

So if there was any debris strewn for miles along the alleged flight path of Flight 93 it did not originate from Flight 93 itself.

So let me respectfully suggest you stop your yadda yadda about Flight 93 being shot down. It was not shot down because there was no plane at Shanksville.

Here is the site you can download the Flight Data Recorder informaton that came direct from NTSB. You can view it in Excel, and I suggest you do so to prevent yourself from further embarrassment from your uninformed yadda yadda.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Thanks for your yadda yadda however painfully uninformed it is.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Oh my, I typed a 3 instead of a 2. I loathe those who look for the slightest mistake to discredit an entire post. You do agree though that it had no ATA weaponry though. I mean, you beleive that there were holograms in NY, a missle hit the Pentagon I am sure and now there is no plane in Shanksville.

I appluad what you have accomplished in life and all the acronyms you have behind your name, but in the real world that and a buck won't even get you a soda let alone a cup of coffee anymore.

The FDR, that you refer too, I find funny since this is one of the only official things you take for truth since it fits your arguement. Can you please, in your expertise, even if you don't beleive there was a plane, would the plane have rotated to be upside down if there was damage caused by an F-16 hitting it with it's cannon on one of the wings or engines???. There was an engine found quite a ways away from the crash site, remember? WIth your expertise you should be able to yes or no it, I mean, if it lost an engine, would it not suddenly be lighter on one side and harder to control?

Also, the Russians bought down a flight in 83, a Korean(?) airliner I think it was and the plane was not destroyed mid air, so it was a matter of making it look like a crash with cannot fire. There was debris 8 miles from the crash site.Where is 93, with the hologram machines and the thermobaric explosives in a vault in the Smithsonian next to the magic bullet that killed JFK?

Also, please drop the sarcasm unless you feel you can take it...cool?



[edit on 26-12-2007 by esdad71]


[edit on 26-12-2007 by esdad71]

[edit on 26-12-2007 by esdad71]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Greetings, johnlear,

I have at least one question, and you appear to be the actual expert in anything aviation.

If a 757 was traveling at 580mp, would there not be some indication of that on the FAA control center radar screen, even with the transponders shut off? Perhaps, you already stated the answer, and I missed it. Thank you in advance if you would repeat it.

I did research top and cruise speed for the 757. It said cruise speed is 500 mph and top speed is 607 mph. At 580 mph, doesn't that start to compromise the integrity of the plane structure, particularly the lower toward sea level commercial jetliners are flying?

www.boeing.com...

I am only asking because I see various comments thrown around without proof any such comments are valid. Nor any explanations as to what position (horizontally or vertically) an airplane happens to be travelling at some unsupported stated speed.

Was I correct when I stated if the mics are left on in the cockpit back to the control centers, that the control centers have the same recordings as the "black boxes" on the planes? It has been a long time since I was in an FAA control center, and wish to be correct in the future should I have been mistaken about many years later recall. Lot of life getting in the way of accurate recall after 40 or so years roll by.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   
bad post sorry


[edit on 26-12-2007 by IvanZana]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Originally posted by esdad71





You do agree though that it had no ATA weaponry though. I mean, you beleive that there were holograms in NY, a missle hit the Pentagon I am sure and now there is no plane in Shanksville.


Thanks for your response esdad71. Apparently you don't do much reading here at ATS before you post.

A missile did not hit the Pentagon. Nothing hit the Pentagon. April Gallop was sitting at her desk 40 feet from the wall and said no airplane and no missile came through that wall that it was just an explosion.


The FDR, that you refer too, I find funny since this is one of the only official things you take for truth since it fits your arguement.


Asdad you are going to have to pay attention here. There was no plane crash, there was no FDR. The FDR was faked. If you are going to argue that Flight 93 existed and that it crashed at Shanksville and that it had been shot down then you are going to have to accept that the FDR dated released by the NTSB is valid for that flight.


