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: 24
24
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 




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.


Perhaps some of us are familiar with the EC 130. Do you care to substantiate your claims that that aircraft is capable of voice morphing and remotely controlling UAVs?

Something official would be great.




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
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]


"And how alligators......." should read "How many alligators....."



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Yes, I can. However, you have to obtain a copy of Peter Tiradera's book in order to see that substantiation. I am not at liberty, due to copyright laws, to take too many excepts from his book. Amazon.com has, or did have, it at a very reasonable price, or you can check with your local library and pay nothing. He explains it in his book.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
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


Valujet in this case, not United 93. Fire destroyed the control cables ausing loss of control.




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


Not a pilot, but if I remember correctly, the valujet went down from a reasonably high altitude, not just above the ground.



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


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.



Well maybe not 580, but how fast does a DC-9 need to go to shatter on impact with rock. Of course it's aimed downwards as well, so it's got gravity to increase it a bit as well.



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.


Well, just a guess that the bedrock of the everglades is probably a harder thing to hit than a field with an old mine underneath it.



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


Maybe i should have worded my reply better to be more explicit on which I was talking about.



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.


What I mean is, that UA93 and the Valujet flight crashed for different reasons, but had reasonably similar impacts.
reply to post by OrionStars
 

So, I take it there are no animals in shanksville, that, if they feel like it, would eat the remains of someone?

[edit on 28-12-2007 by apex]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   


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.


yes, max cruising is nowhere near 580, however, we arent discussing straight, level flight now are we? No, we are discussing a plane that for ease of understanding, was in a power dive. NOW, Mr Lear, if you are truly the "expert" that you say you are, then you know that in dives, especially power on dives, that aircraft can and do exceed their "maximums"



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


This is not a topic about any Valujet crash, in which the factors are completely different, from those of alleged Flight 93. However, if you wish to start another discussion, and present what you state is the Valujet speed, I will read your presentation, of what you stated is in their official report. That means providing a certified copy of their official report. I do not want to read some media accounting interpretation of any official report.

Should you chose to start a new discussion, I will read your presentation though it has nothing to do with 9/11, and is irrelevant to the factors concerning alleged Flight 93.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



Yes, I can. However, you have to obtain a copy of Peter Tiradera's book in order to see that substantiation.


That's not official! That's the same author and book that I have proven to be.... well.... wrong!

You remember. He's the guy that claimed Donald Rumsfeld was running a simulated aircraft exercise a month before he was appointed Secretary of Defense. Anything official?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Why can noone answer the 3 simple questions that I posted? How about we make it one?

WHAT CAUSED THE SCARRING AT THE SITE? If there was no plane, no passengers, etc, what the hell made that mark?

I see Lear is back asking people if they are pilots again. Be careful not to transpose a number or mispeeel something. Can you tell me Mr Lear where Flight 93 is with proof?

What up Capt. Obvious? Hope you had a good holiday...



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   
For anyone unaware of what the walls are surrounding a mine, it is bedrock. Unless, supports are placed to prevent the weight and mass of the mountain or hill from collapsing weaken bedrock walls, that weakened bedrock will collapse. They do not simply dig soft dirt out for mines shafts, and expect the walls to stay in place with wood beam supports every 8 - 10' or so. In fact, they normally have to blast out the rock to have a mine shaft to enter straight through or underground. The mine shafts are not sitting that close to soft soil.

Normally, mine shaft collapses occur, when the primary support beams begin to become compromised. Or earth tremors consistently occur in areas of mine shafts.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   


For anyone unaware of what the walls are surrounding a mine, it is bedrock. Unless, supports are placed to prevent the weight and mass of the mountain or hill from collapsing weaken bedrock walls, that weakened bedrock will collapse. They do not simply dig soft dirt out for mines shafts, and expect the walls to stay in place with wood beam supports every 8 - 10' or so. In fact, they normally have to blast out the rock to have a mine shaft to enter straight through or underground. The mine shafts are not sitting that close to soft soil.


Except this is a former STRIP MINE, in other words they dug up the whole area to get what they wanted and then filled in the hole with DIRT.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Originally posted by Nickdfresh




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


There is no evidence that the area where Flight 93 crashed is an abandoned 'mining shaft'.

First of all let me explain that I am certified as a federal mine safety instructor so I know what I am talking about. There is no evidence of a shaft anywhere in that area.

Second, the area is alleged to have been an abandoned 'open pit' mine.

In fact there are no 'abandoned open pits' anymore. All claims are regulated and patrolled by the Bureau of Land Management and cannot be 'abandoned'. They have to be reclaimed under federal law 43 CFR 3809. I have looked at an aerial view of the alleged crash site and it is not an 'abandoned mine either open pit or shaft'. Nor has it been reclaimed.


Of course, as has been routinely ignored here post after post, the ground in Shanksville was over an abandoned mining shaft.


This statement is untrue. There is no evidence that this area was abandoned or a 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...


This statement is a hodge podge of misinformation. I am a federally certified mining instructor (U.S. Department of Labor Mine Safety & Health Adminsitration IS OAL/11/2000) and open pit mines do not cause the ground to be very unstable. This is false and misleading statement. During reclamation open pits are not always filled back up with dirt and if they are they are not filled with 'soft' dirt' whatever that means. Neither is there any such thing as "stabilizing heavy construction equipment and the like". This statement is nonsense.

