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: 43
24
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   




posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
The only theory that I see is that we are being lied to. The rest of the questions and theories will follow when truth is revealed.


Come on now jack, if that's your stance then you will forever be in a static state of paranoia...because the big bad THEY is not going to reveal anything to you...ever.

If you believe THEY are lying then you clearly have a hypothesis of what the truth is, and THEIR motivation for lying about it. If you don't, then how on earth did you arrive at the notion that THEY are lying in the first place?

So my question is super simple and is directed at everyone pushing the great Shanksville conspiracy angle:

What do you believe happened in that field, and how do you reconcile it with a culpable government conspiracy theory?

Easy as pie...9/11 Truth 101, right?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
What do you believe happened in that field, and how do you reconcile it with a culpable government conspiracy theory?

Easy as pie...9/11 Truth 101, right?


Well there is evidence and lack of evidence which seems to prove the official story is wrong.

We have 2 distinct debris fields.

We have an engine found 1/4 of a mile away.

We DO NOT have any FBI or NTSB crime scene reports if the parts found match flight 93 or what actually happened.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



Super duper.

So yet AGAIN I beg you to answer my question: What is your hypothesis as to the truth? What actually happened that resulted in these "two distinct debris fields?"



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
So yet AGAIN I beg you to answer my question: What is your hypothesis as to the truth? What actually happened that resulted in these "two distinct debris fields?"



Its not just the debris fields , its the debrsi fields plus the engine and other things.

So its pretty easy to state (with the evidence we have right now) that the plane was shot down.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


An engine and a tanker? What was the tanker carrying to stop a jet fuel fire? Water? Or something else?

One entire engine and one tanker full of ? for an alleged raging kerosene (oil based) fire? Alleged to burn so far from the hole in the ground and burn trees. That has to be a raging kerosene fire to accomplish that.

In Ivan's current picture, I see no evidence of any serious minor carbon residue from smoke, much less any major evidence involving burning green leaf trees. That includes the broken young trees without carbon residue either. I see a mix of green ground foliage and dried grass without any smoke or burned carbon residue either.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Essedarius
 




Come on now jack, if that's your stance then you will forever be in a static state of paranoia...because the big bad THEY is not going to reveal anything to you...ever.


Agreed. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask.

It's not paranoia when they're really after you.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


That is one design no one has to tangle self up in to explain why there are no engine indentations before the wings are alleged to have made "wing scars".



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Essedarius
 


We know their motivation. Absolute power and greed is always their motivation. The who is not difficult to determine. In fact, it is self-evident.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
That is one design no one has to tangle self up in to explain why there are no engine indentations before the wings are alleged to have made "wing scars".


The wings should have sheared off upon hitting the ground, as seen in most aircraft accidents, also you should have a tail section left.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The engines are heavy and would still leave a deep impression in the ground, to show they were still attached to any alleged plane, when they hit the ground. The engines will hit the ground before the wings will. There is no way any commercial jetliner engines are going to be found 1/4 mile away - if they are still attached to any plane upon crash landing. That is two engines, one on each wing, normally on commercial jetliners. Where's the other one from alleged Flight 93?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So its pretty easy to state (with the evidence we have right now) that the plane was shot down.


I actually agree with you. I too believe that the evidence points to the plane being shot down.

So now, ULTIMA, how do you reconcile that belief with your other MIHOP beliefs regarding the government? After all, why would THEY shoot down that plane if it was part of THEIR plan in the first place?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
We know their motivation. Absolute power and greed is always their motivation. The who is not difficult to determine. In fact, it is self-evident.


Thank you for that stirring speech. But what I asked for was your personal hypothesis on what happened in that field in Shanksville.

What do you think REALLY happened?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   


An engine and a tanker? What was the tanker carrying to stop a jet fuel fire? Water? Or something else?


Like everything else you exhibit a deep ignorance about firefighting -
the tanker is there to provide water to the pumpers (engine). Rural
Fire departments do not have access to hydrants and must carry their own
water with them. Tankers are from 3000 to 9000 gal capacity. Yes
the water will stop the jet fuel fire if it not a "pool" fire where the
burning liquid is in a deep pond. Most nozzles have multiple settings
from straight water stream to water fog which is quite effective at
suppressing fires of this type. As I have pointed out repeatedly the
fuel from the ruptured tanks would be in an mist/aerosol of fuel
droplets. The mist would burn rapidly as a fireball with impressive
scary looking flame, but die out fast. Petroleum is actually poor incendiary
(as discovered during WWII) unless thickening agents added to it.
The jet crash I witnessed the fuel fire while impressive was "knocked
down" (thats a FF term) in few minutes with water fog. Also most engines
carry foam nozzles and containers of foam concentrate which is mixed
with water to form a foam used to coat burning liquid fires.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Essedarius
 


I have to concur with IvanZana.

