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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:53 AM
reply to post by SRTkid86

people who instead of tryin to educate someone, when they ask a questions or two. they call them dumb and provide no definative proof that there claims are indeed accurate.

sorry, did i say dumb? i meant to say gullible, i mean sheep, i mean blind, i mean...

Everything you have been told has been carefully planned and orchestrated by the most intelligent minds in the country...
This whole palava has got TOO MANY HOLES!!!
If the government made the effort to just clear a few of them up maybe i might have more faith in them, but their not doing ANYTHING!
instead their KILLING even more people based on an incident(s) which have not entirely been clarified.

The pentagon video for example, Why arent they releasing more footage?
'cos it dont exist?!!
Dont make me laugh!
Do you believe it doesn't exist? if you do, then i cant help you, nothing will help you, you've lost your common sense...

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:25 AM
Check out the external image - this was a nose down crash at an 80 degree angle into the ground....and LOOK! THERE'S DEBRIS!! Wow - who would have thought it possible?!!

► Accident description

Date: 08 SEP 1994
Type: Boeing 737-3B7
Operator: USAir
Total: Fatalities: 132 / Occupants: 132
Location: near Aliquippa, PA (map)
Flightnumber: 427

"The plane descended fast and impacted the ground nose first at 261 knots in an 80deg nose down, 60deg left bank attitude and with significant sideslip." - Aviation Safety Network

[edit on 29-6-2008 by realshanti]

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:51 AM
reply to post by realshanti you fly jets???

this was USAIR....being vectored for the approach to landing in PIT

they were NOT hijacked by crazed Arabs intent on killing everyone!!!!

Notice the speed....about 261 MPH. Also, the USAIR jet was configured for a slower speed, meaning the Slats and Flaps were extended. I also flew the B737!! First notch, on the Flap handle, is Flaps 1. The Slats extend, and the trailing edge faps extend as well. NORMAL procedures do NOT allow you to move the Flap Handle until all green ights are illuminated....the 'SLATS' lights....and you see the flap position on the guages.

There is ONE GREEN light on the forward instrument panel....there is another next to it which is AMBER until all slats are in position....THEN the GREEN light illuminates!!

ALSO, on the overhaead panel, is a representation of EACH SLAT and lights for 'good', amber for'not in position as demanded....

Any more questions????

Oh, I should continue. the slats have TWO positions, depending on the Flap handle. The Flap handle has positions 'One' 'Two', 'Five', Fifteen', 'Twenty'five' and 'Thirty. When the 'Flap handle is moved from the 'five' to the 'fifteen....(there is a ten position, on B737s) the slats also shift to a secondary mode....but that doesn't happen until 'fifteen'.

THEN the Slats are in the landingmode....well, actually, there are occasions where we need 15 Flapssfor takeoff....Runway length, etc....but we still retract the flaps and slats on a certain schedule. It is airspeed and altitude specific, and varies by airport, sometimes. Complicatd to explain, but that's why we train so much.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:42 AM

Originally posted by Grock
what gets me is the phone calls themselves, i may be wrong about this but as i remember, cell phones were inoperable aboard flights until a few years AFTER 911. how then could so many people have made cell phone calls aboard planes that were incapable of allowing cell phone calls to be made?

I don't remember them ever being "inoperable" - flight companies usually disallowed their use for the following two reasons:
1) They have potential to interfere with planes functioning
2) They have their own phone system on the plain that they encourage passengers to use instead (sometimes both I guess)

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:13 AM
I can see that by the level of the argument and its content pretty much says that the debunkers are on the ropes in this thread.

There is not one Flight 93 thread that has been debunked especially this thread.

Debunkers try to bring up that troothers are jew haters, cell phone calls, laser beams, aliens and other stupid thoughts they generate. This is a sure sign that they tactics of obsefucating the truth has failed and will continue to fail.

VICTORY for the truth movement.

Yes you heard me Boon, Weedwhacker, and the other 1 or 2 people who so ignorantly spew the official story. You guys are failing. Your arguments arent even worth reading for they are just plain stupid and has no anchor in this reality.

No plane crashed in Shankville on 9/11 ( flight 93) tell everyone to investigate this. Tell your friends and famlily.

We forgive you tho, ignorance and the lack of money makes many people do anything to quench their egos.
Would you like to join us and fight to make this world a better place for our children?

[edit on 29-6-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 29-6-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by IvanZana


High Fives do not replace facts.

You have presented NONE. Just like every other thread you start.

You ignore evidence that is presented to you. Why?

Why did you only post PART of the CVR? You failed to post the hijackers stating that "they are trying to get in the cockpit"

You post the same woman over and over. If you actually listened to her..this plane or missile would have had to do impossible maneuvers.

Just keep starting your threads and posting the BS. There are still plenty that will rub on some of that snake oil you are selling here.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:55 AM

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
You ignore evidence that is presented to you. Why?

What evidence? If believers aactaully psoted evidnece instead of opinons and statements then the truthers may listen, but so far i have not seen any actual evidence posted by the beleivers.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:00 AM

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...)

