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: 23
24
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


That needs a correction. No positively ID'd proof has existed. Reports on paper touted it has existed, but no positiviely ID'd proof has existed.




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Perhaps some people may wish to familiarize themselves with the EC-130 cargo plane aka military psyops plane. The plane's tech performs, among other amazing feats, jamming of radar signals, intercepting telephone signals and altering voices to sound exactly like a person calling is actually the person the receiver of a call knows. It also capable of remote contol of UAVs.

Does the US have them? Yes, the US does.

Did the US have them on 9/11/2001? Yes, the US did.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
I seriously doubt that plane crash landed at any 580 mph 5 minutes after take-off. Considering the actual events of the Valujet crash, it becomes completely irrelevant to the disappearance of alleged Flight 93 on 9/11.


Well, it was going down, out of control from a reasonable altitude, so why could it not be going at 580 mph or so? And the bedrock was not far below the surface of the water, so it would probably have been a harder surface than the field UA93 hit.

And "considering the actual events"? What a fire on board causing loss of control and nosediving is different by a large amount to nosediving deliberately? Maybe in terms of cause of crash, but not in terms of debris afterwards.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:36 AM
link   


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.


Smoke mixed with dust from impact - plane hitting ground at 580mph
will raise huge dust cloud . Smoke from aerosolized jet fuel burning.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   
To Orion:

The Real Mark Bingham

Do you know Mark Bingham? Here is some information about him. I can imagine what his fmaily and friends would think if someone like you said to them that he does not exist.

Mark Kendall Bingham
31 years old
San Francisco, CA
May 22, 1970 - September 11, 2001


Mark was the CEO of The Bingham Group, a public relations firm with offices in San Francisco and New York. He graduated from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1993.

Since Mark's death there has been a memorial scholarship put together:

Address for Application
Mark Bingham Leadership Fund
1410 Shrader Street
San Francisco, CA 94117
www.markbingham.org...

Perhaps Orion, you know someone that would benifit?

Mark's mother Alice Ann Hoglan said this about her son's website that was put together for him.


How beautiful and loving Mark's friends are. You all have touched my heart. I hope to get in touch with each of you personally.

Please feel free to contact me:
Alice Ann Hoglan
e-mail to alicehoglan@aol.com

www.markbingham.org...



In 1991 and 1993 he helped the University of California earn national titles in rugby. Jack Clark, the coach of the rugby team, said "He marched to his own beat. This guy was anything but a follower. I don't know if we'll ever know what happened in that airplane, but it would not surprise me that Mark would resist."



A few years prior to 911, the six-foot-five Bingham wrestled a gun from a mugger's hand late at night on a San Francisco street. In July 2001 he was carried on the horns of a bull in Pamplona.



Mr. Bingham's uncle, Linden Hogland, said, "Our family figured it out this way. His personality is so obstreperous and irrepressible. You couldn't hold him back. We're sure that after the phone call there was a real struggle, a physical confrontation."

There is more info here:
en.wikipedia.org...

This is just a small sample of who he was and the people that loved him. There was nothing aleged about him on flight 93. He was on that plane, and he died on that plane.

In regards to the flight manifest, on September 13, 2001 United Airlines released a list of the passengers. Mark Bingham's name was indeed on it. Some names were left off due to the request from families.

www.sfgate.com.../chronicle/archive/2001/09/13/MN199465.DTL

You also suggested that Mark Bingham's name was not part of the moussaoui trial . You are wrong. Marks name in fact appears on the exhibit with the entire flight 93 seating chart. He was actually sitting in seat 4D. Please see the Moussaoui Trial Exhibits for this.

There is plenty of proof that he existed. And that he was on that flight. Now, it is up to YOU to prove all this information wrong.

Knock yourself out.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Do you, by chance, know the cruising and top speed of a Valujet commuter plane?


I don't actually. But I do know that such things are of little relevance when an aircraft loses control and begins plunging to earth...And that top speed and cruising speed are different from terminal velocity. A key fact that seems to escape certain NTSB investigators here.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Did you note... Are the Everglades all solid ground? If so, when did someone drain it?





Right to! So you can evaluate the crash sites?

So, the fact that FL93 disappeared into soft ground above an old mining shaft really isn't much different, is it?


Originally posted by tezzajw
The Valuejet crashed in swampland. Flight UA 93 crashed on solid ground....


No, no it didn't.

