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: 57
24
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


This clearly shows how much you pay attention to my posts and the facts.

Please note that volunteers were there AFTER. I repeat AFTER the FBI concluded their investigation. I offered you links to this on previous posts.

The debris that was collected and placed in the open top container were not used for investigative pourposes.

What don't you understand?



[edit on 7-1-2008 by CaptainObvious]




posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 



How did the FBI get there before local responders? Where were the FBI agents located they could do that? Were they on site waiting already? If not that, what and where? Where were the FAA investigators normally investigating commercial aircraft crashes?



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Where were the FAA investigators normally investigating commercial aircraft crashes?


By law whenever a crash site is considered a crime scene the FBI becomes the main investigating agency with the NTSB to provide technical help.

The FBI has a special response unit for aircraft crime scenes.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Before going any further in discussion, please understand this. Not finding credibility in your posts vs not reading and paying attention to your posts does not equate. It is the fact I do pay attention and read your posts, that I have no choice but to find your points of argument, in general, are lacking for credibility.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


That is understandable. Provided everyone was in consensus that any crime was taking place. Based on what NORAD and the FAA told the 9/11 commission, I am not certain everyone was on the same wave length at that time of the morning on 9/11/2001. Particularly, when two different reports came out - landing in Cleveland and crashing in the Shanksville area for the same alleged plane.

I still have to wonder how the FBI got there before any local first responders. That would make the FBI the first responders conducting an investigation, before anyone else could cross a taped off crime scene line (contaminate the crime scene), and respond to any airline crash.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Particularly, when two different reports came out - landing in Cleveland and crashing in the Shanksville area for the same alleged plane.

That would make the FBI the first responders conducting an investigation, before anyone else could cross a taped off crime scene line (contaminate the crime scene), and respond to any airline crash.


Well that was figured out pretty quick that flight 1989 and flight 93 just got confused.

Problem comes up like at the Pentagon crime scene the FBI waited 10 days before officially taken over the Pentagon as a crime scene, then after stating it would take 30 days they handed the scene back to the military in only 5 days.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Maybe and maybe both reports were deliberately intended to confuse people instead. I know neither the FAA nor NORAD is that consistently inefficient in handing out conflicting reports, particularly to agents of the federal bureaucracy.

Many honest agents would catch the inconsistencies and immediately questioned them, before rushing to a scene that may or may not be a crime scene.

We have evidence, in writing, two conflicting accounts were given within 24 hours. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported one on 9/12/2001 (am edition), and flip-flopped the next day (am edition).

However, we already had both edition newspapers in our homes, businesses, and on the stands, with both conflicting reports for both days. Some people may have taped the TV news accounts, complete with video of the plane being alleged to be landed Flight 93 and the Delta flight. I wish now I had.

Delta was parked close to the terminal because the TV cameras originally filmed both planes, and we could readily see Delta 1989 was by the terminal. The other one was all alone at a far end of a runway at Hopkins, or so they reported it was Hopkins and not NASA.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The link to the Pentagon article stated why the FBI was not allowed. Nor were they allowed to investigate the WTC complex either. FEMA was instructed only FEMA was allowed. Then FEMA prevented NIST from taking but a small portion of the evidence to lab test. NIST could only take what FEMA allowed to be taken.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
HEY BOONE/CptObvious/MIke! (

Before you continue with more information from the 911 comission report.
answer these.

In this picture that you have seen, the photographer is standing behind the red 'x'. This is where the official reports claim the wings crashed.

I would like you to explain to me where the wings and fuel went considering the grass is untouched and unburnt?

The dent that the wings are said to have hit are dry and have unburnt , unroken grass growing out of the crash site.

How is this possible?

Where did the wings and fuel go?, lack of fire?, where the wings?


50 pages later and Boon,Mike,Cpt havent properly answered. these questions.






[edit on 6-1-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

HEY BOONE/CptObvious/MIke! (

Before you continue with more information from the 911 comission report.
answer these.

In this picture that you have seen, the photographer is standing behind the red 'x'. This is where the official reports claim the wings crashed.
I would like you to explain to me where the wings and fuel went considering the grass is untouched and unburnt?

