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.

 

The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie

page: 23
12
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Ivan, if you're referring to rants, then I call you the Pot, and I'm the Kettle!!

Your last sentence, about never reading past the second page, says it all, I believe.

See? It shows that you only skim, to 'cherry-pick' any nugget that 'supports' your pet theory, and ignore the rest.

Case settled.....IvanZana is biased, and not able to see facts presented.

Try to twist it all you want, it is obvious to normal, intelligent people, the tactics you employ.

Quite beneath you, I dare say...




posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 




A you can see that even after digging as deep as they could go. No plane or evidence of plane was found. You can also see the hole is no wider than a small van. Tell tale sign of a bomb or missile. Thats what the guys in the military forum told us without telling them the picture we were showing them was flight 93.


[edit on 23-7-2008 by IvanZana]

And btw, just because some moderator gave you 10 applauses for extra points still doenst put a plane in Shanksville.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Well, OK....just suppose for a moment, the Flight Recorder data (both of them) were 'faked'....just suppose, that is your assertion. WHERE is your proof of that assertion??

You show me it's genuine.

You keep putting the burden of proof on us, but you fail to recognize one thing: if there was proof Flight 93 crashed there, then we would clearly have nothing to discuss.

Because there is no evidence that Flight 93 crashed there (in the shape of something that looks like a crash site) and the photos all show precisely nothing, then all it is doing is proving our arguments.

IvanZana hasn't selectively chosen those few photos of nothing - that's all there is!

If there was evidence Flight 93 crashed there, YOU should have something to demonstrate that it did. But you do not.

The fact no photos exist showing a plane crash, very likely means there wasn't one. I have yet to see one photo from the Shanksville site that shows Flight 93 in it.

It is easy to prove aircraft crashed into the WTC, therefore aircraft did crash there (because there is plenty of evidence) but there is zip, official or otherwise, to show that Flight 93 crashed.

A very likely fabricated FDR and a no-show CVR doesn't put Flight 93 in that hole.

I put the onus upon YOU to prove it did.

We've gone way beyond anything reasonable to demonstrate the Flight 93 crash site is a fabrication, even going to scientific sources to do so, but now YOU have to put something up to support YOUR side of the story.


[edit on 23-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
These are photograhs showing aircraft debris at the Shanksville site. Some are from the EPA, some are evidence used in the Massoui trial.

Here is a link to the site where you can see them in full resolution:

911research.wtc7.net...

This site provides another link directly to many other Massoui trial documents.






























posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


mirage....it seems you were taking quotes from MY post, though it's a little vague...

mirage, there is plenty of evidence of the FDR, both the CVR and the DFDR data. I have a print-out of the Auto-Flight parameters, from both AAL77 and UAL93. This is a snippet from the NTSB reports, showing the various mode activations of the Mode Control Panel (MCP) and the A/P (autopilot) were engaged and inter-acted with up until the end of recording (assumed to be impact).

Others, here on ATS, have provided the other data from the DFDR....all of this is time-synced, and if you want to tell me that it can be 'faked', considereing it's just digital info from multiple sources, as installed on the airframe, then the burden is on YOU to show how!!!

If you can think in binary, then you're better than your own keyboard. Or, the computer you're sitting in front of!!!!



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


I think the best pictures that 'darkbluesky' just linked in were:

M-CSP-00009600 and M-CSP-00009601


'No debris' at Shanksville my ass!



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Why does it look like the aircraft went through a shredder?

Yes, I think it was your post I quoted.

This definitely is:

Others, here on ATS, have provided the other data from the DFDR....all of this is time-synced, and if you want to tell me that it can be 'faked', considereing it's just digital info from multiple sources, as installed on the airframe, then the burden is on YOU to show how!!!

I've seen the FDR data, too. It's easy to fabricate data - you just need to know the format.
The fact it is digital makes this easier, not harder.
It doesn't prove a thing.

If you can think in binary, then you're better than your own keyboard. Or, the computer you're sitting in front of!!!!
You're clearly not a programmer of any description.



I think the best pictures that 'darkbluesky' just linked in were:

M-CSP-00009600 and M-CSP-00009601

WOW... a whole two little bits. Where's the rest of it?

Don't quote 4994 either, as it's only one piece (again). Where's the other one? Where's the APU?

I have to ask again: why does it look like it's been through a shredder?

[edit on 23-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Yeah, where IS the APU? Well, it looks a lot like the picture that IvanZana likes to post, showing the back-hoe picking what looks like a jet engine out of the dirt.....but, of course you know as well as I do that an APU is simply a jet engine, in essence.....used for electrical and pneumatic purposes, not thrust.

Since the APU is mounted in the tail of the B757, it would likely be the first thing that 'looked' like a jet engine to be recovered..........



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Oh, second try.....you've seen the DFDR data too? I mentioned it's time-synced, you say it's easy to fake, especially since it's digital.

OK....then WHY does the CVR, which is time-synced, but NOT digital, sync with the DFDR????

See, the CVR, in case you didn't know, is old-school tech....an actual magnetic tape, similar to the old 8-track cassettes if you're old enough to remember. It is a 'continuous-loop' that lasts approximately 30 minutes....it is just an audio tape, with several channels, and as it re-loops, it re-records. Over and over again.

We, in the cockpit, have a bulk-erase option....when on the ground, with the Parking Brake set, there is a red button on the CVR panel that can be pressed, and held, to bulk erase the CVR tape. It is ONLY allowed after the end of a flight, at the gate. Otherwise, it is a violation of FARs.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Oh, second try.....you've seen the DFDR data too? I mentioned it's time-synced, you say it's easy to fake, especially since it's digital.

