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.

 

Reheat - Hole in the Ground

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Where did they obtain their information? I have read it. I have sent e-mails. (as have others) they haven not responded to me. We do not know where they got their information. It is not sourced. There is nothing on-line that I have been able to find that shows the FDR report. Again, where are all the plane parts? The first responders are quoted as saying they only found small debris.

So if its not online, then it didn't happen eh? LOL.
1. Have you contacted the attorney of law about his court case which I also posted?
2. I'm sorry Air Disaster didn't respond to you. That doesn't help prove them wrong.
3. I'm not arguing the plane parts, I'm arguing the fact that the plane broke up in mid-flight which accounts for a 15 mile debris field.



Nope, I didn't accept unnamed witnesses. I accepted the NTSB summary along with the statements from NAMED sources that were at the scene.

If you accept the NTSB, then by logic you accept their unnamed witnesses. So you do accept unnamed witnesses.

Can you re-post or relink to the named sources that saw the plane not break up in flight? I would appreciate the additional knowledge.

I will defer to the attorney and the court of law and will stand by that as well. I noticed you did avoid that part of my comment. It seems a court of law trumps unnamed witnesses, agreed?

Lets see what the New York Times witness states:


Bill Hartzell, owner of the ranch where the plane crashed, said his daughter saw the crash. ''The plane was coming straight down when it hit into a hillside,'' Mr. Hartzell told The Associated Press. ''The sheriff's department is closing off the area. There's airplane parts and body parts and luggage all over a 15-mile area. I don't know how anyone could have survived.''New York Times

15 miles! That is one hell of a bounce unless of course it was breaking up in flight. That bounce and explosion had to go pretty high through the forest to get the debris up and out, eh?



''I saw a streak drop out of the sky about 3,000 feet,'' he said. ''It appeared to be a large flame heading straight down to the ground at a very high rate of speed.-New York Times

Hmmm large flame heading straight down...isn't that indicative of a plane breaking up in mid-flight?



An F.A.A. spokesman said the plane was in contact with the Oakland Air Center in Fremont until 4:14 P.M. when radio and radar signals were lost. At the time the plane was at an altitude of 22,000 feet.-New York Times

Do tell...and I will let the experts answer this: How can the FAA loose radar contact at 22,000 feet if a plane is still intact unless the plane was breaking up?

One other question to the experts, at what point does a 747 reach terminal velocity before breaking up?
For a 737....


The aircraft reached 100deg bank, 60deg nose down and 3.5g; it broke up at 490kts in the dive. Boeing 737 Accident Reports
Sure it could be a structural defect, but the report doesn't not state it as such.

Not looking good Cam, not looking good.

Here is a "theory" for you....PSA in fact had had many problems with engines on their fleet in the past prior to this incident. Perhaps the NTSB stated that the plane did not break up in order to cover up for faulty plane or engine parts and decided to ignore contrary witnesses statements along with the actions of the lone gunman on board.
Rodney Stitch, in Defrauding America (sorry, buy the book and read it) as I stated earlier describes in great detail using excellent primary source documentation the cover-ups for the industry by the FAA and the NTSB. He is a whistle blower. Check it out, Cam, and educate yourself!



Again, where are all the plane parts? The first responders are quoted as saying they only found small debris.

Small debris eh?

Now lets see what the FBI on the scene thought they found in the debris:


Detective Bill Wammock is the first to arrive on the scene.
He recalls “nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”

Wow, Cam, they thought they found a plane! Not a passenger one mind you, but a plane none the less. I noticed you omitted that in your statement above. Why?


Back to Shanksville:

Now what plane are they talking about?

So in summary, what you have presented is a crash that at first glance appears to mirror that of Flight 93.

In reality you have a steep dive taking place at around 22,000 feet after FAA lost radar contact. This dive I'm quite certain would exceed the structural limits of the plane, causing it to begin to break up during this steep dive and the resulting fire enabling it to be viewed by at least one witness. You present a summary with unnamed witnesses. I present numerous witness statements as found in the public realm, the loss of radar contact by FAA beginning at 20,000 feet, the structural integrity of a similar plane itself in a high speed dive and the results, the analysis of the FBI who were first on the scene as believing a PLANE actually had crashed there.

Tell us again how this accident was similar to Flight 93?

Because it isn't, unless you are suggesting Flight 93 was shot down or had a bomb planted on board causing it to break up in mid-flight. Which of course is consistent with the man in the rear of the plane on the cell phone, the 8 mile debris field, and the very strange items taking place in the skies around Shanksville as described by the people who were there. As the evidence shows, Flight 93 didn't crash into that crater.

