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: 39
12
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SRTkid86
 


One thing about eyewitness reports is that people will notice strange things under stress.

Same reason time will seem extrememly slow, because the mind is taking in info. People shut down, have selective hearing, the works.

If someone heard a boom two days later it is actually possible, as the mind assimilates the stressful information, it allows the info in as the body can handle it.

People about to get into a car accident have reported lisence plate numbers. Because the mind goes into immediate stress mode, and starts taking notes.

The bodies response to stressful situations and disasters is unpredicatable at best.




posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


OK....mirage, you do ask a pertinant question about the APU....unfortunately, I do not know the answer.

Maybe the FOIA can come in handy again.....to learn about all debris recovered.

When I was re-acquainted with AAL 585, and learned that the engines sheared off of their pylons BEFORE ground impact, it made me think about UAL93 in a different way.

Under normally expected forces in the air, the engines should not break-away....but extreme G-forces could account for it, in extreme cases.

The 'shearing' of the engine on a wing-mounted pylon is thought to be safer in the event of contact with the ground, as the aircraft is sliding along, in some sort of accident scenario.....so it breaks away, rather then tearing up the structure of the wing, thus spraying fuel everywhere.

YES, an engine shears off, the fuel lines will break....but we're talking about aluminum tubes, not an entire tank of fuel splashing all over the place.

So, indeed.....there absolutely MUST have been the remains of the APU recovered at the site, along with the two engines. Or else, it's all a lie.

Here's another question, relates to this subject....some have said an F-16 returned to base with one missile missing.

Question is: Does the F-16 carry heat-seeking missiles? If so, then they would go for the hot parts.....that would be one of the engines (the APU would not be running) So, if anyone knows about the F-16 more than us, could you comment?

I will add, my opinion....a heat-seeking missle COULD have blown the right engine, and possibly taken off the wing as well....I say this because the Flight Recorders are powered by the LEFT electrical bus, powered by the Left Generator....and since we have Flight Recorder data to impact....just some thoughts.

So....at a relatively low altitude, (say....10,000) and a wing comes off, the airplane goes in almost immediately.....so a shoot-down, or an intentional 'lawn-dart' maneuver, would seem to show the same patterns of debris.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Question is: Does the F-16 carry heat-seeking missiles? If so, then they would go for the hot parts.....that would be one of the engines (


Yes the F-16 does carry heat seeking and radar guided missiles.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Question is: Does the F-16 carry heat-seeking missiles? If so, then they would go for the hot parts.....that would be one of the engines (


Yes the F-16 does carry heat seeking and radar guided missiles.





OK, I quoted you, so you don't get accused of a one-liner.

What say you about my other comments? i.e., is a shoot-down from, say about 10,000 feet much different than in intentional 'lawn-dart' pilot-induced impact?

(I picked 10,000 feet out of thin air....but the Recorder data can refine that)



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What say you about my other comments? i.e., is a shoot-down from, say about 10,000 feet much different than in intentional 'lawn-dart' pilot-induced impact?


Well since i have access to a document that states FLight 93 was intercepted i have to believe it was.

But there would seem to be some signs like a bigger area of debris if a plane was shot down verses a plane just going straight into the ground. Compare the Payne Stewart learjet crash site to fligh t93.

Also have you conesidered the passengers were trying to take over the cockpit becasue they knew they might get shot down if they did not gain control?







[edit on 20-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Well....as to your last point.....the passengers knew they'd likely die as a piece of a 'guided missile' if they DIDN'T get control.

Not sure anyone was thinking of the 'shoot-down' scenario....they had only a few minutes to take it all in.

The main mistake of the hijackers was....getting low....they probably thought they could 'evade' radar....they were pretty stupid guys, after all. NOT good pilots, not experienced.

Going low meant that more cellphones would begin to work....passenger's cellphones.

I've already pointed out how, since I'm very familiar with Newark, their (the hi-jackers) choice of this particular flight worked to their disadvantage. A very long taxi delay, before take-off resulted in the timing 'problem'....and sad for the victims and their families, but of course this airplane did not reach its intended 'target'.

Either it was shot-down, or the bad guys did it....well, they started it, of course.

adding.....I think these various flights were 'scouted' for months....looking for flights that had particularly low passenger loads. It was a Tuesday, not a very strong day for high passenger loads.....just guessing....



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Second reply.....documents that show UAL93 was intercepted?

Interesting...

Are you familiar with the 'intercept' procedure? Day time, night time, will vary slightly.

Of course, the military jet will attempt to contact on the 'guard' frequency....we didn't used to routinely monitor, in Domestic Ops, before 9/11.

Second, the pilot of the military jet will attempt to ascertain, visually (daytime) the situation in the cockpit. Hand signals, rocking of wings....various signals are used by an interceptor.

Here's an idea.....UAL93 happened over PA.....not really close to any likely 'target'?

So....shoot-down THERE, where it's fairly rural? Or wait....and not unnecessarily kill people....follow for a few more hundred miles, still lots and lots of empty terrain, along that path, before reaching Washington, DC.

