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.

 

What happened to the people on the flights?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
postmanpatel.blogspot.com...

What about the passengers?

People who argue the No Plane theory like to bring up
the question, "What about the passengers?" Yes, about
20 % show up in Social Security Death Index as having
died on 9/11/01 and WCPO reports a United flight 93
as landing at Cleveland-Hopkins Airport.

ssdi.rootsweb.com... (80% do not show up)

(So instead of 266 deaths to deal with you now only
have fifty to sixty.)

(copy paste)web.archive.org/web/20021109040132/wcpo.com...


[edit on 25-12-2007 by IvanZana]




posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   


There are no discernable parts in any of the flight 93 photos. No engines, no fuselage parts, no landing gear, no tail section. Thats because a plane didn't wreck in pa on 9/11. A plane doesn't disintigrate when it hits the ground.


Like how many crash scenes you been at? When a plane strikes the
ground at a steep angle (nose down) and high rate of speed THERE IS
NOTHING IDENTIFIABLE (except for few odd pieces). Been to crash scene
They was nothing indentifiable except 2x 3 piece of tail and landing
gear light (which hit parked car - try explaining that to your insurance
company). The plane is smashed into small pieces and scattered around
the scene.

Shanksville crash debris

Largest piece recovered - section of fuselage.



Part of jet engine which being constructed of heavy duty materials survived



Most winds up as metallic "confetti"



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
When a plane strikes the
ground at a steep angle (nose down) and high rate of speed THERE IS
NOTHING IDENTIFIABLE (except for few odd pieces).Most winds up as metallic "confetti"


So what happens to the people that were onboard in such a crash? Do they just disintegrate?

I hate to say it this way, but there should be at least chunks of people on the ground and even some entire bodies.

These are then often covered with bright plastic or put in bodybags. But there is nothing like that in any picture.


While this doesn't proove anything, it is somewhat weird.

Add to this the testimony of the woman, who saw a small aircraft or perhaps a missile shortly before it exploded at that site, and it's not hard to understand why a conspiracy seems probable.


But the thing i wonder about most is, what the people, who were actually there, researching the crash site, think about it.

They should have noticed something was wrong. So are they all working for "them"? Or were they somehow persuaded not to talk?


The same goes for the firemen and others at the Pentagon. Were they all in on it? I find it very hard to believe that was a boeing.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
No bodies or body parts? No problem, just assume that they self buried themselves, saving the relatives the trouble. my God, how can anyone believe this stuff? If a plane had hit there, we would see TWO massive engines as well as pieces of fuselage readily indentifiable, not to mention the bodies of passengers. The fact that not ONE body or part was covered there say it all: No bodies were there.

How can anyone believe that ALL of the bodies and ALL of the aircraft would disappear under the ground? No fireball, no fuel fires, no wings, no tail..what does it take for some people? it staggers me that this is so simple and so ignored by some to this day. You cannot invent excuses for every missing fact..it has to stop somewhere. No plane crashed there: A missle was fired into a prepared pit where debris was stashed prior to the event.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

I've never been at a plane crash luckily, but like I said before, planes just don't disintigrate when they hit the ground. They may be made of aluminum, which my buckle and bend, but cloth luggage and seat don't. They may burn, but they will still be there. Aren't airplane seats designed to withstand a crash? Again, what of the lack of bodies?

Like deezee said, chunks of people. Bodies don't disintigrate, either.

Wouldn't there be two or three engines anyway? The engine in the second photo doesn't even look like it came from a 767. It looks like its from a private jet, not a jumbo jet. It's smaller than the bucket on the right, which are not that large in real life. Jumbo jets are big, and require lots of thrust, which come from large engines. It looks like more planted debris if you ask me.

Since you asked me, I'll reverse the question back to you: How many crash scenes have you been to?


I am not claiming to be an airplane engineer, nor will you ever hear me say such a thing, because it isn't true. I am only stating what I believe and what I know, which ain't much.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
They already recovered the remains of the Flight 93 and returned to the families. The rest that were unidentified and assumed as hijackers were tossed away like garbage.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   


I hate to say it this way, but there should be at least chunks of people on the ground and even some entire bodies.


