It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:26 PM

Originally posted by tezzajw

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!

LOL is there now a "conspiracy" over what I saw in 1986?

No my friend, thank YOU for the chuckle...

I saw the plane crash, and I was in the general area.

Now run along and go prove the earth is flat...

[edit on 26/12/07 by Nickdfresh]

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:55 PM

Originally posted by johnlear
[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.

Peter Tiradera covers that in his book, complete with photo of what he is describing. The photo is credited to Jocelyn Augustine of FEMA.

"Why do the columns show evidence of controlled demolitions?

Column damage - is it from blast charges or fire? Below is an example of a failed attempt to bring the column down with charges. The only possible explanation for this event is that charges were wrapped around it and detonated remotely. It narowly survived. Notice that there is no fire or fuel evidence, only equally circumcised damage around the column. You can see the upward envelope of the explosion - where the reinforcing rodes are blown upwards - it's quite dramatic."
9-11 Coup Against America! The Pentagon Analysis

That column was reinforced spiral steel concrete. Soot damage would show even in black and white as the photo is presented.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:06 PM
i Dont agree with what you are talking about, seems pointless

[edit on 26-12-2007 by IvanZana]

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:13 PM
reply to post by IvanZana

As does a certain posters continual spamming. Without going back and counting, what is that, 20 times you've posted the same picture?

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:13 PM
reply to post by Nickdfresh

C'mon now, be honest: You did NOT actually SEE the plane go down: You were near the area and got all excited about it and have a bigger imagination than the facts prove. Reading your words is like trying to unscramble a puzzle, only to find out halfway thru that the puzzle is missing major pieces!!

If you were near the scene of a fire, would you end up seeing what started it and know all the details even though you were a mile away? Must be psychic!!

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by johnlear

Greetings, johnlear,

Thank you. You confirmed a great deal of what I have attempted to research by reading and listening to other people versed in aviation. Visiting and touring an FAA control center, and being the only tourist with a relative who worked at one, is quite an education in itself. I had the opportunity then to be there more than a few times, and visit the different areas each time. My relative's supervisor would join us and briefly explain the radar blips, jobs of the controllers, etc. Can you tell it was a recruiting pitch to entice me to go to work for FAA? That is what it was - in electronics - not air traffic control.

The question on mics explains why my relative had to be careful how long a coffee or other break he took. Because he was responsible for changing the tapes, which I had the opportunity to observe, among other of his duties in electronics and radar. I am almost certain he explained all that, but as I said approximately 40 years later trying to recall........

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:44 PM
reply to post by Boone 870

I only repeat this picture and question because it seems that is 2 people that have tried unsucessfully to dereail this topic.

Answer the questions by number please.

Originally posted by IvanZana
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.

[edit on 25-12-2007 by IvanZana]

Some peoples futile attempts at confusing and derailing this topic is plainly obvious.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by IvanZana]

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:11 PM
No passengers have been found to prove they were on a specific flight alleged to have crashed. In addition, no specific plane parts have been found to specifically confirm said specific alleged plane crashed or carried any passengers.

I speak only for myself. I see it safe to come to a preliminary conclusion, that no alleged specific Boeing 757, Flight 93, crashed at an alleged specific ground site, Shanksville, PA, while carrying any alleged passengers.

Until, someone can come up with identifying plane numbers they can track part serial numbers back to specific alleged plane number, there is no plane or passengers physically positively ID'd to have existed, when and where they are alleged they should have existed and not somewhere else.

The US bureaucrats report they found a Rolls Royce or Pratt and Whitney engine or two many yards or miles from the alleged specific crash site. Either of those engines could fit on any Boeing 757 owned by any airline. That does not specifically identify those engines were on an alleged specific plane.

I do not know who manufactured the engines alleged to be on alleged Flight 93 crashing in alleged Shanksville. RR or P&W are used on Boeing 757s. If they do not match SN of parts used in manufacture to specific planes, then any RR or P&W engine could fit on any Boeing 757. It becomes meaningless simply to find plane parts which could be on any Boeing 757 in any airline's fleet of Boeing 757s.

