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: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Why is it so hard to beleive that the government would shoot down a plane if they believed it was heading for the Capitol?


Odd how they didnt shoot down this plane that crashed in the white house compound in 1994:

query.nytimes.com...


Rattled security officials acknowledged today that they could not account for how a small Cessna airplane breached the closely guarded White House compound early this morning. Nor could they guarantee that they could prevent a similar occurrence in the future.




posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Odd how they didnt shoot down this plane that crashed in the white house compound in 1994:


Well for 1, maybe they did not consider it a threat.

Also they had alot more time to intercept flight 93.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
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]
The FDR shows flight 93 was operating mostly intact at time of impact. Meaning, the engines were turning and still installed, the rest of the FDR sensors were working, showing that 93 did not fall apart in-flight, nor did 93 exceed MACH1, as you can see on the FDR!

Why does the truth movement take evidence and twist it as needed to support their failed fantasy?

93 debris field is from an aircraft impact of 600 mph. If you can't grasp the fact 93's impact looks like it should, then you can take a course in aircraft investigation, from USC! Sign up soon and stop being wrong about this topic on 9/11.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
Why does the truth movement take evidence and twist it as needed to support their failed fantasy?


Speaking of failed fantasy, what are you going to do when i show diocuments that Flight 93 was intercepted.

Clearly conflicting the official reports that no planes were near Flight 93?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

Does the 757 have oxygen bottles or oxygen generators?
You have Google.


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



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


no, you clearly have no idea what the law is, until you do... please don't try to hurl yourself headfirst into a discussion involving them.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Speaking of failed fantasy, what are you going to do when i show diocuments that Flight 93 was intercepted.


Seems this mysterious document hasnt turned up in 7 years. How many more years do we need to wait?

10?

20?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
How many more years do we need to wait?

10?

20?


Funny, i could say the same thing about any believers posting any evidence to support the official story.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


lol, i asked for a link and he just told me to search for his thread.

sorry, but im not going to go trudging through pages of threads involving crazed lunatics think the world is going to end, and our gov't is filled with evil people who have no problem killing thousands of innocents and basically scaring the entire gov't into not saying anything about it.

if you have the evidence like you say you do, then please post it. and please make sure it's not from a blog, or a site called 911truthersunited.com or something like that.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1Does the 757 have oxygen bottles or oxygen generators?


Bottles for crew oxygen and generators for the pax. + a few
walkaround-bottles for the cabin crew.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
sorry, but im not going to go trudging through pages of threads involving crazed lunatics think the world is going to end,


Oh poor kid, you cannot look down a couple threads. Maybe some day you will grow up and learn how to look up things but i doubt it. And maybe grow up out of the fantasy world you live in.

I will make it is simple as i can for you.

onlinejournal.com...

On October 29, 2007, WMR reported: “According to U.S. intelligence sources, the archives of the National Security Agency (NSA), available to cleared users via the INTELINK network, contains an archive of Flash precedence and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) NSA intelligence messages known as ‘CRITICs.’

One such CRITIC from September 11, 2001, which includes a number of follow-on intelligence reports, concerns United Airlines flight 93, downed over Shanksville, Pennsylvania. However, the CRITIC is at odds with the official account of the fate of United 93, which is that passengers and crew attacked the hijackers and forced the plane to crash into the ground.

The NSA CRITIC, according to sources who have seen it, is about five or six sentences, and paraphrasically states:

“Two F-16s scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base at [likely 1336 Zulu]. Civilian airline hijacked. Over state of Pennsylvania civilian airliner was ‘intercepted’ at (Latitude and Longitude of intercept].”

Several follow-up CRITICs are appended to the first United 93-related CRITIC. One follow-up CRITIC mentioned a possible fifth hijacked plane flying south from Canada that was near the Canadian-U.S. border. Another CRITIC states the plane ‘intercepted’ over Pennsylvania was ‘confirmed civilian.’

On April 16, 2008, WMR reported: “WMR has received another confirmation, bringing the total number to three, that United Flight 93, hijacked on the morning of September 11, 2001, was shot down over rural Pennsylvania by U.S. Air Force jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. There are also reports that one F-16 scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia returned to base minus one air-to-air missile but the National Security Agency CRITIC report specified the interceptors that downed United 93 took off from Andrews.

“The third confirmation, as were the first two, is from a National Security Agency (NSA) source. In fact, a number of personnel who were on watch at the Meade Operations Center (MOC), which is a floor below the NSA’s National Security Operations Center (NSOC), were aware that United 93 was brought down by an Air Force air-to-air missile. Personnel within both the MOC and NSOC have reported the doomed aircraft was shot down.”





