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: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
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.



DFR and CVRs;
www.howstuffworks.com...

"
Most magnetic-tape CVRs store the last 30 minutes of sound. They use a continuous loop of tape that completes a cycle every 30 minutes. As new material is recorded, the oldest material is replaced. CVRs that used solid-state storage can record two hours of audio. Similar to the magnetic-tape recorders, solid-state recorders also record over old material.
"
If the black box were chip-based, then they are quite a bit tougher than tape-based systems. It appears that the Chip-based DVR was on flight 93. Here is the detailed inspection;
www.gwu.edu...

So, the last two minutes is the most likely data to be preserved on a tape. However on an electronic system, it would be random. That we have a serial record of all but the last two minutes is sort of curious -- not impossible.

I don't know about the Audio recording -- if it was tape, then the last 3 minutes missing is highly unlikely. The first 3 minutes missing would be more likely -- because that part is exposed and on the outside of the reel.

I was trying to find the percentage of black boxes that are recovered but no such luck. Most of the black boxes were not recovered on 9/11.

Here is a good timeline and record of events, though this is from the perspective of non-Gov POV; www.historycommons.org...


>> I'd like to see some links of this flight that is supposed to be so much like flight 93. I still don't see how a plane just breaks up in midair WITHOUT going supersonic and then going perpendicular to the flight plan.

>> I'd also like to say, that Flight 800 -- at least to my first instinct on it, might have been hit by a shoulder launched missile.

A LOT of small planes crash, with pesky Liberals and South American leaders at a greater frequency than the public at large. It was interesting that JFK Jr. was known as an expert pilot and not a risk taker, yet the media covered his event as if he were inexperienced. Look for accidents that happen at the highest altitude reached; pressure-detonated charges on the outside of the planes.

>> I'm willing to accept that Flight 93 just crashed. It's just that a lot of this seemed like a cover-up so I assumed the worst. However, finding un-burnt paper is not a huge anomaly to me -- I don't think it means much one way or the other.

Again, I find it hard to believe that the plane can break up in mid-air such that the engine is miles away.

Don't rush too much to judgement on this new crash before we get good details and non-circular references.




posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Great post. I was with my family in San Diego when this happened. Brings back memories. Star and flag!



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


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!


I don't understand. Are you saying that the plane didn't break apart in-flight and maintained cruise speed? That would be hard to mesh with the engines being miles away. They aren't going to bounce that far, so either the engines fall off the plane while it is up in the air or they don't.

Sliick put it a bit more detailed -- but I agree with him. There is nothing here that explains how the engines on flight 93 got 8 miles away with the data and explanation the government has provided.

A corrupt, government, that should have gone to prison for falsifying evidence to go into war in Iraq. Which has outsourced 80% of the CIA. Which has worked to put an elected governor of Alabama in prison on false charges. Which has sent billions of dollars on no-bid contracts to friendly corporations who have ample evidence of previous malfeasance. I mean, I could go on about how corrupt this Bush government is. In 2001, there was a time when there was the "benefit of the doubt" -- not shared by me. However, in 2008, we should all know that these guys can and do engineer bad things, and that the are deceitful.

The manufactured stories of Yellowcake Uranium. They used the Lincoln Group to plant false stories in the Australian press and then quoted them on the news.

Look at the Anthrax specialist who was "suicided" recently. Turns out that the hair samples the FBI has from the letters, does not match the guy they are saying sent the powder -- and it was also proven he was not in the area the letters were mailed from. And still, we have 4 unidentified people who told ABC there was a connection to Iraq. What are the chances that the same lab used to do the investigation, is the one where a doctor goes crazy, and decides the Two politicians who could hold up the Patriot Act, are the exact people who need to be scared into supporting his research?

I could really go on, and on, about really fishy operations, that show pre-knowledge, and an ability to manipulate stories. John McCain himself, was on Letterman, talking about the connection shortly after the incident. It tells me that someone was ready to plant stories BEFORE the Anthrax was mailed.

I mean, when a Mob Boss keeps putting horse .s in your bed -- do you really need to spend too much time wondering how your dog got shot?

The resident government, acts the part of a criminal conspiracy, in so many other instances. We constantly get the "coincidence" theories and the "too stupid to have done it" arguments. And they never stop. Now we have Karl Rove meeting with certain leaders of Georgia, in Yalta (if memory serves) about 1 month before the really, really strategically stupid invasion of a Ossettia. Israelis and US "consultants" have been training them for months. Weapons and logistics provided. Karl Rove was out there doing what while he should have been answering Congress's subpoena to testify about his work towards putting the Governor of Alabama in prison under false charges. You couldn't pass this stuff in a dime store novel.

And we are supposed to swallow this?

I think it is time for the administration to prove its innocence. If not about Flight 93, then about dozen other crimes.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
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.


