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: 33
24
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Osyris
reply to post by johnlear
 


Why would a

Direct Energy Weapon spacecraft that destroyed the World Trade Center
be needed? What would be the point to take some of are most secret weapons out of the closet when conventional methods are more then sufficient for the job?
current evidence is pointing to demolitions in both buildings? And by this I mean eye witnesses to bombs in the buildings, Thermite evidence, seismograph evidence, and Video evidence, just to mention a few.
Though these are all theories do you not feel that perpetuating a most fantastical, none evidence based theory of the 9/11 atrocities is more hurtfull then helpfull to the movement?

[edit on 31-12-2007 by Osyris]


Seriously, some of John's responses leads me to believe that he may be that bane of Cters, namely a disinfo agent sent in to make you guys look bad. I think he admits that he's worked for the CIA or some such agency back in his flying days - don't quote me there though - so now that he's not flying, he's found another use for himself.

I feel sorry for your side when he posts...




posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Even after they dug down a little there was still nothing,


Mike's thinking he is going to change someones mind with a bunch of copy pastes and attacks on credibilty. Nt tho.

1 picture said it all. No plane in ShanksVille.



[edit on 31-12-2007 by IvanZana]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
Even after the dug down a little there was still nothing, notice no wings and no parts at all?

Mike thinking he is going to change anyones minds?

Nope.


You need help if you're claiming that:

1- anything could be seen from that height. Look at the vehicles, they look like dots.

2- parts WEREN'T found in the hole.

3- that 95% of the plane wasn't recovered.

4- all the parts were shredded from a 550 mph impact. Only a few were big enough to identify.

I also have concerns for you since you can't even get the story correct - your claim that jet fuel melted the WTC's. Get up to speed, if you don't know what the folks on the other side of the aisle are saying, how can you be taken seriously.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
I have no information about your map.


It's not my map, it's a United Stated Geological Survey Map. But thanks again on dodging the subject yet another time.



I do know for a fact, however, that you are confused as to the facts.


Everyone is confused to the facts regarding Flight 93 and the other attacks on 9/11 due to a multitude of discrepancies and unanswered questions in the "Official Story" (ie 9/11 Committee Investigation findings)


The wing scar area is devoid of grass because the wing strike obliterated it.


What you call a wing scar, I call an indentation in the ground, and there are clearly blades of grass growing out of it.


When the lighter wing hit, it lifted the soil to either side. Not much and more on the left side since that was the direction of travel as indicated by the higher level of burnt trees in a wider view of the area, but it IS lifted. The area that the heavier fuselage hit is lifted a bunch, and again more on the left side. Consistent there eh? . This can be seen in the photo. Note that - it IS raised.


Perhaps you can shed your light on how you determined these particular details of the crash. The only raised area I see is from the round impact crater as shown in Boon's aerial shot of the crash site.


Any "scar" showing on your map would most likely be from soil erosion/sinking. It wouldn't be raised on either side like that.


Once again, it is not my map. The origin of the scar is insignificant, only if it was there prior to 9/11. As I have stated before, if it was there, I find it very difficult to believe that the plane crashed so that the wings lined up perfectly with the previous scar.


There also would be grass growing in that unless it was fresh, but if it's been there since '94 as you claim, this is a different site. Do you disagree?


Yes, there is clearly grass growing out of the indentation. Not sure why it's not as much as the surrounding area, but then again I'm not a farmer. Perhaps it has to do with the nature of what originally made the indentation, but as I stated before that is irrelevant.


You lying right here - I'm not saying that the strike zone is the round hole only. I'm not following Boone's responses that closely but I believe that the drawing of the wing marks he made indicates otherwise.


Because we have a different opinion of the strike zone does not make me a liar. Boone's drawing was superimposed over an aerial shot that looked like a round crater that was formed after the indentation or "wing scar."


Maybe Cterz are in an effort to discredit real reasearchers, but that's an issue you can discuss with them. The center hole AND the wing scars are the impact zone. To claim that anyone on this side of the aisle is saying otherwise is the lie.


This is your opinion, as it is my opinion that the round crater is the only impact zone. So any one that disagrees with you is a liar?


You're also lying that the ground in the scar is undisturbed and or weathered and has grass growing in it.


The indentation I am referencing clearly is weathered and does have blades of grass growing from it.