[edit on 19-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freaky_Animal
Bottles for crew oxygen and generators for the pax. + a few
walkaround-bottles for the cabin crew.


So not enough bottles to make a big explosion?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Odd how they didnt shoot down this plane that crashed in the white house compound in 1994:

query.nytimes.com...



I remember when this happened on Clinton's watch, I have always thought and still do think that this incident is what gave the terrorists the idea that they could actually pull this off with out much interference.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:34 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.


Driveways are private property and the owner can do mostly what they want. City sidewalks however are owned by the city.

In most u.s. cities, the city retains a 3ft easement at the front of all property lots adjoining the street, all property behind the easement is private, regardless of it's physical description, and any use of the property is at the discretion of the owner, check your local municipal or county muni code for specifics!



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


no, you clearly have no idea what the law is, until you do... please don't try to hurl yourself headfirst into a discussion involving them.


Well, now. Perhaps it depends on where one IS whether the driveway is public or private property, n'est pas?

Where *I* come from, the property line starts after an easement for sidewalks (usually - though sometimes it's at the street). Maybe your driveways have been usurped where you reside...

EDIT to add: Seems amazed lives in an area much like mine...

[edit on 8/19/2008 by Amaterasu]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:13 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.


My driveway is private property. My property starts at the gates, which are always open, about 1.5 miles from my driveway. My property has about 4 acres (20000 square yards)...

1) My driveway is well inside my Private Property...
2) I did not threaten anyone, just holding my gun in my hands until the intruders identified themselves...
3) I am not lying, hundreds of people went through the same thing, including local police forces. There are currently various "Truth Groups" still active, that include pilots, sailors and some police officials that where witnesses to the "accident" and the highly irregular procedures of the investigation...

I live in Northfork, Long Island, New York. I live in a house, not a condo or a town. Outside my property, not house, there is a public road wit no sidewalks, since you would have to walk a long way to get there...
My nearest neighbor, a Horse and dog breather lives ~2 miles up the road...
After leaving the public road you still have to drive 1.5 miles to reach my driveway and my house...
I never left my front porch, which is quite large, since I own a Victorian House, nor did I point the gun at anybody. I would have if they, instead of identifying themselves, tied to go for their guns...

My gate has two signs clearly stating "You are now entering Private Property" and "Beware of dogs", since some tourists tend to get lost and could get hurt...
I also have an intercom system, at the gate...

Hope that settled your "legal" issues...

Next time don't arrive at conclusions, based on your own little world view, and don't start offending people you know nothing about.
If you have any doubts, about anything, instead of coming to stupid, unfounded and unwarranted conclusions, just ask...it's far more polite



[edit on 19-8-2008 by NorthWolfe CND]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I am a truther, but not fanatical and I have an open mind. I don't NEED the inside job theory to be true, in fact I sincerely hope it is not.

Yet you know the truthers, for me it isn't just "one" anomaly that keeps me skeptical of the official explanations.

I have always wondered about the flight 93 enigma and I was never satisfied with any explanation but now I have a lead to follow and thanks for that.

If this is indeed the norm for high speed crashes then it also explains why a passport could have been on the ground at ground zero. I dunno...

the whole 911 issue has been so run into the ground and it will prolly continue to be explored like the JFK assassination still is today.

peace



[edit on 19-8-2008 by _Heretic]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   


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


Wasn't engine core, but fan section which fits in front of engine. This
piece weighing about 1000 lbs broke off at impact and rolled DOWNHILL
about 300 yards where it caught in catchbasin.




Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. 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." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by SRTkid86
sorry, but im not going to go trudging through pages of threads involving crazed lunatics think the world is going to end,


Oh poor kid, you cannot look down a couple threads. Maybe some day you will grow up and learn how to look up things but i doubt it. And maybe grow up out of the fantasy world you live in.

I will make it is simple as i can for you.

onlinejournal.com...

On October 29, 2007, WMR reported: “According to U.S. intelligence sources, the archives of the National Security Agency (NSA), available to cleared users via the INTELINK network, contains an archive of Flash precedence and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) NSA intelligence messages known as ‘CRITICs.’

...


[edit on 19-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]
You use an online hearsay news source which you know is wrong because you are in the NSA. Why does the news source make up false ideas about flight 93? The FDR proves 93 was not shot down, the physics of flight prove no fighters were near 93, and the impact crater and debris field prove 93 was not shot down. The debris all starts at the fuselages, wing, tail impact point! The imprint in the ground is exactly the size of flight 93's wings!

Was this your big NSA proof of shoot down?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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.



I'm sure the reports were faked



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join