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: 25
12
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

Thanks for proving IvanZana correct.


If you turn the image around so you can read the text, North is to the top. I think you'll find the direction of flight matches IvanZana's drawing.


If you knew the topography of the Flight 93 crash site, you'd know that IvanZana's photo is very closely orientated North upwards.

Check Google Earth if you really doubt me.


maps.google.com...

Get directions from here: 40.052659, -78.904302

EDIT: It seems the ground has been leveled. Even the "other" scar is no longer evident.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]


Your very right. Good find
.

Another thing that is not discussed to often is the angle of the crash of alleged flight 93. The NTSB states that the plane struck the ground at 40 degrees inverted yet there was no deflection or displacement of dirt.

Picture a plane doing 560mpg, upside down, hitting really soft dirt at a 40 degree angle..... Now look at this pic....

Moments after the "crash". No plane, no fire, nothing. See the Flight path?



[edit on 24-7-2008 by IvanZana]




posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Picture a plane doing 560mpg

I want one of those!


I see what you mean. They say 40° nose-down, but that scar is closer to a crash at 90°.

Another irrefutable smoking gun.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   

NTSB Identification: DCA01MA065.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of United Airlines
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in Shanksville, PA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/7/2006
Aircraft: Boeing 757, registration: N591UA
Injuries: 44 Fatal.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.

www.ntsb.gov...

Hmmm very suspicious.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
They say:


The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.


...but then go on to say:


The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.


So just what was the nature of this "technical assistance"? What material was generated by the NTSB?

Can you say FOIA?

[edit on 24-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

Picture a plane doing 560mpg

I want one of those!


I see what you mean. They say 40° nose-down, but that scar is closer to a crash at 90°.

Another irrefutable smoking gun.


The universe exists in 3 dimensions...well actually more like 28, but that includes quantum states and string theory. Anyway....if you can visualize three dimensions, you will realize that an airplane can be oriented 40 degrees nose down, while simultaneously rolled 90 degrees starboard, and leave the scar seen in the photos if the heading is 190 or thereabouts.

One thing I cant seem to reconcile is the inverted attitude claim. so far, all I can find that makes this "official" is the experts report of the DFDR analysis. My impression is that the airplane struck the ground at a high angle of decent (40 degrees) rolled 90 degrees (or a little more) starboard. I can find nothing in the DFRD that would show a completely inverted attitude. There is a roll indicator (based on captains input), but its illegible.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


I was wondering about that after I posted.

I can't take the FDR too seriously for reasons I've mentioned previously, but assume the following for a moment:

* Heading 190°
* Rolled 90° to the right (stood on its wing-tip)
* 40° nose-down

It would cart-wheel. It would NOT bury itself straight into the ground. There should be wreckage all over the place. It wouldn't be clean.

In any attitude except for being rolled 0° or 180°, it could not crash level with the ground (assuming at 0°, with a simple pitch-up, it would be in level flight).

Assuming for a moment it did bury straight-in (relative to the flight path), the following would be noted:

* You'd be digging down and across to find the wreckage.

All the signs would indicate that it didn't crash level.

The relative enrty points (e.g. the wings) would leave imprints in the ground shorter than its real wingspan. For its wingspan to be left in the ground, it would have to be level with the ground (either rolled 0° or 180°).

There are aircraft that have crashed into mountains at speed. The impact angle can be greater than that of Flight 93, yet they're still scattered quite well over the mountain.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Very good Mirage. You caught those guys lying here on ATS. He was so mad that you proved him to be a liar and that no plane crashed in Shanksville on 911 that he had to insult us all and call ATS a tiny little site that no one cares about.


This above picture is from Fligtht 103. It is of collected material after the crash. This plane hit the ground hard burrowing a massive crater hundred meters long and 10's of feet deep. Notice how much wreakage. You cant vapourize this material at 560mph like these debunkers here at ats are trying to believe.
A real plane crash crater


The alleged flight 93 crash site. Obviously no plane crashed there.




