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: 43
12
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NOW, please prove the various photos that have been brought to bear as 'fake'.....or just unadmissible.


None of the photos shown so far have a proper source. Without a proper source they cannot be considered evidence.

Problem with the eyewitness acoounts is that you have one witness that admitted he did not see what hit the Pentagon he was told later it was a 757. Thats enough to question all the witness accounts.
FBI used at trial. Darn that was easy!




posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut FBI used at trial. Darn that was easy!


Please show me which of the photos posted on this thread that were used at trial. You should have no problem posting proper sources if they were used at trial.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by weedwhacker
As to what you asked beachnut.....true.....there are photos of debris of airline parts......you ask how to verify them, I ask.....how do you NOT verify them??

beachnut, why do you continually troll pictures of scrap metal and then claim that they are from Flight 93? You have no idea at all. You can't make a positive ID on those pieces of alleged wreckage, but you're doing your best to convince all of the casual observers in this thread that you can.

No positive ID means, you're not able to confirm that Flight 93 was the alleged plane that allegedly crashed.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by tezzajw]
Verified by the FBI, and not one photo has been proven fake in over 6 years. So please present evidence the photos of Flight 93 are fake. No one has ever offered proof the photos are not Flight 93, just hearsay and talk has been used to deny the photos are 93. That falls short of evidence.

Show me evidence the news footage of debris from Flight 93 shot on 9/11 was fake.

I have not seen any evidence from anyone to prove the photos are not Flight 93. Nobody can prove anything is fake on 93. So, if you are void of evidence, the photos are 93, they were used at trail and not one photo was found to be fake.

So go find your own aircraft accident investigator who is trained and familiar with high speed aircraft impacts. Ask him, and learn.

The burden of proof is on those making the wild stories up out of the blue with no supporting evidence. I have shown the impact crater is like other high speed impacts, and no one can prove that wrong, because it is true. So if you want make up ideas based on nothing, it is hard to understand the physics involved in a high speed aircraft impacts, it can take proper education and training.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
Verified by the FBI, and not one photo has been proven fake in over 6 years.


Please show us the verification by the FBI on the photos posted in this thread. We will be waiting.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
Verified by the FBI

Again, you fail to understand, on a fundamental level, that you have not identified the alleged pieces of wreckage. Where are the serial numbers, that match maintenance records? Where are the serial numbers of parts that match the airframe of the alleged Flight 93? You alledge that a whole engine was found, so where is the serial numbers of the component parts that can be matched to those of the alleged Flight 93?

You claim that the FBI have verified Flight 93. So, it should be no problem for you to post the evidence that matches all of those alleged pieces of wreckage to the airframe of Flight 93.

Go on, Ultima and I are waiting, along with lots of other people who shake their head, wondering how an 'accident investigator' is so willing to accept unidentified wreckage, as belonging to any plane.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


tezza, you're a smart person.

I'm not trying to jusm in here, except to point out....that a piece of fuselage is not going to have a S/N on it.

The AIRFRAME is given a S/N, at manufacture.

Certain 'rotable' parts may be tracked by their S/N....pumps, tanks, fittings, etc.....

Engines and APUs do not have verifiable S/N imprinted on them.....each completed unit, when assembled and mounted on an airplane....the activity of mounting a certain engine is verified from either the original manufacturer's records, which verify the engine or APU from THAT original manufacturer, and THEIR records....

IF an engine or APU is removed and/or replaced once the airline takes ownership of the airframe, THEN it falls to the owner/operator to maintain the proper records.....of any engine/APU replacements, or actually...ALL maintenace conducted on the airplane.....even if it's just to patch a hole in the side of the fuselage, it is recorded.....but I'll tell you, that patch won't have a friggin' S/N!!!

tezza...as I said, you're smart. Can you see my point here?

Let me try this.....you likely drive a car, right? Now, drive that car into a brick wall at 140 MPH.

Cars are identified by the VIN......usually located, on modern cars, just under the windshield, left side (In the USA)

Does any part of the engine, or radiator, or wheels, or other parts of the car's components have a number? Well, maybe the shocks have a part number.....but when you go in to buy new shocks (before you crash the car) you are concerned about the Part No.