Wow. You just stated current events as if they were farfetched. Congratulations, you should graduate to the front of the class on Neuro Linguistic Programming.

There are no facts we can look up -- because someone somewhere has a nutty idea on the issue at hand. Apparently, nobody died in Korean War, because Corporal Klinger wore a dress.

Sliick makes a great point here;
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'm still waiting for a normal break-up in air, to reverse direction, such that debris goes behind the path of the plane. If a plane breaks up in mid-air due to turbulence, and it limps along -- then you'd have a spread out debris field. But if it's doing a nose-dive to achieve supersonic speed -- you would expect a cone of debris, roughly centered on its trajectory.

Back and to the left about 8 miles? See my previous post about the mob putting horse .s in your bed. I think that thinking the Mob is up to something is less of a stretch than breaking the Laws of Newton.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by beachnut
 


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!


I don't understand. Are you saying that the plane didn't break apart in-flight and maintained cruise speed? That would be hard to mesh with the engines being miles away. They aren't going to bounce that far, so either the engines fall off the plane while it is up in the air or they don't.
...
Engines miles away. Is this the super opposite of a country mile? No engines were found miles away. Someone is telling you a lie.

Here is one engine zero miles from impact!
This takes care of the miles away junk.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Excellent post. You are right, there are just way to many coincidences with this regime in office. If I didnt see all of his boys both in the military industrial complex and in the oil industry making a TON of money then I would indeed give Bush the benefit of the doubt in these "coincidences" One of the first things they teach you if you want to solve most crimes is follow the money. The fact is 9/11 shifted our foreign policy in a way that the Military Complex and the Oil Industry both Bush & Cheneys com padres is making billions right now directly because of 9/11.

Im am one of those truthers although i was not until recently. I saw 9/11 and went on a patriotic binge just like 80% of the other Americans. Then all of these "coincidences" started happening. That is when I started to look at evidence of 9/11 and in many cases lack of. There was HUGE interests in a 9/11 event happening just like the Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, and the sinking of the Lusitania. Lots of money to be made in war and the only thing it costs is a few peon lives.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Thanks for providing proof that flight 93 was shot down.


THIS OTHER ARTICLE MERELY MAKES THE IDEA THAT FLIGHT 93 WAS SHOT DOWN EVEN MORE BELIEVABLE!!!!!!! Read below to find a logical explanation of the events...

Ok, so this plane(PSA Flight 1771) that was "taken" down by a disgruntled employee was spread over several miles with debris no larger than a mans hand. This was caused by the plane "breaking up" in the air due to high velocity before it even crashed. Right? Following me? Pay attention cause here is the kicker: If flight 93 was shot down, it would have begun to BREAK UP IN THE AIR before it even slammed into the ground. IF the plane had actually crashed like a normal airliner and "slammed" into the ground, the resulting debris would have been much larger and the debris would be located in a much smaller area, no matter what the angle the plane hit the ground at. If the plane was going straight down and hit the earth, the debris would have been very concentrated, if it came in at a very soft angle it would have resulted in a softer landing and thus the debris would be larger pieces, and generally spread over a smaller area than if it were shot down.

THEREFOR FLIGHT 93 HAD TO HAVE EITHER BEEN SHOT DOWN OR BEGUN BREAKING UP IN THE AIR. The plane had fallen apart prior to hitting the ground, therefore spreading the debris over many miles.

To be honest both crashes are very similar, but the fact that such "key" incriminating evidence of the people who "caused" these crashes is found in both the 93 crash site and this other crash that happened makes me suspicious.

1. If the debris was so scattered and there was almost nothing left of a plane made out of metal, plastic and rubber etc, how the hell could a badge, a puke bag with a suicide note on it, and all these other "items" possibly come out the crash and still be recognizable. If the crash had enough force to tear metal into small shards and not just parts of the plane but every single piece of the plane, then there is NO CHANCE that anything such as paper puke bags or a badge could possibly survive the crash.

2. Same thing applies for the WTC buildings, how the hell could a passport of a terrorist survive the initial crash and the massive fireball that occured, a fireball so intense that it was able to melt steel(which is impossible, airline fuel does not burn high enough to melt steel, doesn't matter how long the steel is heated for because it requires a much higher temperature to melt steel and consistent exposure has little to no effect on Steel Girders

3. ITS NOT the fact that the plane was scattered across several miles, nor the fact that the debris was all so small which makes flight 93 suspicious. Its the fact that there were many witness's reporting "fighter" like jets in the area, unmarked white jets. Its the fact that so much key evidence was "found" (I say planted) yet they claim the plane was torn into tiny pieces, so how could all this evidence of the hijackers be found if everything was obliterated?

