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: 30
24
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


I find it hard to believe that a passenger airliner was flying sideways at 580 mph. And even if it was, it would not have left two wing scars. The plane would have cartwheeled.




posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   
who said it was flying sideways????



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


It wasn't flying sideways.

2 wing scars and a vertical fin scar thrown in for good measure.

What makes you think that it would cartwheel? It was traveling at 580 mph when it crashed.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


You have the audacity to question anyone's else's comprehension with what you wrote addressed to me? What I cited had little to do with Al Qaeda, and everything to do with the Bush administration hindering the 9/11 Commission hearings.

Did you bother to completely read the US Congressional sub-committee hearing transcript, regarding the 9/11 Commission report?



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


Those "wings" and that "vertical fin" must have been flying with no other parts of any plane attached based on that ariel photo.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Where are the woods in your picture? Try looking at this one again.




posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


They must have been. Maybe the great big fuselage shaped crater right where the wings and vertical fin converge can explain that.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


If I need to draw little green lines, just let me know.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


The two photos don't jive. I can see where you're coming from though. In my pic, the exhibit pic, it looks like the plane came in from the left or the right. Am I mistaken that the trenches on either side of the crater are the wing indentations?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


What plane would have that shape very, very short and wide fuselage, and where is the cylinderical indentation of an actual 757 fuselage widely separating the "vertical fin" from the "wings", cockpit and engines?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   
The media reported the alleged plane was traveling southeast. Provided the alleged plane stayed on course after crash:

Facing south, the alleged plane would be coming in from one's right to left.
Facing north, the alleged plane would be coming in from one's left to right. That is if the alleged plane continued to travel southeast and crash still headed southeast. That places any alleged cockpit still facing southeast. What direction are any trees in relation to the hole?

Which actual directions are each, of what is alleged to be "wing scars", supposed to be facing per the photos? Southwest/northeast? Etc.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Swampfox. Give up guy. Nobody is buying your regurgitated material.

We all watched Fox and Cnn. WE didnt believe it 6 years ago..... sooo....




Where the photographer is standing is where you were told the wing crashed. Notice, no fuel, no fire, no plane, no wing, no nothing.
Dry grass and weathered ground proves that the wings scar is not a wings scar.
As any rational, clear minded, good person, can see. No plane crashed in Shanksville.

Thank you.

9



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Hey Ivan, why don't we see the woods on fire in the backround in this shot? Is it because the jet fuel didn't get over there yet?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   


You have the audacity to question anyone's else's comprehension with what you wrote addressed to me? What I cited had little to do with Al Qaeda, and everything to do with the Bush administration hindering the 9/11 Commission hearings.


After reading your posts, you are doggone right im going to question it. Did you ever stop and think that many of those agencies (that you say were "hindering" the hearings) were just too damned busy to worry about sorting through piles of material, just to give some self-righteous, cover his/her ass politician a piece of paper?




Did you bother to completely read the US Congressional sub-committee hearing transcript, regarding the 9/11 Commission report?


Why? As I have said before, I knew what the findings of the Commission was going to be months before the government created it.




Swampfox. Give up guy. Nobody is buying your regurgitated material.


LOL...Im not selling it. Im pointing out facts. If you continue to choose to remain ignorant, thats on you.




As any rational, clear minded, good person, can see. No plane crashed in Shanksville


Thus, bringing into question your definition of rational.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Wow, 30 pages into this thread and not one person has commented on the video that was linked to in the OP's first post.

It's been a long time, so let me refresh your memories. The video maintains that a 1994 United States Geological Survey map shows that the "wing scars" were at the crash site prior to the alleged crash of Flight 93. If this is the case then the only damage done to the field in PA was a round impact crater.

These are really the only 2 pertinent questions to be asked and discussed in this thread:

1) Is the USGS map presented in the video indeed from 1994, and if so is it indeed in the same location as the "crash site" of Flight 93?

2) If the USGS map is correct, can an airliner crashing in such a way as detailed by its flight data recorder leave only a round impact crater with no other "scarring" on the ground?

All arguments and discussions not pertaining to the for mentioned questions are irrelevant.

I find it hard to believe that if the scar was already there that the plane just happened to crash into it so that the wings lined up perfectly. The picture that Ivan has posted at nauseam seems to support the claims made in the video, as there is clearly grass growing out of the "scar" and the dirt appears to be undisturbed and weathered. What I mean by this is that the dirt seems lighter, like it has been sitting undisturbed under the sun for who knows how long, than dirt you would expect to see if you dug into the earth a foot or two.

Boone, SwampFox, thedman, Nickdfresh and others, I look forward to your comments.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   


1) Is the USGS map presented in the video indeed from 1994, and if so is it indeed in the same location as the "crash site" of Flight 93?


Same area yes, but the "scar" is not the crash site.




2) If the USGS map is correct, can an airliner crashing in such a way as detailed by its flight data recorder leave only a round impact crater with no other "scarring" on the ground?


Its not a round crater by any means.




The picture that Ivan has posted at nauseam seems to support the claims made in the video, as there is clearly grass growing out of the "scar" and the dirt appears to be undisturbed and weathered.


I would be careful about putting too much faith into a video created by someone, who quite frankly, has little to no trained knowledge on the subject.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Mineta + Cheney + shootdown order = Flight 93 conspiracy. YOu are arguing over a few pictures when the truth is already there. Why are you so adament about there bieng no plane? Because it is disinfo, just like the WTC 7 demo believers. There is no physical evidence of explosives but this ONE video when slowed down shows squibs.

There was a plane that was witnessed by not only civilians on the ground but alos in the air. One plane was asked to swing back around and saw the wreckage. Amazing how there is not mention of that here, as well as the debris miles away and in a like 2 miles away. There was a plane.

The cover up is the shoot down order. Ask Maj. Rick Gibney, he is the one who shot it down. Mr Lear, can you deny this?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Same area yes, but the "scar" is not the crash site.


And you know this how?



Its not a round crater by any means.


Actually, the crater does look round, especially if it was created on top of a scar that was already there. Look closely at the picture Boone posted a little further up on this page, the crater in the center clearly has walls all the way around, even through the scar.


I would be careful about putting too much faith into a video created by someone, who quite frankly, has little to no trained knowledge on the subject.


Who was the video created by and how do you know what he or she has training in?? I am not putting my faith into anything. The video clearly shows a map of the area supposedly from 1994 with a huge scar that looks very similar to the scar on the crash site that has weathered dirt and grass growing out of it.


[edit on 31-12-2007 by DrZERO]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   


Ask Maj. Rick Gibney, he is the one who shot it down. Mr Lear, can you deny this?


Umm, no LtCol Gibney did NOT shoot down Flight 93. He spent his day flying emergency management personnel around. This was debunked long ago.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Why is everyone going off topic here? Do you have a comment on the video or not? What is your opinion of the "wing scar?" Was it there prior to 911?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join