FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

reply to post by esdad71


As johnlear pointed out, the smoke is the wrong color to be kerosene from a jetliner fuel tank. So, kerosene from a jetliner fuel tank can be ruled out as a source.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by esdad71



...The smoke should have been blacker if it had been jet fuel:

This is again based on a poor quality presumable digital photo. So, as an NTSB investigator, where you trained to evaluate crashes from second hand photos?

Have you actually interviewed the witnesses?

And FTR, jet fuel is J-4 or J-5, not just kerosene...

[edit on 27/12/07 by Nickdfresh]

What type of postitive ID for what may or may not be plane parts, can be made simply looking at any photograph? Particularly, when what is stated to be plane parts are at distance and untouchable. I have yet to see anything, in any authenticated photos, I could say with positive assurance are actually plane parts. Much less the exact plane parts which are alleged to be off an alleged specific Boeing 757 labeled, on 9/11, as Flight 93, alleged to have crashed at Shanksville, PA.

Even if it is some plane part, and I am not saying it is, how does anyone know from a photo, if that is a plane part that actually belongs to the above specified Boeing 757?

reply to post by Nickdfresh


From this, it depends on what type of jet is being fueled:

www.csgnetwork.com...

"AVIATION TURBINE FUEL (JET FUEL)

CIVIL JET FUELS

Aviation turbine fuels are used for powering jet and turbo-prop engined aircraft and are not to be confused with Avgas. Outside former communist areas, there are currently two main grades of turbine fuel in use in civil commercial aviation : Jet A-1 and Jet A, both are kerosene type fuels. There is another grade of jet fuel, Jet B which is a wide cut kerosene (a blend of gasoline and kerosene) but it is rarely used except in very cold climates.

JET A-1

Jet A-1 is a kerosene grade of fuel suitable for most turbine engined aircraft. It is produced to a stringent internationally agreed standard, has a flash point above 38°C (100°F) and a freeze point maximum of -47°C. It is widely available outside the U.S.A. Jet A-1 meets the requirements of British specification DEF STAN 91-91 (Jet A-1), (formerly DERD 2494 (AVTUR)), ASTM specification D1655 (Jet A-1) and IATA Guidance Material (Kerosine Type), NATO Code F-35.

JET A

Jet A is a similar kerosene type of fuel, produced to an ASTM specification and normally only available in the U.S.A. It has the same flash point as Jet A-1 but a higher freeze point maximum (-40°C). It is supplied against the ASTM D1655 (Jet A) specification.

JET B

Jet B is a distillate covering the naphtha and kerosene fractions. It can be used as an alternative to Jet A-1 but because it is more difficult to handle (higher flammability), there is only significant demand in very cold climates where its better cold weather performance is important. In Canada it is supplied against the Canadian Specification CAN/CGSB 3.23"

Originally posted by OrionStars
US citizens did have their liberties severely restricted. The paper doing that is called the Patriot Act. It gave the Bush administration carte blanche to invade the privacy of any US citizen they deem fit to invade....

You see, this is where we agree emphatically. The Bush admin has exploited the 9/11 attacks and has used them to amass much executive privilege, some of which I think to be blatantly illegal.

He also quite blatantly shifted the War from one on a loose confederation of terrorists that got very, very lucky and turned it into a War to dominate the dwindling reserves of oil in the Middle East. No question this was the "Pearl Harbor" they were looking for. But much like the attacks on Pearl Harbor where no Americans were flying the Japanese Zeros and Val bombers, the attacks were carried out by a small elite band of terrorists...

Even if it is some plane part, and I am not saying it is, how does anyone know from a photo, if that is a plane part that actually belongs to the above specified Boeing 757?

And thank you for proving my point from an earlier post.

He also quite blatantly shifted the War from one on a loose confederation of terrorists that got very, very lucky and turned it into a War to dominate the dwindling reserves of oil in the Middle East.

