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: 85
24
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 




Flight 93 impact was at 600 mph making for a sudden fuel atomized as the wings were destroyed by KE event of 2000 pounds of TNT. The other impacts were a B-52 and the Airbus whose impacts were in the 100 pounds of TNT of KE. Not the same but as you can see the mushroom cloud is the same. Not much in the smoke to prove 93 did not hit.


Well, the "witness" claims there was fuel everywhere on the ground.

You also claim the mushroom cloud is "the same." Why would the cloud from 2000 pounds of TNT be the same as 100 pounds? Shouldn't one be much larger?




posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by beachnut
 




Flight 93 impact was at 600 mph making for a sudden fuel atomized as the wings were destroyed by KE event of 2000 pounds of TNT. The other impacts were a B-52 and the Airbus whose impacts were in the 100 pounds of TNT of KE. Not the same but as you can see the mushroom cloud is the same. Not much in the smoke to prove 93 did not hit.


Well, the "witness" claims there was fuel everywhere on the ground.

You also claim the mushroom cloud is "the same." Why would the cloud from 2000 pounds of TNT be the same as 100 pounds? Shouldn't one be much larger?

Flight 93 cloud looks like it should. The only difference is the impact energy of these crashes which could affect the pattern of fuel dispersion.


Looks like three aircraft impacts with fuel fires. And with all the bodies in these three impacts matching the people on the planes, it kind of proves it happened; even the B-52 crash identified the people on board. Why are there no conspiracies about the AirBus and the Buff?



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


You have not explained the key point. Where is the smoke column in the Shanksville shot?



[edit on 2/23/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
UsAirlight 427, near Pittsburgh. 1994

B737, almost vertically straight in, no fire.

Discuss!!!



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


What about it?

You disuss. Me not know what you try say.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Sorry, jack,

If I knew how to pull sources in, I would do it.

It can be searched, easily enough. A B737 crashed while being vectored for approach to Pittsburgh (PIT) in 1994. From 6000 feet, it rolled over and was nearly vertical at impact. No survivors (obviously), but no post-impact fire.

I was flying the 737 then...and was on a layover in whatever city I was in that day...saw the news on CNN, in my hotel room. We tend to sit up and take notice when airplanes crash, we pilots.

Heck, the UsAir crash in PIT and the United crash in COS are probably another complete thread to investigate...though I think it's been done already. Some have posited that UAL in COS was a murder/suicide, others have said that UsAir in PIT was a suicide...Boeing was, or rather, a supplier that manufactured the rudder actuators, sent to and installed by Boeing, was ultmately implicated. Hence, ACs out the whazoo (an AC is an Advisory Circular, issued by the FAA. They eventually get incorporated into the airline's and the airplane's operating procedures, just to give you the 'Cliff Notes' account of how it works.

Here's an example of how lawyers get involved, and try to indemnify the companies they represent:

The B737NG (Next Gen) refers to models that are also designated as -700, -800 and -900. This, in comparison to the B737-100 (years ago!) and the venerable B737-200. The -100 and -200 had the PW JT9D engines, similar to those mounted on the B727. Environmental concerns urged Boeing to re-design the B737, with a new engine...a bigger fan, was the SNECMA finally decided upon...darn, I flew the thing and forget who actually built the engines! I am sure many will look it up for me.

While Boeing was re-designing the B737, they made some other changes, mostly in the Electrical and Hydraulic systems...oh, and there were new avionics developments to incorporate. BUT!!! To market the 'upgrades', the newer versions had to be 'similar' enough so that one type rating would encompass all. In other words, once 'typed' on the B737, you can fly every variation, provided you have the appropriate 'differences' training...

All B737s and B757s (and B767s, but they have different fuel pumps) have center fuel tanks. For YEARS we would burn from the center tank, when we were Dispatched with center tank fuel, until the 'Low Press' lights began to come on, or flash...of course, we could see the quantity as well, but the point was to burn out all of the Center Tank fuel, then turn off the pumps and continue on, 'tank-to-engine'. No sense having a pump running when there's no fuel left for it to pump, right?

After TWA 800, there was a focus on the fuel pumps. The pumps are either embedded INSIDE the tank, and since they are electric, they are in need of cooling...well, use the fuel for cooling...or they are installed OUTSIDE the tank, and plumbed in to function.

Point is, the B737 and B757 have 'submerged' pumps...meaning they are inside the tank. They are still in a shroud, and very well insulated, but 'JUST IN CASE' it came out, from FAA, that there must always be a minimum of 1000 pounds in the center tank. Another way to say it, when quantity reaches 1000 lbs, the center pumps must be turned off. This directive filtered its way from the FAA until it was incorporated into Operator's Manuals, and eventually into the ' Limitations' section of those Manuals...

This meant that pilot intervention was needed to change a design that was originally meant to reduce pilot workload, that is, a design that used pumps in the Center tank with a higher output pressure, so that the main (or wing) tanks would burn last...the system also included some pressure sensitive check-valves...

