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: 38
12
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(remember the XB-70?)....a smokin' hot design, from a pilot's perspective....but, budget cuts


They were trying to being back an updated version of the XB-70 as a mother ship to a space plane.



[edit on 19-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]


OK...I'll bite....HUH????

No I think the experimental bomber, the 'XB-70' was a sexy design....but, it was about the same era, as I recall.....other possible Supersonic airframes were being developed.

BUT, behind the scenes....the B-1 and thre B-2.....which are now de-classfied.

There's a heck of a lot of stuff yet to be revealed......




posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
OK...I'll bite....HUH????


Sorry this is getting off thread, but this is last post.

Check out the Blackstar project.

www.aviationweek.com.../030606p1.xml

A large "mothership," closely resembling the U.S. Air Force's historic XB-70 supersonic bomber, carries the orbital component conformally under its fuselage, accelerating to supersonic speeds at high altitude before dropping the spaceplane. The orbiter's engines fire and boost the vehicle into space. If mission requirements dictate, the spaceplane can either reach low Earth orbit or remain suborbital.




[edit on 19-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Nice article! Starred!


Back on topic...

Don't you find it odd that debris was found 2 1/2 miles away?? The mere fact you're posting such information doesn't seem in the slightest bit odd to you?

Do you support it only because the OS said it to be true?

Just think for a second what would be required to get parts from an allegedly intact aircraft up to the immediate point of impact, from that location to 2 1/2 miles away.

Remember also that all the parts are established in at least a 40° NOSE DOWN attitude at the time.

Think what energy would therefore be required, to get parts that far away, by BOUNCING THEM off the surfae of the Earth, at 40°.

Logic says it is complete BS.


The fact you support such a "theory"
shows just how little you've thought about the OS side of the story.


[edit on 19-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Very cool, ULTIMA...and not too off-topic, in my opinon.

I like it, will come back to explore more....should have its own thread!!!



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Don't you find it odd that debris was found 2 1/2 miles away?? The mere fact you're posting such information doesn't seem in the slightest bit odd to you?


Well i have evidence that Flight 93 was intercepted.

Clearly conflicting the officail reports that no planes were near Flight 93.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Very cool, ULTIMA...and not too off-topic, in my opinon.

I like it, will come back to explore more....should have its own thread!!!


Well its been shelved, but would be a neat concept.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Don't you find it odd that debris was found 2 1/2 miles away?? The mere fact you're posting such information doesn't seem in the slightest bit odd to you?


Well i have evidence that Flight 93 was intercepted.

Clearly conflicting the officail reports that no planes were near Flight 93.

I look forward to seeing it!


My point was that if debris was 2 1/2 miles away (straight-line distance), that it can't have simply crashed like the OS said it did, so right there, is a glaring flaw in the OS.

If the OS is wrong there (and hopefully you can prove it), then it demonstrates beyond a doubt that the rest is BS, too.

The USAF could have done with a win that day given everything else, so to cover up a shoot-down like that is highly suspect. It also raises further doubt on the events that allegedly took place on Flight 93, if it didn't crash after all.

After that, you can watch the story collapse like a house of cards...



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by beachnut
If you are in the NSA you know the DNA reports from PA are correct, you also would know the FDR is real, making the shoot down impossible.


1. The DNA report has nothing to do with shoot down.

2. The FDR has nothing to do with shoot down.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

1. If 93 was shot down there would be DNA all over the place prior to the impact point of the intact 93! There was not

2. If 93 was shot down you would see it on the FDR! Who found the FDR and ruined the truth movement in 2001. Wrong for over 6 years!

3. Extra credit, if 93 was shot down, there would not be an impact crater where all the debris begins due to fuselage impact, with all the debris moving away from the crater in the direction of impact, the momentum carrying parts for thousands of feet. This is the real killer evidence proving with photos 93 was not shot down.

Since you work at the NSA you could check this stuff out before you post false information. Your NSA connections could be used to talk to aircraft accident investigators who can tell you the FDR shows no sign of a shoot down for 93 and the debris field is what it should look like.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Nice article! Starred!


Back on topic...

Don't you find it odd that debris was found 2 1/2 miles away?? The mere fact you're posting such information doesn't seem in the slightest bit odd to you?

