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: 72
24
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Oh.. thats right....the FDR was planted in the ground prior to the missile hitting!!!


And you have evidence (like photos) the FDR was found buried in the ground.

Also any evidence that the bodies from Flight 93 were at the crash site?




posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Do you desire to tell that to the experienced pilot responding to a question, whose words I cited and gave proper due credit?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStarsA Boeing 737-300 ditched successfully!

On the 16th of January 2002, a Boeing 737-300 belonging to an Indonesian Airline had both its engines flamed out - a term to describe that the jet engines had failed. It happened as it commenced its descend to 9000 feet through thunderous clouds that were filled with rain.

The crew then tried to relight the engines but it failed to revive. Compared to a Boeing 777 where the relighting process is automatic, the Boeing 737 did not appear to have this more advanced facility. In addition to this, on a Boeing 777, the APU will automatically light up as well when it senses both engine failures. The APU or the auxiliary power unit is a small jet engine that is located in the tail section and powers the electricity and air-conditioning of the airplane.


Well the engines flamed out because the crew failed to follow SOP for
descending thru heavy rain in a CFM-56 equiped B737.
SOP dictates that engines must be kept at a minimum of 45% N1 to avoid
flameout, they were deccending with engines at flight idle.
Flameouts at low power-setting on CFM-engines is a well known issue in heavy rain.
The APU was started but engine start attempt was not successful.
They managed to set flaps 15 before ditching using alternate flaps
(electrical operated).
The B737 can as the only production aircraft today be controlled on full manual reversion (when all electrics and hydraulics are gone)

The triple 7 has as as a ETOPS-feature auto APU start if one engine flames out, or 2 of the 4 engine driven generators fails.
(The 777 have 2 standby engine driven generators in addition to the 2 generators in use during normal ops with all systems working)




Engineers were unable to determine the exact cause of the failure


Well no, the cause was that the crew failed to follow correct procedures
during heavy rain-conditions.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


You deny the facts. You offer the hearsay.

Nothing new here from you.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Freaky_Animal
 


I can easily see you missed the entire message of what a pilot was explaining should happen in jetliner crashes, with or without the engines running on nose dive. No airplane comes down perpendicular to the ground. It is impossible to have happen, particularly in commercial jetliners. Physics and quantum mechanics (laws of nature) are why.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Since when is science mere hearsay?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Since you have ignored every sigle bit of it. But you will deny that too.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
What is your relevant point concerning alleged Flight 93 for comparison, as to which angles planes come in for landing or impact?


Well you said:

What a difference between the alleged crash outside Shanksville and that plane. Water is very hard on those type of nose dives. I can even see that it definitely a commercial jetliner. No doubt about it.


No doubt water is hard, but it's a lot different to UA93. Yes, UA93 wasn't controlled as such like that plane was, but it was controlled, the alleged hijacker was trying to crash it.

High speed impact belly flops are far more destructive on any construction. Be it a plane, human body or anything else.


Right, so thats why the plane you posted a picture of is largely intact, whereas the one I posted wasn't, despite not going all that much faster. Actually, the one I posted hit the water one side first, causing considerable asymmetric forces. it then was ripped apart.

And obviously your example is a civil airliner. But it was being landed deliberately so as not to cause loss of life, and as such hit the terrain a lot more gently.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars


Do you desire to tell that to the experienced pilot responding to a question, whose words I cited and gave proper due credit?


The only people you give credit to are the ones that support your theory. Your theory is based on pure fantasy without any facts or evidence.

Dismissing the mountain of evidence that you have been presented with will not make it go away.... Your fantasy however will. (unless you can provide some evidence)



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Also any evidence that the bodies from Flight 93 were at the crash site?


Please Ultima... link me to a video of a crash site where you can witness the recovery of a FDR. ok? Really, I didn't expect such a question from you.

The expectations of the evidence you have is as bad as OrionStar's.



[edit on 11-1-2008 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


I take it you do not understand the severe differences between highly similar causes and blatantly dissimilar effects that should not have happened. Is that it?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Again, it is your job to validate not your opponents'. You link to proof of your opinion hearsay. You do not tell your opponents to prove your points of argument for you.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


If you land on your belly in the water, will it affect you differently than diving in at an angle? Yes or no will do.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


You are dead wrong, and still do not appear to realize why. I do not believe that is ever going to change in these discussions.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
I take it you do not understand the severe differences between highly similar causes and blatantly dissimilar effects that should not have happened. Is that it?


The two that landed on the water were similar. The only difference was that one hit the water symmetrically, and one didn't.

UA93 was not similar to those two. It didn't hit with the majority of the force on the bottom of the fuselage.


If you land on your belly in the water, will it affect you differently than diving in at an angle? Yes or no will do.


