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.

 

Prove that bulk of UA93 buried itself into the ground

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 

he was doin great when he was talkin to himself.




posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Whats the proof for this ?



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Sorry, but this:

pittsburgh.about.com...

Is an article written by a reporter

It is hardly evidence of United having parts of UA93.

If this is the sort of proof that Reheat uses to convince himself a 757/767
dug itself into the ground, he has bigger issues to worry about than
simple physics.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
At that spped
much of the fuel would be aerosolized into a cloud which because of
the momentun would be projected FORWARD of the impact point.
The fuel cloud would be ignited into a fireball which would burn very
rapidly - every see a circus eater? Sprays flammable liquid from
his mouth and ignites it - impressive fireball yet does not get burned


I love these debunker analogies.

The 'circus eater' doesn't get burned because the flame is put out before the fuel is completely used.

Also nothing is going to aerosol the fuel, it takes more than just forward velocity.

I think you guys just make this up as you go, so you have something to say, who cares if it makes sense eh?



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by ATH911
 


Well, for once you're right. I can't prove it. However, Chuck Wagner and the approximately 1199 others who participated in the recovery effort can prove it.
United Airlines can prove it too, since they have what's left of the airplane. I'm sure you've told them they are in on the conspiracy and that they didn't lose that airplane on 9/11. I'm sure they will be impressed with "Internet Sleuths" who know better.

pittsburgh.about.com...


Well, you really believe that a commercial airplane got literally swallowed; and that there is nothing left but a small hole in the ground?

Common, you can do better than that!



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by thegreatobserver
 


OK as i stated earlier in the thread it didn't sound right to me with an 8 miles debris fieldes an engine being almost a mile away(turns out was 300 feet downhill in the direction of the crash). Found out it was a part of the engine. After reading eye witness testimony from the area there is little doubt a plane crashed.So then i started trying to figure out what could cause a plane to do this. Then i started reading the testimonies again. There was reports of the plane coming down so fast it caused a whining noise like in world war 2 when they took bombers into nose dives.

If this was occurring this plane by this point was traveling well over any normal speed for a passenger jet which means momentum becomes a major factor. Then i started looking at the plane parts collected most of which was only a couple of inches. The only parts that seemed to survive in larger pieces was part of the right tail section widow and the engines.

I was also given false information while reading this thread At the speed this plane came down it would be like firing a sot gun at the ground and even if i used buck shot there not going to be on the surface. This thing hit doing hundreds of miles per hour at a 90 degree angle if they didn't find plane parts under the ground it be shocked.

Sorry but id have to say looks consistent with a plane crash also found out this isn't the only instance this has occurred there has been crash sites in the past similar to this. The only thing that makes this unusual is very rarely do you have a pilot intentional crash a plane in this manor. Now if you can find a way to disprove eyewitness testimonies im listening and open to argumants.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
If i recall, the Value Jet crash in the everglades also buried much of itself in the ground (mud) never to be found. Tried to find some proof of this but was unsuccessful. The media in Florida was reporting this at the time. Not sure if it panned out to be like that.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 



Also nothing is going to aerosol the fuel, it takes more than just forward velocity.


Care to re-examine that statement?


Another much lower speed than UAL93:


tragic:



Ya know, you can throw a match into a bucket of jet fuel, and it won't ignite. It burns when atomized.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Let us not also forget that for the plane to have been buried you would see a little hill on all sides of it.

Also, with the rain that the area ha been recieving as of late would turn the sand and dirt to concrete forever encassing whatever is there.

United 93 was shot down over Eastern Pa hence why there is little evidence on the ground.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I heard the Gov. was going to FORCIBLY take the site away from the land owner...has any one else heard anything of that?

also, EPA found no contamination of the soil or groundwater from the jet fuel



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Let us not also forget that for the plane to have been buried you would see a little hill on all sides of it.

Also, with the rain that the area ha been recieving as of late would turn the sand and dirt to concrete forever encassing whatever is there.

United 93 was shot down over Eastern Pa hence why there is little evidence on the ground.


If that plane was shot down the debri field would have been a lot larger than 5 miles more like 50 miles and much larger chunks of the plane would have been found.All so there wouldnt have been the explosion on impact like the eye witness reports verify. The plane being shot down is an impossibility.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Care to re-examine that statement?


