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.

 

Was a UA 757 even witnessed flying around Shanks?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yeah I wondered about that, b/c I could have sworn I saw a photo of f93 right before 9/11 and it had that blue gray color.

I wonder if the photographer that was riding in the piper/cessna, that was asked to identify f93, took any photos. You would think he would have, especially knowing what was going on.




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



A 757 doing "erratic maneuvers" at that altitude at that speed? Doesn't sound like any 757 I know.


Why did you write that??? You DO realize we're talking about a hijacked airplane here, correct? Indications are that the passengers, clued in to the events in NTC, decided to atempt to fight back, correct?? The guys flying were using erratic maneuvers to attempt to thwart the passengers' attempts, essentionally the same way turbulence can throw you off balance when you aren't seated.

Doesn't "sound" like any 757 you know? Really!


Beside, that pilots accounts doesn't answer my OP because I asked for witnesses who described a 757 plane with UA colors flying through Shanksville. This pilot was in a town 50 miles away.


He was near Latrobe, PA. Didn't you even read the article???

Latrobe is about 37 miles from the crash site, in Shanksville. Latrobe is West and NorthWest of Shanksville. It is very near the ground track of United 93, as determined from the Flight Recorder!!!


And why was that pilot still in the air with there was a flight ban initiated at 9:30am?


The "ground stop" was issued at about 0929EDT, effective AT 0930EDT.

Why was he still in the air at 9:30??? Are you serious?


You didn't read the article, did you? I'll save you the trouble. He WAS approaching the airport near Latrobe, PA, intending to land. The controller asked him to take a look for the United.

Pffft! Read, THEN ask!!



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You DO realize we're talking about a hijacked airplane here, correct? The guys flying were using erratic maneuvers to attempt to thwart the passengers' attempts, essentionally the same way turbulence can throw you off balance when you aren't seated.

A 757 would break up in the air if it was flying "erratically" at that low altitude at that fast speed.



He was near Latrobe, PA. Didn't you even read the article???

Apparently you didn't:


"Wright was flying over Youngwood, Westmoreland County, and was getting ready to land in Latrobe..."




The "ground stop" was issued at about 0929EDT, effective AT 0930EDT.
Why was he still in the air at 9:30??? Are you serious?

Are you saying he saw Flight 93 traveling at 580mph at about 50 miles from Shanksville at 9:30?



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Just so I can help you clear up your misconceptions, I'll try to address them without unneeded extra quoting, since it's right above.

The jet wasn't flying continuously at 580 MPH, at 8000 feet. That number (a bit of exaggeration) is higher, I imagine, than the actual impact speed. I can look it up from the Flight Recorder data, if you'd like.

Basically, they were cruising in the 250-280 Knot range indicated airspeed, and the minor maneuvers needed to make someone not seat belted in aren't going to overstress the airframe, and cause structural damage resulting in immediate destruction of the airframe. I should know, I have experience flying the dern things!! They are quite strong, and to throw someone up to the ceiling, all you need is ONE negative G, well within the design limits. 1/2 G will discombobulate people, too.

You are confusing the County mentioned in the article, with the Airport. I looked it up, you can too, on Google Maps.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

How about you find me ONE witness in Shanks to answer my OP?



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


www.flight93crash.com...

here you go.

[edit on 8/12/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ATH911
 


www.flight93crash.com...

here you go.

Please post the witness quotes that answer my OP.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


From the article, the pilot, Mr. Wright and his passenger:


It was close enough for him and his photographer to see the United Airlines colors.


Now, if you think the reporter made that up, then perhaps someone would be kind enough to contact the paper he worked for, and see if you can get in touch with him (the reporter) and ascertain what, exactly, was said by the two witnesses in the Piper.

Would that be sufficient?

No, probably not. You see, the tactics are clear here --- there could have been 100 witnesses, all airline pilits, standing on the ground at a convention in the field at Shanksville, who would give their names and statements that they witnessed the United 757, and it still would not be good enough, that's my guess here.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
From the article, the pilot, Mr. Wright and his passenger

You know either way it doesn't matter because Mr. Wight was neither in Shanks when he witnessed that plane, nor did he witness it being in Shanks.

Can't you skeptics answer the OP?


Would that be sufficient?

No, probably not. You see, the tactics are clear here --- there could have been 100 witnesses . . . that they witnessed the United 757

But there wasn't, was there? You guys, AT BEST, can only produce ONE.

As your buddy Cameron likes to say: FAIL

[edit on 12-8-2009 by ATH911]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Well, I suppose it IS your perogative to call it a "FAIL", but it sure seems to make you look a little bit biased.

There is so much other evidence that is overwhelming.

But, the apparent absence of just one more thing that doesn't seem sufficient to the new position of the moving goal posts. I'm sorry that I fell for this game. I tried, but I see the futility of it. People tried to tell me, but I had this hope that using logic may have helped people understand things, but when minds are firmly closed, there is no point.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
when minds are firmly closed, there is no point.

Your words are true. You skeptics will never believe 9/11 was an inside job, so why bother debating you guys.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by weedwhacker
when minds are firmly closed, there is no point.

Your words are true. You skeptics will never believe 9/11 was an inside job, so why bother debating you guys.


No one in "Shanks" probably saw the plane in flight. It was miles away, never came to "Shanks", never crashed in "Shanks". Shanksville is a small village in a valley miles south of the crash site and the flight path. It all happened in the middle of morning on work/school day. So probably no witnesses or at least none that has come forward. No big deal.

Next.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join