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: 95
24
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I am so glad everyone gets to see this response..this is how evidence is refuted.



Originally posted by IvanZana

There is no proof of any flesh being found in the small missile crater.

Besides "600 lbs" is equivelent to 3 men, so wheres the other 50 or more people?
Where the other 9000-10000 lbs of human flesh?


Yes there is proof. I showed you a statement by the local coroner who was responsible for the collection, examination, and identification of the remians. If you think his statement is false, Would you consider calling him to ask him for yourself? OH... thats right... he is part of the massive cover up!!



Originally posted by IvanZana

Conlusion to your fraudulant evidence is just that, FRAUDULANT.

The evidence provided for the Shanksville crater site has been proven fake and simulated.


Um... is this where you thumb your nose at me? It's fraudulent because why? You say so?


Originally posted by IvanZana

All the evidence prooves that no plane was found in the hole. THe evidence that supports a a plane crash was released in 2005-6. Plenty of time to fabricate evidence.


Actually the evidence I provided was released in 2001 and 2002 at the conclusion of the investigation.


Originally posted by IvanZana Ever hear of a 911 cover up? Quite easy to do when you are the investigating force.

Pwned.


Have I heard of a cover up. Yes. Have you provided ANY proof in 93 pages. NO.

"Pwned?" Well thats just clever!

Ivan, re-read your post and please show me where you have proven that the remains were fraudulent.

then please address the witness statements that I posted as well and explain to me how those are fraudulent.

Sorry Ivan, your "spam" tactics are no longer working.




posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox



Ultima..all your research, and you have YET to provide us to what you think happened.



DisinformationRule14: Demand complete solutions
DisinformationRule19: Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs


Way ta go Captain.


Stick with the sinking ship.

[edit on 4/15/0808 by jackinthebox]


First of all J -box .... If you would like to accuse me of a post. Find it and quote it properly. I can assure you it was not me.

Now, please re-read my question to Ultima, THEN re-read your cute little dis-info quotes.

My question to Ultima was what does he "THINK". I was not demanding completes solutions, nor was I demanding ANY proof.


Instead of derailing this thread JBox, would you care to address any of the evidence that I have posted?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I would respectively invite those interested in what airline crash sites look like to check out AirDisasters(dot)com.

As I (ahem) mentioned before, a sad accident occured in PA, outside Pittsburgh...UASair 427.

This airplane rolled over, while just a few thousand feet above the ground, and while traveling at about 190 KIAS.

Certainly, in the descent to impact, there would have been a slight increase in speed, but nothing at all like UAL 93. It is interesting to note the teeny, tiny amount of debris from this relatively low-speed impact, into soft ground...and compare to UAL 93.

OK, discuss.

WW



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
Pwned.

Repeat the next threee lines.
Flight 93 DID NOT CRASH IN SHANKSVILLE
Flight 93 DID NOT CRASH IN SHANKSVILLE
Flight 93 DID NOT CRASH IN SHANKSVILLE.

That makes sense, you encourage just saying it until the hearsay becomes what you believe. Opinions based on hearsay, failing to measure up to fact and evidence.

Repeating cult like slogans, or some mantra of 9/11 truth, does not make hearsay magically become the truth.

High speed impacts look like what 93 did. These are photos of two high speed impacts.



high speed impacts, they look like Flight 93's
knowledge not hearsay, fact not fiction; got that Pulitzer Prize yet?



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Ya guys I agree too that there is no plane in the shanksville crash Drill site on September 11th,2001.

All the evidence prooves that no Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville on September 11th,2001






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


No rational mind can agree a plane crashed here.


No plane crash here.



There is dry grass growing out of the 10 foot by 30 foot hole. The "wing" marks were present prior to 9/11. Its a weatherd indentation due to soft backfill and good 'ole pennsylvania rain.

No plane crash guys, your agenda of covering up facts with fantastic Stupid theories on how Boeings "Vapourize" is laughable at best. really.

And the black and white pictures just insults us ATS users.

And to Weedwhacker, CaptainOBvious, and the Beachnut... Nobody is listnening to your crap. It gives people a headache..... your evidence to support a plane crash is really stupid... no offense... mabey we have a better intellectual capability to handle truth then you 3 amigos.

