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: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   


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.



So you're theory is that when something crashes on 9/11, unlike every other fuel driven vehicle in all of mankind, the fuel sort of "poof" turns into a cloud without any ignition event?

Really?


I agree the blast would travel in the direction the plane was traveling. But when you compare the blast radius to the damaged trees you will find them to be an impossibility.


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


OH!!!! You're one of those "soft soil" swallowed a 757 people who then explains away questions like "So what happened to the tail section? Why is there nothing visually recognizable as a plane?" with because the ground was so hard that is shattered the plane into millions of tiny little pieces.......

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.




posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   


or land a plane full of people at an NASA base and then execute them seems unlikely


Except we know that the plane that parked at the NASA facility was a NASA KC-135.



Vernon "Bill" Wessel is the director of safety and mission assurance at NASA Glenn. He was in his office the morning of 9/11 when an employee called him from home. "He says, "Bill, I don't know if this is a hoax or what, but I just saw a plane crash into the World Trade Center.'" Wessel says he hung up and raced downstairs to a conference room. Center Director Don Campbell joined him. A projector beamed the television's image onto a large screen just as United Airlines flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. An emergency meeting of directors was called, and an order to evacuate NASA was issued. When Wessel learned that Delta 1989 was stuck on the tarmac at Hopkins and that it might contain explosives, he decided it would be unwise to use the front gate, closest to the airport, to evacuate the 3,500 NASA Glenn employees under his watch. E-mails and phone calls were sent out to different departments at the research facility, informing everyone to leave via the back gate. "It took about an hour and a half to evacuate everybody," Wessel recalls.




So what about the so-called Flight X?




"A KC-135 had to come back to the hangar," says Wessel, as if realizing for the first time that this aircraft may have caused some undue confusion. A team of scientists from the Johnson Space Center in Houston had flown to Cleveland on this KC-135 to conduct micro-gravity experiments.


www.freetimes.com...

For IvanZana...



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


Which part of the tail would you like to discuss? Because as your post says, the flight recorder was about 20 feet underground....and where is the flight recorder mounted...in the tail. As for the rest, as has been pointed out the skin of the wings is just aluminum...and there are plenty of pieces of shredded aluminum in the hole, around the hole, in the trees, in the front yard of the cabin near the crash site...



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?




"Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company Assistant Fire Chief Rick King and three firefighters were the first responders on the scene with an engine and a tanker. Shanksville Fire Chief Terry Shaffer also responded from 10 minutes away. While enroute to the scene, there was a concern for the potential of large numbers of casualties. Chief Shaffer requested additional ambulances and EMS units dispatched to the scene. Two ambulances from outside the county were also alerted but were placed in service while responding. Upon arrival, firefighters found small pieces of the plane, spot fires, and a large quantity of fuel scattered across a wide debris field.

www.nvfc.org...

So appearantly there was fuel.....



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.


Not sure about the suitcases but...



So far workers have recovered some human remains, pieces of plane seats and seat belts and a few personal items, including checkbooks, clothing and a singed Bible, but investigators said they haven't found anything larger than an ordinary briefcase or telephone book.

www.redcross.org...


And I know this is a repost from earlier...but some people appearantly didnt read it....



STONYCREEK, Pa. -- The FBI said yesterday that it has finished its work at the crash scene of United Flight 93 after recovering about 95 percent of the downed airliner and concluding that explosives were not responsible for bringing it down





Pointless to argue how rusty things looks, but one thing that cant be proven is a plane crash in shanksville on 911.


And the gentleman who lives close enough to the crash site that pieces of the plane ended up in his front yard....the man who watched as that jet slammed into the earth? The parts...the human remains (identified)...the personal effects....

I mean you have a witness, and you have physical evidence.....what ELSE would it take to convince you? A trip in Mr. Peabody's Way Back machine?




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!!


Well since you dont believe the fdr reports appearantly, go talk to United Airlines, since they have custody of the wreckage and they acknowledge it was their plane.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I didn't see any fuel on the ground in any photo of the scene.

If all the fuel and debris flew forward into the woods, how did the wings supposedly make those two grooves next to the crater?

How much force does it take to explode a human body into fragments no larger then a phonebook, taking into account the breaking of the impact by the shell of the aircraft around them and the safety measures built into the seats they were sitting in?



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 05:10 AM
link   


So you're theory is that when something crashes on 9/11, unlike every other fuel driven vehicle in all of mankind, the fuel sort of "poof" turns into a cloud without any ignition event?