One clue that screams planted parts is change in primer color, by the years specific primer shades were used in manufacture, and not in other years. Such was the case of parts found at the Pentagon, with the wrong primer color, on plane parts, not used in the year the alleged specific plane Flight 77 was manufactured. Then there arose the problem of a rarther large part being identified to fit one side of a plane, when it actually the other side of a plane.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:15 PM
Selected Haiti reply to post by IvanZana

Where the photographer is standing is where the fuel ladened wing, engine, and fuselage is said to have crashed.
Obviously it's not because we can't see the photographer's feet.

Each question mark equals a number I'm guessing.

1. Yes.
2. Yes I do. Do you expect to see intact wing sections sitting on the ground after impacting at 570 mph at a 40° angle?
3. Yes I do. Right where the crater turns black.
4. I don't see any fuel. I wouldn't expect to see any with the freshly tilled ground and all. When was the picture taken? Maybe it was absorbed.
5. I don't see any fire. Maybe the fire truck had something to do with that.
6. No. I see grass in between the photographer and the disturbed ground.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:16 PM
reply to post by Nickdfresh

A double negative is telling someone to prove something is not there when there is no proof it was ever there. That is what you told me to do. No one can do that. Not you. Not me. Not anyone.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
LOL is there now a "conspiracy" over what I saw in 1986?
No my friend, thank YOU for the chuckle...
I saw the plane crash, and I was in the general area.
Now run along and go prove the earth is flat...

Oh, a plane crash in 1986 was it? What has that got to do with Flight UA 93 crashing in 2001?

You couldn't logically answer 10 straight questions about your 1986 encounter when you were there, so how are you supposed to answer questions about Shanksville?

Please, stay on topic and discuss Flight UA 93, instead of your 1986 encounter. Deviation from the topic title, could probably be construed as an attempt to derail the thread.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by tezzajw]

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:40 PM


posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:56 PM
I still want someone to explain to me how there is minimal fire damage to the surrounding area, no fuel on the ground, and not a single witness claiming to have seen the thick black greasy smoke plume that accompanies all plane crashes including the Blue Angels'.

Either there were pools of fuel on the ground at the crash site, or there were not. If one says there were, prove it. I have seen no such evidence beyond dubios witness statements. Furthermore, if there was indeed fuel, explain how it did not ignite. Lastly, show me any other plane wreck involving fire where there was unspent fuel at the scene when emergency responders arrived.

For those who prescribe to the theory that the fuel "atomized" and burned in one massive fireball, please explain the minimal blast radius. Such a blast would have leveled the trees beyond the perimeter of the burn area, and blown out every window in the neighborhood.

[edit on 12/26/0707 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 12/26/0707 by jackinthebox]

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:29 AM

Originally posted by IvanZana

So, what crash is that then? You know, we can't exactly tell much from one picture captioned "Real plane crash"

This is real too, looks smilar to UA93 too, but I can't see any wings like you insist should be visible.

Now there aren't all that many planes which have gone at such speed straight into the ground, so how do you know how it should look?

[edit on 27-12-2007 by apex]

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:00 AM



No one person of sound mind can be convinced of Flight 93 on 9/11 crashed in Shanksville ,Pennsylvania.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by IvanZana]

[edit on 27-12-2007 by IvanZana]

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:10 AM
Look, can you tell us what crashes those "Real plane crash" pictures are from. Out of context they really don't prove much.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:43 AM

Either there were pools of fuel on the ground at the crash site, or there were not. If one says there were, prove it. I have seen no such evidence beyond dubios witness statements.

There is no possible proof we can offer that you would accept. No matter what is posted, you will find reason not to believe it.

Furthermore, if there was indeed fuel, explain how it did not ignite. Lastly, show me any other plane wreck involving fire where there was unspent fuel at the scene when emergency responders arrived

And how is fuel consumed in a fire? By the vapors igniting, violent enough collisions can cause fuel to be spewed out before ignition can happen.

