FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

page: 5
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   


Are you kidding Boone 870? One engine out of a whole Boeing 757? No tail parts? (The tail is the last section of the airplane to arrive at the scene of the accident. It usually survives because it is going so much slower and so less apt to disintegrate.)


No, according to official reports approximately 95% of the jet was recovered and in the end turned over to United Airlines (with the exception of the data recorders)




Why are we expected to believe that all the fuel evaporated in one big fireball in Penn while it burned away like napalm in the WTC?


Your not, look up the statements from the first responders that day who speak of pools of jet fuel on the ground.




Someone tried to explain away the missing engine as the result of a Sidewinder missile. Even if 93 was shot down, there is no certainty that it was taken down with a heat-seeker. A radar-guided missile could have just as easily done the job.


No, I said that a Sidewinder would have scattered pieces of the engine over a huge area. That did not happen here, from the state of the wreckage and the data from the recorders the engines were intact at the time of impact. Fine, a radar guided missile could have been used....same result...wreckage spread out over a much wider area...which the evidence doesnt support either.




Most excellent. Thanks for the info. I plan to present this to some hardcore "debunkie junkies" here at home


You might want to be careful presenting that info....because its based on a BBC story that the BBC has admitted was wrong.




Now I have to do my own research on something that I originally researched and posted?


No Mr Lear, you actually need to DO some research rather than rehash goofy, disproven theories.




posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Boone 870




Do you have any verifiable evidence that the debris was planted?

I'm waiting with baited breath for your proof
!



Are you kidding Boone 870? One engine out of a whole Boeing 757? No tail parts? (The tail is the last section of the airplane to arrive at the scene of the accident. It usually survives because it is going so much slower and so less apt to disintegrate.)

Nope. No videos of the debris being planted. It might have been a secret op, but thats just a guess.

Thanks for the post.


Man i love JL!!!! jackinthebox, your subsequent posts may have been wrenched from my thoughts because you voiced exactly what i was thinking when i read the posts from boone 870 and swampfox. zorgon your input is always noteable too.

I really dont feel like re-writing everything thats already been cited by the posters i just mentioned so until next time fellas.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



You might want to be careful presenting that info....because its based on a BBC story that the BBC has admitted was wrong.


Can you link the retraction?

My subsequent inquiry has shown other legitimate news sources verifiying the information.

If there is evidence suggesting that the "hijackers" are alive, I feel the burden of proof then returns to the official investigation to support the claims which were originally based on minimal to no evidence in the beginning.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   


If there is evidence suggesting that the "hijackers" are alive, I feel the burden of proof then returns to the official investigation to support the claims which were originally based on minimal to no evidence in the beginning.


Have you ever met anyone that shared the same name as you? Thats what happened here. The people the BBC found as being the "live" hijackers, did not match the photos of the terrorists. Saudi Arabia does not dispute the hijacker identities either...



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Have you taken into account, that while the Saudis have openly called the US friends for quite some time that they could really give a you know what about us? Especially lately. To give credit to what ever "officially" comes out from the saudi government is a total waste of time. That country produces some of the most substantial terror threats to the US and the free world.

You trust this guy??? Saudi King When all the schools over there preach this kind of stuff, Click this to see how the 80% of Saudis feel about americans.... because i dont.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Lost? nope, sitting in my entertainment center with the rest of my videos...as for posting it..not going to happen. You can do your own research and find the news footage for yourself.


Well now... I suppose that was an expected response... you have evidence pertinent to this case...

Make a statement to that effect...

then with hold said evidence when you claim it can prove your case...

:shk:



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


No, according to official reports approximately 95% of the jet was recovered and in the end turned over to United Airlines (with the exception of the data recorders)


And some people still can't understand why there are those of use who refuse to buy into the "official" report(s)?

One would be led to think if they could find 95% of a crashed airplane they could at least find some of the passengers and their luggage too.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999



If there is evidence suggesting that the "hijackers" are alive, I feel the burden of proof then returns to the official investigation to support the claims which were originally based on minimal to no evidence in the beginning.


Have you ever met anyone that shared the same name as you? Thats what happened here. The people the BBC found as being the "live" hijackers, did not match the photos of the terrorists. Saudi Arabia does not dispute the hijacker identities either...


And shared the same faces? Because those are the faces that went with the names the media were given.

At least, a couple of the falsely accused people located said they had their passports stolen. Legal passports contain a face to go with a correct name.

One of the falsely accused was indeed and commercial pilot, who just happened not to be in the US at the time. In his case, not only was his name and face hijacked but his profession too.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


You might want to be careful presenting that info....because its based on a BBC story that the BBC has admitted was wrong.

Did the FBI also retract this as well? If so, could you please validate that? Could you also validate BBC retracted? Thank you in advance.

911review.org...

"FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt."



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   




This is what the government does why not everyone else..

Makes them all the more better than us who can prove our points.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


None of those images are really exactly the same as UA93's crash though are they? Planes burning on the ground while stationary or even UA175 are not exactly the same as one going near vertically straight into the ground. Granted the amount of smoke does seem a bit small, but how far away was the picture taken, and how long after the impact?