Can you please, in your expertise, even if you don't beleive there was a plane, would the plane have rotated to be upside down if there was damage caused by an F-16 hitting it with it's cannon on one of the wings or engines???.


It would depend on where the damage was. Just shooting an engine off of the plane is not going to make it roll inverted. KAL007 stayed rightside up for for better than 12 minutes.


There was an engine found quite a ways away from the crash site, remember?


Unlikely. There are several different stories about 2 engines but only one photograph which was allegedly taken in the hole where the alleged airplane went in. Another alleged engine was found either 300 yards away or 600 yards away depending on whose story you believe. But no pictures where ever taken of that engine even though that engine was allegedly larger than the one in the alleged airplane hole.


WIth your expertise you should be able to yes or no it, I mean, if it lost an engine, would it not suddenly be lighter on one side and harder to control?


According to the FDR both engines were running at the time of the crash. So if you are arguing there was an airplane shot down, why doesn't the FDR reflect that. It shows both engines running at the time of the crash. You can't have it both ways.


Also, the Russians bought down a flight in 83, a Korean(?) airliner I think it was and the plane was not destroyed mid air, so it was a matter of making it look like a crash with cannot fire. There was debris 8 miles from the crash site.


As I mentioned before KAL007 had 2 engines on one side knocked out and it stayed right side up for at least 12 minutes.

Debris for 8 miles? Not from the alleged Flight 93. Something would have showed up on the FDR as I have already explained.

You are at a disadvantage here esdad71. Most of your information and points of debate come from the web. Mine come from 40 years of experience in the aviation industry. Whereas you have to ask about what an airplane feels like with an engine missing, I know. You also have the disadvantage of not knowing how to read the parameters of an FDR. You also accept that an engine could have bounced 600 yards away from the crash site after allegedly impacting the ground at 580 mph. This is so far beyond the realm of possibility that you are fortunate I am still in this debate.

One other thing esdad71. While my background, experience and ratings may not be able to buy me a cup or coffee or can of soda as you pointed out, they certainly put me light years beyond your abilities to assess the Flight 93 information.

Thanks for the post though.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Originally posted by OrionStars




If a 757 was traveling at 580mp, would there not be some indication of that on the FAA control center radar screen, even with the transponders shut off?


Thanks OrionStars. Of course, It would have shown up on Primary Radar which is the radar that picks up traffic not equipped with a transponder. Primary radar uses the reflection of the radar beam by the airplane itself rather than the transponder.

Both the FAA and NORAD would have had radar identification of Flight 93 and that tracking information would have been stored on tape.


I did research top and cruise speed for the 757. It said cruise speed is 500 mph and top speed is 607 mph. At 580 mph, doesn't that start to compromise the integrity of the plane structure, particularly the lower toward sea level commercial jetliners are flying?


The speed limit for the Boeing 757 is 350 knots Vmo and .86 Mmo. What this means is that at sea level the maximum athorized speed of the Boeing 757 is 350 knots or 400 mph. Aircraft airspeed indicators read out in Knots per hour not miles per hour(statute)

The Mmo of.86 (Maximum Mach Operating) means the limting speed above 23,000 feet in relation to the speed of sound or Mach 1. It means that the airplanes maximum authorized speed above 23,000 feet in 86 one hundredths of the speed of sound. The speed of sound varies only with temperature. So that means that the higher you go, the colder it gets and the faster you can go.

But down at sea level the Boeing 757 is limited to 350 knots Vmo (Velocity Maximum Operating). That is a certification value determined by the aircraft manufacturer and is considered the maximum safe speed. Of course the airplane is tested at speeds faster than that to make sure that if that speed is accidentally exceeded that nothing will jeopardize the safety of the airplane.

That said, with the power available at sea level it is conceivable that the Boeing 757 could achieve roughly 430 knots which is about 494 miles per hour. This is the best estimate of a friend of mine who flys the Boeing 757 for a major airline. Nobody can acutally try this out because it would be extremely dangerous for several reasons.

