FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!, page 8
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9    10    11  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 24 times


reply posted on 18-12-2007 @ 06:09 PM by Terrorcell
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.


reply posted on 18-12-2007 @ 06:42 PM by jackinthebox
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.


reply posted on 18-12-2007 @ 07:36 PM by Boone 870
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.



reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 01:12 PM by jackinthebox
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.


reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 01:19 PM by IvanZana
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?


reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 01:26 PM by jackinthebox
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.
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9    10    11  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 15 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 8 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 19 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags