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: 8
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 



No, I believe the 2 fighter jets witnessed as being there shot it down. I believe the UAV was documenting the event.



Both were sent, both were seen. And we don't know the specs and capabilities of this classified drone plane. Regardless of the amount of photos I have shown eyewitnesses I have not got one positive identification to date.




posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 




Otherwise what would it be doing there? if it was unarmed and was merely observing, why send that over an F-16? A UAV is a lot slower, and cannot go supersonic, whereas an F-16 could have.


I can't answer for Terrorcell, but my opinion would be that the UAV was used to observe ground activity. Slower speed would reveal more deatiled data, such as potential witnesees in the area, with the ability to zero in on specific license plates even. Furthermore, high-speed turbine driven overflights would have attracted more attention by civilians.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Terrorcell
 



No, I believe the 2 fighter jets witnessed as being there shot it down. I believe the UAV was documenting the event.


There were two fighter jets witnessed at the scene? I must have missed something. Do you have a web site that has the information not in the form of a video? Videos make me sleepy.

I watched the original interview with Susan McElwain and about half of the latest interview that you've posted.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
This was sent to me via Myspace,I've seen this before in different documentaries.Im not sure if this has been posted in this thread or not,seeing as some of them are not working.
So if this has already been posted,my apologies.

VIDEO: Rare Footage - Flight 93 crashes




posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I never realized that Tom Ridge was the Governor of Pennsylvania before taking over as the top dog in "Homeland Security." This doesn't really prove anything, but it's a bit of coincidence given the mystery of the truth of flight 93 and claims of 9/11 being part of a fascist agenda. Plus, Ridge abruptly resigned as Governor, and took his new job less than a month after 9/11.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Oh my, these 9/11 threads sure do get heated. I'm always amazed at how people would even believe anything the government has to say in the first place! or the mass media for that matter. I guess it just goes to show how gullible and naive people are... and to what drives those who have absolute power.

The thought that the US government would fake a plane crash, or land a plane full of people at an NASA base and then execute them seems unlikely? hardly, these powers kill innocent people everyday, including their own citizens.

Murderers abound folks.. get used to it. Things have never changed... at one time Kings openly cut off the heads of their discenters and nothing has evolved from that day... what's the news? anything they want it to be... especially when their friends own the printing presses...

i think everyone should concentrate on keeping their back to the wall and their heads down unless they really want to do something about it.. and i'm not talking election time... ironic that american citizens are so well armed? i think it is...

of course, life looks different from up here on the moon...



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   






Some internet sites mention the fact the plane parts were planted 1 year prior to 9/11. This next picture show a rusted looking engine and if you notice the soil looks naturally packed and moist and not freshly disturbed with parts all packed in that 10x20 ft hole.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
hope the pics above arent to big. The pictures tell alot.

the can be clicked to enlarge or save.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by IvanZana]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
So many questions go un answered, i believe this is why people are so skeptical,

If it made sense people wouldnt question it.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by IvanZana]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


I have no way of disproving that part were "planted" a year before 9/11, but I do know that burned metal can appear rusty once the flames are doused. I think everyone has to agree though, that there are certainly many other oddities about the crash site.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 




The thing is the engine part was not "doused" it was found 3 feet deep opposed to the flight recorder being over 20ft deep.

I have very big questions and I cant take vapourization as an explanation....


1. Where did the wings, tail? go? they obviously didnt penatrate the ground.

2. Where is the thousands of gallons of fuel that were in those wings? shouldnt they have burned atleast one blade of grass around the wings?

3. How do fuel laden wings leave imprints or dents on the ground without touching the grass, breaking blades, burning them ect. at 500mph?



Can the next few replies answer the numbered questions?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 




The thing is the engine part was not "doused" it was found 3 feet deep opposed to the flight recorder being over 20ft deep.


Rust does not necessarily occur due to water interacting with metal. Have you ever seen a car fire? Even if the fire burns itself out, without any fire retardent being applied, the metal will appear rusted. This is a chemical reaction between the elements.

Your 3-point question sequence is valid however.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I think it's safe to say that whoever claimed the ground was soaked in puddles of jet fuel was lieing. I see no pools of fuel. I see no sign of fuel at all, burnt or otherwise.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
There should be scores of suitcases and personal effects all over the place: try to tell intelligent people that it all somehow ' sank ' into the earth is just too funny, if it were not so insulting.