Of course, as has been routinely ignored here post after post, the ground in Shanksville was over an abandoned mining shaft. Anyone who has worked in such an environment knows that this causes the ground to become very unstable and limits what one can do as far as stabilizing heavy construction equipment and the like...

[edit on 28/12/07 by Nickdfresh]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars


Prove those phone calls were ever made. Prove the people alleged to be making them actually made them if any calls can be proved at all.


LOL do you want us to prove the world is not flat, too?

I mean, the onus is on you, since you're the one making extraordinary claims here...

And BTW, they were proven to have been absolutely plausible hence proved...



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


As I recall, they were only 5 minutes from take-off. It takes time to get all that weight and mass up into the altitude they need for cruise speed. It also depends on which way the wind is blowing as to how rapidly they are going to achieve that altitude climb. I did not find anything where it said how they descended. Glide no engines running? Nose dive engines or no engines running? Angle with engines or no engines running? Trying to brake? Those questions, among others are important trying to gauge at what speed a plane will descend. The speed at which a plane was going before starting descent is important to know, as is weight and mass of the plane with contents.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Since there is no trace of Mark Bingham proved to be found, in order to verify if he indeed made any call from any plane, why are you harping on Mark Bingham? All it states is you completely missed my point - intentionally or otherwise.

As I stated, the tech to filter in a voice sounding exactly like someone an individual knows, through a telephone line or wireless, was indeed available on 9/11/2001. Mr. Bingham's mother would not know she was speaking to a machine and not her flesh and blood son. Only Mark Bingham could verify or deny, and there has been no positively ID'd trace of him ever found.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   


As I stated, the tech to filter in a voice sounding exactly like someone an individual knows, through a telephone line or wireless, was indeed available on 9/11/2001. Mr. Bingham's mother would not know she was speaking to a machine and not her flesh and blood son. Only Mark Bingham could verify or deny, and there has been no positively ID'd trace of him ever found.


Yes the technology existed. Now, how did they get enough samples of his voice for the computer? And dont say they used phone records. Whether you realize it or not, you just made a critical error bringing up the voice synthesizer in regards to Flight 93



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


If all anyone can see from your photo is a mushroom shaped light gray cloud (from kerosene full of coal black carbon?), trailing, in a very thin stream down to the ground, how is it your are so positive you know all you are stating to be fact?

Where is you substantiated proof, and not assumption, of what you think happened to any alleged plane at some alleged speed on impact? Where are your calculations for what you think was speed on descent? If you provide that, I will know if you left out any factors of importance to know exact speed of descent and final impact.

580 mph impact plane velocity, on any size plane plus contents, is appearing to be gaining popularity for use. I have no idea why that is.

Even the photos of the WTC buildings made the smoke appear realistic from kerosene fire. Not so in your photo from what should be kerosene fire. It looks more like the after effect of explosives explosion, just as another poster stated as well. Explosion, for explosives at site of explosion, would give off white smoke. That mixed with dark debris would display a light gray appearance just like that in your photo.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


So, the perps of this even knew so much peprsonal information about all of the passengers, that they secretly recorded their voices...called their families, and carried coversations with loved ones?

You have Mark's mothers e-mail. Would you write here and question her son's existance on that airplane?

Lets look at the others? Shall we?

Lauren Grandcolas: She place 6 calls. 3 to her residence.

Mark Bingham: Placed 4 calls.

Joseph Deluca & Linda Gronlund: placed 4 calls

Jeremy Glick: placed one call

Todd Beamer: placed 4 calls

Sandra Bradshaw: Placed 3 calls

Thomas Burnett Jr.: placed 3 Calls

CeeCee Lyles: placed 2 calls

Marion Britton & Honor Wainio: Placed 3 Calls

Waleska Martinez: Placed 4 Calls

Edward Felt: 1 call (911 call where he spoke to operator John Shaw)

This was evidence that was place at the trial. Why do you dismiss it? I am not ignoring anything.

You are ignoring the facts that are presented to you and you know it.

Orion lets look at your post:


I refer to the following trial exhibit where the passenger list excludes Mr. Bingham's name as being on alleged Flight 93:


This is a lie. Care to address it?


or this:


Is it? There is no proof a human being actually named Mark Bingham made any call to earth from the air. Then to find his name missing on trial exhibit passenger list, adds even more suspicion, particularly when there is no trace of a human being named Mark Bingham on any alleged Flight 93 on 9/11/2001. And no trace of any alleged Flight 93 either.


