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: 28
24
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
If the government can fabricate 9/11, why not a FDR. That is where hte arguement goes out the window for you guys, and Lear made the mistake to bring it up. That is not evidence, but the video of the flaming area and wreckage the day off are.

If there was no plane, no missle or other object, what caused the fire and the scarring on the ground. It was massive. There are pictures that clearly show debris. There was debris found in Indian LAke 2 miles away. The FBI blamed it on wind direction but according to the weather that day it would have been impossilbe. The FBI offered a bogus explanation but no one brings it up.

That is why I feel the whole thing is disinfo. You want people to argue over the was it a plane, was there no plane, so they do not investigate the truth.

Look up these 2 people. Cheney and Mineta. Cheney ordererd it and Mineta covered it up. Done deal. That is a conspiracy, less than a dozen who know the truth and a story to help the healing peocess with the Lets Roll story. Watch this video, this seals it all.....

shot down

Also, cell communications at the time were fine. Those people made those calls. No voice changers. They were real people. They were put in harms way be terrorists and we had to make the decsion to sacrafice a few for many.

In closing, please, what caused the destruction that is shown in pictures and video from 9/11 at Shanksville?

[edit on 29-12-2007 by esdad71]

[edit on 29-12-2007 by esdad71]




posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


If you realize the FBI was presenting deliberate bogus information, why do you so adamantly attempt, without legitimate basis, to discredit our investigations and presenting all other bogus information by the US bureaucrats? What gives any "official" reports any validity, when the people reporting them have no credibility, i.e. bogus reports by the FBI you referenced.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


As to the cell phone use air to ground, experts said the technology was not available on 9/11. To have of even one of those purported cell phone calls go through, much less last, would be a quirk. Planes have to be equipped with cell phone technology, and that was not done by 9/11/2001. I am being highly liberal on this possibility. It may have been done in privately owned jets, but not for ordinary people traveling on public commercial jets on 9/11.

The only phones available guaranteeing calls from air to ground, on 9/11/2001, were air phones. The number of air phones on each individual commercial jetliner is very small in number. Particularly, relative to the claims, of so many cell phones being used, by so many people, at the same time. Not possible on 9/11/2001.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Just so you know, cell phones were banned from planes in 1991, a full ten years prior to 9/11. You have always been able to use them, it is a concern however with the FCC on ground interference from air to ground calls disrupting ground signals and the FAA worried about flight components which would not in effect be in detriment and I think Lear and back that up.

Cell ability on phones has been around for awhile and in 2004 the FCC considered lifting the ban and did not.

As far as the FBI, I am showing that there is a degree of lying that can be proven. Thats all. In other instances I am sure they are correct, but here they are not. Did you watch the video with Mineta? Have you read anything from the comission report that he testified too? It all shows that 93 was shot down.

My questions is still what caused the scene in Shanksville on 9/11 if there was no plane?



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Well, if they could not be used successfully on 9/11/2001 because of lack of cell phone technology on the planes to successfully operate them, why would they be banned in 1991? Do you have any idea what the cell phones looked like in 1991? They could have successfully carried contraband.

It was not until the 1990s they actually took off for what people use today and still grounded. That took time to put successful technology in planes. They were busy making the ground use sophicasted enough to successfully use.

I remember in the 1980s when ordinary people used CBs in their vehicles, because only the wealthy could afford car phones.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


My point was there has been far more proved deliberate lying, which has been far more significant deliberate lying.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   


The only phones available guaranteeing calls from air to ground, on 9/11/2001, were air phones. The number of air phones on each individual commercial jetliner is very small in number. Particularly, relative to the claims, of so many cell phones being used, by so many people, at the same time. Not possible on 9/11/2001.


37 calls were logged from passengers/crew members of Flight 93 -
35 were made using GTE Airphones which are NOT CELL PHONES!
The Airphone were placed in the seat backs, people used a credit card
to places a call or like a landline phone could call operator for assitance
in placing call. Todd Beamer talked to GTE operator Lisa Jefferson.
Only 2 cell phones were made from Flight 93 - the calls were near the
end of the flight where plane was flying at 7,000 ft. This part of
Pennsylvania has peaks over 3500 ft. There is picture of cell phone
tower over 3000 ft ASL (above sea level) - so cell phone calls were possible.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


The following should put the cell phone issue to bed once and for all:

www.usatoday.com...

"Despite opposition, Boeing says get ready for cell phones in flight: Boeing's Connexion unit expects to offer cell phone service to airline passengers as early as 2006, a top company official said Thursday at the Paris Air Show. "We expect that once the regulatory issues and the social issues are ironed out we'll be introducing that service as well," says Laurette Koellner, president of Connexion by Boeing, which also offers in-flight Web access on several airlines. "We're projecting that to be some time next year,"

As for airfones, the only airfones I remember in a 767 or 757 I have flow on, were not in pockets on the back of the seat in front of me nor in the seat dividers. The pocket in the back seat in front of me held approximately three items - how to operate the oxygen masks, a magazine starring the airline, and air sick bags.

en.wikipedia.org...