[edit on 25-7-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Ivan, could you please source that photo of the alleged wreckage of what you call flight 103 (I am assuming you mean Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1989). As you will recall, that airplane was brought down by a bomb in a suitcase in the cargo hold.

The airplane fell from the sky, basically under the influence of gravity only---it was not intentionally flown into the ground at high speed. Neither was TWA 800.

So, really the comparison in the case of UAL93 are quite moot. Furthermore, that photo looks very much like the aftermath of all pieces of debris having been collected, not the actual distribution at the crash site. Could you clarify please?

edit...oh, looks like whilst I was typing, you edited and added data that actually answered a few questions.

Yes, I remember very well the Lockerbie crater. What was the composition of the soil and infrastructure there, as compared to Shanksville? I'm thinking of comparing a bullet fired into soft sand vs into asphalt....very different craters created in those two examples, n'est pas?







[edit on 7/25/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by IvanZana
 



The airplane fell from the sky, basically under the influence of gravity only---it was not intentionally flown into the ground at high speed. Neither was TWA 800.


See how stupid all your statements and beliefs sound?

So a plane coming down in pieces and powered only by gravity causes more damage and makes a bigger crater than your magical evapourating 560 mph, flameless, fueless, wingless flight 93.

Kid. Your all over the place. You should lay down before you hurt yourself.

You and the official story concerning flight 93 has been busted by professionals time and time again.
Do you think you have changed anyones minds? I know I have.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZanaA real plane crash crater


The alleged flight 93 crash site. Obviously no plane crashed there.




[edit on 25-7-2008 by IvanZana]



Lockerbie: 747: gross wieght = 730,000 lbs.
Shanksville: 757: gross wieght = 272,000 lbs.


Where are the wing marks at Lockerbie? No plane crashed at Lockerbie...Tell all your friends! What are all those scraps of aluminum in that other picture? Who took that picture?..very easily proved fake. All those pieces of aluminum in that fraudulent photo do not put a 747 in that hole!



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


I was wondering about that after I posted.

I can't take the FDR too seriously for reasons I've mentioned previously, but assume the following for a moment:

* Heading 190°
* Rolled 90° to the right (stood on its wing-tip)
* 40° nose-down

It would cart-wheel. It would NOT bury itself straight into the ground. There should be wreckage all over the place. It wouldn't be clean.

In any attitude except for being rolled 0° or 180°, it could not crash level with the ground (assuming at 0°, with a simple pitch-up, it would be in level flight).

Assuming for a moment it did bury straight-in (relative to the flight path), the following would be noted:

* You'd be digging down and across to find the wreckage.

All the signs would indicate that it didn't crash level.

The relative enrty points (e.g. the wings) would leave imprints in the ground shorter than its real wingspan. For its wingspan to be left in the ground, it would have to be level with the ground (either rolled 0° or 180°).

There are aircraft that have crashed into mountains at speed. The impact angle can be greater than that of Flight 93, yet they're still scattered quite well over the mountain.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]


Very right mirage.

The evidence that no plane crashed in shanksville out wieghs the staged fraudulant evidence the says one did.

Do not believe the perps and their sock puppets that come to forums like this , insulting everyones intelligence and trolling threads in tag teams to burry and obsefucate the truth. I bit, you got me talking about pathetic things other than the most important thing. No plane crashed in Shanksville on 911.

As you can see in this picture provided by the government, show that no plane crashed in this soft dirted field.

in this next picture, you can clearly see that no plane was in that crater.
Even as the people dug deep. No plane or evidence of a plane was found. The only evidence shown that a plane crashed there are pictures released in 2006. 5 years to stage and generate fake evidence.

[edit to add] Also the picture above show that whatever caused the crater in Shanksville did not have enough volume or momentum consistant with a nose diving Boeing 757.

