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: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
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.


OMG 4 oil execs on the same plane?? I would think if they were on a business trip they would all take separate flights, That would make far more sense.

Who killed the guys from Lynard Skynard ? They were all on the same plane too, sounds suspicious to me. I bet Rumsfeld hates southern rock.




posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 


the only flaw to your theory is that if that happened there would be debris spread across a much greater field because in the process of going down, because let's face it... it's not going to fall out of the sky instantly, so if flight 93 WAS shot down, i have a feeling that debris would have been found MUCH farther and 7 or 8 miles away (isn't that how far they were finding peices?)

saying that flight 93 was shot down, is totally rediculous, and i just don't understand how someone could come to a decision based on the facts available from THAT flight, and other flights that crashed in a similar manner, such as flight 1771



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Throat Yogurt,
you seem to have your panties in a wad. The truthers just wanted to review your bulletproof evidence before stating anything that might sound like we were whining. This is a very good presentation of what can happen to a plane going supersonic then breaking up. This is just like the F4 that vanished into the wall that all the Debunkers rave about. You did a nice job proving your point.
Now if you could just get the pentagon to release some CCTV footage of Flt 77 hitting the building, we might be able to put this thing to bed.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Patriot207
 


Rumsfelt doesn't like southern rock?
Why that un american!
now he has two things about him I don't like.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NorthWolfe CND
 


ok, your story was somewhat believable until you walked out onto your driveway (public domain... NOT private property) and threatened federal agents and who knows else with a shotgun...

grow up, quite lieing.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Nonchalant
 


they also claimed that the CVR was damaged by recoverable... it's not ane exact to the T repeat of that crash, so who is to say that by chance the CVR didn't get obliterated on impact.

trying to dispute such a large claim, with little minor details like that is not going to get you anywhere... as a matter of fact, i find it to be borderline childish and intellectually dishonest.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Sliick
 


got any proof to back up your assertions, or are we supposed to believe that you are some kind of flight phorensics investigator that is capable of doing math and running programs that are FAR above the level of the average intellegence person?

until then, you sound like you know what you are talking about, but then again... i don't know what you're talking about so that isn't saying much.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by Horza
 


the only flaw to your theory is that if that happened there would be debris spread across a much greater field because in the process of going down, because let's face it... it's not going to fall out of the sky instantly, so if flight 93 WAS shot down, i have a feeling that debris would have been found MUCH farther and 7 or 8 miles away (isn't that how far they were finding peices?)

saying that flight 93 was shot down, is totally rediculous, and i just don't understand how someone could come to a decision based on the facts available from THAT flight, and other flights that crashed in a similar manner, such as flight 1771


Except that as already said, flight 1771 broke apart in mid air and that was the reason for wide debris field. Not because it crashed into the ground.

Thus the only logical way the wreckage would be in such a wide area as flight 93 is if it also broke apart while in air. 2 situations would cause that - 1 it broke apart due to it's speeds, which I've never heard. 2nd would be if it was shot down or whatever. Otherwise the plane would have hit the ground in 1 piece and been like countless other normal airplane crashes.

This flight 1771 actually suggests that F93 was broken apart in the air.

But why do you guys just want to ignore this?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
Throat Yogurt,
you seem to have your panties in a wad. The truthers just wanted to review your bulletproof evidence before stating anything that might sound like we were whining. This is a very good presentation of what can happen to a plane going supersonic then breaking up. This is just like the F4 that vanished into the wall that all the Debunkers rave about. You did a nice job proving your point.
Now if you could just get the pentagon to release some CCTV footage of Flt 77 hitting the building, we might be able to put this thing to bed.



This is 100% true, we can debate all we want about what really happened that day. But the fact is that the FBI has video tapes of an actual plane hitting the pentagon or tapes of whatever happened that day.

So my question is why doesn't the gov end the speculation once and for all and release the full video! not a few clips! but the full video from the security cams that recorded the event live! Why and how is that so difficult? We've all seen the planes hit the towers so dont give me that BS excuse they don't need to show people dying. We were attacked that day WE DESERVE to know what happens, release the tape and prove to me it was a plane and i'll stop asking questions. Until then I don't think any of us can be a 100 percent positive towards any theory.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


you're misunderstanding me. the plane broke apart in mid-air. whether flying level at 29,000 feet or diving at an 80 degree angle breaking up at 13,000. I used math (leaving out drag and inertia for some parts that would shorten the debris field) to determine where everything fell. Also, at the end of the post i said it was my opinion. I did not mean to state it as fact. Just by my calculations.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


You are not gonna see alot of "truthers" in this thread. Watch them claim that this plane was shot down


Great Find. Starred and Flagged



It must be nice to live in a world where everything you are told is exactly as it is. Because, you know, no one is greedy, no one craves power, no one is selfish and certainly no one ever murders innocent people to get what they want. ESPECIALLY not people in our government!