"AirFone commenced its service in the early 1980s starting with first-class under experimental licenses; the FCC's formal allocation was in 1990. AirFone handsets were gradually extended to include one unit in each row of seats in economy. The service was always priced extremely high--$3.99 per call and $4.99 per minute in 2006--and has seen less and less use as the ready availability of cellular telephones has increased. In an FCC filing in 2005, the agency noted that 4,500 aircraft have AirFone service, and quoted Verizon AirFone's president stating in a New York Times article that only two to three people per flight make a call."

Exactly, what were those alleged terrorists doing, while all those alleged people were rushing to make all those alleged phone calls to give away what was allegedly happening on board?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by apex
 


Again, a skilled backhoe operator can make that same shaped hole. Then rake the ground to make it look as if a missle or any other explosion made that hole. Have people ever watched the digging of inground swimming pools, particularly when they are banked?


I wouldnt doubt the abilities of a back hoe but upon reviewing this next picture, you will see that the wings scars are actually old and weathered. Notice the dry flammable grass is not even broken where the wings are said to have gone in?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


These bits: slopes of 'wingscars' in green, centerline where the wing would presumably be, red:


In which case, some missile came along and made the hole after the wing scars were made.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


I was going by the ariel view, and it looks like all soil and no grass.

In the picture you are using, there is no proof those indentations came from any plane wings, because there are no plane parts, including wings, to prove a plane was ever there.

Do you know of any Boeing 757 with that short of a wing span? I know of no Boeing commercial jetliners with that short of a wing span. Where is the rest of the wings, if what you are calling "wingscars" came from a physically observable plane?

If a backhoe did dig that hole, and I am not saying it did, it would have been done days before 9/11. Backhoe tires will not particularly tear out the grass. It will leave it flat for a while, but only under the tires. When it rains and then the sun shines, the grass will reach for the sky and become dry again when there is lack of rain.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Where is the rest of the wings, if what you are calling "wingscars" came from a physically observable plane?


Good question. I have no idea. I am only calling them 'wingscars', because that is what should be there. They should be from the wings, but it is dubious that they are.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by apex]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
The fire damage to the treeline is illogical. If 93 did crash there, there should be a circular burn pattern around the entire point of impact. The circle might have become retarded to a more ovular shape to due velocity, but not at a sideways angle. The fireball may have moved forward of the impact point, but not sideways.




posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   


The fire damage to the treeline is illogical. If 93 did crash there, there should be a circular burn pattern around the entire point of impact. The circle might have become retarded to a more ovular shape to due velocity, but not at a sideways angle. The fireball may have moved forward of the impact point, but not sideways.


I suppose you would want the crash scene to look like a Looney Tunes
cartoon with the tail of the plane sticking out. The fuel tanks are in the
wings -center fuel tank not often used except for long range trans-oceanic
flights. Fuel tanks would rupture on impact and fuel be atomized into
aerosol. The fuel mist droplets would continue travelling in direction of
flight so burn pattern will be forward of impact scene extending from
fuel tanks in a cone shaped pattern. Can see this from 2 burned spots
in the woods forward of the main crash scene.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


That comment is unfair. It was not any of us making that hole to look like a Looney Tunes cartoon. Whoever made that hole look the way it does, in the shape of a derby hat by ariel view, did that. Trying to pass that hole off as some physical plane crash, particularly a Boeing 757, is indeed an insult to the intelligence of all resonable, logical people.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Originally posted by thedman



The fuel mist droplets would continue travelling in direction of
flight so burn pattern will be forward of impact scene extending from
fuel tanks in a cone shaped pattern. Can see this from 2 burned spots
in the woods forward of the main crash scene.


Thanks for the post thedman but I think you are 'seeing' things that aren't there.

The EPA took 5 or 6 thousand one cubic foot samples from the entire area and found no contamination from any kind of fuel.

Pandoras Box Chapter 3:

video.google.com...



There was no fuel because there was no airplane crash.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



The fuel mist droplets would continue travelling in direction of
flight so burn pattern will be forward of impact scene extending from
fuel tanks in a cone shaped pattern. Can see this from 2 burned spots
in the woods forward of the main crash scene.


The woods are not forward of the crash-site unless the wings were mounted on the roof and belly, judging from the "wing scars."



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


The trees that were burned are in-line with the flight path. The aircraft was inverted when it hit the ground.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Was that asserted "inverted" inside out or upside down?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Upside down. Unless you can explain how an aircraft can be turned inside out.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join