Aircraft fuel tanks are little more than large metal balloons - hitting at over
500mph the tanks would rupture at impact. The fuel would be atomized
into an aeresol by the high speed. You want an ignition source ? How
about 2 enormous jet engines full of red hot metal fragments flying
around as they disintergrate from the impact.

As for the aircraft structure - the impact into even soft ground would
rip it into small fragments . Seen this up close at aircraft crash scene
in my town - Lear 35. Largest piece was that of tail fin about 2 x 3 ft
rest of plane was scattered metallic "confetti" . The fuel onboard
dispersed into aeresol cloud - impressive fireball yet didn't ignite
grass or trees in area, Fire knocked down quickly. Just like that
at Shanskville



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 05:19 AM
link   


How much force does it take to explode a human body into fragments no larger then a phonebook, taking into account the breaking of the impact by the shell of the aircraft around them and the safety measures built into the seats they were sitting in?


Ever been to an accident scene? I suppose you haven't - even crash at
highway speeds (60 mph) will do significant trauma to human body.
I've seen results of jet aircraft crash - hit at estimated 350mph.
We walked the crash scene marking body parts for coroner - all
that was recognizable was part of torso (half of rib cage), hand (minus
the fingers) and several amputated fingers. Rest was scattered piceces
of "human hamburger" . Impact at over 500mph will smash human body
into something equivalent.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   


[edit on 20-12-2007 by dbates]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
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.


liquids do soak into the ground though.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   
www.unitedflight93.com...

Plenty of eye witness reports here.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Where is the warehouse with all the ' 95%' of the plane parts? Hmm? Where are the massive amounts of aluminum and other metal from the plane? Major aircraft do NOT sink into soft dirt and disappear!! Thats insane!! There should be huge sections of tail and fuselage, not itty bitty bits, thank you..and WHERE are the photos of the engines being hauled from the dirt? Nowhere, because they do not exist.

Now people, think hard: If a major jet crashes on earth and not in water or swamp, there is going to be a massive fire from the fuel and parts strewn over a large area: In Penn. there is NONE of this. No luggage. Did the luggage, all of it, just sink also? Not ONE suitcae..not ONE piece of clothing blowing in the wind. The plane weighed over 100 TONS folks..100 tons..and where is all this metal and such? Buried? No way, no how. Impossible.

Here is the gist of the issue: Many people WANT very badly to believe that we are living in a safe and honest nation where the ' leaders ' are decent people and looking to do the right thing for the world and us. The people who will swallow the fairy tales that the govt. spews like bile WANT to feel secure and safe; they want very much to believe that we are not a nation of criminals and murderers and conspirators looking to enrich themselves and their cronies at the expense of the people and their lives and property. They are desperate to defend the official story because to accept the truth, the facts, would put them in a state of fear from which they could not live a normal life.

If the shadow govt. and the black ops guys with the help of the Mossad's black bag guys can pull off an event like this, an obvious inside job, and keep it under wraps as far as the average man on the street is concerned, then they win. The MEDIA is complicit: They KNOW that the story doesn't add up in any way at all, but when you see WHO owns the TV and braodcast stations and networks, it is the same people in bed with the perps, and they will NOT allow the truth to be told. Too dangerous.

A real accident investigator would have called foul on this whole thing long ago but no real investigations were allowed: The FBI is an agency that operates from the top down: If you are told to shut up and tow the official line, you will do so or lose your job. The top of the FBI is complicit in the 9-11 events, so good luck there!! How many FBI agents bitterly complained about the cover up at the highest levels of the bureau before 9-11? They were ignored so the plan could unfold.

The ' highjackers ' were given special visas in Saudi Arabia to enter here, then trained at secure US military bases, and then allowed to become fall guys for the USA and Israel's plan for permenent war and oil riches flowing to the right people. It was a set up from the get go: WHY did they kill the Able Danger testimony? Because it proved an inside job: The evidence is massive: Only a person in deep denial could ignore the obvious and stiull believe the tortured ( pardon the pun ) logic that those who defend the lies always fall back on. Sad, very sad.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Originally posted by albie




Anyone else here find John Lear insulting?



Yes, I do. The guy has a big mouth and what's irritating is that he is usually correct.

While he takes a lot of time to research his posts and clarify his points of view, you just type a sentence and post it taking up bandwith and wasting space with 3, one sentence posts in a row.

I find John Lear not only insulting but sarcastic in the extreme.