What's sad is that people who don't believe in any "conspiracy theory" whatsoever won't even say sorry if the truth about one ever does come out. Instead, you'll be touting the lame excuse for why they were justified in a cover up.

I'm tired of people on here trying to make anyone who doesn't buy the "official version" of events as somehow being nut jobs or just plain stupid.

Everyone is entitled to see things how they want. There are many different perspectives in this forum. Instead of just debating an issue it seems a lot would rather just revert to mocking people, name calling, or making them seem like crazies.

No one will ever know what really happened to Flight 93. No one because there are people who witnessed it being shot down and there are people who swear it was brought down by the passengers. But we will never know who is telling the truth. There always seems to be convincing evidence on both sides. Thought there is no evidence whatsoever that the passengers of Flight 93 brought the plane down themselves. Not even on the cockpit recorder.l



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
saying that flight 93 was shot down, is totally rediculous, and i just don't understand how someone could come to a decision based on the facts available from THAT flight,


But there are reports and documents that state Flight 93 was intercepted.

That clearly conflicts with the official reports that no planes were near Flight 93.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SRTkid86
 


once again, it was just by my calcs. No, I'm not some awesome forensics investigator or physicist. I'm a simple engineer that does trigonometry everyday (yes you're trig teacher is right, some people DO use it).

Also your statement about his driveway being public domain COULD be wrong. I don't know the state's laws there but in mine, and all surrounding states plus a few others are the same way. Public Right-of-Way is USUALLY about 4-6 into the property. (from the back of curb) So if they walked on the approach of the driveway yes you're right. However, what i took from his statement is, being a land surveyor, he meant driveway as in 6-10 feet from the street which is owned by him.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I've never seen these documents... then again i try not to follow this too closely since in the end it doesn't matter what happened. care to link to something for me, so i can educate myself on this?

i just have a hard time believing that our gov't would shoot down a plane, and then make up a story about how the passengers tried to take it back, and the terrorists flew it into the ground.

the shear amount of people that would have to be involved in that kind of cover up would be ENORMOUS. and it would be practically impossible to keep ALL those people silent all these years.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Sliick
 


no disrespect meant, but around here you have to take everything with a grain of salt.

i am from texas, and it is my understanding that anything within view from a public street is considered to be public domain. therefore your front yard, and anything in it, is not private property. this is why you are not aloud to walk around in your front yard butt neked, and then try to tell the cops you are on private property when they haul your ass away

FYI I am currently in academy to become a Texas DPS officer, i would just like to say, that if i were to walk up to a man's front door even, and he walked out with a shotgun, racked it, and told me his trigger finger was itchy, that is grounds for me to put 2 in his skull.

[edit on 8/19/08 by SRTkid86]

[edit on 8/19/08 by SRTkid86]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
i just have a hard time believing that our gov't would shoot down a plane, and then make up a story about how the passengers tried to take it back, and the terrorists flew it into the ground.


Why is it so hard to beleive that the government would shoot down a plane if they believed it was heading for the Capitol? They made up a little propaganda to make people feel better after what had happened that day.

Ever think the 1 reason the passengers were trying to take back the plane is because they knew they might get shot down?

See my thread NSA Archive: flight 93 shot down.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by NorthWolfe CND
 


ok, your story was somewhat believable until you walked out onto your driveway (public domain... NOT private property) and threatened federal agents and who knows else with a shotgun...

grow up, quite lieing.


Dude. One's driveway IS one's private property. Until it hits the street area. THEN it's public property.

Geez. Grow up, quit reaching.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
What do the experts say about the large debris field?


The wide dispersal of the wreckage initially had led safety experts to think the 83-seat plane might have begun to disintegrate while still in the air. But knowledgeable officials said yesterday that the plane's basic fuselage and engines had apparently been intact when the plane hit the ground. They attributed the wide dispersal to the force of the explosion of fuel and oxygen bottles, which they likened to the explosion of a bomb . Link


Can anyone post statements by experts that attribute the large debris field being caused by the plane breaking up in-flight?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
They attributed the wide dispersal to the force of the explosion of fuel and oxygen bottles


Does the 757 have oxygen bottles or oxygen generators?

I do not recall a witness stating about a really large explosion that would have thrown the engine core the distance it was found.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
As a "fence sitter" I have questions.

Flight 1771 plummeted into the ground from 22,000 feet, causing the plane to go supersonic and break up en route.

Flight 93 according to the official story broke up on impact which was at 563 mph (under mach 1).

Would this not make a difference in the situation?

Why would the debris field of both crashes be so similar with one breaking up on impact at a lower speed and one breaking up in flight at a faster speed?

I also understand that flight 93 impacted at 40 degree nose-down inverted attitude while 1171 came down at 10 degrees and breaking up mid flight.

Looking at the angle and speed differences, again, why would the debris field be so similar?

Would it not make more since for flight 1171, having broken up in flight to have a much larger debris field than 93 which broke up on impact?

This comparison confuses me and leaves me with more questions, not less.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join