Happens in plenty of plane crashes, but, due to your inability to accept "dubious" witness statements, it is pointless to show you.

Even if we had video of the plane slamming into the ground, close up pictures of the remains, and detailed debris analysis reports available to us, you STILL would not believe. Nor would many others on this thread.

You ask for photos of Flight 93's wreckage..

We post them and you say, well that could be anywhere...

You ask about the people on board...

We post reports and witness statements about the remains found and their identification...and you say, well those are "dubious" or invalid because there were government employees involved...

Face it, to you, Johnlear, Orionskies et al, the only way you would have ever accepted that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, is if the FBI would have come to your house, picked you up and taken you there to see it firsthand......and even then, you would all say, well they prepared that site just for us.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:14 AM
First, read this. It is a GOOD eyewitness account of what happened.

Second, you are comparing plane crashes like they are similar. Each one is unique. Ever see footage of a plane that hit the ide of a mountain, like in South AMerica, there is nothing left.

Third, there were body parts from Flight 93 that showed up weeks after miles away. Google it. It was in the local papers, not prisonplanet.

Fourth, the area where it crashed is 'soft ground' due to the fact of an abandoned mine in the area which swallowed the wreckage.

I mean, why was 93 the only one that did not accomplish the mission it was sent to do? If it would have hit the White House as intended or the Capital, the government would have martial law right now. Why would the government add this to the conspiracy if it were simply not true? Becuase there was a plane, and it was shot down.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:32 AM
I know this much about liquids, including kerosene jet fuel. The liquid has to be heated to a certain temperature, in order for any significant evaporation/vaporization process to take place. The cooler a liquid, the less vapors will occur. The warmer a liquid, the more vapors occur.

Until someone heats that liquid to its boiling point, no significant evaporation/vaporization process will start to take place, and completely evaporate any liquid. No crash dive, impact, or fire on impact is going to immediately generate enough thermal energy heat to completely vaporize any kerosene leaving no trace behind. Petroleum products always leave evidence without fail.

During fire investigations exactly which accelerant involved in fire is determined, because they do leave an oily carbon soot residue without fail. In any petroleum fire, black oily carbon soot residue will be easily determined without fail. The more residue left; the more indication of exactly which accelerant, particular a petroleum accelerant (not just vapors), started a fire. The point where the most residue is found is where the fire started and spread.

Fuel splashes away from impact when the container holding fuel has a rupture. There is no way all fuel in a ruptured container could be "completely vaporized" by any impact explosion. The fire will follow the trail of fuel splashed out and away from the container once holding it.

First, the rupture takes place. Second, fuel splashes out and away. Third, something acts as a catalyst to start a fire at the balance of what is left available in and around a fuel tank. Then the fire follows the trail of what splashed out and away from the fuel tank.

If the explosion takes place in mid-air, and a fuel tank is ruptured, there will still be a great deal of fuel spashing out and descending to the ground in what will very likely be a wide radius. Time and natural heat will vaporize the fuel on the ground, but will leave evidence that fuel was on the ground before evaporation process was completed.

Since there is no evidence of what science dictates should have happened concerning fuel, and no other positively identified physical evidence proving any plane crashed in Shansksville, PA, on 9/11/2001, I am not accepting the "official" reports from the Bush administration. Those reports actually suspend all laws and principles of science, and are a blatant insult to my intelligence, and the intelligence of every US citizen aware, of how the laws and principles of science have never failed to work throughout documented world history.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:52 AM
Pictures say a thousands words. This one only has to say 4....

No Plane Crash Here.

I see no reason to discuss fuel burning tempratures, atomization properties, bla bla, bla.

The picture above proves that whatever hit the ground had no wings and thus no fuel. So..... No wings+No fire+No Parts=No boeing 757 Crashed.

Like its pretty open and shut.

If you'd like to start a thread to try to prove that everyone here including JOHN LEAR is stupid and shouldnt believe their own eys,amazing human intellect, and years of experience but instead trust a bunch of copy+pasted articles from the 911 Comission Report,Cbs,and Fox your free to do so.

top topics

<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in