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: 29
24
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Inverted either way, could you please establish a precedent where aircraft crashed, inverted themselves, and left no plane parts or contents of the plane? That means finding actual aircraft crashes actually happening the same way. To do what you are saying, a plane would have to be completely vertical from nose to tail, and dropping straight down nose first. When has that ever happened in any actual aircraft crash?




posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 

Inverted either way, could you please establish a precedent where aircraft crashed, inverted themselves, and left no plane parts or contents of the plane?
No I can't. It would be hard for an aircraft to invert itself after it crashed. There were plane parts, you've been shown the pictures, and you continue to deny that there were any.


That means finding actual aircraft crashes actually happening the same way.
You hit the nail on the head with this sentence. No 2 crashes are the same. ValuJet flight 592 is the closest comparison I can find. Similar speed, similar angle of impact, and similar results. You completely ignored it.


To do what you are saying, a plane would have to be completely vertical from nose to tail, and dropping straight down nose first. When has that ever happened in any actual aircraft crash?
I'm not the one saying it. The real-life crash investigators are.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Some wack jobs like to say the plane vapourized/ atomized due to its subsonic inverted dive in soft sand leaving no plane parts, fuesalage, 200+ seats, 50+ passengers, 100 peices of luggage, 1,000's of gallons of fuel, wings, tires, rims and without burining or breaking the dry grass that a bumble bee could break.

But......
They found this


Thats a very small piece of the window section, so if this middle piece survived then where is everything else? u know?


This is a painful subject to try to debunk. Sorry you feel that way.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 



Good point Ivan. Why would this piece survive an impact that made the tail completely disappear, along with almost everything else, if the tail was the last thing to hit the ground? Not to mention that the plane hit hard enough to supposedly atomize fuel.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


So the plane was "flying" completely sideways AND inverted? Seems to me that a lateral impact would have caused the plane to cartwheel then.



[edit on 12/30/0707 by jackinthebox]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by IvanZana
 



Good point Ivan. Why would this piece survive an impact that made the tail completely disappear, along with almost everything else, if the tail was the last thing to hit the ground? .


Mabey the window part in this picture was PLANTED to TRY to prove that a plane did crash in Shanksville because the crash site shows without a doubt that no plane crashed there.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Sideways? No.

Inverted? Yes.

Have you watched the NTSB animation for flight 93? If the aircraft would have hit the ground at a 90° angle, then the majority of the debris would not have been south of the impact crater.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


I must say Ivan, you do have a passion for stating the obvious. Do I really need to add anything else to avoid being cited for a one-liner?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


If the velocity of the impact was indeed directed in the direction of the woods and not directly into the ground, there should also be substantial debris in the woods. Specifically, the tail section, and the opposite wing that was not immediately folded under during the cartwheel. Furthermore, the opposing wing would not have made an impact scar under such conditions.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


An animated hypothesis? What does that prove regarding what was actually alleged to have happened?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   


Some wack jobs like to say the plane vapourized/ atomized due to its subsonic inverted dive in soft sand leaving no plane parts, fuesalage, 200+ seats, 50+ passengers, 100 peices of luggage, 1,000's of gallons of fuel, wings, tires, rims and without burining or breaking the dry grass that a bumble bee could break


Umm, no, whack jobs are the people who are shown countless links with pictures, reports, and witness statements about what was at the crash site and STILL insist that there wasnt anything there. Radar tapes, phone calls, witnesses, wreckage, human remains and personal effects all show that United Flight 93 crashed into a former strip mine outside of Shanksville, PA on Sept. 11, 2001.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   


Mabey the window part in this picture was PLANTED to TRY to prove that a plane did crash in Shanksville because the crash site shows without a doubt that no plane crashed there.


And the people that live right next to the crash site, and watched Flight 93 slam into the ground, saw all these nefarious characters tossing wreckage around the hole and ON their property.....and yet, they havent said a word?

Oh, I know, some guy in a suit told them not to...or else....Give me a break, one interview on TV and that worry is gone.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Since there are posters insisting, without proving forensic evidence for same, there were two 767's and two 757s involved on 9/11, please describe where the forensic evidence can be found for these component parts on both models:

Graphite
Kevlar-graphite
Fiberglass
Kevlar
Toughened graphite
Hybrid



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   


Swampfox, I posted my qualifications in support of my comments on whether or not this was a open pit or reclaimed area.


No, you typed a sentence on your computer and posted it on the internet. Quite frankly, it does not make it true. In other words, with half of your posts, my bs detector starts redlining.



I assume, though, that your response that I may have been the fifth Beatle was a failed attempt at sarcasm.


Judging from the responses I received, the majority thought it was very sarcastic (not to mention, hilarious).



While I appreciate your comments in the debate on whether or not a plane crashed at Shanksville you might want to reconsider your post about the 12th incarnation of the Dalai Lama.


Why? Did I offend the Dalai?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   


Since there are posters insisting, without proving forensic evidence for same, there were two 767's and two 757s involved on 9/11,


This would make me laugh, if it wasnt so sad. As I have said many times, it does not matter how much evidence we provide. You will never accept any of it, because no one took you by the hand and showed you the crash sites.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


In other words, you have no idea where forensic evidence can be located proving the "official" reports true?