This is NOT a swamp, for God's sake, no matter HOW soft the ground was, and it does NOT look super soft to me, there is NO WAY possible that all of the luggage disappeared and no bodies..no engines shown being hauled out..there are so many holes in the official story that only a moron could accept it at face value.

No luggage, just like at the Pentagon..no bodies, no parts..just a smoking hole with small debris strewn around, not even coming close to a plane crash site..How stupid do the perps think we are? Pretty damned stupid...as proven by those who givbe us the official lie and ask us to ' trust ' them...Ha!! When hell freezes over!!

It is so OBVIOUS..only a LACK of investigation can hide the truth, and that is what the Bush cabal wanted, and what they got. America is doomed. The people are too weak and too trusting and too gullible. The sharks are feeding, and the seals are too far out to sea to escape. The truth matters not, just the perception. God help us.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Pointless to argue how rusty things looks, but one thing that cant be proven is a plane crash in shanksville on 911.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by IvanZana]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   
There certain posters who have made continued claims that the parts ' recovered ' from the Pentagon and Penn. were matched up with existing records and found to match. I now challenge anyone to produce said reports, from reliable sources, that show the parts numbers of the planes components BEFORE 9-11 and some official and reachable entity comparing the numbers and declaring a match.

I have never seen this in all my hours scoruing the net, so please, since you are so sure that ' parts ' were indeed matched from the planes in question, prove it!! Show us the documentation. OR, stop alleging that parts were matched thus proving the governments claims. It is one way or the other: Either no one has matched the parts numbers and validated it, or they have. Time to pony up!!



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
There certain posters who have made continued claims that the parts ' recovered ' from the Pentagon and Penn.



I would even begin to attempt that one, the topic is how no plance crashed at shanksville

[edit on 19-12-2007 by IvanZana]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   





1. Where did the wings, tail? go? they obviously didnt penatrate the ground.

2. Where is the thousands of gallons of fuel that were in those wings? shouldnt they have burned atleast one blade of grass around the wings?

3. How do fuel laden wings leave imprints or dents on the ground without touching the grass, breaking blades, burning them ect. at 500mph?



Can the next few replies answer the numbered questions?


Imporatant questions. 1,2,3



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   


1. Where did the wings, tail? go? they obviously didnt penatrate the ground.

2. Where is the thousands of gallons of fuel that were in those wings? shouldnt they have burned atleast one blade of grass around the wings?

3. How do fuel laden wings leave imprints or dents on the ground without touching the grass, breaking blades, burning them ect. at 500mph?

Can the next few replies answer the numbered questions?


The wings (outboard of the engines) and tail are composed of light gauge
metal without much heavy reinforcement. These parts are shredded into
something resembling metallic "confetti". Heavier pieces such as wing
spars, keel beam, engines and pylons, landing gear would tend penetrate
the ground.

Fuel tanks would be ruptured by the impact forces even before hit the
ground. Fuel would be atomized and dispersed in cloud which because
of the momentum would travel in direction aircraft was heading at impact.
You can see from photos of the scene that the trees are singed. Also
much of the lighter debris was hurled into the woods and was caught in
the trees. Searchers report that for several weeks after every time
wind would rustle the trees that small pieces of debris fell out of the
branches.

Can see from scene photos that the wings from engines inboard left
imprint in the ground. Remember ground was soft fill in what was
reclaimed strip mine.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Originally posted by thedman





Remember ground was soft fill in what was
reclaimed strip mine.



Thanks for your post thedman. You made the statement that "the soft fill in what was reclaimed strip mine".

I am very familiar with Code of Federal Regulations 43 3809 which governs the reclamation of a Federally Certificated Mine. All mines have to be federally certificated or they are not a mine.

After the mine has been "reclaimed" the Bureau of Land Management has to perform an inspection and certify that the 'reclamation" meet CFR 43 requirements of 3809.

So what I am wondering about here is that I have never heard of the term "soft fill" in the reclamation process. Are you stating that the area was actually a federally certified 'Reclamation" performed under CFR 43 3809 or is this something you read about and are merely repeating without checking it out?


Surface mining is a type of mining in which soil and rock overlying the mineral deposit are removed. It is the opposite of underground mining, in which the overlying rock is left in place, and the mineral removed through shafts or tunnels.


en.wikipedia.org...

The area does not look like a 'reclaimed strip mine' to me and I am a Federally Certificated MSHA (Mine Safety & Health Administration) Instructor. My instructor ID no. is OAL IS 11/2000.

Thanks for your post and thanks for your interest in this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join