I know a place that can really use your skills
Debunkers Future



[edit on 16-4-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 16-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   
I'd still like someone to tell me where all the fuel went. Nice dry, unscorched field grass. A single puff of gray smoke in a big blue sky. Oh, that's right, it "atomized" just like at the WTC and the Pentagon.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


jack, you know as well as all of us....UAL93 had a lot of fuel onboard....but there was no ignitiion source, as it went right in.

Same with USAir 427, near Pittsburgh. Where was the fire there? None. Why? Because dirt doesn't burn.

Paper and carpet and office desks and furniture and drywall can burn. Dirt doesn't burn.

A few blades of grass in the first few inches of soil? Even if dry, won't cause a noticable blaze. We aren't talking about a desicated forest here, are we??

WW



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


jack, you know as well as all of us....UAL93 had a lot of fuel onboard....but there was no ignitiion source, as it went right in.

Same with USAir 427, near Pittsburgh. Where was the fire there? None. Why? Because dirt doesn't burn.

Paper and carpet and office desks and furniture and drywall can burn. Dirt doesn't burn.

A few blades of grass in the first few inches of soil? Even if dry, won't cause a noticable blaze. We aren't talking about a desicated forest here, are we??

WW






BAAA BHHHHHAA BHAAAAHAAHAH HAHAH


your not serious are you?

You lost all my respect.

Dont erase or change your post like captain obvious does, be back soon.lol



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

No rational mind can agree a plane crashed here.
No plane crash here.
And the black and white pictures just insults us ATS users.
I know a place that can really use your skills
Debunkers Future
Sorry, the photos are black and white, they are from my course in aircraft accident investigation. Something you are making fun of, but if you had taken some action to gain knowledge you would understand the photos are high speed impacts similar to flight 93. I spent 6 hours digging through papers and books to find the impacts of hight speed, high angle impacts like 93's. Only to post them, so you can tell me to go work flipping burgers; thank you very much.

As you joke about what job I should have, and post hearsay, no evidence and continually show the first grave site of the Passengers of Flight 93. I remember hearing the pilots fighting for their lives on the radio. Flight 93 impact is the same as my photos. It takes experience and knowledge to see that. I am not sure why you waste time insulting posters who have taken the time to help you. Having been at fatal aircraft accident moments after the impacts, I have witnessed first hand how deep parts are buried due to kinetic energy. I have tried to share this with you, you just want to chant your no it isn't mantra and post the photo to mock the dead. Is that a new technique to discredit real evidence?

This photo you post has all the passengers dead in the hole. When you hit the ground at the angle they did, the plane crushes into the ground with the passengers. Maybe it is hard for pope to think of people going 600 mph into the ground, over 700 feet a second, the time it takes to type two letters.. Your body and the aircraft just one mass in the ground. The photo which shows the first grave of the Flight 93 passengers, the first people who figured out 9/11 , the first people to take action, while you still have not in 6 years. In minutes they figured out 9/11, the passenger of Flight 93 figured it out in minutes and all you do is make fun of them by not gaining knowledge on 9/11, and posting their first grave. Then you deny their remains were dug out of the twisted metal and earth. All you do is lol and post their first grave site, and say it is not them. You offer no real evidence, you make fun of others, and do not even discuss the evidence offered.

I posted pictures, black and white, of two aircraft buried with the bodies and the aircraft confined to a small space due to impact energy. I guess you can't call it a body when it impacts at 600 mph. The impacts of these jets, and flight 93 are typical of high speed and the angle of impact of 93. The photos show you that 93's impact is typical. But you decide not to present evidence, just lol and tell me where I should work; how does that support your story?

Sorry again for the photos, I did not know you wanted to keep passing a false story, and false information along to others. I guess you are not after the truth, you are just after misleading others? What is your purpose?

[edit on 16-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


jack, you know as well as all of us....UAL93 had a lot of fuel onboard....but there was no ignitiion source, as it went right in.

Same with USAir 427, near Pittsburgh. Where was the fire there? None. Why? Because dirt doesn't burn.

Paper and carpet and office desks and furniture and drywall can burn. Dirt doesn't burn.

A few blades of grass in the first few inches of soil? Even if dry, won't cause a noticable blaze. We aren't talking about a desicated forest here, are we??

WW






BAAA BHHHHHAA BHAAAAHAAHAH HAHAH


your not serious are you?