Please note I said forensic evidence. That means evidence proved to belong only to any object asserted to be a crime weapon and/or part of any crime scene, and to be so beyond any reasonable doubt. The same evidence that has to hold up in any court of law.

Just because someone presents an object and asserts it to be evidence in a crime, does not proof of forensic evidence make nor association with any crime.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   


Please note I said forensic evidence. That means evidence proved to belong only to any object asserted to be a crime weapon and/or part of any crime scene, and to be so beyond any reasonable doubt. The same evidence that has to hold up in any court of law.


And COUNTLESS links have been provided in this thread. From flight data recorders to boarding records to human remains have been shown to have belonged to United Flight 93....and recovered from the crash site in PA. These items have ALSO BEEN HELD UP IN A COURT OF LAW. So, what is your NEXT reason why you wont accept the evidence. And you cannot use "it came from the government" because you have already used it.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


And not one "countless link" provided, by those embracing the "official" versions, has contained enough forensic evidence to prove any case, if a prosecutor had to try that case into any court.

I am not surprised. Since the Bush administration was stated on US Congressional Record, as hindering every part of the investigation, of the 9/11 Committee they could hinder:

www.fas.org...

"IV. Investigative Commissions

Upon occasion, rather than conducting oversight through GAO or committee or member investigations, Congress establishes an independent commission to investigate major issues of national significance. One of the most prominent examples of such a commission is the Warren Commission, which Congress established to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy.

Congress took this step in November 2002, when it created by statute the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (commonly

411 Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Karl Rove, Senior Advisor to the President (June 15, 2001); Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President (June 25, 2001); Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President (July 17, 2001).
412 Letter from Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, to Rep. Henry A. Waxman (June 29, 2001); Letter from Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, to Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Aug. 10, 2001).
413 White House Puts Limits on Queries from Democrats, Washington Post (Nov. 7, 2003).
414 Senator Jim Jeffords, Statement of Senator Jim Jeffords, EPW Business Meeting (Apr. 7, 2004); Senator Jim Jeffords, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Outstanding Document and Information Requests to EPA as of March 25, 2004 (Apr. 7, 2004).
415 Senator Jim Jeffords, Statement of Senator Jim Jeffords, EPW Business Meeting (Apr. 7, 2004).
SECRECY IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION 79

called the 9/11 Commission).416 Congress gave the 9/11 Commission the
responsibility to examine the “facts and causes relating to the terrorist attacks,” “make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks,” and “report to the President and Congress on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism.”

Despite Congress’ direction that the Commission should have full access to
necessary information, the Bush Administration resisted cooperating with the Commission’s inquiry. In a number of instances the Administration was slow to respond to requests, and in others it obstructed access to Administration officials and documents. For example:

• In July 2003, the Commission’s Republican chairman Thomas Kean and
Democratic chairman Lee Hamilton issued a joint statement that the
executive branch, and in particular the Departments of Defense and Justice, were hampering the inquiry by failing to provide requested information. They also objected to the Administration’s insistence that “minders” from the Administration be present at all interviews with intelligence officials.417

• In October 2003, the Commission was forced to subpoena records about air traffic on September 11, 2001, from the Federal Aviation Administration.

• In November 2003, the Commission had to issue a second subpoena for similar information from the Defense Department.418 The Commission stated that it “has encountered some serious delays in obtaining needed documents from the Department of Defense” and that “records of importance to our investigation had not been produced.”419

• From the fall of 2003 until April 2004, the White House blocked repeated
attempts by the Commission to obtain access to key presidential intelligence briefing documents, including the August 6, 2001, President’s Daily Brief, which had warned of the al-Qaeda threat in August 2001. After the Commission threatened to subpoena the documents, the White House agreed in November 2003 to allow a few members of the Commission to review the documents and prepare a summary for the other commission members.420 In January 2004, the White House refused to allow the commissioners who...."



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Orion, you suffer from a basic lack of understanding on many of the issues that you purport to be an expert on.

The 9/11 Commission was a tremendous waste of time and money. We pretty much knew on 9/12/01 what had happened. Al Qaeda took the time to find the weaknesses in our country and took full advantage of them. Our law enforcement/intelligence agencies were hamstrung by dumbass post-Church committee laws to cooperate efficiently. And in the end, as predicted by many of us, it was discovered that buried on a few dozen desks in ten different agencies, was all the information we needed to stop 9/11. Unfortunately, thanks to the aformentioned Church committee garbage, those agencies were FORBIDDEN by law with sharing information.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   


Some wack jobs like to say the plane vapourized/ atomized due to its subsonic inverted dive in soft sand leaving no plane parts, fuesalage, 200+ seats, 50+ passengers, 100 peices of luggage, 1,000's of gallons of fuel, wings, tires, rims and without burining or breaking the dry grass that a bumble bee could break.


The plane struck at speed near 580 mph - that is equivalent to speed
of pistol bullet (~860 ft/sec). At that speed the aircraft and contents
are reduced to small fragments - with occasional larger pieces. The
fuel is atomized and sprayed in pattern FORWARD of the impact point
do to momentum. Hence why the burn patterns are FORWARD of
the impact site. As in any chaotic situation there are anomolies -
large pieces and random objects survive. Maybe you can explain
how a landing light survives the impact , is thrown 75 yards to strike
a parked car and is still unbroken. I 've seen it (or perhaps the crash
fairy left it behind?).....



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join