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: 93
24
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
You are all intelligent beings, don't let anyone convince you that your not (or that a plane crashed in Shanksville)


This picture was taken shortly after Flight 93 was reported as "crashed"

, I don't understand how you expect to change the above picture which clearly shows without a doubt that FLIGHT 93 DID NOT CRASH IN SHANKSVILLE on September 11th, 2001, with 6 year old contradiciting reports.

A silent applause to the 2 or 3 debunkers on this thread.

Futile but persitant. hats off.

They'll come around.
Cheers







[edit on 9-4-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 9-4-2008 by IvanZana]




posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
You are all intelligent beings, don't let anyone convince you that your not (or that a plane crashed in Shanksville)


This picture was taken shortly after Flight 93 was reported as "crashed"

, I don't understand how you expect to change the above picture which clearly shows without a doubt that FLIGHT 93 DID NOT CRASH IN SHANKSVILLE on September 11th, 2001, with 6 year old contradiciting reports.

A silent applause to the 2 or 3 debunkers on this thread.

Futile but persitant. hats off.

They'll come around.
Cheers

[edit on 9-4-2008 by IvanZana]
[edit on 9-4-2008 by IvanZana]

How does anyone will come around who is knowledgeable on accident investigation? Seeing your photo of a high speed aircraft impact is funny when you say it is not. Backed with DNA and the FDR proving it was 93, which have never been proven wrong (you just keep saying it does not make it so). Your work is cut out for you if you want to earn a Pulitzer Prize without evidence, after 6 years.

With some luck, 9/11 truth could send some people to aircraft accident investigation school and see clearly the impact is normal. It is cool to spread doubt, but without evidence it is hearsay not backed with facts.

All the 6 year old contradicting reports, made up by 9/11 truth factions, are not evidence, not been backed by facts. If only 9/11 truth had a solid story backed with facts, or reality. Showing the impact of a high speed jet airliner in PA and saying it did not crash, just by waving your hands, presenting your opinion based on fact less reports, only fools those who want to propagate the fantasy story you propose.

With some money you could train a bunch of 9/11 truth members in aircraft accident investigation. A call to action. But it would only result in them finding out your statement with that photo is false. When are you sending some people; I am sure p4t, lc, or Jones, or Gage will send some money and train up your own cadre of experts. What is stopping your own independent study of 9/11? Hearsay does not hack it.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 



The heroes on Flight 93, they are a smoking gun for the ability of people to figure out 9/11 in minutes, compared to people who are unable to figure out 9/11 given 6 years. The passengers on Flight 93 figured out 9/11 in minutes and took ACTION, yet many people try to float hearsay and false information on 9/11 and Flight 93, can not find a single fact or present rational evidence to support their ideas given 6 years. Why is that?


If you go back in this thread, there is a video somwhere of a reporter who "figured out" what had happened, all to quickly. Depite the fact that the the story had not yet been released, a reporter on the scene in Shanksville miraculously predicted that there had been a struggle onboard Flight 93.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


From the first second we heard that Flight 93 had hit the ground, my coworkers and I figured either the pilots had still been at the controls and put it in the ground or the passengers had done something.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



From the first second we heard that Flight 93 had hit the ground, my coworkers and I figured either the pilots had still been at the controls and put it in the ground or the passengers had done something.


So did I. But the reporter was a bit too specific first of all, and second of all he should have known better than to be reporting his own hunches on national television that day. Lastly, this hunch that everyone had, made it all the more easy to confirm a false story as truth.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Dbl post


[edit on 11-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by beachnut
 



The heroes on Flight 93, they are a smoking gun for the ability of people to figure out 9/11 in minutes, compared to people who are unable to figure out 9/11 given 6 years. The passengers on Flight 93 figured out 9/11 in minutes and took ACTION, yet many people try to float hearsay and false information on 9/11 and Flight 93, can not find a single fact or present rational evidence to support their ideas given 6 years. Why is that?