You lost all my respect.

Dont erase or change your post like captain obvious does, be back soon.lol


Ivan, instead of mocking, then show us a similar incident....best I could find was USAir 427, show me the fire from that accident.

No, instead, you mock. When your rug gets pulled out from under you, you resort to deflections, you change the subject, or you attack a poster, thus diverting attention.

Well, our attention is directed at you, like laser beams. I hope all who come along, and read through these threads, will see the game for what it is.


I've decided, after months of analysis, to call IvanZana a 'disinfo agent'.

'disinfo' in the sense that....this user wishes to perpetuate a theory, thouroughly debunked after nearly seven years, but there is a hidden agenda. MONEY!

These are the ones who are first to cry 'DISINFO'....over and over again.

I think it is a scheme, a heinous scheme, to continue to distract and confuse, in order to sell books about non-existent 'conspiracies'...

AND, that is the conspiracy, Ladies and Gentlemen!!

WW



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Here is a photo, showing the trees burnt from the fireball. The fireball burned the trees in the direction of impact. Ejected object, classic high speed impact.
The photo post shows the damage from the fireball in the trees. And the impact hole showing engine impact, and wings digging dirt as they hit in a roll.
Trees scorched by fire ball.

The woods are clearly scorched by the fuel fire ball from ejected fuel at impact, burned in the air in the direction of the woods due to momentum. The fire ball scorched the trees.
93 impact area, looks sparse on grass. Darn, those long lens mess up perspective.

Dirt does not burn (who beat me to that?). People here are posting a telephoto picture and try to make up stories that grass should be burning all over. Even after the fire department, who are in the telephoto picture? Compression of grass in a photo, does not make it closer in real life. Seems some grass did burn, and you can see scorched earth here. People will present false information, all you have to do is research their own sources to get the whole story.

The passenger on Flight 93 figured out 9/11 in minutes, do not be fooled by people who have had 6 years and still fail to provide evidence to support their talk and false conclusions.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


beachnut, you are referrencing which crash? USAir 427, or UAL93?

It is important, as you know, because there is avery vocal, very observant audience out there, and it's important to get all your ducks in the same row...

WW



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
Here is a photo, showing the trees burnt from the fireball. The fireball burned the trees in the direction of impact Trees scorched by fire ball.


Again you are wrong. Stop posting edited fake pictures.

The plane wasnt heading towards the trees and the trees are not burnt.



As you can see, no fire burned any of these trees. The damage in consistant to a high velocity explosion. One of the signs is all the broken branches of the trees.

No Boeing 757 crashed in Someset county/ Shanksville Pennsylvania on September 11th,2001. Your not making any headway with anyone.

[edit on 16-4-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 16-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   


There is no proof of a boeing 757 crashing.




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.


As far as tha fake crash site. Crash exercises are common.




Participants take part in a disaster drill for a staged plane crash at Ivalo airport in Finnish Lapland October 20, 2007. The joint exercise with participants from Britain, Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden simulates a crash of a British charter flight to test emergency measures in the Barents region, local media reported.
Source

Looks like something like a military ordinnance (bomb/missile) created the crater after hitting the already present fissure/scar.

This next picture is of one of many natural "wing scars" that can be found within a couple of km's from the Shanksville missile crater.


This next scar is only meters away from the crater.



So you see. THe wing scars were present pre 9/11 which concluded that no Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville on 911.



Incase you didnt see the video



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 

You posted the photo, I zoomed in, the forest was scorched by the fireball, that is the direction some of the mass of 93 was headed. Things get ejected, the fireball burned the forest, you should get the hi-res shot before you shoot yourself in the foot.

Here you post it, then you say the zoom shot of the woods is fake. Right.

Originally posted by IvanZana

You posted this shot, with the scorched trees. Lucky it was not in CA, there would be a major fire, just a spark. Why do you post photos that prove your assertions wrong?



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
do you think we are naive?



As you can see, not one tree burned let alone any grass. There was no plane that crashed in Shanksville on 911. The crash site was part of the 911 wargame exercises/drills taking place that day, simulating multiple hijacked aircraft, some were simulated shootdowns, others were simulated crashes into the World trade center and Pentagon they were turned live and used as a cover to achieve the terrorist attack.


Congratulations. You officially destroyed the official account for anyone trying to understand Shanksville/ Flight 93 by trying so manically to uphold it.