Military experts were shown the crater from Shanksville without prior knowledge that it was the alleged crash site of flight 93 and they all said without a doubt that it was caused by a cruise missile or ordinance. When I asked them if it could of been a Boeing 757, they called me crazy and laughed.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 25-7-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana Military experts were shown the crater from Shanksville without prior knowledge that it was the alleged crash site of flight 93 and they all said without a doubt that it was caused by a cruise missile or ordinance. When I asked them if it could of been a Boeing 757, they called me crazy and laughed.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 25-7-2008 by IvanZana]


What did they say/do when you showed them these pictures which show the crater, not the excavation conducted after the crash which you keep showing and calling a crater?






posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

Military experts were shown the crater from Shanksville without prior knowledge that it was the alleged crash site of flight 93 and they all said without a doubt that it was caused by a cruise missile or ordinance. When I asked them if it could of been a Boeing 757, they called me crazy and laughed.


HAHAHHA... an I AM the liar?

Where are the names of all the professionals that you said "ALL AGREE" that the crash scene is not consistant with a plane crash.

Ivan,

I admitted my mistake on the flight path. That's called being a man.

When will you be a man and admit you are not being honest?

Do you have names of these people you spoke with and showed the picture to?

I will tell you, if they were "militarty experts," they would have known what that crash scene was. You're not being honest. Then again...what are they "experts" in? KP? Football? Ping-Pong?



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I actually really like this shot that Ivan provided. Thanks friend.

Just needed to fix the falsehoods regarding final flight path of UA93, and it clearly illustrates the crater and fire damage to the wooded area are consistent with the NTSB version of events. Final heading of 190, 40 degrees nose down, partially inverted (about 135 deg starboard).



Added this photo that shows the ground scar is correctly oriented in the shot I borrowed from IvanZana. It's been rotated so the point of view is the same in both photos.



[edit on 7/25/2008 by darkbluesky]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I like this picture too:




There are four possibilities.

1) All the people in the shot as well as all the other responders were stupid enough to believe what the man in white (really a MIB I guess) was telling them, or

2) They were all in on it, and have kept quiet, or

3) They were all killed after their shift was over to make sure they wouldn't talk, or

4) They really were picking up airplane pieces.

I report...You decide.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

4) They really were picking up airplane pieces.



Its just too bad the airplane pieces have not been identified as belonging to Flight 93.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Does our in-house NSA agent know??

Come on Ultima... tell us!



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
As you can see in this next series of pictures, there is no evidence of a Boeing 757 crashing in these images which is the alleged crash site of Flight 93.

















There are 2 or 3 debunkers here that are trying very hard to make sure you dont learn that flight 93 never crashed in Shanksville on 911. They pseudo intellect is evident in the posts.

You smart Ats users and readers can discern between lies and the truth.

Remember, these debunkers are the same people that said saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We all know what became of that.

Tell everyone you know to investigate flight 93. The shootdown theory was started by debunkers so they can atleast have some victory in a forum for they all have failed to support the official story and to prove a plane crashed in Shanksville on 911.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Ivan,

Did you find those expercts yet? You know, the ones you stated do not think a plane crashed in Shanskville?


When will you back up these words?

Thank you



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
there is no point in any of these threads anymore. each one is run afoul with the same 2 characters that start fights, attack people for asking questions, instigate and insult. they send harrassing U2Us and then when you show them you are not like the rest of the pansies these bullies pick on, they cry. mods, help, he is picking on us.
i came here with questions but an open mind
now i see nothing but closed minded people that already hate anyone they even think might disagree. if anything is to come from 9/11, it will not happen here. so many bullies here want to just repeat their opinion as fact and if you dont agree, the jam it down your throat. and then we even get people who agree, attacking other people who agree with them, for no reason. and now the bullies cried and put me on ignore. well i cannot imagine how anyone expects to learn anything from anyone in a PUBLIC forum when instead of reading posts, they just react to subject lines, avatars, and god forbid you name your thread something they dont like.
9/11 will all come clear someday. it wont be happening here. guess its time to go back to the pleadians, reptillians, shadow people, and all that stuff that is apparently much easier to believe that that our own govt would stage an attack to get us into war....again.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join