You're using a photo that has a crappy angle and creative cropping to try and make your point seem more valid.


I'm using a photos that were presented in this thread, I have not cropped them in any way.


And while that's NOT a lie, it is definitely intellectually dishonest. You should be proud.


So now I'm not a liar? Can't seem to make up your mind, can you? How is offering my opinion of a picture being "intellectually dishonest?" In fact what does that mean exactly? How does "intellectual dishonesty" differ from regular dishonesty?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Classic stupid double think.

They are trying to convince you that a fully fueled, massive Boeing 757 going almost 2x as fast as a 1980's ferrari , "Atomized", leaving nothing. No grass burnt, no fire, no smoke, no parts. etc.

Then they want you to believe they found this

Classic.

To bad it wont work on intelligent ATS members.

[edit on 31-12-2007 by IvanZana]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 




I know that. And when they stopped strip mining, was it used for any other use, such as a trash landfill? In order, to fill in all those holes, some very deep, instead having ponds and lakes that can flood near-by agricultural fields, and ruin the payload crops.



The Diamond T portals were backfilled between 1999 and 2000.

Reports of investigators and emergency response personnel indicate during the crash, the plane impacted the relatively soft strip-mine backfill,
plowed to a depth of 30 ft., then collided with the remaining strip excavation high wall, causing the plane to explode.
page 111-23



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
To say a fully fuel massive Boeing 757 atomized due to its high velocity leaving nothing,vapourizing hundreds of tons of aluminium and steel, tires, seats, luggage, bla bla and this survives?


Time for a new job eh?

[edit on 31-12-2007 by IvanZana]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 



The plane was shredded as no other plane involved in crashes in all aviation history? And you know that exactly how?

Why? Because asserting some alleged plane is allegedly shredded makes you firmly believe that you have credibility, in asserting but not proving, that is your believed reason for complete lack of proved 757 plane component parts, crew, passengers and luggage? Is that it?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   




1- your side of the aisle is the only side that's confused.

2-you're lying, there are no blades of grass growing from the wing strike scar.

3-you don't see the ground heaved up in Ivan's photo? How about you go to pg 30 - jackinthe box posted a wider view.

4- right, it would be near impossible for a plane to fly into an existing trench. And it didn't happen that way. My guess is that your info source is lying to you, and you're sucking up the koolaid.

5-irrelevant only cuz it hurts your case. how convenient for you. No , it's relevant. You DO have an idea why there's no grass there - cuz that's where the wings hit, and you know it.

6- you're taking YOUR beliefs - that the round crater was formed after the scars, and attributing them to someone else. Lie.

7- no, as i said, attributing your beliefs onto someone else is a lie. Disagreeing is fine.

8- the ground isn't weathered. it's dry and freshly dug up. unlike you, i grew up on a farm and know the difference. same with the grass growing.

9- you're using the photo provided for you. ok, it's not YOUR photo, but if you use it as evidence, you now assume ownership of all its deficiencies.

10- no, you still lie when you claim there's grass in the scar - there's no opinion in that, it's a binary situation. but you're blending in a little intellectual dishonesty to try and make yourself seem more reputable. If you don't know the difference..........Weak.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet

When the lighter wing hit, it lifted the soil to either side. Not much and more on the left side since that was the direction of travel as indicated by the higher level of burnt trees in a wider view of the area, but it IS lifted. The area that the heavier fuselage hit is lifted a bunch, and again more on the left side. Consistent there eh? . This can be seen in the photo. Note that - it IS raised.


I, too, would appreciate clarification of the above. Since when is one plane wing normally lighter than the other plane wing? It goes to credibility on how much people know regarding the manufacturing design of Boeing 757s, in this particular case.

-------------------------------
Fixed quote

[edit on 31/12/07 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
I, too, would appreciate clarification of the above. Since when is one plane wing normally lighter than the other plane wing? It goes to credibility on how much people know regarding the manufacturing design of Boeing 757s, in this particular case.


Apparently , you have none. Also poor reading comprehension skills.

The wing is lighter than the fuselage, hence the ground isn't raised as far where they hit.

Got it, Mr "2 steel walls"?
-----------------------------
Fixed quote



[edit on 31/12/07 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by MikeVet
 



The plane was shredded as no other plane involved in crashes in all aviation history? And you know that exactly how?