1.No proved plane parts to match to the SN and airline ID of alleged Flight 93, no passengers proved to be on same, nor luggage found. That indicates missile instead.

2. The hole in the ground further strongly suggests missile not a Boeing 757.

3. No fire or any other evidence of any fuel, particularly close to any crash site.

4. A 38,200 pound engine being touted to have "bounced and flown away 1/4 mile" from the alleged crash site, while leaving no evidence one engine impacted the ground much less two.

5. No oily or heavy carbon residue keroses always remaining burnt or not.

Those are only a few of the most obvious self-evident details in conflict with the "official" versions of reports. When human bodies hit the ground, speed or not, they do not bounce back into the air and going flying far and away from any crash sites, nor do any parts of bodies either.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


My ignorance? I will now present the following which I left out of the last post.

Water on an oil based fire? Are you aware that kerosene is oil based? Are you aware if oil is spread on water it will still burn if ignited? Therefore, why would any knowledgeable fire fighters use water on anything oil based and expect to contain or extinguish it?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



Your right! If you were to entertain the looney conspiracy theory that a plane crashed in Shanksville on 911 there would of been some fire or atleast 1-4 liters of jet fuel, BROKEN GRASS, etc.

Obviously no fuel or any fire related to a fuel burning machine was evident at the Shanksville crater.

I will take the word of great firemen and women who were there and ll said there was nothing there that says a plane crashed there.

SO therefore no Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville on 9.11.
To put out those kind of fires you will need foam or some retardant.


[edit on 3-1-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 3-1-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
There is no need to talk about fire trucks, or the size of hose they used. Thats just jibber jabber that has no solution and is pointless since no plane crashed in shanksville on 911. That would be flight 93.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   


Water on an oil based fire? Are you aware that kerosene is oil based? Are you aware if oil is spread on water it will still burn if ignited? Therefore, why would any knowledgeable fire fighters use water on anything oil based and expect to contain or extinguish it?


Of course I'm aware of what jet fuel is made of - had to put just such
a fire along with gasoline and haz mat fires involving flammable
solvents. Water spray or fog absorbs the heat from the fire, the small
size of the water drops gives it large surface area to absorb large amount
heat. No heat = no fire, in case you didn't know that. Deep pool fires
are fought with foam/water. The fuel fire from a high speed crash is
small droplets of burning fuel, not like burning pool from low speed
takeoff/landing accidents.


Also it was not a jet engine found downhill from the main crash site - it
was part of the engine fan. Modern jet engines are TURBOFANS - large
fan in front of engine suck in large amount air, some is funneled into
engine to be mixed with fuel and burned, most of the air is ducted around
engine to be heated and expelled out back increasing thrust.

Fan was found several hundred yards downhill, IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
from main debris field.



Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards."



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   



This picture is avoided and undebunkable.


There is no proof of a boeing 757 crashing.

The shoot down theory is proven disinformation started by the people who brought you " Missile on the WTC " Pentagon Hologram ", WTC holograms, not controlled demo, NUKES,... etc.

These people actually start the silly theories so they can easily debunk them later looking 1/2 intelligent, but thats another thread.



As you can see no fuel, no fire, no parts, NO Boeing 757 at Shanksville on 9/11




Mabey they are looking for cruise missile parts?

???


THE SCREAMING THING

At the horseshoe-shaped Indian Lake, about a mile east of the official crash site, several eyewitnesses recalled hearing “a screaming thing” that “screeched” as it passed over the golf course and lakeside community immediately before a huge explosion shook the ground.

Chris Smith, the groundskeeper at the golf course, said something with a “very loud screeching sound” passed over in the immediate vicinity of the golf course before he heard a huge explosion.



Cruise missile video. Look like a small white plane.

Entertain this idea and tell me whats wrong with it.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by IvanZana]



new topics




 
24
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join