So if it didn't ignite one would smell it in the air at the crash scene. and if it did ignite it would leave much more of a mark, and still leave a distinct smell in the air.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:03 AM

Originally posted by jprophet420
to do the match trick with a bucket of gasoline too (please don't try it....

If the bucket is filled to the very top with gasoline it will not ignite either (NO OXYGEN)

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:31 AM
reply to post by ULTIMA1


Would you like to go through the evidence? If so, first off I will concede that no, i do not have investigative reports with serial numbers from flight 93.

Lets look at one piece of evidence at a time shall we? This seems to work best when having discussions with you.

The phone calls:

Below is a list of Phone Calls from flight 93

All but two calls were from Airphones. If you look at this graph it will show that when the two cell calls were made. The altitude of flight 93 was at 5K feet.

Now, lets look at the conversations.

'I Promised I Wouldn't Hang Up'- From Lisa Jefferson who was speaking with Todd Beamer.

There were calls made from Ed Felt (from the bathroom), Jeremy Glick, Mark Bingham.

Please choose on of these and we will discuss the contents of the conversation and how this was faked/staged/not possible.

Thank you.


posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by W3RLIED2

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.

Here's the video again, ignore the eyewitnesses (again) and pay particular attention to the last 15 seconds of the video.
Do you see the fire burning on the edge of the crater? Do you think the rescue personnel were having a barbecue or do you think that the fire came from the crash?

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:06 PM
It amazes me how some people can "proove beyond a doubt" a major
conspiracy just by looking at some photos posted on the internet. Without
actualy being at the scene and investigating first hand, there is no way
to conclude 100% acuracy.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by IvanZana

We forgive you tho, ignorance and the lack of money makes many people do anything to quench their egos.

Thank you for your forgiveness. It really means a lot since you advocate the murder of people who obfuscate your misguided perception of reality:

originally posted by IvanZana
It is the governments that kill people in the name of religion that should be hung.

Would you like to join us and fight to make this world a better place for our children?

By falling for conspiracy fantasies and advocating the murder of Israelis/Zionist/Jews? NO THANK YOU!

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:08 PM
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

That list says the call from Beamer lasted from 9:42 till 10:47, the crash was at 10:06. The call was from 30,000 feet and lasted 65 minutes.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:19 PM
reply to post by jprophet420

Yes, Beamer told the woman he was speaking to to not hang up. She stayed on the line for sometime after the phone went silent.

There was another call that lasted even longer. I don't know how the airphones were connected post impact.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:52 PM
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

Let's look at the discrepancies in what was actually reported about Todd Beamers call. Here's the FBI's report of what Lisa Jefferson told the FBI:

Todd's call got through at 9:43:48 but he was still saying the hijackers were "preparing to take control of the flight" even though the flight was supposedly already hijacked at 9:28.

Then Lisa says that at about 9:50 two of the hijackers entered the cockpit and closed the door and one stayed behind. The problem with this is there were only 4 hijackers. How could there be three outside at 9:50 when the CVR has two hijackers in the cockpit at no later than 9:34 (even before Todd's call began)? Was there actually 5?

We do hear on the CVR at 9:45 them talking about letting the others in, so there is support of what Lisa reported. But if two went in and one stayed behind (and two were already in the cockpit) that would make 5 hijackers.

What actually happened on the flight?

(also if you continue reading the FBI report, the last paragraph is a completely baffling tie in with Jeremy Glick's call... they call him LNU but that was the Verizon person's name)

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by IvanZana

Would you like to join us and fight to make this world a better place for our children?

By falling for conspiracy fantasies and advocating the murder of Israelis/Zionist/Jews? NO THANK YOU!

Who is advocating the killing of Jews? Are you really that pathetic to stoop to the level of calling people anti-semtic for PROVING WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT FLIGHT 93 DID NOT CRASH IN SHANKSVILLE on 911 ?

Are you really lacking that much credibility,intelligence, experience,maturity, proof and sources to argue this thread in a mature manner that you have to resort to name calling ?

If you read any of the material presented in the original post you would have learned that flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville on 911 and would of shut your mouth.

We all know that no plane crashed in Shanksville and your lame attempts to prove one did is really making you 2 or 3 people look stupid and are really aiding of the destruction of the official conspiracy that 19 arabs did this.

I think I am reporting you on many levels after that STUPID anti-semtic comment.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 29-6-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:32 PM
Also, you debunkers, please stop trying to change the subject. This thread proved that Flight 93 did not make the crater in Shanksville.

Why are you talking about phone calls and other oddities that have no relevancy in the light that there was no plane that crashed in Shanksville?

Talking about it doesnt put a plane in that hole.:

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:33 PM
reply to post by IvanZana

Ivan, since you're here and have your attention, I'll stay on the fence and ask again. PLEASE support your claims that the Flight Recorders were faked. HOW?

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:33 PM
reply to post by W3RLIED2

specific reasons that a plane could not have left a crater that small and that there would have been couple football fields worth of debris and a couple hundred bodies scattered around the scene.

He said the "debris field spread over an area size of a football field, maybe two footballs fields." The impact of the crash was so severe that the biggest piece of debris he has seen there is no bigger than 2 feet. Source

Try doing some research before calling me a fool the next time.

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in