As far as I know, this procedure is still an onus on the pilots, that is, on the B737 and B757 (but not the B767) pilots have to monitor and turn off the center tank pumps between 1200 and 1000 pounds quantity.

It's not difficult, for us, really....let's say you level off at cruise, and you have 15,000 pounds still in the center tank. We just start a timer on our clock (every airplane is required to have a clock, BTW)...our FMS tells us the fuel burn rate, so a quick calculation in our heads, and we will be reminded.

Problem is, it is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY!

One B737 blew up, on the ground...empty, in Asia years ago. TWA800, well, that's another thread....




Differences training takes about a few hours of Ground School, and one Sim ride...sometimes you don't even need the Sim ride, just the GS and a written test...then a one-flight with a Check Pilot...and you're good to go.

I am trying to explain stuff that is well known by nearly every airline pilot in the World, but trying to use term that others will understand, without getting TOO technical.

To get back to what I think is the topic...UAL 93 had no fire, so that proves it was fake? My point is, other airplanes have crashed, with no fire. I used the UsAir example in my first point.

One moment to step back, from these clinical discussions that turn into arguments, and remember...as we Monday-morning quarterback these events, real people lost their lives. There should be someone to acknowledge this fact now and then....

[edit on 23-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




To get back to what I think is the topic...UAL 93 had no fire, so that proves it was fake? My point is, other airplanes have crashed, with no fire. I used the UsAir example in my first point.


Okay. I have not looked into the UsAir flight, but I will take you at your word that there was no fire in P-burg. There could be several reasons for this. The first that comes to mind is the fact that the plane was on final approach and carrying little fuel on board. Certainly not enough for a trans-continental flight.

But are you seriously claiming there was no fire in Shanksville, whatsoever?



One moment to step back, from these clinical discussions that turn into arguments, and remember...as we Monday-morning quarterback these events, real people lost their lives. There should be someone to acknowledge this fact now and then....


Let's not forget that on 9/11, there was no quarterback. Furthermore, we have no real proof that anyone did in fact die in Shanksville. Please don't misunderstand me. I know first hand that people did in fact die on 9/11. A lot of people. This is one of the reasons it is so imprtant to know the truth. In the case of Flight 93, finding the truth might be more important than in any other case. What did in fact happen to the people on FLight 93? I want the truth, and will not stop until I find it.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Jack,

I replied, and took a long time to type a post...so here's my post to let the system sort it out....



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I did actually take the time to read everything you posted, and re-read it. Am I missing something? I agree that it is possible for a plane to crash without a fire happening.



If I knew how to pull sources in, I would do it.


Do you mean "link" a source? Words in your post that someone can click on to go to another site? Feel free to send me a U2U message if you have a question on that.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Where the photographer is standing is where the wind and engine was said to penetrate the ground and started a raging fire. As you can see that no BOEING 747 CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE ON 911. No Flight 93.

Obviously nothing impacted the ground outside that small crater, unless u got some looney conspiracy theory on how airplane wings 'atomize' .lol koo koo

[edit on 24-2-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Ok. No one has every convinced anyone that a fully fueled massive Boeing 757 with 50+ passengers crashed in this tiny hole.



To say that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville is really the most unbelievable conspiracy theory of 911. There is no proof the a Beoing 757 crashed in Shanksville on 9/11 and the evidence actually contradicts the official story.

Looks like a cruise missile hit.

The official version's and debunker's 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.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

Where the photographer is standing is where the wind and engine was said to penetrate the ground and started a raging fire. As you can see that no BOEING 747 CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE ON 911. No Flight 93.

Obviously nothing impacted the ground outside that small crater, unless u got some looney conspiracy theory on how airplane wings 'atomize' .lol koo koo

[edit on 24-2-2008 by IvanZana]
Looks exactly like a 600 mph impact where the bodies and metal are all packed into a tiny area. Gee, all the DNA was there. Proof 93 hit right there in the photo. The DNA was from the passengers on 93 found in the hole, makes it 93. The aircraft parts are all from 93, makes it 93. The FDR shows flight 93 crashed right there; even confirms the upside down witnesses. The only thing against 93 crashing in PA is hearsay fantasy statements from some people who have not provided evidence able to support their ideas.

When you study high speed impacts you can clearly see 93 was exactly how an impact at 600 mph looks. There are many USAF accidents which can show the same. Research will prove it.

What the conspiracy side needs to show is a high speed impact that does not look like 93 instead of talking about it. I was an USAF accident investigator and board president, so far not a thing shows it was not 93. At 600 mph the wings would be smashed an blown apart by impact. A good analogy is the F-4 impact test.



E=1/2MVV - energy is equal to one half mass time velocity squared. Physics prove the conspiracy ideas about the photos wrong; but physics is so boring~!
Yet the KE of the F-4 per pound at 480 mph is less than the impact KE per pound of Flight 93 at 600 mph; 50 percent less. So Flight 93 has more KE when it impact and the parts are more damaged than the F-4 and 8 to 24 times more KE than most typical aircraft accidents. Just take physics to understand why the parts are smashed up beyond recognition except for a few things ejected during impact.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Where the photographer is standing is where the wind and engine was said to penetrate the ground and started a raging fire. As you can see that no BOEING 747 CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE ON 911. No Flight 93.