Do all of these components in your car have a specific 'Serial Number'?

Well, most parts are interchangeable on an airplane, just as they are in your car.

Does this help????

EDIT was just for typos, and slight clarifications.








[edit on 8/24/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm not trying to jusm in here, except to point out....that a piece of fuselage is not going to have a S/N on it.


But wouldn't a criminal investigation include proving the parts are from the plane that crashed? (one reason for a reconstruction)



[edit on 24-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA.....I feel like a broken record here, repeating myself....

Let's say you are investigating the USAIR crash in Pittsburgh....

Why did it crash?? The guys were on the downwind, being vectored for the Approach. Suddenly, from about 5,000 feet, the airplane rolls over and goes almost straight in.....certainly not induced by the pilots, doubt they had a death wish.....

So, what happened?

Now, ths accident bears a strange resemblence to UAL93.....except for two major differences.....

USAIR was not crashed intentionally.....and USAIR did not hit the ground with the same Kinetic Energy as UAL93.

BUT.....the composition of the ground at point of impact is important....there are some similarities...., and so are the crash scenes.

Was there a huge fire, after the USAIR crash? As far as I recall, no. Even though it was a fairly heavily wooded area. You may certainly come along, and look up the details, and if I'm wrong, I'll eat my words.

Did everyone die? Tragically, yes. It was not, in the 'parlance' of the NTSB...a 'survivable accident'.

Now....why did this happen? The DFDR and CVR are critical to this investigation.....but the first question will always be "Was there a crime here?"

A preliminary read of the Flight recorders showed there was no crime....so the NTSB keeps searching for an answer.

Short story long....UAL93....ummmmm....kinda obvious, a crime. SO, different 'investigation' procedures.

Make sense?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
tezza, you're a smart person.
tezza...as I said, you're smart. Can you see my point here?

weedwhacker, I agree, I'm smart. Now stop stroking my ego, I'm married and hetero, so you strike out both ways! (Joke)

I'm smart enough to not let anyone blow smoke up my arse and expect me to believe something that hasn't been proven.

I'm smart enough to know that the majority of a plane's metal fragments can't disappear and that there should be some wreckage left over that can be positively identified to match the alleged plane used. In fact, given time, there should be enough wreckage left over to perform a reconstruction of the airframe.

I'm smart enough to know that a few pictures of some scrap metal do not identify a plane by serial/registration number.

Then again, I'm dumb enough to amuse myself by arguing on internet forums, instead of wasting time watching MSM TV. Go figure...



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Short story long....UAL93....ummmmm....kinda obvious, a crime. SO, different 'investigation' procedures.

Make sense?


Yes, thanks for agreeing that Flight 93 was a crime scene so they would do a better investigation making sure all the parts matched that they could including a reconstruction.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


tezza....trying to not leave a one-line post....

You live a long ways away, so have no fears....

Back to topic: I'm just as curious as you are, abut UAL 93. I mentioned three other crashes, within the last two decades, that seem similar....these just about airliners that crashed. There is also Payne Stewart's Learjet....

I think those are valid comparisons to UAL 93. AND, I care not to discuss AAL 77, on this thread, since it's off-topic.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
There is also Payne Stewart's Learjet....

I think those are valid comparisons to UAL 93.


But if you think Payne Stewarts Learjet is a valed comparison, how come the smaller learjet had more parts survive?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
tezzajw particularly, and Ultima have said what I was thinking these last few pages. Stars for most of those!


Unidentified parts aren't evidence, otherwise you could conceivably hold up any old bit of metal and claim it to be from something it isn't. Only proper identification will sort that out.

Given the fact this is a crime scene, and they're using this in court no less to prosecute, they MUST know and have documented evidence the wreckage is as they claim it to be.

Something else I just considered is that this as yet these unidentified parts could belong to a crashed/downed aircraft that has nothing at all to do with the terrorist attacks, yet happened to crash on 9/11.

In order to determine that fact, a reconstruction would be required to look for mechanical failure or other problem that caused it to come down, vs. it simply being crashed on purpose.