And if it were shot down, shouldn't there be more smoke? For one thing presumably it would have been on fire before the impact, so where is the smoke from that? Also if it was shot down, some wreckage would have come off of it before the crash, and then where is it?


Originally posted by jackinthebox

Wreckage doesn't just disappear, especially over land.


I agree. Think of the Shuttle Columbia disaster.


Not exactly the same is it though? A space shuttle disintegrating at high altitude, in comparison to a jet hitting the ground vertically.


Originally posted by johnlear
There is no evidence that this engine was from a Boeing 757 or from a United Airines Boeing 757. There is no evidence that another engine was found. Its curious that since the airplane hit inverted in a 35 degree dive why any engine was found buried as they should have been shielded from being imbedded in the ground by the wing itself.


Wasn't an engine found away from the main crash site?


And those secondary debris fields, no idea how they got there, but if the main bit of the plane hit that field, then a shootdown doesn't explain it either, since those other debris fields are in the to the south east of the plane, and the plane was coming from the north west, so i can't see how something shot off of a plane can go that far.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 



Can you link the retraction?


BBC



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 




Did the FBI also retract this as well? If so, could you please validate that? Could you also validate BBC retracted? Thank you in advance.



The FBI has resolved questions about the identities of the 19 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks and has discovered places outside the United States where the conspiracy was planned, FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday.

Saudi Arabian officials and others have questioned whether some of the hijackers identified by the FBI in the weeks after the attacks used stolen identifications. Mueller said those questions have been answered.

"We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible," he said. Linked from 911myths.com



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Planes burning on the ground while stationary or even UA175 are not exactly the same as one going near vertically straight into the ground.

If the official story is true, than UA93 didn't go 'near vertically straight down', but it crashed under an angle of 40 degrees.

"40 degrees nose down is correct according to the DFDR. See the 2rd and 10th pdf documents under the September 11th section of this link: www.ntsb.gov... below link. It helps to rotate the 2nd document to read the graphs, which shows the flight reaching the 40 degree attitude at the final recorded second (the red line labeled "pitch angle" in the 1st graph.)" source: www.letsrollforums.com...

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Willie911]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Willie911
 


Well even with that taken into account, it still buried itself into the ground quite well, in comparison to planes on fire on the tarmac.


six

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


This not excatly a true statement. Every plane crash is different. Valujet 592 crashed into the everglades. Similar speed of impact. Similar impact angle. Similar size debris field. They were not shot down. And, if I recall correctly, they had to dig pretty deep to get all of the wreckage.

www.cnn.com...

www.cnn.com...



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870


Can you link the retraction?


BBC



www.bbc.co.uk...

If the citation below are the paragraphs you call a retraction, BBC did not make a retraction. They made a minor correction on one name and left everything else stand as is. The FBI did a flip-flop, and calling it a true retraction would be stretching it to breaking point.

"In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers."

US bureaucrats have spent over 6 years powrfully attempting to force people to accept the "official" report at face value, come **** or high water. Which is only one more sound reason, increasing numbers of people know, the "official" report is not worth the paper it is printed on. The only majority of people world over, accepting the report at face value, have always been those in the US. The balance of world majority have always been left incredulous, regarding the "official" report.

Please note that was one name out of at least 7 to 9 others. That, too, makes it not a retraction, but merely a minor change in a few words, regarding one name and one name only. I have to give BBC credit on this. At least, they did not completely cave to international Establishment pressure, as so many other US media outlets did and started to do. But then the lion's share of US media outlets are owned by members of the US Establishment. No bias there for sure. No siree.

Thank you for providing the link that we might determine for ourselves, if what we are told agrees with what someone contends. That is much more than some people have been willing to do as an attempt to validate their contentions. Much appreciated.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



If the citation below are the paragraphs you call a retraction, BBC did not make a retraction. They made a minor correction on one name and left everything else stand as is. The FBI did a flip-flop, and calling it a true retraction would be stretching it to breaking point.


I never called it a retraction. It's a correction. You and jackinthebox asked for their retraction, I posted the link of the correction.

Sorry if you misunderstood.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Boone 870




Do you have any verifiable evidence that the debris was planted?

I'm waiting with baited breath for your proof
!



Are you kidding Boone 870? One engine out of a whole Boeing 757? No tail parts? (The tail is the last section of the airplane to arrive at the scene of the accident. It usually survives because it is going so much slower and so less apt to disintegrate.)

Nope. No videos of the debris being planted. It might have been a secret op, but thats just a guess.

Thanks for the post.


Mr Lear:

In order for you to believe that no United 757 crashed in Penn you either have to believe that United was in on it or the people at United are absolutely clueless.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by AMTMAN]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 




Not exactly the same is it though? A space shuttle disintegrating at high altitude, in comparison to a jet hitting the ground vertically.


Not really the same at all, I would have to agree. I would think that the shuttle would have vaporized on re-entry, like solid rock or mineral meteors do. I don't think the airliner was exposed to anywhere near the forces and temperatures of atmospheric reentry.





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join