It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:00 PM
What I found very compelling is one of the responders to the crash site who said there was no smell of jet fuel.....most crash sites have not only that smell but other chemical smells as well...and most bodies do not "vaporize" - there are always some remains....

Crash site complications

There are a number of labels that typically are placed on a plane crash, but one often is overlooked. An aircraft accident is a crime scene until proved otherwise.

The condition and location of every piece of wreckage, luggage, victim, body part or miscellaneous debris may be critical in determining cause or, in the case of terrorism, intent. The entire accident site and extended debris field needs to be secured and preserved to the extent that firefighters are capable, while still carrying out their primary mission during the hot phase.

Cleanup can be difficult, too. Even an aircraft wheel that has been heated up in a landing or through exposure to fire is a potential fatality for a firefighter who approaches it the wrong way.

Cutting into an aircraft in the wrong areas is extremely dangerous. Beneath the skin of the fuselage are a variety of systems that pose hazards to the rescuers, and a still-pressurized aircraft is extremely difficult to gain access to, unless firefighters are familiar with the methods used to depressurize.

Even an aircraft that has been considerably damaged can still have energized high-voltage lines, as well as hydraulic lines and fuel lines that are under very high pressures. Oxygen tanks, generators and pressurized halon systems can further complicate rescue efforts. Military aircraft pose additional risks, such as armed ejection seats, canopies, weapons systems and ordnance.

That was a quote from a website designed for responders - does that describe the crash site in question here? Not even close.... either Flight 93 was completely pulverized by some yet unknown weapons technology while in the air (even planes that explode in the air and become burning incinerators leave human remains scattered for miles around) or perhaps did not crash in that field -

Of course - some of this comes down to whether you think our current administration in order to further it own global strategies are capable of such cold blooded crimes against it own citizens....accepting that they in fact just might be capable and willing requires a sea change in perception that many are not willing to make...

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:15 PM
reply to post by W3RLIED2

Wheres your fuc*king evidence?? Do you do anything but twist people words back on them??? DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF FOR YOUR CLAIMS??? Right now it seems to me that your pretty good at back talking but not so good at proving a point.

Here is my evidence.

Eyewitnesses watched the airplane crash. Maybe they had blinders on and missed the cruise missile or whatever left a crater that you claim is too small.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:46 PM
reply to post by Boone 870

I can get you tube videos too. heres one i had book marked.... notice your "football field of debris" is no where in sight... or the wreckage from a plane, or any raging fire caused by jet fuel. Jets dont vaporize into to pure nothingness....

click here for vid

Heres a few pics for comparison of a real jet crash

And heres one more to show you just why this crash sight is a total lie.... and the one that locked it in for me.... TO SCALE of what this would look like compared to the "crater".

Just isnt quite adding up for me Boonie.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:03 PM
reply to post by W3RLIED2

OK.....look, any other airline pilot out here will understand the soulnd track, from that UTube vid....did you listen? Do you understand what they are saying???

then, you have two 'external images' of two unrelated plane crashes on fire. BOTH low-speed, along-the-ground crashes, not straight in to soft ground at 500+MPH!!! Completely different scenarios.

What's the best way to put out a campfire? Soft Earth or sand.

Does dirt burn? Fire needs Oxygen to burn....Kerosene (Jet Fuel) is actually fairly hard to light on fire, it needs to be atomized, and given a spark....and again, no O2, no flame.

You can throw a match on top of a bucket of kerosene, and the match will just go out. Kerosene doesn't 'gas-off' like's likely, with sufficient ventilation, to do the match trick with a bucket of gasoline too (please don't try it...)

Anyone ever see the end of "Die Hard 2"??? That one had me actually about to throw something at the screen!!!! Bruce lights a trail of leaking jet fuel to blow up the bad guy's airplane in flight!!! Complete, utter nonsense!!!!!

This is how baloney hits the internet, very, very very bad movies like that one. (Don't even get me started about the premise, taking over the Control Tower and no jets can land...Poppycock!!! Plain (or should I say 'plane') and simple.

That movie had 'ignorance' written all through it, and it infects people who don't know any better!!!

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:29 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by W3RLIED2

then, you have two 'external images' of two unrelated plane crashes on fire. BOTH low-speed, along-the-ground crashes, not straight in to soft ground at 500+MPH!!! Completely different scenarios.

Does dirt burn? Fire needs Oxygen to burn....Kerosene (Jet Fuel) is actually fairly hard to light on fire, it needs to be atomized, and given a spark....and again, no O2, no flame.

