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

page: 46
12
<< 43  44  45   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Not twistin'....just statin'....

and waitin'....

I am looking forward to the FOIA info, by the way.....

WW




posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Yeah, "ignore" was over-stating it.

@ULTIMA: Either would have worked, but a shoot-down would have been more believable for me, as a passenger take-back was unheard of before then.

Even pre-9/11, fighters sent to intercept a jet that was otherwise ignoring ATC and not flying its filed flightplan would be ready to shoot it down if it looked like it was going to endanger life beyond the immediate aircraft.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


mirage, I respect your opinion....and your obvious knowledge of aviaton.

Pre 9/11....I seriously doubt that a commercial passenger jet that happened to have two incapacitated pilots would just be 'shot-down'

Now, having said that....ON 9/11...after the obvious attacks at WTC1 and WTC2....and the pending Pentagon attack....I could understand a 'slight' change in attitude regarding a commercial passenger jet that was no longer responding to ATC.

Any fighter, whether an F-16 or an F-15 can get up, and look into the cockpit windows....to ascertain the status of the pilots inside. At least, they can try....this assumes the airplane (the commercial jet) is still on A/P, and the pilots are incapacitated....not sucidal maniacs intent on killing people!

Because.....two incapacitated pilots.....assuming no terrorists.....would be an emergency, of course. BUT could be handled from the ground, using other crew members (even if F/As).....it could be done.

Unfortunately, this wasn't the case on 9/11.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Let's suppose for a moment that 93 was, in fact, 'intercepted' by the military. For a typical weekday there would be a lot of commercial aircraft in the sky so, with no response via radio and no transponder, the only way to positively ID this particular aircraft would be to get close enough to read the tail number. They'd need to be absolutely certain they had the right plane before taking any further action other than making their presence known to the pilot. There's nothing in the CVR transcript to indicate any military plane was seen 'buzzing' them which is odd.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

So it sounds like you will just ignore a government document that states Flight 93 was intercepted? Which contridicts the official story.


ULTIMA1, you have mentioned this "government document" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

It's time to put up or shut up. WHERE'S THE DOCUMENT?

So far you have only given links to a stupid web site with anonymous sources quoting anonymous sources and that is proof of nothing.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
ULTIMA1, you have mentioned this "government document" It's time to put up or shut up. WHERE'S THE DOCUMENT?


Well i have shown that i have sent an FOIA request for the document.

I have offered a number to call and verify the request and the document but it seems that beleivers are too afraid of the truth to want to call.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Boone 870
ULTIMA1, you have mentioned this "government document" It's time to put up or shut up. WHERE'S THE DOCUMENT?


Well i have shown that i have sent an FOIA request for the document.

I have offered a number to call and verify the request and the document but it seems that beleivers are too afraid of the truth to want to call.

Hey Ultima, I've put in a FOIA request for a document that unequivocally shows that thay YOU are responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

It might be a few weeks arriving, but in the meantime I think we have to assume that you are the greatest mass murderer in US history. Sorry.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Hey Ultima, I've put in a FOIA request for a document that unequivocally shows that thay YOU are responsible for the 9/11 attacks.


Thanks again for proving my point that believers are immature and afraid of the truth.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Hmm......

www.youtube.com...


...crashes into the Everglades at over 500 MPH.


Sound familiar?

[edit on 6-9-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Sorry, mirage.....your point?

We all know about the ValueJet accident. You DO know what the term 'COMAT' is, don't you?

Those poor people dove into the Everglades. You're almost proving a point....the composition of the ground and the soil at Shanksville, that is the key to understanding the UAL 93 crash scene.

EDIT...now I've seen the whole NG video....it is so annoying when a show uses stock footage, especially of a cockpit scene....and it's wrong. It was edited quickly, but several times I saw shots of an instrument panel of a THREE-ENGINED airplane, when eveyone knows that the DC-9 has only two engines.

ALSO, the Attitude Indicator.....not from a DC-9. I happen to know this, because I am type-rated in the airplane.

BUT, nevermind. We all know the reasons for that accident....the O2 generators, improperly packed. When triggered, they get very hot, thus the tragedy.

I guess the only comparison is to UAL 93....as I've said already, the composition of the ground, at impact point, is the key here.

Comments??

[edit on 9/7/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I guess the only comparison is to UAL 93....as I've said already, the composition of the ground, at impact point, is the key here.


Yes it is the key. You would think the crater at shankesville would be much bigger then a crater casued by a much smaller Learjet.

Specailly since the ground at shankesville was loose backfill.


[edit on 7-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

but several times I saw shots of an instrument panel of a THREE-ENGINED airplane, when eveyone knows that the DC-9 has only two engines.