Do you support it only because the OS said it to be true?

Just think for a second what would be required to get parts from an allegedly intact aircraft up to the immediate point of impact, from that location to 2 1/2 miles away.

Remember also that all the parts are established in at least a 40° NOSE DOWN attitude at the time.

Think what energy would therefore be required, to get parts that far away, by BOUNCING THEM off the surfae of the Earth, at 40°.

Logic says it is complete BS.


The fact you support such a "theory"
shows just how little you've thought about the OS side of the story.


[edit on 19-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]
What exactly was found 2 ½ miles away?

Thinking about a 600 mph impact, just how far can object be tossed! This is debris "bounced" off the ground at 600 mph at 40 degree impact, inverted, and this is only 700 feet away. I wonder how big, how much kinetic energy 93 had at 600 mph, to eject all this junk over 700 feet!

I am a trained accident investigator, there is not a thing you can find that is not indicative of 93 impacting as it did on 9/11. Not anything is wrong or strange this is a high speed aircraft impact; this is what they look like. There are thousands of trained investigators who would have stepped forward if something was wrong with 93. Thousands, they would not let a lie stand. They all took oath to defend the country and would step forward, and we would all share the Pulitzer Prize and be famous. Poor truth movement, void of evidence and expertise to understand reality.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
@beachnut: before you get the wrong idea and think I just think that debris landed 2 1/2 miles away (and actually I thought it was a little over 1 mile away but there ya go...) I've seen documentaries on TV about Flight 93, and that debris was found over a mile away in the lake etc..

Now that isn't a CT - that is "official".

My point is exactly as you suggest - that's a lot of KE for 2 1/2 miles. If you look at who originally mentioned 2 1/2 miles, you will see it is our resident debunker.

So you know, I'm still very much on the fence with this (believe it or not). Answer my questions regarding things such as the tail and APU, and you'll start to get my attention, but as yet, there is nothing definitive.

As seems to have been ignored so far, Flight 93 would have had the impact energy commensurate with a Magnitude 4.0 or so earthquake.

Why is there absolutely no seismic record of this size magnitude event? There is a record, yes, but no-one is saying what Magnitude.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
@beachnut: before you get the wrong idea and think I just think that debris landed 2 1/2 miles away (and actually I thought it was a little over 1 mile away but there ya go...) I've seen documentaries on TV about Flight 93, and that debris was found over a mile away in the lake etc..

Now that isn't a CT - that is "official".

My point is exactly as you suggest - that's a lot of KE for 2 1/2 miles. If you look at who originally mentioned 2 1/2 miles, you will see it is our resident debunker.

So you know, I'm still very much on the fence with this (believe it or not). Answer my questions regarding things such as the tail and APU, and you'll start to get my attention, but as yet, there is nothing definitive.

As seems to have been ignored so far, Flight 93 would have had the impact energy commensurate with a Magnitude 4.0 or so earthquake.

Why is there absolutely no seismic record of this size magnitude event? There is a record, yes, but no-one is saying what Magnitude.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]
The energy of impact is 1/2 the mass times the velocity squared. It is only like a 2000 pound bomb. Very big, and 10 to 15 times bigger than a low speed crash most of us are use to seeing.

The debris at the lake was carried on the wind, it was paper, burn junk, etc, things that can be carried on the wind, going that direction! If the wind had been blowing in a different direction we would have debris somewhere else. Flight 93 had plenty of light weight debris easily carried on the wind and this is verified by witnesses and is not strange or proof of some conspiracy theory fantasy.

Fact is debris is blown by the wind. So you answered the question the debris found miles away was lightweight debris; as it should be.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   

The energy of impact is 1/2 the mass times the velocity squared. It is only like a 2000 pound bomb. Very big, and 10 to 15 times bigger than a low speed crash most of us are use to seeing.

Like I said, my post further up keeps being ignored.


Further up this thread someone stated that one engine was found at the crash site, and the other some distance away. I heard in one documentary that it was found in the lake.

The fog of war isn't working with me...

[edit on 19-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

The energy of impact is 1/2 the mass times the velocity squared. It is only like a 2000 pound bomb. Very big, and 10 to 15 times bigger than a low speed crash most of us are use to seeing.

Like I said, my post further up keeps being ignored.