Nickdfresh, you continue to discuss areas in which you have no training or expertise. I would like to invite you to walk the production line of the Boeing 757 and 767 so that I could show a little about aircraft construction and why it would be totally impossible for an airplane to disappear into the ground such as you allege in Shanksville.

I believe that if you could see how an airplane was built and what parts it is constructed of you would be less likely to propose that such could 'disappear' into the ground.

For instance could take you to the fuselage/wing mating area where they take a wing and join it to the fuselage. I would show you the massive 'wing box' and huge machined and extruded fittings that the airplane is built with. The equally massive landing gear retract cylinders and landing gear struts.

All of this cannot possibly have 'disappeared' into the ground. They could not possibly have disintegrated. Nor could the airplane have crashed straight in without leaving the horizontal and vertical stabilizer above ground.

I think that with a little education we could inform you to the point where your posts might be taken seriously.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


You wanted my comment substantiated. I gave you how to locate my substantiation from an ex-USAF officer, who is a physician and was a forensic investigator of military air crashes. I have no reason to doubt his word considering his position in the USAF.

I know there has been tech availability, which can do voice changing to make it sound as if someone is talking to a person he or she knows, but the voice is a machine. I bothered to do my research on it to validate it.

Since some people cannot be bothered to validate what they state, I have come to this conclusion. Unless, people are willing to be bothered to validate their own claims, neither will I be when those same people request or demand validation from me. I will be willing to tell them how to find it. But I am no longer wasting vast amounts of time searching through my own researched work.

I definitely will not be encouraged to give even the slightest assistance, if all people are going to do is become snide at me, because they cannot prove their own points of argument.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


Would you care to present validation of the numbers of carnivoruos wildlife species roaming around Shanksville? I am referring to those carnivores that would include homo sapien in their diet.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Why can noone answer the 3 simple questions that I posted? How about we make it one?

WHAT CAUSED THE SCARRING AT THE SITE? If there was no plane, no passengers, etc, what the hell made that mark?


An explosion using explosives will easily cause that scarring. From the looks of the way the ground is pushed around, that is exactly what it looks like happened. That would explain the lack of black carbon fuel residue in the area which surrounded that 10' x 20' unevenly indented crater. An explosion with explosives would move the dirt in the hole around just that way.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


So, any carnivore couldn't do it then? It has to be a specific one? Does there have to be a specific animal to do it? Sure maybe if you are still alive, it will take a reasonably big animal to eat you, but small parts after an aircaft crash? Why couldn't, say, a rat eat a bit?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


The strip mining at Shanksville involved surface stripping, including making surface pits, not underground mine shafts. They strip the ground from the surface until they reach solid bedrock. Then they have to quite strip mining. I knew that much because of the condition of the topography when it was reported to be an area of strip mining.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


I'm not sure why I even got into this stupid debate. Not one of these guys can provide ANY proof to any of their claims.

I am wondering how the perps recorded all the voices of the passengers...and carried on conversations with family members.



Hi Esdad... thanks! Having a young one around make the holidays fun again! Hope your's was good!



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


So, the top soil and a signifigant amount of soil below there was somewhat loose? Agree?

Oh tell me ... after this so called explosion you claim ...in Shankville.... how were all the plane parts and body parts planted in this hole in the ground?




[edit on 28-12-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Since the discussion surrounding alleged Flight 93 allegedly going 580 mph on impact, I starting comparing Shanksville to NYC. It definitely makes a difference whether a plane is flying horizontally or descending in a nosedive at a higher rate of velocity impact force.

If some Boeing 757 cannot even hit the ground and penetrate dirt any deeper than that crater we keep being shown, and at a higher impact velocity, why would people think that a Boeing 767 traveling at a lower velocity speed could just cut through so much redundant structrual steel, and still manage to slice through center core units at least 10 times the gauge and strength of all other steel in the twin towers?

People cannot have it all their way, regardless of differing factors involved in incidents, and maintain any credibility in points of argument. Comparison of plane impacts between those alleged to be involved on 9/11, is a far sight better, than comparing to some lighter aircraft crashing in water. Anyone who dives into water from high levels knows why there is no comparison between the Valujet crash in the Everglades, and any alleged crashed planes on 9/11.

Or do people wish to contend landfill (much looser dirt than what is lying below it which may be loose as well) is much harder to penetrate that two exterior steel walls of buildings, structurally designed and constructed to take the impact crash of a 707, at top speed possible at sea level (thank you, johnlear) and remain standing and maintain structural integrity through designed and constructed heavy load shifting?

I happen to know from experience weather makes a difference in how much velocity impact force a plane can possibly have. When I traveled overseas, I arrived at my destination about 8 hours later. Going back, it was much less than 8 hours later. Time zone change had nothing to do with it. It was hours in the air I was counting. Which is why in an earlier post, I stated just because the speedometer reads miles per hour is no certain indication of actually velocity or velocity impact. The tach reading is why.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


No, just any carnivore could not eat all the flesh, muscle and bone of any homo sapien, and leave no trace of evidence. Spiders are carnivores. Do you think they could feast on homo sapiens, much less leave no traces of evidence?

It depends on the carnivore species and home base of those carvinore species. Bones and blood evidence will still be available on land when eaten by land based carnivores, but not necessarily in fresh or salt water containing those carnivore species.




top topics



 
24
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join