Why? Because asserting some alleged plane is allegedly shredded makes you firmly believe that you have credibility, in asserting but not proving, that is your believed reason for complete lack of proved 757 plane component parts, crew, passengers and luggage? Is that it?


Forgetting about the Valujet crash again?

Please keep up to speed, these constant lapses of memory chips away at your already non-existant credibility. Actually, your credibility macthes your ATS points. Negative.....



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


That does not tell me anything. Where is your documentation from those fillling the pits? What you presented is not documentaion.

Since I know for a fact that once a hole is dug out, when backfilling there never is enough soil in a pile, to have a level surface once again from just that pile. When they strip mine they have to move the soil piles to other locations, until ready to backfill in the pits once again, if they have any dirt piles left. One thing about weather, it will take dirt piles and make flat land out of them. One fill used is slag from foundries to fill in pits where strip mining has been done. PA definitely has foundries.

What did they use to fill the pits with? It cannot completely be the soil they removed from the pits. There would not be enough to completely backfill the holes without still having holes - shallower depth - but still holes where the deeper pits once were.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
Please keep up to speed, these constant lapses of memory chips away at your already non-existant credibility. Actually, your credibility macthes your ATS points. Negative.....

Completely off-topic and not necessary.

I find it difficult to believe that the alleged 'wing scars' ever had the wing of a 757 slam into them at any speed or angle. There is old, undisturbed grass growing there on top of the old, undisturbed dirt.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
Classic stupid double think.

They are trying to convince you that a fully fueled, massive Boeing 757 going almost 2x as fast as a 1980's ferrari , "Atomized", leaving nothing. No grass burnt, no fire, no smoke, no parts. etc.

Then they want you to believe they found this [ats]Classic.

To bad it wont work on intelligent ATS members.


So I've still got a chance here then right, since there's a serious lack of that quality.

Also, more stupid errors in THIS post, again common for your side of the aisle.

1- not fully fueled. I think you've got the point here, eh?

2- not atomized. try again.

3- almost 2x a Ferrari..... So since 93 was going 550-580 mph, what Ferrari could go 300mph? None, right? Another stupid error.

4- plenty of parts found - 95 % in fact. Keep forgetting about that one?

5- fires . forget about the trees , eh?

6- I thought Cters were argueing that the smoke was the wrong color. But you claim no smoke. If you can't remember what my side says about the crash, at least memorize what your side says. Consistency helps when you're trying to get a message across.

Like OS says, these things go to credibility. Yours is near zero. Soon you'll join OS in the negative catagory and you'll be relegated into the possible disinfo agent catagory, cuz nobody that takes themselves seriously would make these kinds of errors unless they were making the effort to do so.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by MikeVet
Please keep up to speed, these constant lapses of memory chips away at your already non-existant credibility. Actually, your credibility macthes your ATS points. Negative.....

Completely off-topic and not necessary.

I find it difficult to believe that the alleged 'wing scars' ever had the wing of a 757 slam into them at any speed or angle. There is old, undisturbed grass growing there on top of the old, undisturbed dirt.


Ahh, so he conveniently "forgets" Valujet and questions my credibility, but that's ok..... gotcha

Here's a hint - he didn't forget Valujet, he was deeply involved in that part of the discussion.

No, there's no old grass. There's none. Ok if that's your opinion. But I don't believe you think that.

Ditto for the dirt...



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


You did not mention any fuselage in relation to any wing, until the post to which I am responding. You said "the lighter wing". That blatantly implies one wing is lighter than the other.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


No argument here.

The shape of the "wing scars" indicates a highly improbable very, very short winged plane came straight down in a nose dive, causing the front edges of the wings to made the indentations. I know of no Boeing commercial jetliner with very, very short wings with points on the end as appear in that "wing scar" indentation.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
No, there's no old grass. There's none. Ok if that's your opinion. But I don't believe you think that.
Ditto for the dirt...

Be extremely careful about presuming to know what I think. There's a fine line that you may cross which breaches the T&C of this forum, if you presume or assume more than you should about another member's opinions.

As I have stated, I find it very difficult to believe that the wings of a 757 smashed into that 'wing scar'. It seems like a fairy tale to me.




top topics



 
24
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join