Now here is what a near vertical nose dive would be like:


Trans-Canada Air Lines crash kills 118-Picture-Now that's a crater! Even in swampy conditions not soft dirt! They were able to determine rate of decent, angle, speed, etc.




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Again Cameron, what's with the 1000 foot wind speeds? Where are you
going with this?

The plume must have been about 3x the height of the trees as estimated
by the photos. I don' tknow the height of the trees, therefore I can
only give you a ratio.

It seems Swing Dangler has shown sourced info and well documented
proof of 1771 breaking up in the air.

Nobody here has been able to explain how UA93 could
physically dig itself into the ground as per story.

Nobody here has shown debris around the crater, or within the crater aside from a rotor which should appear after the tail section, wings,
landing gear, seats, etc. as you would expect from the construction
and logical order of a 757

1771 shows a large debris field as one would expect in a crash. Any airplane
accident besides those on 9./11 have produced plenty of parts scattered
in proximity of the crash.

So, once again: What's with the 1000 foot wind speeds? I'll estimate 20 MPH for the moment until I can figure out a source, or equation to better
calculate this figure.

In the mean time, please explain the reason for this data, and also supply
the direction of wind on that day.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by turbofan]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Tino... Flight 1771 ....remember?

Neutral readers of this thread will note that CameronFox is desperately trying to steer the thread off topic.

He has insisted on posting about another off topic plane crash. The above quote shows he does not address the OP and is trying to entice another member into an off topic diversion.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Originally posted by dragonridr
"I don't want to die," a passenger is heard to cry out in the tape.



Funny, I did not know the COCKPIT voice recorder picked up sounds in the passenger area? You might want to speak to some pilots and techs
about your previous statement.


You might want to speak to some teachers about reading comprehension. The account reads as follows:


A flight attendant being held captive is heard pleading, "Please, please, don't hurt me".[35] Jarrah instructs the autopilot to turn the plane and head east at 09:35:09.[36] The aircraft ascends to 40,700 feet (12,400 m) and air traffic controllers immediately move several aircraft out of Flight 93's flightpath.[34] The flight attendant in the cockpit is heard to say, "I don't want to die, I don't want to die" followed by one of the hijackers saying in Arabic: "Everything is fine. I finished."[35]


Friendly point...go back and try that "comprehension" thing again...

"The flight attendant in the COCKPIT..." (emphasis mine). The COCKPIT voice recorder would record voices in the COCKPIT, which is where the flight attendant was, in the COCKPIT.



[edit on 19-5-2009 by trebor451]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Please read the previous quote: PASSENGER.

READ

Emphasis mine.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Please read the previous quote: PASSENGER.

READ

Emphasis mine.


Semantical parsing, something I have come very used to from the PfT Flyboys. Voices from passengers outside the cockpit are heard on the CVR, as is the voice of a flight attendant inside the cockpit, apparently both saying "I don't want to die". What's next, tf?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Perhaps less derail, and some evidence of a 757 beneath the crater?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Perhaps less derail, and some evidence of a 757 beneath the crater?


Good point, but since you claim nothing happened since there are no released images or pictures or photographs of what *you* think should be the correct amount of wreckage or of dismembered body parts to your liking, what evidence *would* you accept?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by turbofan
Perhaps less derail, and some evidence of a 757 beneath the crater?


Good point, but since you claim nothing happened since there are no released images or pictures or photographs of what *you* think should be the correct amount of wreckage or of dismembered body parts to your liking, what evidence *would* you accept?


How about something like this: Nose dive into ground at high speed!

Where they found several tons of debris in and immediately around the crater which the picture does indeed show. Keep in mind the swamp is 'softer' than the soft dirt at Shanksville.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Where they found several tons of debris in and immediately around the crater which the picture does indeed show. Keep in mind the swamp is 'softer' than the soft dirt at Shanksville.


Wait...let me put my Troother hat on...

What? I don't see ANYTHING that resembles an aircraft in the least in that photo! Nothing! A small pond out in the swamp and *you* want to tell *me* an aircraft crashed there? Where's the aircraft tail?? Where are the bodies! I want to see photos of entrails and arms and legs. Where are the 4 - count 'em 4 - engines! I see none. Where are the wing marks?? Where are the bodies! C'mon...nobody died there! I want guts. That airplane was 150 feet long with a 142 wing span....ya-right! You telling me that sized of an aircraft is in that teeny hole? What is that....50? 60 feet across?

Truther hat off...

Fine...it looks like the crash dynamics ensured some of the albeit unrecognizable aircraft wreckage remained in a relatively close proximity to the crash point. No recognizable parts of the aircraft, though, and even with the picture you can't tell what actually is aircraft wreckage and what is only piled up dirt from the crash.