People onboard are ripped into fragments and pieces scattered around
the site with debris. We (members of my Fire department) walked the
crash scene (Lear 35) and marked out the body parts laying about.
Only parts recognizable as human were part of torso (half rib cage),
hand minus fingers, some amputated fingers .

Here is picture of investigators marking body parts



here is article of crash in my town Notice simularity with Flight 93 - not
much left of plane or its passengers

query.nytimes.com...

Investigators at Shanksville recovered several hundred pounds of
remains (from 44 on board) - estimated 8% of total



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   


Wouldn't there be two or three engines anyway? The engine in the second photo doesn't even look like it came from a 767. It looks like its from a private jet, not a jumbo jet. It's smaller than the bucket on the right, which are not that large in real life. Jumbo jets are big, and require lots of thrust, which come from large engines. It looks like more planted debris if you ask me


757 has 2 engines mounted one under each wing. The engine part
shown is only small part of the jet engine. It is the central
rotor - compressor/turbine blades normally mounted on the rotor shaft
have been sheared off by the impact.

As for crash scenes been to one jet crash (not like happen every day),
seen crashed aircraft (light planes crack up on takeoffs/landings) at
local airport.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
For planes hitting the ground I always look at Lockerbie
plane-truth.com...

Look at the pieces left behind after that plane fell out of the sky parts hit a gas station and there was loads and loads of evidence of a JET.

You can believe what you like but I'll never believe the officail story on the day on any of the crashes.

sorry if that is upsetting for some but it just can not happen. Four plane crashes in 1 day all defy all previous science data on plane crashes not going to happen.

What did happen? How do I know I wasn't involved.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:24 AM
link   
What could have happened to the passangers & crews on 9-11...


They all could have been whisked away to a South Seas or Indonesian Island... under the pretense of national security or some such excuse.

Using the 'Survivor' series as a model, so the passengers & crews
involved wouldn't initially feel 'abducted' or 'sequestered'

isn't it strange that the public was conditioned to that sort of reality
experience thru media TV... right about the time that a 'Survivor'
cover story might have been explained to the people on the flights
involved on 9-11.

~coincidence~ or not? ... you be the judge



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link   


Look at the pieces left behind after that plane fell out of the sky parts hit a gas station and there was loads and loads of evidence of a JET.


Lockerbie plane (Flight 1030 was destroyed by bomb, plane broke up
at high altitude raining debris including large pieces of fuselage
over area. It did not slam full speed, nose down into the ground.

Also on 9/11 the 4 aircraft did not just "crash" they were flown into
buildings (World Trade Center/Pentagon or the ground when passengers
tried to take it over). BIG difference between crashing and deliberate
acts.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtb2008
I am not claiming to be an airplane engineer, nor will you ever hear me say such a thing, because it isn't true. I am only stating what I believe and what I know, which ain't much.


I appreciate your honesty and this is not a dig against you. Please understand to admit (like most of us) that we are not subject matter experts, or even have anything more than outside observational skills, and then claim as fact something you don't fully understand................

I am not an airplane crash expert. I have been to exactly one aircraft accident. I spent six years as a crew chief on Blackhawks helicopters. I flew hundreds of hours. I am no John Lear with a gigazillion flight hours. I was not a pilot, but rather a crew chief.

While stationed at Fort Campbell in 1998 I was on the scene of a UH-60L crash, about a day after it happened. I was assigned at the time to 8th Battalion, an AVIM unit. My unit was assigned responsiblity for picking up what was left of the aircraft.