Those are what plane crashes look like... And if i'm not mistaken theres 21% oxygen in the air which is more than enough to get a fire going. And if i'm not totally out of my mind, isnt jet fuel already burning while its powering the jet??? I know your the plane buff but theres no way the two wings full of fuel are not going to keep burning after an impact, thats just BS dude. I've played with fire enough to know what burns and what doesnt, and kerosene burns just fine. And yes i know you can put a cigarette or a match out in it... i've done it.

And also, by your reasoning the impact of the jet was enough to vaporize a whole plane including Jet engines and passengers and the whole fueselage (sp) but it wasnt enough to atomize jet fuel??? AND it must have been totally destroyed with out creating one spark.... That makes about as much sense as a monkee trying to mate with a football.

The last thing i have to say about that post is that if a jet is going down its going down and there will be fire no matter how fast it is going. I dont care if it hits a giant pool full of jello, it might as well be a slab of concrete. soft dirt???? you take a few soil samples to determine that??? i dont think that it makes a whole hell of a lot o difference. There would have been fire because jet fuel burns and burns for a long HOT time... with lots of smoke.

PS Are you completely ignoring the fact that that wing scar was there as far back as the 90's???? Have you completely ignored everything myself and many others have posted???? I cant believe we're going over this whole thing AGAIN!

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:50 PM
I just wanted to make two points.

Point number one: Its a strip mine scar... WILL SOMEONE PLEASE DIG UP AND POST THE PHOTO OF THE USCG photo of the Shanksville strip mine scar. I looked but could not find it... So I leave it to yall...

Point number two : I think it is important to never forget the the US spent more money investigating Bill Clintons hummer then what was spent investigating 911.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:07 PM
reply to post by W3RLIED2

Sorry V, but the video you posted was made by a paranoid conspiracy fantasist and it doesn't even run for 25 seconds before the first lie appears.

The video I posted was from legitimate news organizations that were on the scene and a volunteer that worked at the Flight 93 Memorial.

I don't recognize the first image you posted. Was the aircraft flying at 580 mph when it impacted?

The second image you linked to is the result of a 737 landing at a high rate of speed and overshooting the runway, running across a road and sliding to a stop in a rice paddy.

Here is an image of the aftermath:

Here is a video of the same aircraft after it stopped:

If you will remember, IvanZana posted an image from the same aircraft over and over and over in the other flight 93 thread until someone called him out. Why would you compare an aircraft that crashed at 580 mph to an aircraft that slid to stop and then burned?

The third image you posted was also posted over and over and over by IvanZana in the other flight 93 thread. I will ask you the same question I asked him; how did you scale the aircraft to the impact crater?

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:12 PM
reply to post by W3RLIED2

No, the fuel burns in THE ENGINES.....specifically, in the annular combustion chamber.

All of the tanks have submerged fuel pumps. These are the low-pressure pumps. Since the wing engines are underslung, they will also gravity-feed. (That's why, when I flew the DC-10, the first thing that happened with a total electrical failure was, the #2 engine flamed out. That's the one up on the tail, and it required a constant fuel pressure, in the lines, to the Engine-Driven pumps).

Anyway, fuel flows to the first-stage engine-driven pump, then to the High-pressure pump, then to the nozzles that spray it, and causes it to atomize, in the combustion area. This is, of course, the hottest part of the engine.

Intake air is compressed through various linear stages, before being introduced in the combustion area. The resulting hot gasses are then exhausted through the Turbine stages.....This what produces the power phase of the process. Think of it as a 'bootstrap' long as you have fuel, and heat (either by the ongoing process, or an artifical spark) you maintain power. this is why we turn on the Ignitors in heavy precipitation, and heavy turbulence. The ignitors have a 'FLT' position, and a 'CONT' position, and a 'START' position....depending on the engines, of course. Keeping a spark helps to alleviate a potential 'flame-out'.

These various parts rotate at very high'd have to ask an
engine designer. All we can see, on engine guages, is a percentage. This is designed by the engine manufacturer to denote power output.

the RR RB-211 engines, such as I flew, and AAL has, were a 'triple-spool' design. We used N1 for primary power settings (N1 is the big 'ole fan, the High-Bypass Fan) that is basically a ducted-cowl propeller, with about 24 blades.

The N2 and N3 were reference guages, to indicate the relative health of the engine. Also, there's always EGT, and all of these have specific design limits, not to exceed.

...sorry....EGT is Exhaust Gas Temp...

In my 21 years at the major airline, I had three engine-related incidents:

We had a 'low-oil press' warn on the B727, with a precautionary worry there. I had a DC-10 #3 engine self-destruct....(most of the aft portion of the hot section would run, but produce no power) Since it was going to be over-water, and we had just taken off, obviously we diverted. And I had a hot air bleed leak on a B757, requiring a shut-down and a diversion to an alternate airport.