Your 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. You invent theories on how a Boeing 757 and all its fuel 'Atomized' and"de-materialized" on impact without burning any surrounding grass around the small 10x30ft hole, when there has been not one shred of evidence from the crash investigation to support it, and in fact, actual photos of the crash site disprove you.



[edit on 16-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut

Dirt does not burn (who beat me to that?). People here are posting a telephoto picture and try to make up stories that grass should be burning all over.



Oh dear Beachnut, I see you are new user here at ATS. Your so full of crap, and your theories are so dumb, no offense.


" Plane crashes dont burn " Fuel atomizes" "grass and dirt doesnt burn" Those are beachnuts theories.



As you can see fuel burns and so does snow.

Congratulations. You officially destroyed the official account for anyone trying to understand Shanksville/ Flight 93 by trying so manically to uphold it.

Your 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. You invent theories on how a Boeing 757 and all its fuel 'Atomized' and"de-materialized" on impact without burning any surrounding grass around the small 10x30ft hole, when there has been not one shred of evidence from the crash investigation to support it, and in fact, actual photos of the crash site disprove you.




[edit on 16-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

Ya, Look at those trees, all burnt and stuff.... NOT.

I have seem military ordinances go off. Perfect match.


Sorry, you posted the scorched trees again from the fire ball, it matches exactly for the conditions. Did you go to aircraft accident investigation school yet, you would get this right if you had.

The damage to the trees is from object ejected at impact, it is classic aircraft impact stuff. Do you want to borrow my book? I have no idea why you post a photo showing the scorched trees and damage from aircraft debris. The stuff was found int the forest that ripped through the tress in the 600 mph impact.

If others want I will post photos of trees hit by aircraft debris, it looks just like what you posted, making your claim of no 93, false, and showing the impact grave of the passengers of Flight 93 who figured 9/11 out in minutes is ironic as you go on your 7th year of misinformation. Your post is misinformation, and aircraft accident investigation, proves it. Knowledge rules unless you refuse to use it due to bias.

There are people who lack knowledge on aircraft impacts, only thousands of people in the world have gone to aircraft accident investigation courses, and 93 is unusually due to the high speed impact into the ground. Most high speed impact into the ground are in the military. Most people see slow speed accidents, and do not have a feel for high speed impacts. The energy of normal crash is 18 to 187 pounds of TNT kinetic energy. On 9/11 the impact energies were over 1000 pounds of TNT, and this is why the planes did great damage, and buried the passengers of 93 into the ground. Ejection of material is common, can as you can see it cut trees, and the fireball, scorched the trees. A few people who lack knowledge on these topics will fall for the hearsay from 9/11 truth and unproven statements not supported with evidence or reason. This is the 7th year of false information and no evidence from 9/11 truth, enough time to gain knowledge, but it has not happened. So the posting of scorched trees and saying there was no fireball from 93 is ironic as they photo disproves the assertion. Showing tree cut by debris ejected at impact is faulty logic as you prove the damage patter and cuts came from the ejected debris in the very photo. Then to make up the size of the impact crater see to be exactly 124 feet wide wing impact pattern. There is not a thing strange about 93's impact, and 9/11 truth has failed to grasp that fact for 6 years. No real evidence, and entering the 7th year of hearsay.

[edit on 16-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut

Dirt does not burn (who beat me to that?). People here are posting a telephoto picture and try to make up stories that grass should be burning all over.



Oh dear Beachnut, I see you are new user here at ATS. Your so full of crap, and your theories are so dumb, no offense.


" Plane crashes dont burn " Fuel atomizes" "grass and dirt doesnt burn" Those are beachnuts theories.



As you can see fuel burns and so does snow.

Congratulations. You officially destroyed the official account for anyone trying to understand Shanksville/ Flight 93 by trying so manically to uphold it.

Your 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. You invent theories on how a Boeing 757 and all its fuel 'Atomized' and"de-materialized" on impact without burning any surrounding grass around the small 10x30ft hole, when there has been not one shred of evidence from the crash investigation to support it, and in fact, actual photos of the crash site disprove you.


dbl post



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Ok, page 95, simple question:

How did that plane, while crashing and making that silly little hole, manage to spew debris over an 8-mile radius?

Have at it!



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join