If you go back in this thread, there is a video somwhere of a reporter who "figured out" what had happened, all to quickly. Depite the fact that the the story had not yet been released, a reporter on the scene in Shanksville miraculously predicted that there had been a struggle onboard Flight 93.


OMG, it was the next day! The guy is who; he is an investigator who probably has heard from family members through the thousands of FBI people working the case since the day before. I wish I had thousand of helpers on my accident investigations.
"Acres of wreckage", oops evidence of an aircraft crash. Darn. Foiled by video and the news. Oops someone saw the plane, he is on video.

The impact hole is hard evidence 9/11 truth has been posting all along. Proof of aircraft impact in PA; why show proof they say there was no plane impact; hope 9/11 truth does not use this video, a witness saw the plane hit.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   



Notice even in the youtube screen grab shows no plane. In the video that was the most common thing saod" There was no plane, there is no plane, plane? no plane"

[edit on 11-4-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 11-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 

You keep showing proof of 93's impact crater. Why? That is what an aircraft crash looks like at over 500 KIAS. It would be better to get graduates of aircraft accident investigation school who have studied high speed impacts to see the evidence of the impact and tell you what they think.

One of them says you are wrong, that is 93's impact ,that is how it looks. If you wish to say it is not 93, you do so with zero evidence to show it is not typical of a high speed impact.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


That darn NWO sent out the script too damn early to the media outlets. Someone will be demoted for this one!!



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 



The guy is who; he is an investigator who probably has heard from family members through the thousands of FBI people working the case since the day before.


Um, no. That's John Murtha. Who better to start the "spin" cycle than US Representive from Pennsylvania, before any evidence of a struggle came to light. Keep in mind, the black box that supposedly proves there was a struggle, had not yet even been found.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 



Someone will be demoted for this one!!


Well, he did fail to secure the position as House majority leader.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Haven't seen this article on ATS yet so linking it here, seems the most appropriate thread .

The US Air Force Shot Down Flight 93

"I am an Air Force veteran. I was serving at Langley AFB, Virginia on Sept. 11. (not to be confused with CIA headquarters at Langley, VA). The "Alert Squadron" of 4 F-16 Falcons also stationed at Langley AFB was scrambled AFTER the "plane" crashed into the Pentagon. Because of my position as a ground equipment mechanic, I had access to the flightline operations that day.....

....They shot one down." JJ replied "WHAT?" Loader:"One of those 16's came back with one less missile than it left with" That was all. As they pulled back in to the squadron area, The loader was whisked away by his commanders for debriefing. I didn't see him for a few days, but when I did, he said he couldn't talk about it, but he confirmed that what my roommate had told me was true.




georgewashington.blogspot.com...



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil
 


If that is the truth, the government should have come out with it. That those people all died as heros, and yet the Air Force was not incompetant. But of course, the families of our own troops get fed some BS hero story when they get killed too, even when the real story is better than the crap they come up with.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Looks like my thread has caused many people to understand that no Boeing crashed in Shanksville on 911.

Now since they cant debunk the truth, expect a whole new phase pf disinformation concerning a shootdown theory started by government disinformationalists to make 911 truthers look foolish


the shoot down theory was started by LETSROLL911 the same people who brought missile pods and holograms to obsefucate and derail you from the perps and the truth.


I SAY AGAIN... The shootdown theory is a STRAWMAN theory started by government entities.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I'd like to add my 2 cents worth regarding this thread. From what I understand, the impact crater from this flight would suggest a descent of about 90 degrees but the black box states otherwise. (35 degrees). And apparently there is no substantial wreckage found, or at least visible in the photos and reported by numerous news reports. Then I find this! I do not see it mentioned on this site anywhere so I hope this hasn't been already brought up.

aviation-safety.net...

This link posts the NTSB reports and findings on Korean Flight 801 which for those of you who don't know or remember was the worst airline accident to date involving a 747 back in 1997. If you view this page, you can clearly see through an animation video that shows the progress of the plane as it descends to its fate which is comprised from the flight data recorder. This plane although a bit larger than flight 93 descends at an angle of about 44 degrees, give or take a few, and there is clear evidence of wreckage left at the sight.