Yes. If not, how would flying boats have worked?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


It is not the construction in both cases. It is the way they landed in the end. They were dissimilar in that particular case. Which is why my analogy was so pertinent, to what I was comparing, in that respect and only in that respect, of cause and effect. You completely missed my specific intent and meaning - once again as SOP for you.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Why we argue that there was or was not a plane, the fact is that there is a warehouse filled with evidence of a plane, bodies and aircraft parts.

There are TV reports the day of the crash. 3 to 4 mile radius of debris. Eyewitnesses.link Governor Tom Ridge flew over the site and said that it was a large debris field and a hole. He stated he could see the rapid and l;arge emergency repsone. Are all of these people lying?



This video shows that there was debris and a quick response to the accident. There was a plane. The plane was the last one and was delayed on take off our more than likely as stated in the commission report it would have completed its mission.

The 'no plane' is disinfo with NO proof. None. The fact that there is a plane is provable.

another link

Cheney, Mineta....look into it



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Again, it is your job to validate not your opponents'. You link to proof of your opinion hearsay. You do not tell your opponents to prove your points of argument for you.


Orion, I have asked you what you would like for evidence or proof. You really didn't respond with anything. You continue to go with your favorite word. Hearsay. Thats all you have perseverated on.


hear·say
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.


Lets look at the word hearsay shall we?

unverified: Reports by the media and governement were in fact verified by countless eyewitnesses, phone calls, physical evidence including FDR, CVR, DNA, bone fragments,personal belongings, and airplane parts (including seat cushions, fuselage, ).

unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge

The only UNoffical information that is being presented here is by you Orion. Your statements are not of any direct knowledge that has to do with the proven events surrounding flight 93.

I have proven to you as well as countless others in here that the events reported by the media and the offical report by the government is accurate.

Again I will ask you. If you have evidence you can provide to prove otherwise, I am all ears.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   


What would a team of NASA scientists from Houston be doing traveling on a KC-135?


Well lets see - doing a little research (took me less than 30 seconds)

Wow - NASA has a research facility in Cleveland (aka Mistake on the lake)

The Glenn Research Center

www.nasa.gov...

Double wow! There is a KC135 based there for microgravity studies

You ask why a KC135? - Nasa has used these aircraft for years. Beside
Nasa is a government agency, why shouldn't it use KC135.

www.nasa.gov...



At NASA's Johnson Space Center, there is a microgravity research aircraft, a KC-135 Low-G Flight Research aircraft (a predecessor of the Boeing 707) which is typically used for refueling military aircraft. The four-engine turbojet has been modified to meet NASA's needs to train astronaut and conduct microgravity research. The biggest difference is the way that it is used to fly parabolas to create 20-25 seconds of weightlessness so that the astronauts can experience and researchers can investigate the effects of "zero" gravity. The gut wrenching effects have earned this aircraft its famous nickname: "The Vomit Comet."

As NASA's lead center for microgravity research in the areas of fluid physics and combustion science, Glenn hosts the KC-135 for 6-10 weeks each year in support of its ground-based microgravity research. Some flights include astronauts participating in crew training so that they can have low-g experience with experiment hardware prior to shuttle missions.


Perhaps instead of posting insane conspiracy theories should spend time
actually doing some research....



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
So where is the warehouse with all the debris of the plane? Where are all the suitcases that must have sunk like rocks in the ocean? Where are all the seats and parts? No one saw them hauled out of that tiny smoking slash on the ground, did they ? No pictures show the evidence of a plane crash. Why is that? If a plane crashed there the media would have been invited in, just like at ground zero with Bushie wrapping his arm around a fireman, to make sure that the\ whole world saw the terible things that the mean old terrorists did. They would use the images for propaganda value as sure as we are alive today, and you know it.

But NO!! The press was kept out..the pictures were forbidden or discouraged..and no wonder. There are no plane parts!! they actually had the nerve to say that the plane, the whole thing, simply disappeared beneath the earth ! The ground there is NOT soft as loam..it is hard enough to drive on, for petes sake!! If an airplane had impacted there, large parts would have skidded and strewn over some area, but we see none. We are asked against all reason to believe that an entire airplane vanished that day.

No warehouse..no film, no reports, nothing. Just the word of the Bush administration that all is well and we can trust them and just go shopping and leave it all to them!! Why, you DO trust the government, don't you? If not you might find yourself on one of those nasty little lists that the Bushies love to amass on opponents and critics. Even Ted Kennedy had a hard time flying for a few weeks while they cleared up some little ' misunderstanding ', and if they can do that to Ted, just THINK what they can do to you!!

Just think about pineapples and Hitler and you will get the drift.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join