FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Let me help you out by giving you a head start to rebut their reply.

Fake
Fake
Planted
Planted
Fake
Fake
Invalid
Invalid
Planted
Fake

I'm starting to see a pattern. How about you?

reply to post by Boone 870


OMG yeah. There is nothing we haven't proven on this thread. If it weren't for Ivan or Orion, this thread wold have died some time ago.

Captain O, Boone, I see you have the thread well in hand tonight.

Although, I will admit I was surprised that appearantly ALL airliner crashes are conspiracies (Thanks Johnlear).

reply to post by CaptainObvious


That's a great list you put there, see if any of the CT's pushers want to take a crack si it.

I agree with a poster that said that level of complexity of this conspiracies grow exponentially with every post they make.

The irony of it is that they say that because it was a government inside job only 2 or 3 people need it to be in the know. Just unbelievable.

And to top it all these are the same people that would not accept that it only took 19 islamist extremist, and up to 4 higher ups in the know, ( Atta, KSM, OBL and maybe AA)

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by apex

 

This is totally off topic. However, this is a reason why forensic investigations are done on crashed aircraft. This was a case where illegal parts from another crashed aircraft were illegally placed in what once was a safe jetliner. The FAA has well-documented this particular case and took it quite seriously:

en.wikipedia.org...

I was disputing that they would rebuild it, not investigate it. What I meant was they would not need necessarily to rebuild it to do that. Forensics don't need it to be rebuilt in order to investigate an accident. And I can't find anything in that page that tells me about where illegal parts were used.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by apex]

As nasty as it is, I'm trying to imagine the consequences of a cylinder containing people at 400+ mph coming to a stop in a distance of several metres. Separately identifying individuals via DNA or any other method from that homogenised mess in the ground would be a massive undertaking wouldn't it, being all mixed up and heavily contaminated.

Considering what appeared to happen on the day with the plane being tracked on radar, confirmed as hijacked by occupants, earlier events at WTC & Pentagon, eyewitnesses testifying they saw it go down and where/how: would it appear necessary to have to prove it was flight 93?
The cause was obvious (or seemed obvious enough at the time), no suggestion of mechanical/electrical failure or pilot error so why go to the extent of over-analysing the bit & pieces apart from ID'ing the victims when resources for investigation were being stretched to the limit already with a disaster recovery, not a crime scene investigation.

I have to admit the eyewitnesses gave confusing accounts but considering how much time they had to observe it discrepancies are bound to occur in individual observations.

We should be undertaking a forensic study to find when the no plane/wrong plane theories first surfaced, who started them and why.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
As nasty as it is, I'm trying to imagine the consequences of a cylinder containing people at 400+ mph coming to a stop in a distance of several metres. Separately identifying individuals via DNA or any other method from that homogenised mess in the ground would be a massive undertaking wouldn't it, being all mixed up and heavily contaminated.

Considering what appeared to happen on the day with the plane being tracked on radar, confirmed as hijacked by occupants, earlier events at WTC & Pentagon, eyewitnesses testifying they saw it go down and where/how: would it appear necessary to have to prove it was flight 93?
The cause was obvious (or seemed obvious enough at the time), no suggestion of mechanical/electrical failure or pilot error so why go to the extent of over-analysing the bit & pieces apart from ID'ing the victims when resources for investigation were being stretched to the limit already with a disaster recovery, not a crime scene investigation.

I have to admit the eyewitnesses gave confusing accounts but considering how much time they had to observe it discrepancies are bound to occur in individual observations.

We should be undertaking a forensic study to find when the no plane/wrong plane theories first surfaced, who started them and why.

Good Morning Pilgrum ~

It was a mess. Considering less than 10% of the remains were actaully recovered. Most remains were in fact charred....

There was not much of a recovery mission as it was clear that no one survived. As post previously, the FBI handles all airline crashes. The FBI did not need a massive investigation into the casue of the crash as it was pretty obvious then and still is today.

What forensic study would you like to see happen? The no plane theory has been proven false here on many occasion. The wrong plane theory has also been tackled and debunked as well. If you would like more information in regards to the wrong plane....

Air Traffic Controllers mistook Delta Flight 1989, a 757 flying also flying from Boston to Los Angeles, for the hijacked plane.

Here is a newpaper clipping. Click here.


There is also report from one of the passengers here

Just to clear up that earlier issue of the speed of sound and altitude although unnecessary for pilots and students of aviation & physics/science:

Sound travels fastest at sea level - approx 340m/s (750mph)
It's proportional to air density so it decreases with altitude and the higher you go, the easier it is to actually do mach 1. Near sea level it's quite an achievement. At an altitude of just 2000' it's slowed down to around 300m/s (650mph).

There is negligible variation in gravitational acceleration over the operational altitude range of normal aircraft (0-10000m approx) and it remains at 9.8m/s^2.

I doubt people intent on crashing aircraft would be bothered with doing the calculations though

reply to post by CaptainObvious
Good morning Cap'n

In the rush to be first to get a story out (IE be the first to do so) inaccurate & confused reporting is the norm, not the exception.