This DC 8 image is an orange, though, and Shanksville is an apple. Both are round-shaped fruits (i.e. plane crashes) but there the similarity ends.

Thanks for the image, though. It underscores the fact that a plane-crash site does not necessarily have to look like what one would think a plane-crash site should/would look like. Plus, there are no recognizable aircraft parts anywhere to be seen, so all plane crashes (i.e. Shanksville) by example, now, do not have to have recognizable aircraft parts left after impact.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Where they found several tons of debris in and immediately around the crater which the picture does indeed show. Keep in mind the swamp is 'softer' than the soft dirt at Shanksville.


Wait...let me put my Troother hat on...

What? I don't see ANYTHING that resembles an aircraft in the least in that photo! Nothing! A small pond out in the swamp and *you* want to tell *me* an aircraft crashed there? Where's the aircraft tail?? Where are the bodies! I want to see photos of entrails and arms and legs. Where are the 4 - count 'em 4 - engines! I see none. Where are the wing marks?? Where are the bodies! C'mon...nobody died there! I want guts. That airplane was 150 feet long with a 142 wing span....ya-right! You telling me that sized of an aircraft is in that teeny hole? What is that....50? 60 feet across?

Truther hat off...

Fine...it looks like the crash dynamics ensured some of the albeit unrecognizable aircraft wreckage remained in a relatively close proximity to the crash point. No recognizable parts of the aircraft, though, and even with the picture you can't tell what actually is aircraft wreckage and what is only piled up dirt from the crash.

This DC 8 image is an orange, though, and Shanksville is an apple. Both are round-shaped fruits (i.e. plane crashes) but there the similarity ends.

Thanks for the image, though. It underscores the fact that a plane-crash site does not necessarily have to look like what one would think a plane-crash site should/would look like. Plus, there are no recognizable aircraft parts anywhere to be seen, so all plane crashes (i.e. Shanksville) by example, now, do not have to have recognizable aircraft parts left after impact.


LOL...put on your perspective cap and realize that picture isn't at ground level along the crater's edge as many of the Shanksville pieces are.

Two, the picture does indeed look like a massive crater with debris scattered around the edge and within the crater and numerous trees knocked down around the edge. The entire area is scorched by the massive explosion. Compared to a cookie cutter imprints on the crater at Shanksville.

The analogy would be akin to different sized apples, not apples and oranges. The ground conditions they nose dived into at a high rate of speed are also substantially different.

A softer material with water, ie swamp land, actually has more debris in and around the crater than the harder softened dirt of Shanksville! Go figure!

So I will let your imagination and physics try to explain the crater at Shanksville compared to a similar nose down high speed impact into a swamp where the swamp site actually had more debris compared to the non-swamp land.

By the way, did the wing spars remain intact to make the indentations and then bury themselves? Pretty strong wings, eh?


Did the wing spars remain intact to make the indentation, and then disintegrate?

Did the wing spars remain intact to make the indentation and then explode up and out of frame of any of the pictures never to be seen again?

I asked a series of similar questions earlier and didn't receive an answer from anyone. I wonder why?



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


How is that off topic? What is wrong with showing another aircrash that has almost identical crash characteristics to prove a apoint? Or are you just trying to cover up and hide a bit fat fact on plane crashes? Sometimes the plane gets obliterated into itty bitty pieces, especially after doing a nosedive at high speed. Why hide this fact Tezz? Just because the planes were different models, it does not negate it at all. Plus the Mods dont seem to think hes trying to derail it, so why shut him down Tezz?



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Sometimes the plane gets obliterated into itty bitty pieces, especially after doing a nosedive at high speed.


Can you prove that United 93 did a nosedive? The OS lacks any evidences of proof to support your claim. So show us proof that this airplane was indeed flight 93, I do not want to see hears say from the FBI, or staged bone yard photos. You have made a statement that the plane did a nosedive, and apparently you really believe it, please show why. thank you.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
How is that off topic?

When Cameron opens his Flight 1771 thread, take your opinions there and discuss that crash with him.

This thread is about digging Flight 93 out of the hole. Care to add a comment about it, GenRadek? How much of Flight 93 did they manage to dig out of the hole and how deep did they dig to find it?

Furthermore, unless we know who they are, wouldn't Swampfox's chain of custody criteria for evidence be broken?

Have a second go, GenRadek. Type about Flight 93, not Flight 1771. Go on, I dare you.

[edit on 20-5-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 





Funny, I did not know the COCKPIT voice recorder picked up sounds in
the passenger area?