Just a though.....



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Second reply.....documents that show UAL93 was intercepted?

Interesting...


Yes and reports stating that the pilots had shoot down orders. All goes to conflict the official reports.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

Yes and reports stating that the pilots had shoot down orders. All goes to conflict the official reports.


Shoot down orders do not contradict the official story.

The DCANG had shoot down orders from the Secret Service. The only problem with that is, none of the fighters were armed with missiles and there was only one F-16 in the air trying to find flight 93.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
The only problem with that is, none of the fighters were armed with missiles and there was only one F-16 in the air trying to find flight 93.


The F-16s from Andrews would have been armed.

As far as i know all F-16s would at least had the gun loaded.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA....wouldn't there have been a base closer to the current position of UAL93, at the time, than Andrews?

Either an AFB or an ANG base? Somewhere in Ohio, perhaps?



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

The F-16s from Andrews would have been armed.
Why? They were not an alert base, we've been over this before.


As far as i know all F-16s would at least had the gun loaded.
What good is a loaded gun if you don't have a target to shoot at?



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Toledo, Ohio had F-16s. They were not an alert base and they didn't get any fighters in the air until 10:17 a.m., 14 minutes after flight 93 crashed.

www.toledoblade.com... ticle?Date=20011209&Category=NEWS28&ArtNo=112090036&Ref=AR

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Boone 870]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The main mistake of the hijackers was....getting low....they probably thought they could 'evade' radar....they were pretty stupid guys, after all. NOT good pilots, not experienced.

Slightly off topic, but I can't resist. weedwhacker, you're happy to accept that the alleged terrorist pilots were stupid and not experienced.

So how did they manage to perform their aerial stunts by perfectly hitting the WTC towers and the Pentagon? Were they unusually lucky three times on the same day in that they managed to hit their targets?

Either they're stupid and inexperienced, or they're more than capable of hitting targets - which is it?



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870 What good is a loaded gun if you don't have a target to shoot at?



Well according to my sources Flight 93 was intercepted. Also at least 1 plane came back with a empty missile rail.

Here is the public FOIA e-mail i sent to NSA to get the documents.

Sent: Sat 8/16/08 11:08 PM
To: foianet@nsa.gov

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT: Authority for collecting information requested is contained in 5 U.S.C. § 552a and 5 U.S.C. § 552. NSA's Blanket Routine Uses found at 58 Fed. Reg. 10,531 (1993) as well as the specific uses found in GNSA02, GNSA03, and GNSA10 apply to this information. Authority for requesting your Social Security Number (SSN) is Executive Order 9397. The requested information will be used to assist the Agency in locating and disseminating the applicable records to the requestor. The disclosure of the requested information, to include your SSN, is voluntary. However, failure to provide the requested information may delay the processing of your request.


Full name:

Company/Organization:

Address
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Country:

Home Phone:

Work Phone:

Description of the records you seek: I would like to get a declassified copy of the CRITIC messages and any follow up reports from September 11, 2001 of the interception of Flight 93.



[edit on 20-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Well according to my sources Flight 93 was intercepted. Also at least 1 plane came back with a empty missile rail.



The one plane that came back back without missiles on the rails was one of the three Langley fighters. Two of them were alert and had missiles and the third plane was not on alert and didn't have any missiles. The third plane is the one that everyone assumes to have shot down flight 93. It never had any missiles to shoot.


A DCANG F-16 was sent northwest to intercept flight 93, but the airliner crashed before the F-16 got anywhere near it. As a matter of fact, the book "Touching History" claims that this F-16 had flight 93 on its radar and then lost it after it descended below the horizon.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Question is: Does the F-16 carry heat-seeking missiles? If so, then they would go for the hot parts.....that would be one of the engines (the APU would not be running) So, if anyone knows about the F-16 more than us, could you comment?

As already answered above, yes, it carries heat seekers. AIM-9L/P/M/X, and IRIS-T.

The missile will generally track the hottest parts, but won't necessarily hit them directly.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Well according to my sources Flight 93 was intercepted. Also at least 1 plane came back with a empty missile rail.



You don't have any CREDIBLE sources. You have a goon that heard from a guy that heard from a guy that heard someone reading a transcript.

There was NO INTERCEPTION



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Well according to my sources Flight 93 was intercepted. Also at least 1 plane came back with a empty missile rail.



You don't have any CREDIBLE sources. You have a goon that heard from a guy that heard from a guy that heard someone reading a transcript.

There was NO INTERCEPTION


Can you prove that?

(Not a one-liner).



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Boone 870
The only problem with that is, none of the fighters were armed with missiles and there was only one F-16 in the air trying to find flight 93.


The F-16s from Andrews would have been armed.

As far as i know all F-16s would at least had the gun loaded.


The only time we load the gun on our F-16's is when they are either headed to a gunnery range OR on alert status. Other than that, the guns are kept empty.

And if I remember correctly, the jets that were first airborne from Andrews were discussing how they would RAM a hostile aircraft.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join