The dent that the wings are said to have hit are dry and have unburnt , unroken grass growing out of the crash site.

How is this possible?

Where did the wings and fuel go?, lack of fire?, where the wings?


50 pages later and Boon,Mike,Cpt havent properly answered. these questions.




Think of this - strike a match and quickly pass your finger through it. Did you get burned? No. Try the same thing with a piece of paper. Or grass.

The fuel blew AWAY from where the photog was standing at impact, towards the trees. Remember the 40 degree impact angle? It was angled towards the trees. That's why the grass and trees on that side were burnt in that direction. Simple for most to understand that.

The grass is not untouched. That's what you believe. I do not. Therefore, from my point of view, your q is invalid.

The wings shattered into small pieces upon impact. Only small scattered pieces remained. Or are you suggesting that one would find intact wings?

The fuel was atomized and formed the fireball, some spread into the trees, catching them on fire.

Lack of fire? Did I mention the trees? Do you see them in YOUR photos?



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   


Where are the suitcases and clothing strewn all over? do the people who believe the official lie really accept as fact the ridiculous assertion that a huge airliner can crash into the ground and simply sink into the earth? the ground was not soft as loam, people. It was safe enough to walk around on and drive trucks on..it was solid ground. There should be suitcases and clothes everywhere, hanging in trees nearby, all over. But there is none.


You seem to be having trouble processing this. Let me explain in simple
terms - when a plane strikes the ground at aprox 580mph THERE ARE
NOT A LOT OF PIECES LEFT (at least not very big ones). Most of the
debris is smashed into tiny fragments, a few large pieces do remain,
this includes people which are turned into "human hamburger". I had
seen this up close and personal from a plane which crashed at speed
must less than Flight 93. Biggest piece of debris was only 2 x 3 ft,
human remains wre scattered bits of flesh. You seem to think of a jet
crash as a Looney Tunes cartoon aka Wiley Coyote sitting in cockpit
of crumpled up plane . This is real life not some paranoid personal
fantasy.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


reply to post by MikeVet
 


Now we have been duly informed wind immediately blows off all traces of oily (unburnt) and carbon (burnt) residue always left by carbon based fossil fuel products. Not only that, it blows all trace of it onto trees and off and away from anything between an empty crater and trees X number of feet (100'? 300'? How many?) away from the crater.

But only on 9/11/2001 between the hours of 8:46 and 10:03 am.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


I am not the one with the trouble processing. No one can effectively process logical fallacy, particularly me.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Sorry Orion, but after reading your last two posts, it is clear that you did not understand what he was saying. You are fixated on the ground in front of the crash site, and completely ignoring the ground behind the crash site where the excess fuel spewed on impact (its also where you see all the burnt trees, grass and oily residues...)



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
And taking a second look at the horribly photoshopped picture that keeps getting posted on here, something stood out finally...

The lower two pictures have red x's......and they are in different places. The ground photo's x is farther away from the impact site than the one in the aerial photo and in the aerial photo, you can see a darkened area that WOULD be part of the wing impact scar. One more confirmation of my earlier post that the vantage point of the picture taken on the ground was misleading.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Now you presume to know what I study, plus, misinterpret what I wrote. You must have missed my comment on the trees, which were not close to the crater.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


The aerial photo has the front of the crater (the indents called "wing scars") almost parallel to the trees and the service road.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Now we have been duly informed wind immediately blows off all traces of oily (unburnt) and carbon (burnt) residue always left by carbon based fossil fuel products. Not only that, it blows all trace of it onto trees and off and away from anything between an empty crater and trees X number of feet (100'? 300'? How many?) away from the crater.

But only on 9/11/2001 between the hours of 8:46 and 10:03 am.


Yes, the wind would not have done that.

But the engines weighed 38,200 lbs.

And the acronym for the New York City Fire Dept is NYFD.

The plane crashed at 580 mph = 850 fps, at a 40 degree angle, works out to around 400 fps of horizontal speed at the time of the crash. The momentum of the crash sprayed (blew) the fuel towards the trees.

Sometimes I have to wonder about this guy.....



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet

Yes, the wind would not have done that.

But the engines weighed 38,200 lbs.

