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.

 

Large Debris Field, No Bodies, No Large Plane Parts. Flight 93? Think again

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Found another video. Remembering Flight 1771 Shows some video of the crash site and some more reactions.


In 1987, PSA Flight 1771 crashed near Harmony, CA. N168US (350PS) plummeted into the ground from 22,000 feet, causing the plane to go supersonic and break up enroute. The flight data recorder was severely damaged, and the Cockpit Voice Recorder was damaged, albeit recoverable.




From PSA History




posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Cool Hand Luke
 


Nice find Luke!

Thanks for the info!!



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Nice post Throat

20 years ago had a Lear 35 slam into ground just down street from
me. As member of FD responded - when light enough walked crash scene
to mark body parts for coroner. Of plane only recognizable parts
was 2 x 3 section of tail, piece of landing gear flew 75 yards and
struck parked car.

Only parts of bodies (4 people aboard) recognizable were half of torso,
hand (minus fingers) and few amputated fingers. Rest was "human
hamburger" scattered around.

Here is article from NY Times

query.nytimes.com...



''We're dealing with body parts, not bodies,'' Chief Joseph Ranney said. ''Identification will be very difficult.'' Airplane parts were scattered in small pieces throughout the site on Garrett Mountain. Flames Higher Than Treetops




An investigator for the board, Chauncey Twine, said the airplane crashed at an 80-degree angle, clipping trees and landing amid rocks and boulders at 3:15. An explosion followed, sending flames higher than treetops, residents said.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Thedman,

Thanks for the input! that must have been one nasty scene.

Do you find it interesting that no thruthers have been in on this post?



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


www.youtube.com...

This thread means very little in the context of the truth movement. I look at the site of the flt. 93 crash and it still looks too pristine to be a crash site. However, it in no way changes the evidence surrounding the the WTC impacts of the Pentagon impact.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


I agree, who knows what happened to that plane.

but c'mon guys we're older than pre-schoolers!

'truther'

pretty pathetic attempt at labeling people seeking an honest wrap of the government.

id feel ashamed even using that term in a negative tense..



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
9/11 truther here. Allow me to point out a nice interesting fact which means the same thing happened to flight 93 and this plane and both are not conspiracies but facts. Here's some TRUTH about that flight. Next time, before opening your brainwashed mouth, do a tiny bit of research before making rediculous statements.

"Among the killed are James R. Sylla, president of Cheveron and three Cheveron executives. Also, killed is Dr. Neil Webb, president of Dominican University of California."

Let me guess, the fact the 4 HUGE BIGWIGS from a giant oil company were on board was a simple coincidence, right? Wake up before it's too late. You're souring the population with your non-thinking ability. Fox news can't think for you all the time, you have to think for yourself which sometimes means spending a few minutes researching something before puking out your nonesense. I found that information in about 30 seconds.

God bless the interent while we still have it, or at least until the 9/11 / cyber attack happens soon. There's already an internet version of the patriot act just waiting for such a thing to occur just like the 1st patriot act. Just ask the secretary of defense he'll tell you with a smile on his face.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


The family's of the victims remember. The NTSB remember. The investigators and search crew remember.

It did in FACT happen


Well how gracious of you, TY. Thank you for providing links. [smile]



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by thedman
 

Do you find it interesting that no thruthers have been in on this post?


Really? Seems I chimed in before this comment. And I am sure you are aware that I AM of the educated opinion that 9/11 was planned and orchestrated by Cheney, et al. Bush prolly helped, too.

The ones who gained the most were the NeocoNazis. And we, the people, got fed to the Fed to pay for what the war suppliers supply.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
WOrking no time to read all the posts sorry if question has been asked.....
But What the hell is the story, did a plane crash or not?

Only asking because I have heard that it was shot down then all the truthers were screaming vindication, yet then they say there is no plane so what is it??
Im only asking, so who ever answers this please dont flip out on me ok.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
I am not a "truther" ... What happened happend ... if someone can prove that the neo cons made or let it happen then great ... it wont change what has happened over the last 7 years.

This is a good find ... and shows how a plane can disintegrate on impact during a crash.

However, it doesn't discount the possibility that the plane was shot down.

A plane that is shot down could, possibly, still crash and cause the same type of debris field.

e.g. - A shoulder fired or ground to air missile hits passenger plane ... passenger plane looses most of either tail or one wing ... pilot unable to control the damaged plane, it crashes.

So this info is great, but it isn't the evidence that shows, without a doubt, that the plane crashed because of passengers reacting to high-jackers



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   
The plane broke apart in mid air due to super sonic speeds. That is why it was spread out for so many miles and things like a piece of paper was able to be found. Because it was already in pieces before it hit the ground.

So for it to be a valid comparison to F93, 93 would have need to hit supersonic speeds as well. I personally have no idea if that were the case or not.

Other than that, I think you have effectively shown that F93 was mostly broken apart for some reason before hitting the ground and the similarities do show that to be the case.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by badmedia]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


All aircraft "crash investigations" are BS, they came to the conclusions the NSA, CIA or the White House want them to reach. That doesn't mean some planes don't just crash, it means you never know the ones that crash, due to accident or negligence, from the ones that are brought down, either by accident or by criminal intention.

