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: 58
24
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet

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


So the wings shattered and left no fuel trace at the site the wings shattered? Were the tanks completely empty and scrubbed to remove any trace of fuel in the wings?

Fiberglass only lines the front edge of wings. Graphite and Kevlar-graphite line the back edge of the wings. Everything in-between is still metal framing and aluminum skin. Those never shatter. They bend but never shatter.




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:18 AM
link   
From what I have heard this plane was going damn near the speed of sound at a very steep angle. Have any of you ever fired a bullet into dirt? Doesn't matter what size or velocity, the crater is amazingly small with no sign of the bullet. I have personally seen this with several calibers from .22 to .50. I certainly believe that a plane slammed into the ground.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by KeineLust
Have any of you ever fired a bullet into dirt? Doesn't matter what size or velocity, the crater is amazingly small with no sign of the bullet.

Since when does a bullet have large wings and two massive engines sticking out from each side of it?

The thread is about an alleged plane crash, it has nothing to do with bullets.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

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


So tell us, what do you expect to see then, if you say you expect to see a plane crash and you don't? So far the only pictures of 'actual' plane crashes you have posted are those of planes which have overshot the runway or crashed at slow speeds. So tell us, what do you want to see?

If it was moving at 800 fps, and it is only 155 feet long, how much force do you think it will experience, to stop in it's own length? This for the sake of finding large sections of tail intact.

if we assume it's 47 metres long (taken from the Boeing website), then:
2as = v^2 - u^2

a = v^2 / (2s)

a = 223.5^2/(2 x 47) = 531 m/s/s = 53.1g. (54.1 if being pedantic about the value of g)

Now, if you know of an aircraft tailplane that can withstand 53 g, I'd be rather interested. Also, if you know of many people that can survive that without being turned into an unrecognizable pulp, I'd be interested.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Now, if you know of an aircraft tailplane that can withstand 53 g, I'd be rather interested. Also, if you know of many people that can survive that without being turned into an unrecognizable pulp, I'd be interested.


Even if the people were pulp they would still be visible, including a lot of blood, no? There would still be luggage, clothes, seats, jet fuel, burned grass etc...Wouldn't you think?

Even 95% of TWA flight 800, that blew up in the air, was recovered including all the bodies. 95% is what the FBI is claiming they recovered of flight 93 coincidently. So why won't they release pictures of the reconstruction? It's not like it's a standard procedure to not release picture of aircraft recovered from crashes...

TWA Flight 800



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

So the wings shattered and left no fuel trace at the site the wings shattered? Were the tanks completely empty and scrubbed to remove any trace of fuel in the wings?

Fiberglass only lines the front edge of wings. Graphite and Kevlar-graphite line the back edge of the wings. Everything in-between is still metal framing and aluminum skin. Those never shatter. They bend but never shatter.


No trace of fuel? I guess you're forgetting first responder's testimony, eh?

They NEVER shatter? Ivan posted photos of plane crashes at speeds lower than 93's, and I see plenty of evidence of shattered wings, fuselage, etc.

Care to rethink this?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


The plane was traveling at the speed of a .45 bullet. Thats why the comparison was made.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



TWA FLight 800 did not slam into the ground at over 400 MPH. Lets compare apples to apples here shall we?

I have shown a few airline crashes that were similar. With similar amounts of debris. You guys seem to ignore that, saying my posts aren't "credible."


There was at least one seat cushion found.
There were many body parts found. (12 passengers were identified by dental records)


Just to touch on the comment Orion made on how credible my posts are, I ask you to find one post on this thread where I have lied, mislead, or mistaken. If I have made an error, I will promptly fix it.

All of my posts I have backed up with all the evidence that has been made available.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOKEven 95% of TWA flight 800, that blew up in the air, was recovered including all the bodies. 95% is what the FBI is claiming they recovered of flight 93 coincidently. So why won't they release pictures of the reconstruction? It's not like it's a standard procedure to not release picture of aircraft recovered from crashes...


It would be more natural to compare with United Airlines Flight 585.

Even if the impact speed was only about 200 kts. the crater and level of fragmentaiton to both aircraft and humans was similar to flt. 93.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by Freaky_Animal]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Even if the people were pulp they would still be visible, including a lot of blood, no? There would still be luggage, clothes, seats, jet fuel, burned grass etc...Wouldn't you think?


Well yes, but I was doing it for the tail, before it hits the ground itself. I was mainly doing it like that because people here seem to demand large intact parts of tail. Obviously more distance would be needed for deceleration as well, so it penetrates the ground as well. Similarly, any liquids present would also be forced into the ground with a large force and not found easily on the ground surface.


