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: 64
24
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
What about flight 800. It broke in half in mid-air and hit the water at several hundred miles an hour. But a large sections of the tial was found, and the Navy spent months finding enough pieces to do a good reconstruction.


That is because flight 800 was a 747, which is much bigger than a 757.

A bigger aircraft means bigger, stronger structural members.

The Navy did not have to do much digging (just diving) to get to all that wreckage so the NTSB could reconstruct it.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
The tail assembly is the last part of the airplane to arrive at the scene of the accident and has been considerably slowed by 'telescoping' which is simply the fuselage crumpling into itself. By the time the tail catches up with the rest of the wreckage it has lost the major portion of its speed and energy.


How much energy can really be dissipated though, through telescoping, at such a speed though? when you say this:

The aircraft has gone in almost vertically at almost Mach 1. There were scattered pieces of debris and the only thing intact was the vertical and horizontal tail assembly, while pretty much destroyed was still on top of the ground.
When you say pretty much destroyed, to what extent was there large pieces of it?


That a vertical horizontal tail assembly could be swallowed up by the ground after a vertical dive is what is called the "Wile E. Coyote syndome of accident investigaton myths." It is proposed by those who have no qualifications in airplane accident investigation.


I'm not so much saying swallowed up, as damaged a lot, and maybe buried, at least a little. True I don't have any experience of air accident investigation, but I find it fascinating and the media doesn't really give all that much images of the actual aftermath in general, so it's not really surprising if I'm not entirely sure what should happen.

Good post though, I just wish more posts on this topic were of a nice technical explained detail, rather than what has been posted.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HANDThe Navy did not have to do much digging (just diving) to get to all that wreckage so the NTSB could reconstruct it.


But Flight 800 was in milions of tiny pieces, from hitting the water at hundreds of miles an hour, just like the plane at the Pentagon and shanksville. But the Navy recovered enough pieces for the FBI to do a reconstruction.

They recovered a large sections of the tail, so why couldn't they recover any section of tail at the Flight 77 or Flight 93 site ?



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
No wreckage would imply no plane...

Shanksville Crater... looking for debris...



Morgan Reynolds No More Games

Source

Still Smoking Hole... Notice that the grass show no signs of fire, nor do any of the trees



Crater from the air... Notice the scattered debris... ummmm yeah



Size Comparison... or how to make a huge airplane fit into a small hole



Live coverage of the first investigators.... two guys with hard hats just looking around... TWO GUYS? No fire equipment on site... Well since nothing is burning from all that jet fuel I guess they didn't need them



Source

Oh wait!! Here is the entire emergency response team that arrived on the scene...






Later they brought in equipment EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT Here is an aerial view of the "Project" Look at the layout of the area... remember that this 'crash' hit in an old strip mine



Source

Not a scorch mark on the grass... not a tiny piece of debris in the feild... just digging a deep hole in the ground... why? Well official story is the had to go down 45 FEET to find wreckage...


Well there certainly is a bigger hole there now...



Caption:
9/16/2001 - Somerset Crash Site- FBI and other investigators at the scene have excavated the crash site down to a depth of about 45 feet looking for clues. Digging a trench that deep requires special care to avoid cave-ins and constant monitoring to ensure any fumes from soil contaminated with jet fuel and hydraulic fluid do not present a hazard to emergency workers.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Emergency Response

Crash response photos

So is it normal for the Department of Environmental Protection to respond to plane crashes? and bring excavating equipment rather than rescue equipment?

And look at the first image on the page... the all important task of making RIBBONS FOR THE WORKERS a full day before they sent out the equipment!!! Well I guess there was no rush... after all they were just digging a hole...




Caption
"9/15/2001 - Somerset Crash Site- DEP's Betsy Mallison and Freda Tarbell worked with members of the Red Cross and Salvation Army to make red, white and blue ribbons for emergency workers at the site."

I find it truly amazing.. no SHOCKING actually that ALL Americans are not demanding a full independent investigation, no matter which side you are on...

If you do believe the official story... I would think you would want to settle this once and for all... or are you afraid you might find something you cannot live with?

If you don't believe the official story why are you waiting so long its been 6 years...

You know I bet the Government just LOVES these conspiracy sites... all they have to do is listen to the hard work and investigations we do here... and they have a check list of 'errors' they need to 'correct'



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


Did you completely read that list and all the headings of each column? Did you also scroll down through all the alleged rows of names of passengers, and read what is recorded on each row and each row column of that list? What I stated should just jump right out simply scanning that list.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


Did you completely read that list and all the headings of each column? Did you also scroll down through all the alleged rows of names of passengers, and read what is recorded on each row and each row column of that list? What I stated should just jump right out simply scanning that list.


Yes I did, what is your point?

There is one call that came from BETWEEN 0 and 30 feet, which is as close as you can get to what you are saying. Are you trying to say that the call came from the aircraft after it had landed somewhere?

If you can show me where a suitable landing area was at that time in the flight, I might believe that it could have happened.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
[Snip]Off topic comments removed[/snip]

[edit on 9-1-2008 by dbates]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
[Snip]Off topic comments removed[/snip]

[edit on 9-1-2008 by dbates]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Perhaps those so vainly attempting to make the laws of physics and quantum mechanics fit the "official" reports, which they cannot possibly do, perhaps you might consider the following at the website, before going on any further with vainly attempting forcing the "official" reports to work for you or anyone else:

www.vectorsite.net...

PS There are laws involving kinetic energy that say this: The bigger something is; the harder it hits; the bigger mess it makes on impact.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The FBI did not need a massive investigation into the casue of the crash as it was pretty obvious then and still is today.

Wow. It was only 'pretty obvious' and not 100% certain?

I find it extremely hard to believe that based on some 'pretty obvious' circumstances, that any investigation would be scaled back. Personally, I would want to convert 'pretty obvious' into absolute certainty, if I was the lead crash investigator.

Imagine if they got it wrong and the 'pretty obvious' was indeed false. Who's responsible for not initially completing a thorough investigation? I guess that people with orders follow them, they're not paid to independently think or to speak.

What a clean description of this thread - it's 'pretty obvious' that some people will believe anything that's told to them.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


Do you know what between 0 altitude means? It means they are not in the air. They are grounded. How is that possible considering what the "official" reports state concerning alleged Flight 93? What is 7500+ duration call? Seconds? Minutes? What?

Please note the zero only appears approximately one time, on any of the alleged passenger named calls. So it is not SOP on all alleged people calling from an alleged airplane at any and all altitude levels, when calls are made.

Please do not do what clingers to the "official" report have already repeatedly done. That is immediately turn around to ask me to explain it. If I could reasonably explain it, I would not be asking you or them to explain it. It is your "evidence" list. The responsibility is yours to logically explain it - if you can. A plane cannot be on the ground and flying at high altitude at the same time. That is a given scientific fact not an opinion.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
[Snip]Off topic comments removed[/snip]

[edit on 9-1-2008 by dbates]



[edit on 9-1-2008 by MikeVet]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Tezzajw.....

Have you looked at the evidence that was gathered in the 2 + weeks after 911 in regards to flight 93? If not.. I urge you to read the 10 points I posted on another page in this thread.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
[Snip]Off topic comments removed[/snip]

[edit on 9-1-2008 by dbates]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
64 pages and I bet there is not a shred of new evidence. None. Where are the whistleblowers and the witnesses who saw the people get off Flight 93? What happened to the passengers?

Cell phones were usuable, and you need to look into Mineta, Cheney and the pilots. Closed case.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Please stay on topic. This is not the place to discuss libel or slander laws. That's a great subject for another time, but it's off topic and does nothing to contribute to this discussion.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join