Yes, I spotted that, too.

The point was that impact was at over 500 MPH.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Yes.....and isn't that the claim of UAL 93, as well???

ValueJet went into a swamp. We know this, it is documented. At over 500 MPH.

The area, near Shanksville, PA....obviously is not swampland....but exactly what IS it composed of???

THIS seems to be missing, form the commentary.

Is anyone paying attention????



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The area, near Shanksville, PA....obviously is not swampland....but exactly what IS it composed of???


This has been brought up.

Shankesville was an old stip mine so the the ground was made up of lose backfill.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   
TV's "the agenda" had a 911 discussion a day ago.

They brought up the fact that no plane crashed in Shanksville and the sweating debunkers failed at trying to sway anyone from that fact. They were saying there is no evidence for a shoot down when no one mentioned it. The Ivestigator said there was no proof of a large comercial airliner crashing in Shanskville. No flight 93



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
The remarkable similarity in size and dimensions of the hole here and in the pentagon is to 'Coincidentle' tbh. Also looking at some of the images and video of the 'Supposed' airplane wreckage that look more like it was unbolted rather than ripped/blown off an Aircraft (See some of the videos posted previously in this thread) Also whats stopping them from 'loading' the UAV with personal effects from the passengers and flightcrew in order to be able to retreive then from the crash site. Also another piont I would like to raise is that the US is more than capable of 'people vanishing' or hiding people (Read Whitness protection schemes etc) in order to get rid of any people that were supposed to be on the plane.

Too many questions to be address's tbh in order to get to the bottom of this, something I personally feel will never happen anyways.

Just my pennies worth you understand.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by StarTraveller]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I think it may be one of those issues delt with already but I'd like to point out a few issues of interest....ONE being that all these alleged cell phone calls received by loved ones before crashing seems rather unlikely. Several studies have been conducted since, regaurding the likelihood of being able to get a substantial signal from thousands of feet up and the results suggest maybe one for every hundred attempts might hold. how did so many cell phone calls get through then in such unlikely circumstances?
Another point to make which coincides would be the fact that before 9/11 there was the release of information which alleges the military had created voice emulation technology. The brief amount of research I did a while back on the matter led me to believe a very limited amount of raw data would be necessary to emulate a subjects vocal patterns, perhaps a minute or two of the vocal patterns and one could then sound exactly like the person of interest. Something to think about no?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   
And while I'm at it, I also remember hearing that there were witnesses whom suggested the plane in question (93) was seen landing at a nearby nasa station. This I find interesting, even if disturbing. To me the 93 crash as well as the pentagon crash are lacking vital elements in the way of being true to the official story. I would then submit that the official story is not to be trusted if it doesnt weigh out-mind you we have many veteran pilots,military and civilian alike who say based on their years of experience, not only was the flight path for the two impacts at the WTC but aswell the pentagon flight path couldnt be managed by rookie pilots. Men who had less than a year flying simulators and little more. The ONLY reason the official story would not weigh out as true to fact, is because it isnt true to fact. So where does that leave flight 93? IMHO in the same boat. With witnesses saying they saw a 757 matching the tail numbers of 93 landing in a nasa facility I can only imagine how the people aboard could have been handled. Bear in mind that thousands of lives have been taken at the WTC, why would a plane full of more civilians be any less expendable? Notice however that at the pentagon minimal casualties were sustained. Oh and lets not even call to attention the fact that for hours before impact, these three planes had been drastically ofcourse of their filed flight plans and even after the impacts at the WTC no one thinks to send up escorts to shoot down what may very well be more of the same kin to the planes whom supposedly snuffed out so many lives in NY? I seriously doubt the american military could do absolutely nothing to prevent the collisions. I submit the only way the planes COULD have gotten through is by the possibility that they were allowed to, that some faction of the higher military command or whatever controls it was complicit. Seems too hard to explain away how we just let them gallop right in, like there wasnt even ONE wing in some base not being used for training excercises? Not even a couple planes? nothing? come on.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
The Shanksville Files.

An interview with a multiplane eyewitness in Shanksville.



She refers to the the plane as "the plane". This could be any kind of plane at this point.

She also see a "bigger plane" with 2 things on top of it that look like eye balls. It was really movings, then after she saw a "littler" plane, also white or light colour. The 1st plane was white.

Great interview.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
t3.gstatic.com...:ANd9GcSdzuGxVR-rCvow07s58RN-37XXfaf5qincxIYwslZZL-ZDu0tzufuBB-r5Ig

Grass in the crater proves that what caused the crater in Shanksville did not have the wingspan of Flight 93 a Boeing 757-222





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 43  44  45   >>

log in

join