On 9/11 and the days immediately following was there any reason for the investigation to assume that it wasn't flight 93 therefore requiring intensive detective work for verification apart from dealing with the remains of victims?

I'm still 99% sure it was flight 93

Originally posted by Pilgrum
On 9/11 and the days immediately following was there any reason for the investigation to assume that it wasn't flight 93 therefore requiring intensive detective work for verification apart from dealing with the remains of victims?

There were no other planes reported missing.

Flight 93 I believe was on radar through it's entire flight.

The FDR and CVR were recovered proving that it was indeed flight 93.

12 victims were identified in a little over two weeks post 911. (dental records)

There is no question what plane went down in Shankville.

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.


As far as tha fake crash site. Crash exercises are common.

Participants take part in a disaster drill for a staged plane crash at Ivalo airport in Finnish Lapland October 20, 2007. The joint exercise with participants from Britain, Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden simulates a crash of a British charter flight to test emergency measures in the Barents region, local media reported.

Source

Looks like something like a military ordinnance (bomb/missile) created the crater after hitting the already present fissure/scar.

This next picture is of one of many natural "wing scars" that can be found within a couple of km's from the Shanksville missile crater.


This next scar is only meters away from the crater.


So you see. THe wing scars were present pre 9/11 which concluded that no Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville on 911.




Awww, i convinced another thousand people of the truth.

Ez stuff to do.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

There is no question what plane went down in Shankville.

I agree. None. No plane went down in Shanksville. I have seen a lot of uninformed opinion and speculation here on this thread but that all it is: uninformed.

But speculation is what these threads are all about and even the most uninformed are welcome to post. Which many do.

Thanks CaptainObvious for yours.

reply to post by IvanZana


Ivan ~

Go through the 60+ pages of this thread. Count how many times you posted that same post! Dude... let it go. Even Orion gave up on it. Your CT was been DEBUNKED!

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Your fantasies however lead me to believe that you suffer from some sort of PTSD or some other psychological disorder.

There you go again Captain Obvious. More unqualified speculation! While I try to give you the benefit of my informed opinion backed by 42 years in the aviation industry you insist on speculating about Shanksville with none. At least none that you have posted here. Nada.

Now, whether or not I suffer from PTSD or some other psychological disorder it does not include suffering from "There was an airplane crash in Shanksville despite no evidence" syndrome.

The flight data recorder which I know you haven't read (assuming you could, which you can't) has the airplane in an inverted dive of 41 degrees.

Now can't you realize that crashing in that position is going to leave most of the horizontal and vertical stabilizer above ground?

Those are huge pieces. Its physically impossible for the tail to have disappeared nto the ground. The airplane is 155 feet long and its 124 feet wide. Under no stretch of the imagination would an airplane that size be able to completely disappear in the ground.

While I enjoy reading your speculation I find it uninformed at best.

But thanks for the post.

opps.. dbl post.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by johnlear


John,

I listed 10 points of evidence regarding the crash in Shanksville a couple pages ago. Although I can not ask you to provide me with prof of a negative, you will be unable to refute any of the evidence provided.

What I will not do is get into a pi**ing contest with you over wild fantasies. If it's 911 snake oil your sellin.... I aint buyin.

Hey John your right.

These people actually hate truthers like racists hate blacks. With the same intelligence and rational to boot.



They three amigos CaptainObvious,Mikevet and other fox news copy pasters have failed misereably to convince anyone that a plane crashed in Shanksville.


They try to defile this thread with personal attacks, ad hominen, dereailing, misleading, spreading conspiracies and lies, over and over...

Anyone who has to spent more than 2 weeks on a thread trying to convince that massive Boeing 757 crashed is obviously lacking in any type of intelligence.

Any ways Here is Captain Obvious Fantasy claims who belives planes crash like in a saturday morning cartoon. Captain Obvious and Mikevet are dreaming in technicolor.


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.


Captain Obvious, Mikevet and partners, you have spent 2 weeks TRYING UNSUCCESSFULLY that a planed crashed.

Plane crashes are self explanatory.

Truthers win again....lol pwned.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by IvanZana
So you see. THe wing scars were present pre 9/11 which concluded that no Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville on 911.

OK, so have you actually been there to know that, or is this just speculation from Google Earth imagery? And even if a survey in 1994 showed similar features, how does that prove that was what was there on 9/11?

And also, stop posting the exact same thing over and over again. But at least you stopped with your quotes.

johnlear, all very well, but how much force does it take to stop the tail of an aircraft before it hits the ground, and how much does it take to break the tail up? I'd think the force would be a long way above the ultimate load for it's structure, but your idea would be nice.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Allow me to rephrase your contention. You posted what you believe to be 10 points of evidence. Those points have been duly refuted, by more than a few of us on well more than one occasion. The fact you disagree will not render your opinions valid.

If anyone is engaging in potential flame war tactics, that would be you.