And the acronym for the New York City Fire Dept is NYFD.

The plane crashed at 580 mph = 850 fps, at a 40 degree angle, works out to around 400 fps of horizontal speed at the time of the crash. The momentum of the crash sprayed (blew) the fuel towards the trees.

Sometimes I have to wonder about this guy.....


I am overjoyed to see you agree the correct way to write the acronym is NYFD. However, how does your agreement relate with the topic of this discussion?

Your snide remark, concerning the weight of the engines, was already qualified in another post. I stated then a figure of 38,000+lbs was as absurd, as voraciously clinging to some incorrect concept that NIST could possibly know exactly how many windows were broken in the twin towers. As I recall, that was yous highly inccorrect assumption. How does that become relevant to this discussion topic?

The momentum of the crash completely flung all that fuel toward the trees, and completely removed itself from the exact site of crater and wings, for which there is no physical evidence wings ever existed at all, much less from a Boeing 757? How exactly does that work in physcial reality?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:08 AM
link   
When I read your reply, i had to read it twice for i thought you must of been joking or atleast sarcastic but I am easily convinced now that your either misinfomed , scared of the truth or carry a personal grudge against 9/11 Truthers as you see them in the likeness of Squeegee kids or all of the above.

Captain Obvious in Quotation


Think of this - strike a match and quickly pass your finger through it. Did you get burned? No. Try the same thing with a piece of paper. Or grass.


Put your finger in alcohol or jet fuel then pass it through some flame, and dont bother telling how us much it hurt and burned you.

Are you aware that your trying to compare how a 600Mph, fully fueled comercial airplane crashing into the ground at over 600Mp/h at a 45 degree angle leaving a crater no longer than a full-size chevy car....
with a childhood experience playing with matches?


Do you think ATS members are so naive?



The fuel blew AWAY from where the photog was standing at impact, towards the trees. Remember the 40 degree impact angle? It was angled towards the trees. That's why the grass and trees on that side were burnt in that direction. Simple for most to understand that.


Now your reaching Are you making these theories up as you go along.

"The fuel Blew Away" - Like all your credibility and respect.


As far as your impact crater claim, wrong again. The crater direction and explosion damage on the upper parts of the trees, DO NOT LINE UP with the "official" direction of the plane.

Show some evidence, diagrams , graphs, anything other than just saying so. I wont be expecting anything new, convincing or even realistic. Ive seen it all.


The grass is not untouched. That's what you believe. I do not. Therefore, from my point of view, your q is invalid.


But you also believe that planes "atomize", jet fuel "blows away" , planes "vanish", people who question authority are "nutty" "stupid" "ignorant" so what you believe is just that.



The wings shattered into small pieces upon impact. Only small scattered pieces remained. Or are you suggesting that one would find intact wings?


Of course not. We expect to see a plane crash and we dont.
You have failed to prove one did as we all proved one didn't .

Remember, you shouldn't have to convince anyone that a massive commercial airliner crashed, those are usually self explanatory


Why are you trying so hard to?


The fuel was atomized and formed the fireball, some spread into the trees, catching them on fire.


The pictures ( the high quality ones) show no fire in the forest at all, no burnt grass , bark, etc.(pictures earlier in the thread proves these).



Lack of fire? Did I mention the trees? Do you see them in YOUR photos?


Yes, as it has been discussed and agreed upon that the tree damage was consistant with a high velocity explosion and not a plane crash fuel fire for the grass between the crater all way through to the end of the burn zone. No grass, bark, or branch was BURNED by jet fuel around the the crash site anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am happy you(s) finally answered.

Congratulations. You officially destroyed the official account for anyone trying to understand Shanksville/ Flight 93 by trying so manically to uphold it.

Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the impossible magic bullet was invented. You invent theories on how a Boeing 757 and all its fuel 'Atomized' and"de-materialized" on impact without burning any surrounding grass around the small 10x30ft hole, when there has been not one shred of evidence from the crash investigation to support it, and in fact, actual photos of the crash site disprove you.


This thread and my message has reached exactly who i wanted it to.

As your Boss once said on a carrier years ago....

"Mission Accomplished"



More to come


[edit on 8-1-2008 by IvanZana]



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join