No.


Ya know, you can throw a match into a bucket of jet fuel, and it won't ignite. It burns when atomized.


Fuel does not need to be atomized to 'burn', the fumes from the fuel will ignite from a spark. In fact it's the fumes that ignite all liquid fuels, atomizing it just makes a more efficient and complete burn.

They have many flight deck fires on a/c carriers from jet fuel getting in the hot catapult tracks, pools of fuel evaporating not atomized.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 



Fuel does not need to be atomized to 'burn', the fumes from the fuel will ignite from a spark.


You're right. When I said 'atomized' I was making one point.

Fumes, of JET-A, or gasoline....are really the atomization of the fuel.

It works that way in the carburetor of your car (or fuel injectors, in modern automobiles) as in turbine engines.

My example of a match in a bucket of kerosene implies that the bucket is out in the open....the fumes aren't contained, and therefore aren't flammable.

When fuel is 'splashed' it atomizes, or 'aerosols' (not sure if that is a verb).

Anyway, fumes develop, and with an ignition source, fire follows.

However, as any camper knows...what's the best way to kill a fire? That's right --- sand. Loose soil, such as in a re-claimed former strip mine.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Hence why the debris field isn't that great. most of the plane burned up in the initial explosion, if any human remains did somehow manage to hit the ground the likleyhood of being able to extract and dna is highly unlikely as most would've been eaten by local wildlife or get dissolved by rain.

There are a couple dozen reports of the shoot down.

You can position any projecticle to precisely cut a plane a certain way to minimize resistance and to maximize explosion. Hit the front from the side little explosion, hit just behind the wing and the explosion is greater. By doing so you can actually reduce the total debris that remains by greater then 60%. Whatever did survive is probally long gone by now. That's the deciding factor as to wether or not if you need a flatbed truck for debris or simply the bed of a pickup truck or to the point where whatever is left you can fit on your couch.

Fireball can also be increased, you could easily go from 125 feet to nearly 500 feet in circumfrence. Especially when there is an accelerant on board that wouldn't traditionally be on board of a plane like that. C4, a mini nuke scaled down like 1/10 the size of a suitcase nuke.

[edit on 20-6-2009 by TheImmaculateD1]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Hey all,

I just put together a report based on the physical evidence of the soil, which kind of shows how silly the 'official story' is.

I posted the link to download the pdf on this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please feel free to download it and have a read. I'd be interested in your comments. I believe it looks at evidence from around the alleged crash site which has not been looked at to date...

Rewey



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob

also, EPA found no contamination of the soil or groundwater from the jet fuel


Excellent point hgfbob. No soil contamination means nothing carrying fuel crashed their. No Hazmat team no clean up crew = No plane crash.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Skeptics I'm confused. If there is so much evidence Flight 93 crashed in that field, then why can't any of you Prove that the bulk of UA93 buried itself into the ground?



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 



Excellent point hgfbob. No soil contamination means nothing carrying fuel crashed their. No Hazmat team no clean up crew = No plane crash.


Sorry, hgfbob and titorite. No proof? Then what you say about EPA results is nothing short of rubbish.

You see, if you only get your 'information' from a site like "Killtown" and such, and blindly accept what they write, then you are doing yourselves, and others, a disservice.

Someone challenged, up above, to prove UAL 93 crashed at Shanksville.

Well, I say PROVE it didn't! Problem I've noticed is, however, that just about any Google search nowadays is heavily weighted by the nonsense sites, like Killtown, so they come up first. This just perpetuates the lie.

AND, really, when it comes down to it, I believe there's a reason. The vast majority of reasonable and sane people know that it is a waste of time to post the truth on sites like Google and its little buddy YouTube, because people convinced of this 'evil' conspiracy won't pay attention to facts, anyway. they would rather feed off of innuendo and outright lies.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by titorite
 


Someone challenged, up above, to prove UAL 93 crashed at Shanksville.

No, it's Prove that bulk of UA93 buried itself into the ground.

Maybe you can be the first skeptic to prove this extraordinary official claim.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by ATH911]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Still waiting for someone to prove that the bulk of UA93 buried itself into the ground.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join