Thanks for the post albie, I agree with you.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
What is imporatant is to stay on topic.


[edit on 20-12-2007 by IvanZana]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by John Lear
Are you kidding Boone 870? One engine out of a whole Boeing 757? No tail parts? (The tail is the last section of the airplane to arrive at the scene of the accident. It usually survives because it is going so much slower and so less apt to disintegrate.)



originally posted by Boone 870
No tail parts? Since the plane hit at a 35° dive, nearly inverted, at 560 mph, exactly how much speed do you think the fuselage would have bled off before the tail struck? Enough to leave recognizable pieces of the tail section?
Are all aircraft accidents the same now? I've seen pictures of accidents where the cockpit survived. Should I expect to see an intact cockpit from flight 93?


What do you say John? Are all aircraft accidents the same? Should we expect to see a vertical fin and horizontal stabilizer lying on the ground after a 560 mph impact?



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana




It's impossible to believe where the photographer of this picture is standing is around where the massive wing and engine allegedly " burried itself".

Like i said, vapourization will not be excepted as a rational response


No rational mind can agree a plane crashed here.


No plane crash here.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Originally posted by Boone 870




What do you say John? Are all aircraft accidents the same? Should we expect to see a vertical fin and horizontal stabilizer lying on the ground after a 560 mph impact?



Absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt. As I posted before the vertical/horizontal tail asembly is the last part of the airplane to arrive at the scene of the accident and through telescoping has considerably slowed its airspeed.

That is why flight data recorder and flight voice recorders are placed in the tail because the tail assembly ALWAYS survives the accident.

Thats why professional pilots, when commercialing or dead heading somewhere will always sit towards the read of the airplane. ITs not that they don't trust the pilots, they just know that passengers in the rear tend to survive accidents a percentage more than passengers toward the front.

Thats why I always thought First Class should be in the rear.

Anybody who looks that the picture above this post of the Flight 93 crash area and thinks an airplane crashed there simply doesn't have the necessary educational background of what airplanes are made of and what is left after they crash.

Both United Airlines 585 in Colorado City and USAIR 427 in Pittsburgh were classic straight in nose dives as Flight 93 allegedly was. There was considerable wreckage from both 585 and 427 on the ground.

But the fact is, no Boeing 757 crashe in Shanksville or anywhere else on 911. It was a hoax, a PsyOp. People who allege that bodies of humans and parts of airplanes were recovered are uneducated victims of a magic show.

Thanks for asking.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Boone 870




What do you say John? Are all aircraft accidents the same? Should we expect to see a vertical fin and horizontal stabilizer lying on the ground after a 560 mph impact?

Both United Airlines 585 in Colorado City and USAIR 427 in Pittsburgh were classic straight in nose dives as Flight 93 allegedly was. There was considerable wreckage from both 585 and 427 on the ground.


Here is UA 585

here is ua93



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Looking at the following page about UA 585, it seems it was going a bit slower than UA 93 was.

the altitude decreased rapidly; the indicated airspeed increased to over 200 knots; and the normal acceleration increased to over 4g.


it made a rather similar hole as well in terms of shape, looking at the page I linked.

Now the USAir plane

This is the biggest piece of wreckage, and yes it is rather big, but similarly, how fast was it really going? It had the same failure as did UA 585, and a similar crash at a fairly low speed, since both were attempting to land at the time of the crash.

as for the first class being at the back, personally I think it's best as it is. I mean the if everyone in the back third of a plane survived the crash, more people would live if it's economy class over first class. And since when should richer people deserve to live more? sounds a bit like Titanic era thinking to me.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by apex]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   




No plane crash here. No reasoning and arguing could ever hypnotize the intelligent into believing there was.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   


No plane crash here. No reasoning and arguing could ever hypnotize the intelligent into believing there was


And again, despite eyewitnesses to Flight 93 slamming into the ground, despite the couple hundred people who spent days picking up shards of aluminum, personal effects and human remains from the crash site, despite ALL the physical evidence, you still insist no plane crashed there.....sad......



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Can you provide official documentation of the Lear 35 crash?

Can anyone show another crash scene of any aircraft that hit so hard that the fuel instantly atomized and the structure was desintegrated to pieces smaller than a phone book? Surely there have been other planes that have crashed at 500 mph.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   


Can you provide official documentation of the Lear 35 crash?


Article from New York Times - crashed just down street from me
As member of Fire Department was on scene.

query.nytimes.com...



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join