About the crash: clear blue, no cover. It was a "routine" NOE flight using one of the many established routes on post. Bottom line: all four crew members were "inside" the aircraft while flying NOE. This is a classic no-no. On this particular route there was one tree that rose above the others by 20 feet or so. Someone, don't know who, saw the tree, screamed and the PIC decided to cyclic climb, rather than pull-in power. This put the aircraft in a steep nose-up attitude. The stabilator (think a small wing on the tail) caught the tree and acted as a fulcrum. The aircraft was traveling at around 110 - 120 knots at the time of impact with the tree. As the stabilator passed through the tree, the aircraft's nose pitched violently down and entered the tree canopy. The aircraft remained intact until it impacted the ground at about a 50 degree nose-down attitude, more or less upright. That's how the accident happened.

Keep in mind this was a helicopter, traveling at (about) 115 knots at impact. Much smaller, much less mass, much less fuel and traveling a whole lot slower.

What the scene looked like upon arrival: not much. If you were not intimately involved with UH-60's I doubt you could type the aircraft. If you were not closely familiar with the parts that make up a working Blackhawk, I doubt you (the royal you) would be able to identify what you were looking at. The aircraft itself, essentially, did not exist anymore. Sure, there were pieces scattered about. Things I remember: some engine parts were present. The Blackhawk has two GE engines. Nothing remarkable there. It's important to note not a lot of the engines were left. The combustion section(s), if I remember correctly. One of cyclic sticks, bent hard over. This is really strange (but true) some of the cockpit wiring was intact. Not the cockpit structure, but the bundling of wires that normally is hidden by structure. Very odd. The smell of bleach - the initial responders sprayed bleach after most of the body parts had been removed. Lots of very small, sharp metal. Not large, twisted sections of metal but rather small (hand size and below), very sharp pieces. Very small chunks of all the equipment that, at one point, made up a working helicopter. The hole in the ground was very small. If I had not seen it with my own eyes, I would not have believed it. That is, the hole was not "Blackhawk sized". It looked like something much smaller made the hole.

I will spare you any more blow-by-blow.

My point is this: the pictures seen in this thread are entirely consistent with what I would expect at an airplane crash involving a high speed impact, at a rather steep angle. I have seen, with my own eyes, something similar. Although I acknowledge on a much, much smaller scale.

There have been many definitive statements made in this thread. Many, patently untrue. Stating speculation as fact is dishonest and tips your hand about your own biases (royal you).

[edit on 26-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Ran out of space in the last post =)

Think about what I have told you. I swear on all of my Crew-Dog buddies, what I explained to you is exactly what happened, as it happened. The crash investigation was made available to any and all who wanted to read through it. ***it should be noted I am talking about a preliminary report. The official report took - if I remember correctly - more than a year to publish***. What I related to you is what I saw with my own eyes. What was left of a helicopter, picked up with my own hands.

Can you find "inconsistencies" and things that just don't make sense? Can you armchair quarterback my relation of the story and find things that "...just can't be..."? Can you poke hole in the "taller tree" theory as to the cause of said accident? Can you state, without hesitation, that there is "no way" a tree - that by all accounts - should not have stood up to the impact of a stabilator traveling at 115 knots or so?

Let me assure you, what I related to you is true, as I remember it.

Does the point of what I am trying to make stand out?

EDIT: couple of things I forgot: there was a Brigade wide safety stand down day and the focus of the day was an official briefing from the crash investigators on their preliminary findings. The information concerning the flight dynamics of the crash were taken from this briefing as well as the preliminary crash report (which I read at the time and did not keep). What I related to you concerning the actual crash sight was first-hand observations.

I just remembered we found (some of) the floor of the aircraft on top of a chunk of main rotor wreckage. What's odd is the main rotor shaft housing was below ground and the section of flooring, on top of that. It was as if the aircraft turned inside out.

There were small things found, biological in nature. Very small. That's all I really want to discuss of that. I mention that because in one of the pictures in this thread a bright yellow/orange tarp is seen. In my experience, this is used to cover body parts, or parts of parts, or things needing to be DNA swabbed for identification. What that means is they found something from a human, but they can't identify what it is. All of that was said because someone was claiming body parts were not found when, to my eyes, as an outside observer I see evidence they were recovering parts.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:02 AM
link   
No one in the world more than me would love, LOVE!, to believe the official 911 story. That bad bad middle eastern men who hate our freedoms want to kill us all. I WISH I had the IQ of 72 to lamely smile and put and put a ribbon on my pickup and get a few good inguinal scratches in and go about life humming billy ray cyrus songs. 93 landed at Cleveland. It was documented. This was one of the MANY 'Oh crap', we screwed up 911 fiasco's of the 01 pearl harbor. What happened to them?
God only knows, they aint talkin'.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 


Do I seem as though I have an IQ of 72?