[edit on 19-8-2008 by MaynardisGod]

[edit on 19-8-2008 by MaynardisGod]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   
I choose to believe that flight 93 was shot at, with bullets, by our own military. I also believe a group of people with cell phones called their loved ones and decided on a plan of action. And that it was an incredibly lucky break for the govt. And my beliefs don't matter since I'd like to address simple physics in relation to the previous post:

Originally posted by MaynardisGod
1. If the debris was so scattered and there was almost nothing left of a plane made out of metal, plastic and rubber etc, how the hell could a badge, a puke bag with a suicide note on it, and all these other "items" possibly come out the crash and still be recognizable. If the crash had enough force to tear metal into small shards and not just parts of the plane but every single piece of the plane, then there is NO CHANCE that anything such as paper puke bags or a badge could possibly survive the crash.


If you drop a paper bag and a piece of metal that take up the same space, the metal will fall, the bag will flutter. Take them both and shoot them out of a cannon. The metal will fly a farther distance, the bag will flutter around and not go far at all. For whatever reason, flat, lightweight things tend to survive better than flat (or curved) heavy things.



2. Same thing applies for the WTC buildings, how the hell could a passport of a terrorist survive the initial crash and the massive fireball that occured, a fireball so intense that it was able to melt steel(which is impossible, airline fuel does not burn high enough to melt steel, doesn't matter how long the steel is heated for because it requires a much higher temperature to melt steel and consistent exposure has little to no effect on Steel Girders

3. ITS NOT the fact that the plane was scattered across several miles, nor the fact that the debris was all so small which makes flight 93 suspicious. Its the fact that there were many witness's reporting "fighter" like jets in the area, unmarked white jets. Its the fact that so much key evidence was "found" (I say planted) yet they claim the plane was torn into tiny pieces, so how could all this evidence of the hijackers be found if everything was obliterated?


As for the WTC towers, remember all that totally unharmed paper falling out of the holes in the building? Some of it fluttering out from sections that were visibly burning, but the papers weren't burning at all? Lightweight things tend to survive.
Yes, I find it suspicious that so much evidence (or "evidence") was found.
Almost as suspicious as our government actually coordinating something so well without failure.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 04:33 AM
link   
I don't feel it is necessary to repeat my OP over and over. Perhaps those that have not read it should do so.

I state that the crashes are not identical. They are similar as they both are high speed crashes.

I do not know the extent of the break up prior to impact. Has anyone looked into this?

Bottom line is the eerie similarities between them:

On scene investigator stating that he failed to see:

1- anything resembling a plane
2- debris in trees
3- small pieces of human tissue
4- pieces no larger than a human hand (referring to plane parts)

the investigation:

1- two bags for collection; one for body parts, one for plane parts
2- debris found included credit cards, photographs, and other personal belongings
3. Clues from the murderer: "suicide note" on air sickness bag / pieces of the gun used/tissue and fingerprint from the murderer.
4. CVR evidence shows what happened inside the cockpit just prior to crash.

What is the difference between them?

- Flight 1771 was not witnessed going down. (the I have found so far)
- No witnesses of a flume
- NO DNA evidence. (not available)
- I don't believe the FDR was usable. (let me look further into that)



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I don't feel it is necessary to repeat my OP over and over. Perhaps those that have not read it should do so.

I state that the crashes are not identical. They are similar as they both are high speed crashes.

I do not know the extent of the break up prior to impact. Has anyone looked into this?

Bottom line is the eerie similarities between them:

On scene investigator stating that he failed to see:

1- anything resembling a plane
2- debris in trees
3- small pieces of human tissue
4- pieces no larger than a human hand (referring to plane parts)

the investigation:

1- two bags for collection; one for body parts, one for plane parts
2- debris found included credit cards, photographs, and other personal belongings
3. Clues from the murderer: "suicide note" on air sickness bag / pieces of the gun used/tissue and fingerprint from the murderer.
4. CVR evidence shows what happened inside the cockpit just prior to crash.

What is the difference between them?

- Flight 1771 was not witnessed going down. (the I have found so far)
- No witnesses of a flume
- NO DNA evidence. (not available)
- I don't believe the FDR was usable. (let me look further into that)


My OPINION is that you've demonstrated a solid comparison that would allow for re-thinking of the "theory" that flight 93 was shot down. I've never seen this info you've posted before so THANKS.

It seems to be a reasonable comparison based on the posted info.

My other opinion is that unfortunately, you will be attacked for your post as you have attempted to dismiss the beliefs of a radical fringe element. It's like you have tried to prove god doesn't exist. I've attempted to discuss this subject reasonably with a number of these individuals and have found they are not interested in any factual information that contradicts their BELIEFS.

I applaud you for standing up and speaking your mind in the face of these people.




posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   
It is my opinion that the passengers from flight 93 landed were taken of the flight and murdered in cold blood, I am missing a few pieces of the puzzle but IMHO flight 93 did not crash. The fact that there wasn't any scattered wreckage certainly rang bells with me. To all you septics out there please before writing do your research.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 06:39 AM
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.