I, along with hundreds of people, witnessed the "accident" that brought down TWA Flight 800 (JFK-Paris-Rome). I was also the witness to the so called "investigation" and, to this day don't really know who was in charge of this cover up:

1) We, me and ten other people who where with me that night, and that where staying in my house, where interviewed, separately by an FAA official. Same thing happened to dozens of people I talked too during this ordeal.
* After the interview we walked and talked a bit and he said it was, as far as he was concerned (interviewing eye witnesses), a strait forward investigation. He told me everybody had more or less the same story, almost all where credible witnesses (including police officers from various counties, some pilots and employees in local marinas).

2) Less then 24 hours later we received the visit of the FBI (criminal investigation). Basically the same procedure as the FAA with, I presume, the same results.
* Then things started to get weird...

By this time I had already talked to most of my friends, throughout Long Island, and knew that the ones that saw the incident had basically seen the same thing me and my guests had. I also talked to a pilot friend of mine, stationed at Mattituck airstrip, and he had also seen what everybody else saw...since I knew he lives near East Hampton, on the other side of the Island, while I live in Northfork...just wanted to check from if from his angle things where the same, and they where...

* Things got weird after the first FBI interview, which went well. Basically the Agents asked the same questions as the FAA and got the same answers from everybody. We though that was it, but no...

3) Next day, about 20:00, which I thought weird, the same Agents came by again, this time with a couple of friends. The FBI asked if I wouldn't mind answering a few questions and went on to ask the same questions, of me and my guest, they had asked the day before, and the FAA had asked two days earlier.
At this point a started to get really pissed off, I asked why why I had to answer the same questions three times and if they wanted me to record a tape with my testament, that way they wouldn't have to go around bothering people...
The FBI Agents looked really apologetic and said it was procedure, the thanked me, apologized and left with their "friends". These friends hadn't said a word and hadn't identified themselves...

* I immediately called the SVPD (Southampton Village Police Department), where I have some friends, and asked what was going on...None of the officers knew who the FBI "friends" were. A friend of mine, at the SVPD, told me that the FBI had various teams, all accompanied by different "friends", and where doing this all over the Island, to all the witnesses, and everybody was really getting pissed off at them. There had already been a couple of incidents between witnesses and the "friends" (some people refused to let them into their house, others refused to answer any more questions). The only thing the SVPD knew was that the FAA had sent ~12 investigators, in the first and second days, had interviewed all the witnesses and where gone.

4) Three days later, meanwhile the salvage was going on, people started receiving the visit of the same guys. A friend phoned me to warn me that this time it was different and that I might want to call my lawyers. "Whatever you do, he told me, don't sine that peace of # they want you to, call everybody you know and warn them..."
So, I did just that, called all my friends and told them not to sign anything...

Two FBI agents and their "friends", this time different Agents and "friends", arrived on my driveway and where greeted by me, my loyal dogs and my best friend, a 12g Remington 870...
I asked them who they where and what they wanted, I warned them they where on private property and my trigger finger was really starting to twitch...
The two FBI agents showed me their ID, at this time my dogs where around them, just sniffing...I said something in the order of "You can come in", to the FBI, "I still don't see any ID", to their two friends. They just shrugged their shoulders, even though they where starting to sweat on account of the dogs, and said something to the FBI agents. The FBI accompanied them to the car, they got in and handed , opened their cases, and handed the FBI some papers (I was also being covered by two of my friends at the windows).
Then it got weird again, the FBI came to my porch and handed me a couple of sheets of paper. They didn't even ask for my gun permit or anything of the sort. They apologized, I said "It's OK, I just don't like your mute friends", they said "neither do we...I'd read that before signing it" (or something along those lines).

I started reading that great work of fiction, by some unknown author, supposedly my statement from the previous two meetings, and they also had the statements of my guests to be signed. I started reading and everything was different from what I had told them. Meanwhile my girlfriend had come out got her statement, and everything in it was as wrong as in mine.
I told them to shove the our "statements" up their friends asses, they gave us a smile and said "We have been getting a lot of that, sorry to have bothered you", then they just left, and never came back.

* They had managed to trick, or scare, a couple of people into signing those bogus reports, but not many, mainly tourists...
A couple of weeks later the CIA (what was that about?) released a peace of fiction to the press, in the form of a 3D animation of the "accident". When asked, by the press, why this movie was coming from the CIA they just answered that they where helping the FAA and the FBI. Seems to me neither agency as computers capable of generating bull#


Some of my friends and other witnesses formed Truth Comities, many of which are still active today, to get the true story out. They don't have to debunk the CIA 3D "reconstruction" since it was, is, so ridiculous...



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   
...ran out of space there.