OK....then WHY does the CVR, which is time-synced, but NOT digital, sync with the DFDR????

See, the CVR, in case you didn't know, is old-school tech....an actual magnetic tape, similar to the old 8-track cassettes if you're old enough to remember. It is a 'continuous-loop' that lasts approximately 30 minutes....it is just an audio tape, with several channels, and as it re-loops, it re-records. Over and over again.

We, in the cockpit, have a bulk-erase option....when on the ground, with the Parking Brake set, there is a red button on the CVR panel that can be pressed, and held, to bulk erase the CVR tape. It is ONLY allowed after the end of a flight, at the gate. Otherwise, it is a violation of FARs.

Let's hear the CVR then - it seems to be available.


Since the APU is mounted in the tail of the B757, it would likely be the first thing that 'looked' like a jet engine to be recovered..........

On the one-hand, you appear to be a pilot, on the other, you don't seem to know that an APU is significantly smaller than the jet engine you see in the photo. It's a very small unit actually. I think I posted a link to a photo of one in this thread.

You only have to look at the size of the tail cone in which it sits to see just how much smaller an APU is.

The engine in the photo is definitely not the APU. They should have found the APU with the FDR and CVR as they're located in the same place - in the tail. I've seen no mention of the APU AT ALL. It's like it was never fitted with one.

EDIT: Photo of the APU in the tail: www.airliners.net...

[edit on 23-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


OK, mirage....the photo of the UPS B767 APU was a good representation to help others who know little about aviation and airplanes, so that helps.

Let's keep the perspective, though. Some alleged photos of the UAL93 crash site show a back-hoe, and some turbine blades.....but the size of the turbine, compared to the back-hoe, is consistent with the APU, or with the hot section of the PW engine that United Airlines 93 had.

You know, as well as I, that the N1 (the fan section) of the primary engines, for lack of a better phrase, would not survive, intact, in a collision into the ground.

Just so others who are reading can keep up....the term 'N1' is referring to the fan blade you can see from the airline terminal, before you board the airplane. In a modern jet engine, it is like the 'propellor'....most of the thrust of the engine comes from the N1....you may have heard of a 'ducted fan'....that's the idea.

Point is, what you see from the window of the airport is just the intake, of the engine. The MEAT of the machine that keeps you propelled is actually quite compact, in comparison....

Remember the basic, of any internal-combustion engine....is:

Suck, Squeeze, Burn, Blow.

Your 6- or 8-cylinder car engine works on the same concept, so does a jet engine. It's simple, as long as there is fuel, and a spark, then energy is produced, and thus, thrust.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
selair.selkirk.bc.ca...

That's the basics.


Those scraps though aren't enough. There should be more of those larger pieces. I'd only expect to see bits if it was blown up.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Here's the problem, mirage....you have a link to ITT....and 'torque'....this refers to a TURBO-PROP' engine.

Please don't mix apples and oranges, to coin a well-worn analogy.

A jet engine, when not attached to a propellor, as in a 'turbo-prop', is NOT the same as a high-bypass jet engine, ala the RB-211 or the PW.

Try again.....



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceitThose scraps though aren't enough. There should be more of those larger pieces. I'd only expect to see bits if it was blown up.


You said this earlier:


Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Moving to 2001... where's the aircraft? Even if every part is unrecognizable, there should be a pretty big pile of wreckage somewhere, that comes to approx. 120,000 lbs. I don't see it.


Well there's a good portion of that in the dumpster. I guess you'd need to see all 120,000 lbs. in one place to be convinced?



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


See, mirage....I love your avatar, BTW.....here's my contention, please try to refute it:

IF, and a BIG IF, the B757 was 'shot-down', then there would be many, many BIGGER pieces, scattered over a wider area than seen at Shanksville, PA.

If you understand how an air-to-air missile works, then you would understand my point.

Not only would there be pieces of the airplane, there would be other things scattered....think about it.

Instead, all of the DNA of the victims, the DFDR and CVR were all recovered within a small radius, there in Shanksville, PA. NOT SCATTERED over miles and miles and miles, as would be the case if it were a 'shoot-down'.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Darn, ble posting


[edit on 23-7-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Ivan.....the scrap is not rusted.....the sides of the BINS are rusted!!!

People are far smarter than you seem to give credit.....try again!!!



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky


Well there's a good portion of that in the dumpster. I guess you'd need to see all 120,000 lbs. in one place to be convinced?


All I see is a 40 yard bin that is 1/3 full. Each bin has a max of 15 tonnes . There is approx 1.5 tonnes or not even considering it is not dense scrap.They would need 80 bins minimum. There is no indication that scrap even came from an aircraft.


The bin came from Rollock scrap yard which was meters from the crash site. The bin in the picture you provided does not say where or when it was taken. The bin and the scrap inside has been tilted and rolled off into location. That is why the scrap is angled on the back. Also this bin is over 8 ft tall so dumping scrap would have to be done bucket by bucket with stairs or dumped in from the side with a loader, neither was the case.


Conclusion. The pictures provided above by the government official story sellers and tellers were released in 2005-6. They have most likely been planted and or the pictures were taken elsewhere and used to sell the silly idea that flight 93 crashed in Shankville on 911.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Why does it look like the aircraft went through a shredder?


Perhaps it crashed into the ground at high speed and laden with fuel? Just a crazy guess.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Why does it look like the aircraft went through a shredder?


Perhaps it crashed into the ground at high speed and laden with fuel? Just a crazy guess.


Ya in la la land.

The evidence clearly shows that there was no fuel consistant with a Boeing 757 on board. Whatever made the bomb/missile crater as not a Boeing. Remember, No grass was burnt? no blades of grass broken where the plane is said to have hit bla bla.




top topics



 
12
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join