As consistently seems to be the problem with the OS, there should be plenty of documented evidence to support what is being said, yet none is available.

We have half-reports missing key information (e.g. no serial numbers on anything), there appears to be no reconstruction of evidence, to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that terrorist action was behind the crash rather than simple misfortune in the form of catastrophic mechanical failure, etc..

One thing I'd like to highlight regarding Flight 93 is that if the movie is anything to go by (it was based on fact, right?), the pilots are informed via ACARS that other company aircraft have been hijacked and crashed, and to be careful, yet the pilots in response to this, act as if it was a bit of a none event.

All the pilots I know, upon receiving such a message, would chuck the rule of law out the window and would defend the aircraft to the death (especially knowing that it could be intentionally crashed - they've nothing to lose).

Little known to the uninitiated is that one of the pieces of equipment carried by aircraft is a fire axe. It's not small, and is usually electrically insulated to 20,000 V.

The key thing to note about this particular equipment is that it is usually stowed on the rear bulkhead behind the pilot. If I was the pilot of the flight, and knowing someone was attempting entry to my flight deck:

1) I'd squawk the hijack code (none of the 9/11 aircraft did this, especially Flight 93, that had fore warning and time, based on what we're told).

2) I'd grab that axe and would use it to defend the aircraft in light of information received. I'd worry about prosecution later (although in light of events, I think it would go in my favor).

None of these things occurred (especially on Flight 93).

Again, they had prior knowledge, and it took time for the flight deck to be breached - plenty of time to get ready for self-defence.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Back to topic: I'm just as curious as you are, abut UAL 93. I mentioned three other crashes, within the last two decades, that seem similar....these just about airliners that crashed. There is also Payne Stewart's Learjet....

Here's the thing about 93 that makes it different to ALL of those other crashes: This was part of the largest 'terrorist' attack on US soil, EVER. It was the precursor for the NWO to put in place sweeping Team America World Police laws, smash up a couple of countries and strip rights away from the populace with presidential executive orders. Not to mention, your pet beef, making flight crew take their shoes off at airports.

Coupled with numerous inconsistencies about all of the crime scenes, you have to wonder why the investigations were so sloppy? Why was no reconstruction made of all four alleged planes?

Team America World Police has a history of using false flag attacks. Other governments have done the same. People should refuse to buy any story, until it has been shown to be true. For example, a little off topic, but can you really believe that the best footage the government had of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon was what they actually released?

The NWO is playing a balanced game. If they turn the screws too tight, too soon, they'll risk being exposed. Slowly and surely, the sheep follow, when the screws are turned with precision. Sure, they can't fool all of the people all of the time, but when most people believe them - who's left to fight? Look how many are buying the recent NIST report, when NIST basically release it with a disclaimer stating that it's their best guess?

Who gives a damn, though. I wear thongs when I fly on a plane, it saves me the effort of taking off my shoes. I don't mind pulling up my tshirt to flash my belly at the female security guard, so she can see that I really do have a belt buckle made from metal. Sometimes I get a smile.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
AS you can see in this arial image hours after the explosion in Shankville. Debunkers claim that a fully fueled commerical Boeing 757 came down at a 40 degree angle inverted and crashed without burning any grass or displacing dirt consistant with the volume and velocity of an aircraft of the 757's size. Which is obviously not the case.


As you can see No Boeing 757 crashed in Shanskville on 911. Tell everyone you know. Tell them to investigate this themselves. Then you will wonder who are these people who come to these forums and lie to us all so poorly.

Here is a video of a REAL plane crash. See the difference. Dont be fooled again. Godspeed.







[edit on 24-8-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 24-8-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Dont forget what one of the last people to see the 'craft' before it 'crashed' said. She did not see a Boeing 757 but described it as the size of her van and very agile. LIke a cruise missile.[/] Which would make sense considering they were running mulitple simulating hijacking, cruise missile intercepts, planes crashing into buildings. This was the reason given for no air defence.



No plane crashed in Shanksville on 911.