Yes, turbofan. The CVR will be able to record LOUD sounds from immediately outside the cockpit door. Remember, before the hardening of the cockpit access, the door was very light, it was a flimsy honeycomb resin composite with a light aluminum frame.

Gee...has anyone flown First Class lately? Even with the new doors, you can still hear noises from the cockpit...such as the A/P disconnect, the GPWS and the TCAS. (Note: A quick finger on the A/P disconnect button [a double click] will prevent the audible warning on the B757/767...Airbus and B737 will sound regardless).



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


trebor, you took the words right out of my mouth. What plane in the swamp? It looks like, well, a swamp with unrecognizable... piles of..well, I dunno. Looking at that picture, I don't see a plane crash or anything. So does that mean no plane crashed there?

I can't believe people look at a few pictures and start screanming "OMG! There's no plane!"


The plane was breaking up in midair before it went down. of course there will not be a big honking shell of a plane or concentrated debris field. Where's the plane? it's scattered over a wide swath of 8-15 miles. because it was shot down.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Yes, turbofan. The CVR will be able to record LOUD sounds from immediately outside the cockpit door. Remember, before the hardening of the cockpit access, the door was very light, it was a flimsy honeycomb resin composite with a light aluminum frame.

Gee...has anyone flown First Class lately? Even with the new doors, you can still hear noises from the cockpit...such as the A/P disconnect, the GPWS and the TCAS. (Note: A quick finger on the A/P disconnect button [a double click] will prevent the audible warning on the B757/767...Airbus and B737 will sound regardless).


I thought everyone was at the BACK of the plane? Doesn't quite fit
the story does it?

Anyway, back on topic. Has anyone seen reheat...I'm really getting
concerned!



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


Skadi....do you guess it was a heat-seeker? Or, some other kind of missile?

Or, maybe, if not a missile, some other method??

Just wonderin', because there are transcripts of ATC and a BizJet in the area talking about seeing the B757. Then, the smoke from the ground. No discussion that I've seen of a smoke trail in the air, to point of impact in Shanksville.

Also, unless it was a Stealth fighter (??) there were no RADAR returns that the controllers could see of any unidentified/unaccounted airplanes.

Not dismissing the 'shoot-down theory' completely, it's just there are many questions about that idea. CVR and SSFDR data, as well....



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


As far as what was used to bring the plane down, in specific ordinance, I have no theory. There are reports of people saying they heard a missile, who were war veterans, but nothing conclusive yet. Could have been a missile, could have been simply shot up from a fighter's conventional guns. As what specifically took it down, I have not formed a theory, as I haven't seen any information pointing to specific data, only a number of anomalies and pieces of evidence that favor a shootdown.

Also, a missile, depending on which kind, where it was fired from, distance fired from, and altitude fired from, and weather conditions, would not necessarily leave a noticeable smoke trail, or your average layperson would not be able to ID it as such.

I do believe there is of evidence for a shootdown, but I see none for the no-plane or fake crash theories. I do believe flight 93 did go down in Shanksville. Where I disagree with the accepted account is just exactly how it went down.



EDIT: I thought I would also like to add that there is another theory that is just as possible as a shootdown: that there truly was an active bomb on board that exploded and caused a catastrophic breach in the plane. We do have some phone calls from the passengers on the plane stating that the hijackers or whoever told them they had bombs, though it was suspected that they were fake bombs used as crowd control. One guy stated he heard an explosion (Ed Felt) But for all we know, all four places could have very well had live bombs on them. However, 3 crashed before any known explosion so we will never know.

Of course, why the government would not bring out publically the exitence of a live bomb, I don't know.

Just my 2 cents.

[edit on 20-5-2009 by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


Good logical thinking, rational too. Reason I mention the missile question is, IF heat seeker, then it'd go for one of the engines, no?

THAT would certainly be catastrophic enough....the smoke I referred to would be from the UAL93 as the wing caught fire....if the engine exploded, you betcha there'd be fire. Likely too, the wing would be gone shortly, and THEN it wings over and spirals in to impact.

Problem is, the CVR and SSFDR belie a shootdown as described or imagined. Neither unit has an independent power source; they operate from Main Bus #1, which is powered from the left engine generator.

IF the right engine were to be taken out, then the recorders might continue to function, but the engine readings on engine #2 would have shown up on the SSFDR as missing data......when, in fact, there is ample data on both engines simultaneously 'til impact.

EDIT to add, for the aviation nerds: Of course, it is possible for main Bus #1 to be powered from Main Bus #2 thru the cross tie, (closes automatically) if engine #1 were shot off...but, still the problem with SSFDR data remains....



[edit on 5/20/0909 by weedwhacker]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join