Any more questions????

EDIT because I always make typos...

[edit on 6/28/0808 by weedwhacker]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:51 PM
since neither of you seem to acknowlege what i said about burning jet fuel lemme show you this one. This plane crashes at nearly vertical and throws up a huge fireball. (still having problems linking youtube vid)

Video here

I've also seen the video of the Ramstein Air show (look it up if you want, i'm tired) crash which is easily in excess of 500 mph at moment of impact and there was plenty of debris and plenty of fires from that disaster. Planes just didnt disapear into soft earth... yes i know mid air collision, cant compare blah blah blah. I'm pretty much done with you two fools any way so go ahead and rip it apart because you guys know everything. A lil help from the penut gallery would be nice... dont know how much good it will do for these guys though.... been through it all 100 Thousand times.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by W3RLIED2

Yeah, seen that B-52 crash video before. Yeah, it had a fireball. Yeah, it seemed to crash in a wooded area, and trees can catch on fire. Your point??

OH.....and the pilot lost the airplane, trying to show off. Look at the angle of bank, and it's relative airspeed (hard to judge, bigger airplanes appear slower than they are actually flying.

There is a phenomonen called an 'accelerated stall'. Everyone who flies knows what a traditional stall is....they know it, because they learn the danger. It is flying too slow, but it is always about angle of attack, and the relative wind, and how much's been a while since I was a Flight Instructor.

That B-52 is at a nearly 80 degree angle of bank, at a fairly low speed. I imagine the pilot tried to make the turn, by pulling back on the elevators....and stalled and went in. But, the speed was no where near 500 MPH!!!

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:20 PM

Notice a wee problem?

Even if we assume the whole plane both blew up into tiny pieces or burrowed into the ground (as the official story holds), the fuselage would have had to have make some sort of crater in the ground where it hit. But there is nothing there where the fuselage should have hit.
This crater is bogus.

You see. No plane.

Thnx for comming out


[edit on 28-6-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:24 PM

Again. The crash site is impossible for a commercial airliner to have made it.

The Official Flight 93 Crash Story Violates Laws of Momentum

[edit on 28-6-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:44 PM
reply to post by IvanZana

Ivan, the Crash of UAL93 does not violate any laws of momentum!!

Where'd you dredge that up from???

An object in motion, will continue in the same motion, unless acted upon by an external force.

If you are at a few thousand feet of altitude above the ground, and gyrate to try to throw off the people trying to storm the cockpit, then deside it's better to just kill the few infidels (and yourselves, since you planned to die anyway) rather than letting the passenger heroes get control, and you go to prison and trial....

I say 'gyrate' because that's what they were doing. If you're sitting in the cockpit, with a seatbelt, you can throw people around, in the back, who aren't strapped it. Do you folks not realize this??? Any pilot knows.....Geez.....

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:52 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

DEBRIS!!!!!!! WHERE IS THE DEBRIS?!?!?!?!?!?

No debris = no plane crash!!!! come on folks!!!!!
Every plane crash except for this one has left literally TONS of debris. wings, bodies, landing gear, barf bags, seats.... WHERE IS IT???


posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:02 PM
reply to post by W3RLIED2

I believe the debris was dug out of the ground. VERY soft ground.

Impact speed, and resultant energies involved, no other regualar aviation accidents compare.

The CVR and DFDR were/are designed to sustain G-forces of....say, 100 G's (I can go look it up). Since they are mounted in the rear of the fuselage, the intention, based on previous studies of other airliner accidents is, the best survive in that location.

ALSO, the Recorders do NOT have independent power supplies. They are powered by Main Bus #1

If the Left engine quits, then that generator no longer supplies the Main Bus #1. There are relays that automatically sense a loss of bus voltage, and will allow the shift of power form the other side (In this case, the right to the left). UNLESS there is a FAULT detected (that would best be described as a short on the bus). Then, the Bus is isolated.

More info, you may or may not care to know, since it is fairly technical, but it is also the truth.

From the NTSB (limited) readouts I have from UAL93....they only refer to Navigation Radio tuning and A/P and Flight Director/MCP inputs and modes, the DFDR was operating until impact. This tells me that both engines were operating until impact. There were no electrical bus failures, no interruptions of power. These would have been recorded, on the DFDR.

SO.....I have challenged the OP to provide proof of HIS claims that the CVR and DFDR recordings could have been 'faked'. NO response, as of yet.

AS I have said....I will fence-sit, I just don't want nonsense to cloud the facts.