Obviously nothing impacted the ground outside that small crater, unless u got some looney conspiracy theory on how airplane wings 'atomize' .lol koo koo




No plane crashed in this hole.

There is no covincing anybody.

There was no plane.

there was no wings.

No plane crashed in Shanksville. That has been proven.


Is there any proof?

I have investigated plane crashes for a very long time and I will tell you from all my years experieince that NO BOEING 757 CRASHED in Shanksville on September 11th,2001.



[edit on 24-2-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Keep in mind that Flight 93 was inverted and came down at a 50 degree or less, angle, on to the down side of a hill which took out a few more degrees. So in conclusion, the alleged flight 93 hit the ground at less than 45 degree angle which should of bounced the 'plane' into the forest which didnt happen.

There is no evidence that shows a plane crash.

What you are seeing is a mock plane crash exercise scene which was one of many mock hijacking and crash exercises running on september 11th 2001.



[edit on 24-2-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana


Where the photographer is standing is where the wind and engine was said to penetrate the ground and started a raging fire. As you can see that no BOEING 747 CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE ON 911. No Flight 93.

Obviously nothing impacted the ground outside that small crater, unless u got some looney conspiracy theory on how airplane wings 'atomize' .lol koo koo

No plane crashed in this hole.
There is no covincing anybody.
There was no plane.
there was no wings.
No plane crashed in Shanksville. That has been proven.
Is there any proof?
I have investigated plane crashes for a very long time and I will tell you from all my years experieince that NO BOEING 757 CRASHED in Shanksville on September 11th,2001.
[edit on 24-2-2008 by IvanZana]
Yes, 93 crashed in the hole, even the DNA proves it. The FDR proves it. Aircraft parts prove it.
The wings are all smashed up, so there are wing parts.
No proof of the conspiracy claim of no plane at Shanksville. Zero conspiracy evidence.

I have investigated real aircraft impacts as a USAF trained investigator (35 years flying, 33 years large jets) , and I have owned the crash scene; I have experienced first hand impacts, and 93's impact looks exactly how it should. Even the U-2 accident at slow speed had major damage to the wings which exploded at 120 mph into the ground destroying the wings! I was the investigator! Only hearsay and made up ideas about 93 are on the side of conspiracies on 93.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
Keep in mind that Flight 93 was inverted and came down at a 50 degree or less, angle, on to the down side of a hill which took out a few more degrees. So in conclusion, the alleged flight 93 hit the ground at less than 45 degree angle which should of bounced the 'plane' into the forest which didnt happen.

There is no evidence that shows a plane crash.

What you are seeing is a mock plane crash exercise scene which was one of many mock hijacking and crash exercises running on september 11th 2001.

[edit on 24-2-2008 by IvanZana]

No it does not bounce! It is not a ball of rubber. It is metal that does like a car would at 600 mph! Who said it would bounce? Got physics? Please ask a physics teacher to do the work and show you how the impact looks as it should. We bounce on hard landing because we did not exceed the landing gear limit. But it would be neat if things at 600 mph bounced, it would end up in Delaware. Gee a 2200 pounds of TNT KE event bounce! That would be fantastic.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut

Originally posted by IvanZana


Where the photographer is standing is where the wind and engine was said to penetrate the ground and started a raging fire. As you can see that no BOEING 747 CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE ON 911. No Flight 93.

Yes, 93 crashed in the hole, even the DNA proves it. The FDR proves it. Aircraft parts prove it.
The wings are all smashed up, so there are wing parts.



Ya and the 911 planes were holograms too!



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Excellent Video Brought to you by some professional pilots who also KNOW that no Boeing 757 Crashed in Shanksville on September 11, 2001



Google Video Link




THe official story claiming a plane crashed in Shanksville is the Conspiracy.



The Flight Data Recorder Contradicts Eye witnesses and Official data. More proof that the evidence pertaining to Flight 93 is faked.



[edit on 24-2-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
FUnny. All this jibber jabber does not change the fact that no plane crashed in Shanksville on Septmber 11.



Remember, no plane crashed in Shanksville.



Wow. I am totally convinced now more than ever that NO Boeing Crashed in Shanksville, on Spetmeber 11th,2001.

Originally posted by IvanZana



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.





This presentation has yet to be debunked.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Presentation debunked by a USAF aircraft accident investigator; only hearsay in that presentation playing on the lack of knowledge of others. All of it is hearsay and made up. If you stand it up against evidence it falls as quickly as it was made up.

The witnesses confirm the FDR, as does the FDR the witnesses. Sorry, but I have seen the testimony and the FDR evidence. But then the DNA blows the presentation out of the water!




top topics



 
24
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join