Again, I appreciate your point of view. I am not arguing with you. I am offering another point of view, one that I believe to be grounded in reality. That last statement was not a covert dig against you; it was offered as to evidence of my honest thinking.

Seeking truth means that we have to consider all rational, reasoned possibilities.

Sticking our head in the sand, covering our eyes, questioning the sanity and intelligence of those who don't agree with us and yelling over others does not force a reality into existence.

Do conspiracies exist? Absolutely and I am a believer! You may not believe me but, I am. Personally, I enjoy talking about possibilities. I do like things to stay grounded in reality or least plausible.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
So what happens to the people that were onboard in such a crash? Do they just disintegrate?

I hate to say it this way, but there should be at least chunks of people on the ground and even some entire bodies.


Actually, yes they do. Sometimes. The Chaos Theory makes it nearly impossible to predict who would cease to exist, but yes, sometimes they do.

Keep in mind we are talking about impact forces that can boggle the mind. I'm talking 100's of "Gs".


[edit on 26-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Please do not overead into my post. I meant "I" literally wish I did not have a comprehending mind to see what has been delivered officially to our dishes aint right. I meant no offense.
It would be so much 'easier' to indeed believe it and go about my life hating middle easterners and cleaning my gun.
Do they disintegrate? Sure, except for the perfectly preserved passport of Mawhoever found pretty as can be on the sidewalk. Bolderdash.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by jpm1602]

[edit on 26-12-2007 by jpm1602]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 


Cool beans. I understand and will do my best not to read too much into your posts


I know i said this before but, it bears repeating: I am not arguing with you and if anything I say seems like a personal attack, please ask me about it so I can clarify.

I'm offering my ideas in the arena of thought debate, not personal attacks.

Okay, having said all of that.........
..................

Your last statement is, IMHO, how conspiracy theories survive when they shouldn't. I'm not saying all conspiracy theories should die, just the implausible ones.

I am not aware that the passport you mention was found in any sort of "perfect" condition. Your saying this as fact, when I am not aware this is the case at all. I do believe a passport was found on the street. I am also of the belief this passport was photographed. Honestly, I have heard said passport attributed to a whole bunch of people. I don't know who it actually belonged to.

Lets skip all of that, for a moment, to consider the likelihood such a thing could happen. To say it just can't happen doesn't make it true. Conversely, just because I think it can, doesn't mean that it could (or did). From my own personal experience, I find it possible that a passport could make the trip through the building and be found on the street below. Likely? I have to say no, not likely. Possible? Absolutely. Likely to happen every time (lets pray nothing like this happens again)...I would have to say no. But, claiming rare odds doesn't mean it can't happen or wont.

May I be permitted to steer the conversation back to what I was talking about? Do you believe that no bodies were found? Do you believe there is no way a plane of that size would make a hole that small?

Many in this thread said those exact things and I offered personal experience that testifies that yes, what you see in those pictures is entirely consistent with a high angle of attack impact of a fast moving aircraft. When presented with other pictures that do show wreckage the argument shifts from "no wreckage" to that's the "wrong wreckage" or not enough or "where are the bodies", etc, etc.

See what I mean? It's a constant shifting of the mark that can never be satisfied.



[edit on 26-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
For those that insist no plane wreckage was found:













posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Viger
 


Is it possible the 911 passengers on all three or four flights were taken to deep under ground bases and exterminated in gas chambers? From what I have read some think if the NWO was willing to sacrifice 3000 human beings for their agenda of worldwide dominance and the orgistrated loss of freedom what would approx. 600 more individuals losing their lives mean to the cause. Rik Riley



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join