I have abandoned any participation in the process. The only thing I did was to contact family members of the victims and tell them what the witnesses really saw : One or two flashes of light rising from the horizon, reaching the plane and exploding near or against the wing (engine?). Then the plane catching fire and braking into two pieces...
And telling them that the CIA 3D was nothing less then BS: the plane exploding, braking into two pieces, the front piece continuing to rise while the back one was falling (how stupid can you get?)...

That's my experience with aircraft "accident investigations":
- FAA and FBI seemed to try to conduct a proper investigation, only to be derailed by some other agency(?).
- Nobody, not even local Police, ever knew who the guys that started showing up with the FBI where or who they worked for...
- CIA, which nobody knows how it got dragged into this mess, produced an explanation so ridiculous it would be funny, where it not for the Governments total disregard for the memory of the victims and for their families grief and peace of mind...

* My initial theory was that some USN ship, possibly on an exercise, had f*cked up really bad and fired missiles against TWA 800. However, some people I know that where at sea, and had been sailing the whole day, said they did not see any large ships in the area, nor where they warned about any USN exercise...

Guess nobody will ever know. They may have done a lousy job of covering up, whatever it is they where covering up, but they managed to prevent the truth from being known...



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:37 AM
link   
If anyone learns to read....

My OP CLEARLY STATES...

"the crashes were not identical."

I was showing the similarities of high speed crashes. If you can't see the similarities, then you guys are WAY too far gone.

Sweet Jesus..there were oil executives on board. CONSPIRACY!!!! WTF is wrong with you? The guy who crashed that plane was a disgruntled employee! Another worker admitted to lending him the gun! They found the note! They found the CVR with gun shots heard, the gunmans voice heard. They found his badge!

See the similarities? And as I thought would happen... similar conspiracies were born!



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Very good find !
This actually supports what really happened with flight 93.

I'm so tired of hearing all those wacked out theories so it's nice to see someone finds solid corroborative info for a change

Once again good job



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Interesting how the 'believers' around here like to provide proof or evidence to address minor questions about 9/11, rather than the major questions such as 'what happened to flight 93?'. In this instance you provide 'proof' that flight 93 may have crashed as claimed, but fail to address the why or how. As though addressing a minor point of contention adds some authenticity to the official line.

In effect your post proves nothing except to point out the glaring anomaly in that the CVR data was recovered from your example but not from Flight 93. Why not? Answer that and impress me.

Nothing to see here, move along..



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Nonchalant
 


The DFR and CVR from flight 93 were recovered. The CVR recording was used in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui and a transcript can be found here.

There's some ongoing controversy about the final 3 minutes though suggesting that the final 3 minutes are missing (plane crash thought to be at 1006 but the audio ends at 1003). Looking at the timestamps and remembering that these (audio) recorders save approx 30 minutes in an endless loop it looks to be all there to me.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
first ATS post! (go easy on me
)

An engineer friend of mine once told me that most, if not all, commercial airliners are built to withstand 1.5-2 times their max velocity. The BAe-146's max speed is 555 mph. 1.5 times that is 832.5 (Mach 1.1) 2 times that is 1,110 (Mach 1.5) The article states that the plane went into a steep nose dive, 80 degrees, and was traveling at supersonic speeds. Supersonic is referred to as anything above Mach 1.2. It's quite plausible that the plane broke apart if traveling at those speeds. The video explained that paper was spread 7-8 miles away which is plausible. It says nothing about metal pieces or other heavy parts from the plane. This is where the story differs from that of flight 93. In the case of Flight 93, metal pieces and heavy parts of the plane were found up to 8 miles away from the impact site. If I remember correctly, debris was found 8 miles behind the trajectory and 2 miles in front. There is only 2 ways, via logic, a breakup can occur.

1. The plane breaks apart without physical intervention. This can happen because of heavy turbulence caused by storms. It was a clear day in Shanksville. It can also happen from excess velocity (as in flight 1771) due to rapid descent.

2. The plane breaks apart with physical intervention. ie. bomb/missile/total loss of control.

I did the math with trigonometry and autoCAD for a level flying breakup with no explosion. Disregarding drag coefficient for the fuselage, and inertia for all the bits that flew off, the debris spread should be no more than 5.5 miles. As we all know, however, Newton's First Law states that an object in motion tends to stay in motion. That will shorten the debris field even further by about 2 miles.

However, with a large explosion (say a missile or bomb) would send some debris in the opposite direction of the plane's trajectory. Thus causing the 8 mile debris field behind and 2 miles in front.

I speculated that flight 1771's metal debris field was around 2 miles in diameter due to reaching terminal velocity (Mach 1.2) and breaking up at 13,000 feet, descending at an 80 degree angle.

So imo these two stories about plane crashes, regardless of the catalyst that brought them down, aren't all that similar.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
so, the reason this plane's debris field was so wide spread was because it broke up in the skies 1000's of feet above the earth, and you post this as "proof" that flight 93 hit the ground in one piece, and then the debris exploded over an eight mile long area.

debunker "logic" never fails to amuse, and sadden me.

thank you, throat, for giving an excellent example of a plane exploding high ovr the earth, and what the debris looks like.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by billybob]



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join