Oh no. Here we go again with the NSA super secret documents that Ultima1 has tried to get through the FOIA. Although he wont produce a foia control number for us. Oh yea, you don't need one for an internal request
And to the guy who thinks there is a conspiracy because there were oil execs on board, I hope you are kidding. BTW, nice article.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 20-8-2008 by tide88]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Hahah , I laugh at these "Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville" Official fantasy promotion threads. z

Why dont you try showing images of the crater site??? I know why, you look foolish trying to say a Boeing 757 crashed in shanksville on 911 for the evidence and experts all agree one didnt.














Hey throat, you have been debunked in the other flight 93 threads and failed to sell the official story and prove that a boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville on 911. If your going to start a thread that gets 15 applausews from some moderator here atleast provide images of the site in question so people can actually research this themselves. Try this link killtown.911review.org...

The airforce were conducting multiple live fly airline hijackings and cruise missile intercepts over Pennsylvania on 911. Eyewitnesses confirm the use of missiles, private jets and military jets before and after the 'crash' of hijack plane 93. Research this. I dont lie.

Flight 93 has been proven to have been caused by a missile or ordinance rather than a fully fueled Boeing 757 travelling at -600mph at only a forty degree angle yet there is no evidence of such a crash occuring due to the lack of physical evidence and the lack of displaced dirt consistant with the volume and velocity of the aircraft in question.

Flight 93 (the Boeing 757) DID NOT CRASH in SHankville on 911. Make up your own mind and remember that there are many people here that admit to working for the gov and they support the official story here on ATS. Doesnt make them right. They are just using propaganda and lies to obsefucate the truth and mislead you good Americans.

Conclusion: Flight 93 Did Not Crash In Shanksville/Stoystown Pennsylvania on 9/11.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
The contradiction still lies in the fact that if something hits the ground, everything is destroyed in to " pieces no larger than a human hand "....

... then why was there a 8 mile debris field in Shanksville???

Did it skip along for 8 miles??? Or is it more likely the story is BS??



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
to those of you that dismiss the puke bag as being able to survive:

its VERY possible that the bag and other paper items/luggage/seats can survive this crash. The only kicker is the plane MUST break up in midair for this to happen. The plane is in mid-air and the wing breaks off causing a nice big hole. The cabin (pressurized) suddenly has a breach wherein all the air is escaping. Thus sucking out all the compressed air along with (if strong enough) seats, luggage, and people. No matter what, if there's a hole in the plane due to breakup paper will always be pulled out. This does not exonerate the passport flying out of the plane that hit the towers. That plane did NOT breakup and was consumed by a giant fireball.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Now this is a very interesting find indeed. I have seen debris fields from many of the known and video'd plane crash sites. This is the first one I have seen with very little recognizable debris. This is all I have been asking for. Proof that a plane can completely disappear. That has always been something that has bothered me about flight 93.

Very interesting find.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
Oh no. Here we go again with the NSA super secret documents that Ultima1 has tried to get through the FOIA.


Well for 1 i can post the public FOIA E-mail i sent to NSA.

Second, you keep proving you know nothing about FOIA requests when you ask for a number before the request is sent.

I have alos proven to members on here who i am and who i work for. So be adult enought to accept the facts and stop acting so immature.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I'm sure the reports were faked



Gee you immature beleivers have no idea what a Critic message even is and that it would not be faked.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Here is another crash of a Russian Tupolev TU-154M Airliner that went into a flat spin and crashed. Check out the pic. The tail survived, but everything else? gone.
planecrashinfo.com...

airplanes can crash and leave nothing but strips of debris.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
Hahah , I laugh at these "Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville" Official fantasy promotion threads.


What is interesting is that we laugh at all your Spam infested posts.

You have never offered ANYTHING to ANY conversations besides the same old rhetroic.



Hey throat, you have been debunked in the other flight 93 threads and failed to sell the official story and prove that a boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville on 911.


You can not prove 1 thing regarding flight 93 that I got wrong. Go a. again... look through all of them. I can show you countless errors YOU have made.

YOU FAILED!


If your going to start a thread that gets 15 applausews from some moderator here atleast provide images of the site in question so people can actually research this themselves.


I offered several links and a video. MAybe you should watch it.

It also shows your "research" skills when you post a link to a KILLTOWN site. GENIUS!


I dont lie.


Um... ok

Because you do:


Flight 93 has been proven to have been caused by a missile or ordinance....


See, it has not been proven. So now...ask yourself... did you lie when you posted that statement?


Flight 93 (the Boeing 757) DID NOT CRASH in SHankville on 911.

lie #2



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join