I refer you to his speeches in September 2001. He never once limited us to Al Qaeda. He said that if you as a government support terrorists that meant to do the US harm, we were going to come knocking.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Exactly, what point was that? You did not say in your current post.

Originally posted by esdad71
Here are photos that show dead bodies from the Pentagon and WTC site. There were planes....The MOussaui trial ending allowed for more documentation to be released. You jsut have to look for it.

Absolutely pointless argument in this thread about Flight UA 93.

Of course there were dead bodies from the Pentagon and WTC buildings - people worked in them! The dead bodies still don't prove that there were planes at those sites...

Originally posted by OrionStars
What type of postitive ID for what may or may not be plane parts, can be made simply looking at any photograph?...

Should I question this then?



I can't see any plane, I guess Valujet 592 never went down in the everglades. Where's the tail section sticking out of the ground?

I mean it was only going about 500-550mph...

[edit on 27/12/07 by Nickdfresh]

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.

This point.

No matter how many photos we show, no matter how many links to various witness statements or reports, you will never accept any of it, because no one led you by the hand to Shanksville that day.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Tough talk is one thing. To actually break UN and US constitual laws to act on tough talk, while illegally, unilaterally attacking another country, is quite another.

Back to the topic at hand - "FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun".

Well since I was responding to a statement in this thread my answer was just fine, even though it did not mention Flight 93.

Tough talk is one thing. To actually break UN and US constitual laws to act on tough talk, while illegally, unilaterally attacking another country, is quite another.

Illegally? Based on what? The UN? who cares, I say evict the UN from New York, they can use the office space. Unilaterially? How so? Approximately 38 nations were (are) involved the war. And what part of the Constitution was violated?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Here's one for you Swampfox. There's not enough evidence for OrionStars to believe that it was Al Qaeda hijackers, but, apparently enough to at least suspect the JWO.

originally posted by OrionStars
Only for 9/11/2001, the anti-Semitism was directed at the Semitic Arab people instead of the Semitic Jewish people. I wonder who had most motivation to move forward on that pertaining to 9/11/2001. Was it WASP ideologues? Maybe. Was it Zionist ideologues? Most probably.

Are the words above pertinent to Shanksville, PA? Certainly, because all documented evidence points toward Zionist and WASP ideologue (US military-industrial complex) being the true perpetrators of 9/11/2001. If they had not implemented what they did, there would be no discussion on 9/11/2001 crime, because there would have been no crime to discuss

LOL The Bush Administration behind 9/11? Good one!

Those clowns could plan a Boyscout Jamboree without suffering 30% casualties and going several billion over-budget.

But I'm supposed to believe they planned and executed one of the most intricate mass murders in history with near flawless precision...

Nobody talked?!?

The Zionists? Really? You mean the Israeli gov't? The one that failed dismally in Lebanon?

[edit on 27/12/07 by Nickdfresh]

All documented evidence points towards zionists and military industrial complex? WHAT EVIDENCE?

Again, I ask, WHAT caused the scarring and the black ground in Shanksville? If not Flgiht 93, then what?

As far as the pictures I posted, it was for previous posts with that stated no one died and there were no planes at the Pentagon or NY.

As far as my facts, look up Indian Lake. It is in the vicinity of the 93 crash site. There was a plane, is was shot down. It is not my job to convince or sway but to prod others to simply educate themselves.

1. Where are the passengers?
2. Where is the plane?
3. What caused the scarring?

Three simple questions.....

[edit on 27-12-2007 by esdad71]

bad post sorry


[edit on 27-12-2007 by IvanZana]

reply to post by Nickdfresh


Did you note you stated a small plane went down in the Everglades? Are the Everglades all solid ground? If so, when did someone drain it?



[edit on 27-12-2007 by OrionStars]

reply to post by OrionStars


it wasnt a small plane. It was a DC-9 withh 110 people dying.The plane shattered on impact with the bedrock, not many large portions of the plane were intact.

the ground at Shankville although not a Florida Everglade... was very soft.