Even 95% of TWA flight 800, that blew up in the air, was recovered including all the bodies. 95% is what the FBI is claiming they recovered of flight 93 coincidently. So why won't they release pictures of the reconstruction? It's not like it's a standard procedure to not release picture of aircraft recovered from crashes...

If I'm not mistaken, the reconstruction of TWA 800 was done because the investigators had no idea of what had downed the plane, and they needed to find the answer. Having said that, I've never heard of why they didn't do that with the Lockerbie Pan Am plane, but maybe they knew it was a bomb from eyewitnesses.

Why they haven't released more images of UA 93's debris is a good question, they've had six years to either A) find it or B) fabricate fake evidence, so yes, why not release more images?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Freaky_Animal
 


Freak is correct.... lets look at this picture of flight 585......



Look familiar?? I already posted this picture and not much was said...

Not surpised though.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by KeineLust
 


Not without starting to break up in mid-air will a Boeing 757 be going at the near speed of sound. "Speed of sound at sea level = 340.29 m / s". I am certain people for miles around would realize they had plane parts scattered all over their property, or dropping in on their houses. I did not see any reports of that happening on 9/11/2001.

There is a gravity issue involved at anything coming in at an angle from the sky. While the front end is easily being drawn to gravity at a higher rate, the back end is resisting being drawn straight down by gravity, particularly with the weight and mass of a Boeing 757.

Then there is increasing air pressure resistance, under and over, the plane the closer to sea level a plane decreases altitude. Ever notice that bumpy landing with each and every flight, if ever having flown? It is that vacuum created under the wings that gives them lift in conjunction with the decreasing power of the engine thrust to allow gravity to bring a plane safely, horizontally down on landing.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Not without starting to break up in mid-air will a Boeing 757 be going at the near speed of sound. "Speed of sound at sea level = 340.29 m / s". I am certain people for miles around would realize they had plane parts scattered all over their property, or dropping in on their houses. I did not see any reports of that happening on 9/11/2001.

While the front end is easily being drawn to gravity at a higher rate, the back end is resisting being drawn straight down by gravity, particularly with the weight and mass of a Boeing 757.

It is that vacuum created under the wings that gives them lift in conjunction with the decreasing power of the engine thrust to allow gravity to bring a plane safely, horizontally down on landing.


Research Fed Ex Flight 705 and tell me if you still believe this.

2-
Gravity will be different on the front of the plane vs the back? must be a pretty big plane to escape the planet's gravity.

3-
Vacuum UNDER the wings creat lift? Brother....



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



And you said MY posts lack credibility?? This is great.




[edit on 8-1-2008 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


First, some people want commercial jetliners to severely compromise two steel walls and all steel, reinforced concrete, and granite, marble, and/or ceramic thereafter, then disappear to non-existence after doing all that.

Yet, when a plane crashes into the ground, they want them to immediately disapppear into non-existence as well above ground, with hardly a dent in the ground compared to the speed some people chose to assign some Boeing 757.

Now either planes are sturdy enough to take any double steel wall and reinforced concrete whippin' and keep on tickin' (impact and long distance penetration) or they ain't. Which is it?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Not without starting to break up in mid-air will a Boeing 757 be going at the near speed of sound. "Speed of sound at sea level = 340.29 m / s". I am certain people for miles around would realize they had plane parts scattered all over their property, or dropping in on their houses.


The wings of a 757 are swept back so they can go faster without structural problems. The sweep back reduces pressure buildup, and as a result of that, the strength needed to hold it there. Also there will be regions of supersonic flow over the wings at higher velocities as well. Going actually supersonic would be difficult without structural damage, but going near it isn't.

Oh, and "vacuum under the wings". Don't you mean lower pressure above the wings?

OK, your next post:

Granite? OK, whatever. But you're going to need a hugely strong bit of steel or concrete to not take damage when opposing such a force. No one said it disappeared into non existence after that, it breaks up while doing so. After the outer wall it carries on going through (relatively) empty space. As for the WTC core, well there is strong parts of a plane, but I'm not sure what bought down the towers, so I'm not sure what damage it would do.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by apex]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


Only fiberglass and graphite will shatter. Metal never shatters. If you think it does, show us some shattered metal, including aluminum and steel.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


And you know that exactly how? Please spare us any "evidence" from any "black boxes". Someone would have to be reading the cockpit panels, and reporting back to the control center and NORAD? Do you actually think that was happening?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Give us the methodology of how they identified any alleged passengers by dental records. You brought it up. It is up to you to describe the methodology used. Otherwise, all you are relying on is hearsay.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


If they already knew it was a bomb, why put it back together at all? It is self-evident bombs explode other physical matter and send it flying in all directions.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join