If it means I have to get technical, about how the airplanes ACTUALLY work, then I will.

Is it possible UAL93 was shot-down?? Yes, it's possible, but again, we have the CVR and the DFDR to refute that idea. Could they be faked??? And not be found out??? You'd have to research the manufacturer's websites....Sundstrand.

The CVR uses a basic audio cassette tape, much like the one you had in your car in High School, assuming you're as old as I am....remember the 8-track cassette???

The DFDR is, though, far more sophisticated. DIGITAL!!!! ones and zeroes.....tied into many, many components that provide data......

control surface, altitude, speed, V/S, acceleration....temperature....rudder pedal position, control wheel position.....Geez!!! I could go on, there are hundreds of parameters recorded!!!!! It's DIGITAL, folks!!

So....yeah.....let's try to fake all of this, using ones and zeroes. Anyone who can do that, should start their own computer company!!!!! Maybe it was Bill Gates!!!! (joke)

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:47 PM
reply to post by SRTkid86

One question that i have is how common is it to have a 757 flying on a cross country route, on a tuesday morning, to have only 45 passengers, i asked a flight attendent friend of mine, she worked for american but got out of the business in 1999, according to her, to have only 45 passengers on a morning flight cross country in a jet that size is quite out of the ordinary, just my 2 cents....any thoughts?

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:32 AM
reply to post by Boone 870

Either my memory has failed me, or the reports I read online only a couple of years ago have disappeared. I wasn't able to find specific information on portions of the nose cone being found 8 miles from the "crater", but I was able to find many more sources than I have posted here supporting the claim that debris was found at various locations from 6 to 8 miles from the crash site.

While looking for the evidence to support my claims, I had to read through quite a bit of material. So much so, that I'm starting to feel sorry for anyone who tries to cling to the official story. The whole "Let's Roll!" myth of a valiant passenger uprising resulting in the crash of the jet was cranked out of the same cynical and ethically retarded mindset that produced such hits as "The Valiant Rescue of Jessica Lynch" and "The Valiant Tale of Pat Tillman".

Is there finally no sense of shame in these people?

CNN: America Under Attack: FBI and State Police Cordon Off Debris Area Six to Eight Miles from Crater Where Plane Went Down

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Black box recovered at Shanksville site

Post-Gazette: 2 planes had no part in crash of flight 93

Flight 93 Crash Site

Idaho Observer: Evidence Indicates Flight 93 Shot Down by U.S. Fighter

Evidence Suggests a Sinister Twist

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:52 AM
reply to post by A life less ordinary

Yeah....that was a very light load. BUT, I think it's WHY UAL and AAL were targeted. BECAUSE they had shown, by some examination, very light passenger loads on Tuesdays.

I flew for Continental. CO hubs out of EWR. I am VERY familiar with the ground delays that can occur, out of that airport.....even on severe clear days.

think of 'Rush Hours' when you drive. Should make my point.

Both AAL and UAL had (maybe still have) business practices, business models, that assumed "loss leaders", in order to attempt to wrest market share from others. Anyone who knows Retail knows what a 'loss leader' is....

UAL wished to get into COA's knickers, in EWR. COA has EWR quite sewn up, if I may continue with the 'knickers' analogy. BUT, that was THEN...

What you non-airline people don't understand, is that in are not driving the Bus, so to speak. Others have a say. This includes maintenance, dispatch, crew scheduling, just to name three. The B757 that was UAL93, from EWR-SFO might have provided a far better revenue on it's next leg, from SFO. It's called 're-positioning'.......or, as I said....a 'loss leader'

So, sorry to not explain it well....I am trying.....but this is how it works in the Airline Biz....!!!

EDIT to add....and you have NO IDEA how many passengers that airplane FLEW INTO EWR, the day before!!! Did it come from Chicago (ORD) full of paying passengers??? Or, from Denver (DEN)??????

See? There is a lot to understand, before you judge.....

[edit on 6/29/0808 by weedwhacker]

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:37 AM
What everyone seems to forget is that cell phones DID NOT FUNCTION in commercial aircraft in 2001. This fact alone speaks volumes about the government version of events....

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:34 AM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by W3RLIED2

I believe the debris was dug out of the ground. VERY soft ground.

Impact speed, and resultant energies involved, no other regualar aviation accidents compare.

what you "believe" may or may not have any relation to the I said before its not a scenario some really want to consider...

but what I find interesting about your statement is that we are told the same thing about the towers - no other building collapse can compare....

and now "no other regular aviation accidents compare...."

Well that just shuts us all up doesn't it? Nothing can all of the comparisons offered are simply dismissed out of hand....lame....

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in