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.

 

gov't shot it down.

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Liquefied airplane...
Flight 93 crash site.......




posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff, here is a Google Earth image that I made using the airports, navigational aids, and navigational fixes from the C-130's flight progress strip:




The flight plan was filed before takeoff.


[edit on 9-10-2008 by Boone 870]

[edit on 9-10-2008 by Boone 870]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Does it matter which unit owns the C-130? It's on public record and is backed up by the government. This isn't made up by "truthers". The government is the one who claims that the same C-130 "witnessed" both crash sites. Not us kooky Cters.


Actually, to me, it does. I want to know who is suppose to own this 130. Is it a Compass Call aircraft or Commando Solo?

The Devil is in the details.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Minnesota Air National Guard.

In the photos from this article, O'Brien is standing in front of a C-130 that has the numbers 1002 displayed below the cockpit window. 1002 is aircraft number 95-1002 and can be seen in this airliners.net link.

Here's a C-130 production list from herkapedia.

It's a standard C-130H.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by KOGDOG
 


Strangely enough, when pieces of aircraft hit the ground at more than 500 mph, they tend to go underground and not just sit there kindly for you to see them.

If you want to see aircraft wreckage, look for a crash that was being controlled in a manner that suggests the pilots didn't want to hit the ground. Those are generally nicer to look at.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
reply to post by KOGDOG
 

Strangely enough, when pieces of aircraft hit the ground at more than 500 mph, they tend to go underground and not just sit there kindly for you to see them.CUT...

Hmmm.....


The primary debris field: "There was a crater in the ground that was really burning. There were pieces of fuselage and clothing all over the area, burning, said Peterson. He said he didn't see any debris longer than a couple of feet long. Spallone said the plane was still smoldering at 12:30. He said officials were trying to keep people from scene and confirmed that there are no survivors. He said the "debris field spread over an area size of a football field, maybe two footballs fields." The impact of the crash was so severe that the biggest piece of debris he has seen there is no bigger than 2 feet. The secondary (and tertiary) debris fields: The Pennsylvania state police said debris from the crash has shown up about 8 miles away in a residential area where local media quoted some residents as seeing flaming debris from the sky.

Debris Field Story URL
Eight miles of scattered debris would seem to be a problem for the "liquefied" theory.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Everyone does realize that those pictures are of a standard C130 H model without any sort of ECM, etc, whatsever?

Minn ANG are standard trash haulers.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 



how am i off topic (Snip)?

the thread is about flight 93 being shot down.....

i posted wally miller talking about how the plane impacted different than the official story.

this supports shoot down.

i posted susan mcelwain who puts a smalll fighter plane at the scene at the moment of the attack.

this supports shoot down.

i posted viola saylor who puts a large white plane flying away at tree top level [can't be yates] and confirms the presence of susan's small white plane.

this supports shoot down.

i posted 3 teenagers who saw viola's large white plane at the scene and state it was a fighter jet.

this supports shoot down.



you're an anonymous joke reheat.


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 9-10-2008 by asala]

[edit on 9-10-2008 by asala]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   


Eight miles of scattered debris would seem to be a problem for the "liquefied" theory.


Secondary debris field composed of paper and metallic foil type insulation
most was about 2 miles away in DIRECTION WIND WAS BLOWING THAT
DAY. Some other light pieces of paper and insulation were recovered
from farther away.



The debris found in New Baltimore consisted of very light materials, including paper, thin nylon, and other things that would, if in the air with the wind, would easily blow. At the time of the crash, the wind was blowing at 9 knots in the direction towards Indian Lake and New Baltimore.[15] The debris in New Baltimore included charred pages of in-flight magazines, papers from a pilot's manual, a map showing the Guadalajara, Mexico, airport, and copies of stock portfolio monthly earnings reports. It also included some black webbing, from insulation lining the belly of the jetliner, which was a flexible material where it hadn't burned, and crisp where it had.[20]


www.debunk911myths.org...



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terrorcell
reply to post by Reheat
 


how am i off topic dickhead?


Reported. But, you have two accounts, so I guess it doesn't matter.


Originally posted by Terrorcell
the thread is about flight 93 being shot down.....


Correct. Now, where is your evidence of a shoot down?


Originally posted by Terrorcell
i posted wally miller talking about how the plane impacted different than the official story.


Only in your mind is it different.


Originally posted by Terrorcell
this supports shoot down.


How?


Originally posted by Terrorcell
i posted susan mcelwain who puts a smalll fighter plane at the scene at the moment of the attack.


So, it varies from a drone which flew below utility wires to a fighter plane as the situation dictates. Which was it?


Originally posted by Terrorcell
this supports shoot down.


How?


Originally posted by Terrorcell
i posted viola saylor who puts a large white plane flying away at tree top level [can't be yates] and confirms the presence of susan's small white plane.

this supports shoot down.


