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.

 

NEW VIDEO Shows Massive Firefighting Effort In Shanksville (flight 93)

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Google Video Link



As you can see that an extreme firefighting effort took place in Shanksville on 911.....

One line. No fire. No plane. No Doubt.


The 911 official story has a new a-hole.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by IvanZana]




posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Quite obvious that Flight 93 ( the boeing comercial jet) did not crash in Shanksville on 911 as we all know now.


' Good job guys.


[edit on 30-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
The most obvious problem with the official version that Flight 93 crashed at the site near Shanksville is that the photographs and eyewitness accounts describe a crater too small for a such a large plane to have crashed into. The crater at the reclaimed mine was less than 20 feet across and about 6 feet deep. Yet the official version claims that into this crater a Boeing 757 airliner supposedly buried itself, the passengers, the cargo, and thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Nena Lensbouer, who had prepared lunch for the workers at the scrap yard overlooking the crash site, said she was the first person to reach the crater. Lensbouer said that the crater was five to six feet deep and smaller than the 24-foot trailer in her front yard. She described the sound as "an explosion, like an atomic bomb" – not a crash.

Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller, who was one of the first people to arrive at the crash site, said it looked as if someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped trash into it. Miller said there was nothing visible of human remains and that it was as if the plane had "stopped and let the passengers off before it crashed." He said that the most eerie thing about the site was that he hadn't seen a "single drop of blood."

Miller said he was stunned at how small the crater was. "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes," Miller said, "because there were no bodies there."

Asked how Flight 93 disappeared into the crater without leaving a trace, Bob Leverknight, an active member of the Air National Guard and correspondent with Somerset's Daily American, told AFP at the newspaper's office, "It [the ground] liquefied." However, one of the massive engines, Leverknight said, inexplicably bounced off the ground and was found at a considerable distance in the woods.



[edit on 29-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Where are the foam trucks? I thought a 757 with JET FUEL crashed there? Looks like a small bomb landed there.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Plane impacting at high speed/high angle causes the fuel tanks to ruture
and fuel to aerosolize. Impact force causes aerosol cloud to be be behind
the main crash site. The fuel vapor rapidly burns off - looks scary.

Below is quote from plane crash I personally witnessesd - fuel fire was
knocked down without using foam, just water fog from our handlines



An investigator for the board, Chauncey Twine, said the airplane crashed at an 80-degree angle, clipping trees and landing amid rocks and boulders at 3:15. An explosion followed, sending flames higher than treetops, residents said.

''If the angle of descent was not as great,'' Mr. Twine said, ''the fire would have spread. By impacting at that angle, it was fairly contained.''

query.nytimes.com...



Edit to replace quote tags with 'ex' tags and add link

Please read Posting work written by others

www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 30/4/08 by masqua]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
So many threads on the Shanksville plane but I still need something explained. Perhaps I missed it, but exactly where did the plane that they say crashed there actually end up? Where did the pieces of the plane they pulled out of the crater come from? If the plane was shot down as some say, where was it shot down? (I do believe it was shot down btw).

So, if it didn't crash there, where is it?



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   


Where are the foam trucks? I thought a 757 with JET FUEL crashed there? Looks like a small bomb landed there.


Foam trucks are normally used by aircraft crash firefighters for reason
that the low speed/low angle crashes on takeoff or landings leave
large puddles or pools of fuel to burn. Foam is used to cover the
burning pools. High speed/high angle crashes cause the fuel to be
dispersed as aerosol which burns rapidly in fireball.

Also many modern fire trucks have tanks, usually 30-40 gallons,
of foam concentrate which can be mixed with water to form fire fighting
foam



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Plane impacting at high speed/high angle causes the fuel tanks to ruture
and fuel to aerosolize. Impact force causes aerosol cloud to be be behind
the main crash site. The fuel vapor rapidly burns off - looks scary.

So "80% of UA93 burrowed," but most of the fuel didn't???



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
1) where did the plane that they say crashed there actually end up?

2) Where did the pieces of the plane they pulled out of the crater come from?

3) If the plane was shot down as some say, where was it shot down? (I do believe it was shot down btw).

1) Why would you think we would know?

2) The engine scrap? Here.

3) The evidence of a shoot-down is faulty and misleading.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by im_being_censored
 

So "80% of UA93 burrowed," but most of the fuel didn't???


Who said 80% of UA93 burrowed?

Who said most of the fuel didn't?



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by im_being_censored
 

So "80% of UA93 burrowed," but most of the fuel didn't???


Who said 80% of UA93 burrowed?

Who said most of the fuel didn't?


So more was? Less was?

That other guy seemed to suggest that it didn't with his aerosolized theory.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   


That other guy seemed to suggest that it didn't with his aerosolized theory.


Read this quote from NTSB investigator of aircrash in 1988. I was
at this one fighting the fire and recovering body parts for coroner...




An investigator for the board, Chauncey Twine, said the airplane crashed at an 80-degree angle, clipping trees and landing amid rocks and boulders at 3:15. An explosion followed, sending flames higher than treetops, residents said.




''If the angle of descent was not as great,'' Mr. Twine said, ''the fire would have spread. By impacting at that angle, it was fairly contained.''


Notice how angle of crash caused fuel to form a fireball - we were
able to knock down remaining fires in only few minutes using ordinary
handlines. Most of the fuel was consumed in the fireball - looks impressive
yet burns very fast and little heat transfered to envirnoment. In this case
surrounding trees, just like Shanksville.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

How much of that plane burrowed underground?


"crashed at an 80-degree angle"

UA93 was said to have crashed at a 40-degree angle.



[edit on 1-5-2008 by im_being_censored]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   


How much of that plane burrowed underground?


None - plane struck side of hill - was rocky and wooded. Shanksville
crash site was soft soil of reclaimed strip mine. Aircraft fragments
were strewn around hillside.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Then not sure why you are using that crash to compare with the "Flight 93 crash"?



..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 1-5-2008 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Does anyone know what caused all those trees to burn? I would love to hear a good reason.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 

That's a good question, what caused the trees to get burned, yet not still on fire when the 1st witnesses arrived there minutes afterwards and HOW did the trees managed to get burned and little of the inside of the crater, but the tall dry grass surrounded the crater and in between the burned trees and partially burned crater?

Also, what broke the thick heavy tree tops, then disappeared?





posted on May, 9 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Doesn't really look like the trees are burnt in the images, it looks like a fee trees that have been dead for a while with a cluster of gray-green conifers that give the area that 'burnt' look.
Wonder what is actually smoking at the ground.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Doesn't really look like the trees are burnt in the images, it looks like a fee trees that have been dead for a while with a cluster of gray-green conifers that give the area that 'burnt' look.
Wonder what is actually smoking at the ground.


100 dollar question.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
They did burn the trees over night - so that it would make better story.

WE ARE MISSING JETS... plain and simple.... "WHERE IS THE TAIL SECTIONS -THEY SURVIVE EVEN IF IT WAS SHOT DOWN>>>>
trust me, no plane hit Shanksville, but a 1000lb dumb bomb would make the same size crater. and this scenaro fits with the evidence I've seen.

If a plane was shot down, then everyone in 20 miles would have a story to tell... the facts are we have what 3 eyewits and none collaborate each other, so until I see them swear in under oath, who's lying...?

Also, blow the early footage up, and look at the plant life in the wing sections...


[edit on 22-5-2008 by 888LetsRoll]

[edit on 22-5-2008 by 888LetsRoll]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join