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.

 

40 'Smoking Guns' Collectively Proving That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

page: 18
14
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


that is so funny. i knew yogurt was running from the other thread because he has become irrelevant there but i did not think it was this one. i was guessing the other. guess he forgot all his old haunts for a while.




posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
yep . agreed.. but there are WAY more than 40!!! Just starting with the most obvisous of the towers and the reaction of the CiC!!

S&F!



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 


re,

Are you actually contributing to this thread? We were discussing flight 93. But please, chime in on any subject that DRG hits on.

Thanks



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by re22666
 


re,

Are you actually contributing to this thread? We were discussing flight 93. But please, chime in on any subject that DRG hits on.

Thanks


you play ignorant well. just scan back some and you will see where you and i already met here. you already ran from my questions here, as well as every other thread i have called you on this for. it is ok. like i said before, have fun. i could care less what someone who knows he is full of crap and cannot truly stand up to an argument has to say. i will just wait until you find something else to do. you make everyone counterproductive, well done. i wont fall into that.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 

The Governmnet claimes they couldnt dispatch military jet to find this plane?


The government never claimed that. You may be thinking of flight 77.

Air traffic controllers were tracking flight 93 the entire time, they were even shuffling other aircraft out of its flight path and asking others to search for the impact crater after radar returns were lost.


The reason NORAD never sent fighters to intercept it was because the FAA never contacted them before the plane crashed.

One fighter, that was not under NORAD control, was sent from Washington, DC to intercept the aircraft, but flight 93 crashed before it ever got close. The fighter that was sent was also unarmed and almost out of fuel and turned back after the crash.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by re22666


you play ignorant well. just scan back some and you will see where you and i already met here. you already ran from my questions here, as well as every other thread i have called you on this for. it is ok. like i said before, have fun. i could care less what someone who knows he is full of crap and cannot truly stand up to an argument has to say. i will just wait until you find something else to do. you make everyone counterproductive, well done. i wont fall into that.


I will take that as a no then.

Thank you anyway.

(if you want to link me to your posts, I will do my best. This thread is 14 pages long and I am not searching all the pages.)



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
One fighter, that was not under NORAD control, was sent from Washington, DC to intercept the aircraft, but flight 93 crashed before it ever got close. The fighter that was sent was also unarmed and almost out of fuel and turned back after the crash.

What a giant load of crap.

Doesn't anyone ever tire of the lies spewed by debunkers around here?


The Nashua controllers have learned through discussions with other controllers that an F-16 fighter stayed in hot pursuit of another hijacked commercial airliner until it crashed in Pennsylvania, the employee said.

Although controllers don't have complete details of the Air Force's chase of the Boeing 757, they have learned the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet, the employee said.

"He must've seen the whole thing," the employee said of the F-16 pilot's view of United Flight 93's crash near Pittsburgh. The flight took off from Newark Airport for San Francisco, and authorities say the hijackers were headed for another target in Washington, D.C.

www.usatoday.com...


According to the Nashua (N.H.) Telegraph, FAA employees at an air-traffic control center near Boston learned from controllers at other facilities that an F-16 “stayed in hot pursuit” of the 757.

By 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, the Air Force had taken control of all U.S. airspace, the unidentified controller told the Telegraph. A few minutes later, the Boeing crashed in Stonycreek Township.

The F-16 made 360-degree turns to stay close to the 757, the Telegraph reported. “He must’ve seen the whole thing,” the FAA employee said of the F-16’s pilot.

[FBI Agent] Crowley confirmed that there were two other aircraft within 25 miles of the United flight that were heading east when it crashed, scattering debris over 8 miles.

www.pittsburghlive.com...






[edit on 2-8-2008 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Then I have to wonder sence a fighter jet was that close to flight 93 is it possible that the jet was order to shoot the plane down.

Maybe that explain all the wreckage that was scattered for miles.

This is going to be hard one to prove till we have some of flight 93 time change out parts.

The FBI will not poduce any of the parts from flight 93 to prove they are a match, I have to wonder why?



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

Then I have to wonder sence a fighter jet was that close to flight 93 is it possible that the jet was order to shoot the plane down.

Here's a hint:



[FBI Agent] Crowley confirmed that there were two other aircraft within 25 miles of the United flight that were heading east when it crashed, scattering debris over 8 miles.

www.pittsburghlive.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


It dosent make sence dose it, 8 miles all around.

I would like to see the pictures of the whole air plane engin that they found
I find it odd that everything was smash in tiny pices but a whole engin was found intact.

You know the Government cant have it both ways ether the plane crash in a little hole in the ground.. or It was shot out of the sky wich would explain 8 miles of raining wreckage.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   
The debris was NOT spread "all around." It was consistent with the wind direction of that day. Only LIGHT debris were found a considerable distance away.


This was shown to you both. As usual a wave of the hand to dismiss facts is what you both do best.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
The debris was NOT spread "all around." It was consistent with the wind direction of that day. Only LIGHT debris were found a considerable distance away.


Thats not correct either. There were 2 distinct, different debris fields.

Also the engine core found 2,000 yards away could not have been blown there by the wind.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Also the engine core found 2,000 yards away could not have been blown there by the wind.


Are you saying that the engine was considered light debris? That is what TY said...light debris was carried by the wind.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Are you saying that the engine was considered light debris?


Please read the following quote about the engine core carefully and as many times as it takes to understand


could not have been blown there by the wind.


[edit on 2-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please read the following quote about the engine core carefully and as many times as it takes to understand


could not have been blown there by the wind.



ok, so when TY said light debris blowing in the wind, you said the engine could not have blown in the wind. So you obviously felt it was light debris. Otherwise, your comment makes absolutely no sense at all.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
ok, so when TY said light debris blowing in the wind, you said the engine could not have blown in the wind.


I do not know how to make this any simpler.

But the engine core could not have been blown 2,000 yards away by the wind, its too heavy.

Also there were 2 different, distinct debris fields that cannot be explained by the winds blowing debris.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Here Ultima:


Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards."

www.popularmechanics.com...


Robert Sherman, a conventional weapons expert with the Federation of American Scientists who worked for the state department as former executive director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Advisory Board, and also wrote extensively about F-16s and Sidewinder missiles, looked at the missile theories on flight93crash.com and deemed it "the usual paranoid crap."

"There was nothing there that gets me very worked up," he says. "Maybe [the plane] did break up. A crash is not a sanitary event. By definition, the uncontrolled impact of an airplane does strange things."

Sherman said that if a missile had hit Flight 93, there would have been more evidence. "If a Sidewinder had hit it, there would have been pieces of the fan or the fuselage in a larger area," he says. "If the engine breaks up, then the fan blades are going to come off like bullets. Pieces of the wing and fuselage would be all over the place."

web.archive.org...://www.pittsburghpulp.com/content/2002/11_28/news_cover_story.shtml

As far as the debris field:




posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



FBI Agent in chargeCrowley said that debris from the crash has been found in New Baltimore, Pa., which is 8 miles away from the crash scene, and Indian Lake, which is 2 1/2 miles away from the crash scene. Crowley said that NTSB officials said that it is probable that the debris in New Baltimore is from the crash.

The debris found in New Baltimore include paper and nylon, Crowley said. He said that the debris found is lightweight and easily can be carried by the wind. At the time of the crash, there was wind speed of 9 knots per hour heading to the southeast. Both Indian Lake and New Baltimore are southeast of the crash scene.

www.thepittsburghchannel.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Great post, TY!!

That really clears up the questions recently asked, plus gives a great map of the area.

Thanks again!



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


Anytime Gavron.

Glad you found it useful. Let's see it Ultima does.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join