[edit on 24-8-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


mirage.....the ACARS message WAS sent....according to the movie....BEWARE OF COCKPIT INTRUSION....

md, We got messages from Dispatch, occasionally.....but it was very rare. Would take time ( afew minutes....unless it was familiar, and routine) to assimilate.....to think it through.

If the timeline is accurate, the INTRUSION happened very soon after receiving the message on the ACARS, in the case of UAL93.

Because we flew ETOPS certified airplanes, most of the Dispatch messages were VERY routine.....START APU, RECORD RESULTS IN LOGBOOK.

NO one 'squawked' the 'hijack' code in the transponder because they had no time to....and, as you well know, the 'code' is covert.....if you can transmit in the clear, then a trwansponder code means.....nothing. Same with the emergency 'squawk'......when you transmit in the clear, the transponder is just going to confuse.

Look.....I've declared an 'Emergency' before.....we do it via VHF.....we DO NOT change the transponder code, unless requested to!



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NO one 'squawked' the 'hijack' code in the transponder because they had no time to....


So again the hijackers broke into the cockpit and incapacitated the pilots in a matter of seconds before they could either put out a verbal or signal distress call on all 4 planes?

How long does it take to make a call on the radio?

How long does it take to set the hijacker code on the transponder?



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   

if you can transmit in the clear, then a trwansponder code means.....nothing.

I disagree. If you get someone busting down the flight deck door, the first thing I'd do is squawk the hijack code. Second, I'd be fighting back.

The ACARS message "BEWARE COCKPIT INTRUSION" seems pretty obvious to me. Even before 9/11, I know what was being thought by pilots in terms of security. 9/11 just re-enforced their thoughts, although pre-9/11, ?all? hijackers wanted to land the aircraft safely. The semi-exception was the situation in ?Lebanon? where they hijacked 2 or 3 aircraft, landed them in the desert, then blew them up.

I still don't quite know why they switched the transponders off. You still get a primary return, and as long as the controller is attentive, they'll probably ID which aircraft stopped squawking quite easily. It also doesn't prevent other jets from ID'ing the aircraft visually (as allegedly occurred).



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NO one 'squawked' the 'hijack' code in the transponder because they had no time to....


So again the hijackers broke into the cockpit and incapacitated the pilots in a matter of seconds before they could either put out a verbal or signal distress call on all 4 planes?

How long does it take to make a call on the radio?

How long does it take to set the hijacker code on the transponder?




I've talked about this before.....I assume you're sitting at your computer right now? Let's imagie you're in something the size of a typical office cubical....how long would it take someone to grab you from behind, by surprise? I would guess these guys practised, as well.

The idea of the transponder was for a 'covert' report to ATC, assuming there was a hijacker who was listening to what was being said. There were certain code words, meant to sound routine, but were 'trigger' words to set the wheels in motion on the ground, and organize a response...because the 'common strategy' assumed an extortion or political motive of some kind....not a suicide attack. At least, this is how we were trained....I never saw one training session suggest this suicide, "guided missile" scenario...nobody wanted to talk about it, I guess?

As to the radio? There were some recordings of shouts, remember? "Hey! Get out of here!" kind of things...you deal with the situation at hand, not immediately call for help to someone on the ground sitting in a dark room many miles away from you.

AND remember, boom mics are only required, by regulation, below 10,000 feet....most of us took them off at altitude, and used the hand mics and overhead speakers. Some didn't....it was a personal choice.

mirage.....this is why it shows at least a certain amount of systems and aviation knowledge, with switching the transponders to 'StandBy' (there is no 'off') AND, enough familiarity with the FMS and FMC to navigate to where they wanted. It's shown clearly on the UAL93 NTSB examination of the AutoFlight programming modes, and usage. Check it out, it's pretty compelling.....

As to primary targets....remember, please, how the airspace that the ARTCCs cover is divided up.....There's 'High' (above FL230)...'Low' and then the TRACON coverage near the various airports, up to about 10,000 to 15,000 or so, depending on the coverage. Different 'sectors' for each facility, different facilities....takes a lot of co-ordination to track a primary target that doesn't want to be tracked.




top topics



 
12
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join