More lies.

The evidence is there. It was presented at the trial. It is up to YOU to prove it false.


One more thing. Please listen to CeeCee Lyles message. Her last words on the message were "I hope to see your face again baby". Her voice cracking at the though of never seeing her children again.

This was morphed? PROVE IT!

Your claims are without merit and you have ZERO evidence to prove it. ZERO!



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Nickdfresh
 


That is incorrect, because the factors you mentioned are highly important to know. Just as traveling in horizontally or at an angle to impact are highly important to know, as well, for accurate calculation. Velocity on a speedometer and impact velocity are not the same. It definitely depends on all weight and mass of the object determining velocity impact. Even weather conditions are important to know. Braking or not braking is important to know. Gliding or nosediving is important to know. Among other highly important factors needed in calculation. Without all known factors, calculations are just guess work and inaccurate.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The ValuJet 592 Conspiracy!

No bodies found at the crash site.

Search teams braved thick sawgrass, crocodiles and snakes in the Florida Everglades Saturday but found no sign of survivors from the crash of ValuJet Flight 592.

Chief R.D. Paulison of Metro-Dade Fire Rescue said that by 7:15 p.m. EDT, no human remains had been found.

Rescue workers have not found any intact bodies.

No body parts were discovered in the crater.


Was 592 shot down?

"There could have been an explosion," Francis said.


Little or no debris.

Less than 10 percent of the plane wreckage has been removed from the crash site, he said.

"There is no aircraft in the pit, only fragment pieces,"

He said the largest piece he found was about the size of 3- by 6-foot table.

"The wreckage looked like if you take your garbage and throw it on the ground."


Early passenger manifest didn't have all of the passengers listed.
(Partial list of passengers and crew)

How can anyone with a sound mind believe that a 60 ton commercial airliner crashed into this hole?
According to the official story, the aircraft crashed at over 500 mph. That's impossible because the manufacture recommends not exceeding 350 mph at that altitude.

All of the above quotes were mined from this site. CNN.com See how easy that is?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Nickdfresh
 


Skanksville location was not solid ground? It certainly looked to be so. If not solid ground, what was it? Quicksand? A pond? Lake? Because I did not see anything but solid ground. Not even a mine shaft or fault collapse indication.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Originally posted by apex



Well, it was going down, out of control


According to the flight director someone was hand flying the airplane. It was not out of control


from a reasonable altitude


I am not sure what you mean by 'reasonable altitude'. Are you a pilot?


so why could it not be going at 580 mph or so?


There are several reason why it could not be going 580 mph. The first is that the Vmo or Velocity maximum oerating for the Boeing 757 is 350 knots indicated. This is based on several factors, one of which is the ability of the windshield to survive the impact of a 4.2 pound bird fired at a 90 degree angle to the windlshield. Another reason is the 'upset' test where the airplane is pointed down 10 degrees for 20 seconds and then must recover without the use of spoilers. The airplane must then be controllable by use of normal controls only.

The airplane is designed to meet and operate at those speeds which are not much above 350 knots, possibly 400 knots but not much more.

Those who believe a Boeing 757 oir 767 could attain a speed of 580 mph which 504 knots indicated at sea level don't know what they are talking about. 504 knots is 154 knots above Vmo.

First of all there is not enough power to exceed 400 knots. Any increase in speed requires enormous amounts of thrust. If the airplane did get to speeds over 400 knots its doubtful that it would be controllable.

The bottom line is I would respectfully request that you not use the speed '580' mph as the speed of Flight 93 as that speed is impossible.


And the bedrock was not far below the surface of the water, so it would probably have been a harder surface than the field UA93 hit.


This statement is untrue. It is without foundation and purports to claim relative hardness without substantive evidence.


And "considering the actual events"? What a fire on board causing loss of control and nosediving is different by a large amount to nosediving deliberately?



You said Flight 93 was out of control. Now you say deliberately. Which is it?


Maybe in terms of cause of crash, but not in terms of debris afterwards.


You will have to clarify this statement. It is not understandable in its present form.

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Nickdfresh
 


Being snide because you cannot prove your case is getting you nowhere for credibility in points of argument.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Yes, it is highly possible the perps knew more about individuals than the individuals may have known about themselves.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


And how alligators would anyone guess reside in the Everglades? I do not recall Shanksville having any reports of being infested with alligators.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by OrionStars]



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join