So why do you have 2 accidents, both very relative to the angle of descent and only 1 of them (Flight 801) show evidence of an actual crash??
I think this is some pretty significant evidence showing that Flight 93 couldn't have crashed in PA. WHat do you all think?



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cromagnum
I'd like to add my 2 cents worth regarding this thread. From what I understand, the impact crater from this flight would suggest a descent of about 90 degrees but the black box states otherwise. (35 degrees). And apparently there is no substantial wreckage found, or at least visible in the photos and reported by numerous news reports. Then I find this! I do not see it mentioned on this site anywhere so I hope this hasn't been already brought up.


Where did you get your information from in regards to the crater and the 90 degree descent?

This is not what any reports that I have read show.





posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
This little crater is 10 feet by 30 feet.

Oh captain obvious..... Youve been schooled in this thread. Your attempts to prove a plane crashed is laughable at best





There is no plane in this hole.

The Shanksville crash site was part of the 911 wargames. Shankville was the site of the operation which involved in a simulated shoot down , crash and recovery. The crash site was caused by some ordinace in a already present fissure in the soft dirt. Very consistant with simulated mock plane crash drills.

So no one has been able to prove a Boeing 757 in shanksville (flight 93) because one didnt.

Sorry but your debunking has not convinced anyone.


Debunkers say that the plane "atomized"

I say, get a new job.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Cromagnum
 


Flight 801 was NOT at a 44 degree angle TO THE GROUND at impact. It was an example of controlled flight into terrain. The pilots had it under control the entire time, and simply weren't able to see that they were off course, and there was a hill ahead of them and flew into it. If they were at 44 degrees to the ground there is NO WAY the wreckage could have been laid out the way it was.

As for being the "worst 747 accident to date in 2007".....huh? Your source clearly states that it was the 9th worst 747 accident. Tenerife was BY FAR the worst 747 accident ever.

www.ntsb.gov...

That's the full accident report from the NTSB.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Cromagnum
 


Cromagnum, not sure how or why you see an 'impact angle' of 44 degrees in the KAL 801 accident, in Guam....it is JUST NOT TRUE!

STOP IT! Stop making stuff up!

They were flying the Instrument Approach but the ILS was inop, so they used a VOR/DME approach....the course aligned with the Runway, same as the ILS, but the confusion came about because the VOR and its associated DME is not located on the airport, it is on the hill a few miles from the airport. They descended too early, and hit the hill. Why? Because the ASSUMED the DME info was related to the runway, and not to the VOR/DME they were navigating by, and this is likely due to confusion with 'raw' data compared to the 'computed' data that is presented in modern cockpits.

This confusion was exascerbated by the Asian culture of deference to the Captain, not only in Asian cultures...but also a long tradition of sea-going vessels as well.

In modern US carriers, this concept of 'the Captain is always right' has been replaced by the 'crew concept'. It's not a democracy, but it still requires agreement between both (all) crewmembers, or else it is not going to happen. ANY doubt, and safety prevails immediately.

There's an old joke: "Rule #1 -- The Captain is always right."

"Rule #2 -- If the Captain is wrong, see Rule # 1"

This was, sometimes, a reason for many, many accidents in the past. Notice how many fewer (oxymoron?) accidents in the last several years? Because we are applying these techniques, even as the number and frequency (another oxymoron?) increase.

Humans are fallible, of course....and the system is designed to make the procedures more fool-proof. AND, this is because there was a determined effort to point out, to pilots, that their 'machismo' did not depend on their ability to be a 'rocket jockey'....it depended on their ability to keep it safe, slow it down, and follow the rules, rather than 'hot-dogging'...

WW


BTW, I have flown that approach...

The KAL801 is what is commonly referred to as a 'CFIT' accident....'controlled flight into terrain'...

It was not a hard-over 'flown into the ground by suicidal Muslims' accident!!!



[edit on 4/13/0808 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 4/13/0808 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 4/13/0808 by weedwhacker]




top topics



 
24
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join