How?


Originally posted by Terrorcell
i posted 3 teenagers who saw viola's large white plane at the scene and state it was a fighter jet.


A fighter painted white? Guess it must have been one of the Thunderbirds.


Originally posted by Terrorcell
this supports shoot down.


How?

Nothing you have posted supports a shoot down. You only report what some people believe they saw.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Terrorcell
reply to post by Reheat
 


how am i off topic dickhead?


....you have two accounts, so I guess it doesn't matter.



Terrorcell has "two accounts"?

Have you reported such a gross violation to the ATS mods with proof? Or is this another unsourced claim from you, just like the claims you have made that "Capt Bob will never fly again.." or.. "Many people will be interested if Rob renews his medical" (implying a block on my medical), or "P4T never addresses DME", or "P4T is evil", or "P4T is selling snake oil" yet P4T grows with real pilots who put their name to their claim... or.. "Rob pads his logbook" and then you backpeddle to say "All civilian pilots pad their logbook compared to military" (thats right weedwacker, Reheat thinks your logbook is padded).. or... well.. im sure many get the idea. (if anyone needs source for my claims, please let me know and i will source it all).

Reheat, why to you always make such empty, unsourced claims? How stupid do you think the people here at ATS are? Oh wait.. i think you already made that comment (and i can source it if needed, heading out the door now)

Regards,
Rob

*SNIP* Recruiting comment removed

[edit on 9-10-2008 by johndoex]


Mod Edit: Recruiting is not allowed as stated in the Terms and Conditions.

[edit on 10/11/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Sloppy sloppy Nic-Switching... Dominic--err... Terrorcell.. BUSTED!

It makes one wonder how many of these "true believers" are actually sockpuppets.

My guess is a great many...

Is trolling with multi-nic's considered "credible?" I *could* sit here all day and agree with myself on a multitude of usernames, attempting to create the ILLUSION that my POV is widely accepted. But that would be smarmy and desperate.

This forum is dying.

The arguements hackeneyed. The "movement" stagnate.

Somehow I am not surprised, nor impressed.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by Taxi-Driver]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Sloppy sloppy Nic-Switching... Dominic--err... Terrorcell.. BUSTED!

It makes one wonder how many of these "true believers" are actually sockpuppets.

My guess is a great many...

Is trolling with multi-nic's considered "credible?" I *could* sit here all day and agree with myself on a multitude of usernames, attempting to create the ILLUSION that my POV is widely accepted. But that would be smarmy and desperate.

This forum is dying.

The arguements hackeneyed. The "movement" stagnate.

Somehow I am not surprised, nor impressed.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by Taxi-Driver]


well if i get banned then i get banned.

i sign my 'terrorcell' posts 'dom' at the end of them.
i stated to the many jref forums who know both my former[terrorcell] anonymous internet moniker and my current non-anonymous one that i cannot log 'terrorcell' out of my pc for some reason. i do not have this problem with any other website but i cannot log this name out to log in my public name.

i have never once pretended to be someone else. if you read the 'terrorcell' posts you will also see i present my videos as my videos in them. it is not a sock puppet. one is my home pc and one is not.

i do not understand what is causing this problem but i have never once hid who am i.

unlike beachnut, reheat, yourself, and countless other anonymous internet personalities [all belonging to the same person?] who have continually attacked my motive and my character for years on end without any accountability.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by Terrorcell]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
This has always been my exact point, if we knew the comm channels we're off, along with GPS, why in the HELL wouldn't we blast the planes out of the sky.

It was all staged. That's like saying, OH we have a hostile fighter jet in our air space and we'll just let it fly around and shoot things. Greaaaaat idea.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Terrorcell
reply to post by Reheat
 


how am i off topic dickhead?


....you have two accounts, so I guess it doesn't matter.



Terrorcell has "two accounts"?


yes rob i do. i haven't lied about it or hid behind it and have addressed the reason publicly multiple times including signing my real name to terrorcell posts in order to avoid any confusion.

reheat is well aware of this. this desire to see me removed from here is solely to try to repress shanksville evidence and the words of someone who has spent more time talking with actual eyewitnesses than any non-law enforcement/fbi agent in this country.

reheat watched that viola saylor preview and probably like the rest of his ilk he's in a panic.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

posted by Taxi-Driver
Sloppy sloppy Nic-Switching... Dominic--err... Terrorcell.. BUSTED!

It makes one wonder how many of these "true believers" are actually sockpuppets.

My guess is a great many...

Is trolling with multi-nic's considered "credible?" I *could* sit here all day and agree with myself on a multitude of usernames, attempting to create the ILLUSION that my POV is widely accepted. But that would be smarmy and desperate.

Many of us already know that Terrorcell and Domenick DiMaggio are the same person. He makes no effort to hide it. I accept his explanation.

Sock puppets? My guess is none of them.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join