Further up this thread someone stated that one engine was found at the crash site, and the other some distance away. I heard in one documentary that it was found in the lake.

The fog of war isn't working with me...

[edit on 19-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]
I think the engine was found near the other lake, the pond next to the impact area.

And between the pond and the impact crater was debris spread for hundreds of feet.




posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

Further up this thread someone stated that one engine was found at the crash site, and the other some distance away. I heard in one documentary that it was found in the lake.


You are spreading false junk.

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Will neither of you look into PSA Flight 1771, in December 1987 ????


This is when my life, at the airline, began to go from fun to horrendous.

BECAUSE this nasty person, who shot the pilots, is able to by-pass Security...because when they FIRED him the first time, NO ONE realized that he may have had a second Airport ID....because, back then, you just claimed you'd lost it and a new one is issued!!!

Guess what???? Befopre this incident, we used ot bypass Security, with our Airline IDs....and being in Uniform, as a crew!!

NOW? The singular indignity of having to .....for 'eyewash'....go through 'Security'.

THIS, for the CREWMEMBERS of the airplane!!!!!!

Ummmmm....dudes, and dudettes.....not only can any of the crewmembers...even if NAKED crash an airplane! None of them have that death wish!!!!!

But, please feel free to feel secure, because a pilot has to take off his shoes!!

If you beleive that baloney, you'll believe anything.

HINT: Certain Airports DO NOT REQUIRE an Aircrew (with proper ID) to submit to the indignity....

SECOND HINT: At Many. Many Airports....most of the Staff NEVER pass through the 'security'.

AND, it even happens right here, in the Washington DC area.

Surprised??

Here's my point.....these people ARE NOT TRYING TO HURT YOU!!!!!

AND, neither are the Flight crewmembers....but of course, to make it LOOK good....they have to be subjected to the indignity.....sad, isn't it??



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Will neither of you look into PSA Flight 1771, in December 1987 ????

Why? It's off topic!

weedwhacker, since you have returned from your cruise, you've typed more mumbo-jumbo in your posts than you previously used to.

The thread is Flight 93, not some other crash, or taking off your shoes at certain airports...



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


No! Not off-topic!!!

It is an example, brought by ThroatYogurt, that is clearly on topic.

I used the example....which I admit, WAS off-topic to 'rant' a bit about how THIS event CHANGED how we airline personnel were destined to experience.....ever since!

See? Prior to this event, Airline personnel could bypass "security".

AFTER this event....we...and I mean the VISIBLE AIRCREW lost that previous privelege.

Doesn't mean that OTHER airline employees couldn't by-pass the 'SECURITY' Happens every day, even NOW!!!

AND, I can attest to it! Even at National Airport!!! Happens every day.

I've seen it....I know it happens. Can I PROVE IT? Well, I could, if you came with me, and brought a videocamera.

BUT....my point isn't about the holes in the 'security'..... it's about the BS of the 'security' in the first place.

As I've said...it is 'eyewash'....to make you feel better, but it's all BS.

Hate to be so harsh about it, but it's the truth.

HOWEVER...don't try to claim any of this to the 'professionals' ... those minimum wage people how work screening.....because they are just like the WalMart employees.....they think they have the Power, and will take you down....don't fight with 'em!!!

Call your Lawyer, instead.......



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I have to say that I don't see the relevance to Flight 93. So security got tighter (if anything) even if there are still holes elsewhere in the system. I'm not about to elaborate on a public forum however, unlike certain other members.


You are spreading false junk.

No, I'm mis-informed, that's what.

1,200 ft is far more plausible than 1 mile. Please stop trying to spin my position on this.

The issue of the APU keeps being side-tracked. Where is it?

[edit on 20-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
1Since you work at the NSA you could check this stuff out before you post false information.


Well all i can say is its going to fun to see you looking like the immature person you are when i post the NSA reports and documents.

Its going to be fun to finally get you believers to wake up to reallity and stop living in that media fed fantasy world.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 


If you listen to the audio with the thought in mind that civilians took the aircraft back over, you can be made to believe that they did.

Listen to the audio again, with the mindset that no one took the plane over at all, and you will see there really is no actual information that anyone actually took over the plane.

It is all suggestive.




top topics



 
12
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join