These reasons include the fact that the airplane is only designed for a speed, at seal level of 350 knots and a little above for safety. To fly that airplane 90 knots above the maximum safe speed is risking many aerodynamic perils which include flutter (and total disintegration) upset (becoming uncontrollable in pitch) engine disintegration to due fan disintegraton (the fan is the forward most blades of the engine, the big blades.)

It is extremely unlikely that a Boeing 757 ever flew at 430 knots (494 mph) for any length of time and didn't encounter severe problems

It is absoluately impossible for a Boeing 757 to have flown at 487.5 knots, as shown on the NTSB supplied Digitial Flight Data Recorder information, 487.5 knots is 561 mph. That means that the airspeed indicator in front of the pilot would be reading approximately 487 knots or 137 knots over the certificated and approved airspeed. Thats just plain nuts and it did not happen.

If the limiting speed of 350 knots is exceeded for any reason the overspeed 'clacker' goes off. The 'clacker' is a very loud warning that sounds like a 'clack-clack-clack" real fast and it is designed to be real irritating so that it will instantly get the pilots attention and warn him to slow down. There is no way that either in a Boeing 757 or Boeing 767, which use the same clacker warning device, that any pilot could concentrate and aim at a building and crash into it with the precision that requires.


I am only asking because I see various comments thrown around without proof any such comments are valid. Nor any explanations as to what position (horizontally or vertically) an airplane happens to be travelling at some unsupported stated speed.


It amazes me how much non-pilots know about airplanes.



Was I correct when I stated if the mics are left on in the cockpit back to the control centers, that the control centers have the same recordings as the "black boxes" on the planes?


There is no way to 'leave a microphone on'. You push or 'key' the button to 'talk' and then release. There is no way to set it "on". If any transmission with that mike is set to an ATC frequency then that transmission will go to ATC and be recorded. If the mike is set to 'interphone' or 'cabin public address', that conversation does not go out to ATC. FAA Control Towers and Air Traffic Control Centers record all transmissions to them on tape 24/7. The only difference between the FAA recording and the airplane recordings is that airplane voice recorders only record for 30 minutes and then start recording over. In other words the tape in the airplane has only a thirty minute continuous loop. This is not true for the Digitial Flight Data Recorder which records continuously for as long as the system is powered.

The cockpit voice recorder records not only transmissions from the mike, it also records sounds from about 4 to 6 microphones strategically placed around the cockpit for conversation and noise.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Jesus Lear, I'll take the warn here and call you a pompous dillweed. You use something to defend an arguement (The FDR) in one post and then discredit it in another while attempting to use 40 years of experience as a know all tell all. You are hanging on to be someone and slowly fading. You should fade out bright now man......

Nothing hit the Pentagon, Holograms hit the WTC and now no plane in Shanksville. Where is your proof? Whenever someone pushes you for a little evidence, you ignore them or attempt to discredit their aviation knowledge. Unless you have insider information to the 9/11 tragedy, then all of your information on the subject also comes from the web.

Now, are you stating that with your 40 years of avaiation knowledge that you can prove these guys wrong since there are no planes?

www.9-11commission.gov...

They state that there were 4 planes and you state that there are none. Lets start with Flight 93. Please tell me Mr Lear, where are those passengers? One simple question.....

Also, I will ask you again to stop quoting my intelligence as less than average unless you can photocopy your MENSA membership and post it.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Nickdfresh
 


Then you will have to explain how to prove a double negative, when no one else throughout history has ever been able to prove a double negative. Therefore, I have no idea how to go about doing that? Do you?...

_______________
...
If you search the archives and find the story, it will give you the reporter's name. I do not have a hobby keeping stats on which reporters write which news articles...



I have no idea as to what you refer to as a "double negative?"

I'm not the one making the claims here. If you're going to cite articles, facts, and incidents in an effort to rewrite history, then you need to provide very specific documentations..

[edit on 26/12/07 by Nickdfresh]



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join