Did Flight 93 Have Wings? Nope, No plane Crashed In Shankville., page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

Topic started on 10-9-2009 @ 10:45 PM by CaptainAmerica2012

After viewing the images and evidence it is concluded that what ever hit the ground in Shanksville did not have any wings consistent with a Boeing 757. Not one official story believer or pusher can point out where the wings or rear stabilizer hit the ground.

This image was ttaken next to the drainage ditch commonly mistaken for the wing dents, Notice no broken grass or signs of fuel fire or plane.

The EPA found no plane in the hole. Here is their image

Nothing found in the hole, nothing found on top of that soft soil. Then what caused that little crater?

Here is a real plane crash that crashed recently. "Iranian plane crash"

Obviously no plane crashed in Shanksville. What was it?

[edit on 10-9-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 10:46 PM by tmayhew01

can birds fly.....?

But seriously.... From what I have heard, the plane dove almost directly into the ground at a very high speed. Can you imagine the incredible forces associated with that? Billions of pounds per square foot, of course there is nothing left of the plane. I dunno, this is my perspective.... I'll let you and others come to your own conclusion, but when you look at the shear physics of the crash I think it makes pretty good sense.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by tmayhew01]

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 11:12 PM by gandhi

reply to post by tmayhew01

Well in quantum physics, matter randomly disappear's. but thats at a small microscopic level. in this case, that matter should still be there. engines, wings, luggage, people, frame, nah ah, this could not have simply burned into smoke.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by gandhi]

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 11:16 PM by gandhi

Whats with all of the, well, colored people. Not to be racist in any way shape or form, but it seems thats a foreign clean up crew.

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 11:19 PM by CaptainAmerica2012

reply to post by gandhi

If you mean the last 3 pics, thats an Iranian plane crash. As you can see it looks like a plane crash unlike the faked flight 93 site in Shanksville. First responders all agreed that no plane crashed there.

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 11:20 PM by googolplex

Like they say matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
Even if it did crash into a million pieces, there would still be Tons of aluminum there.
They said it made that crater, but I saw pictures and hole in ground was there before crash?

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 11:22 PM by tmayhew01

reply to post by gandhi

From what I can see there is matter all across the impact crater. Again such massive physical forces would completely vaporize and disintegrate the plane into dust. I do agree that it is a little weird that there really arn't any identifiable pieces, but thats not enough evidence for me to jump to the conclusion that it wasn't a plane that crashed there. Again I am hardly a novice at this type of information, so if there is something here that I am forgetting please let me know. I would definatly love to hear everybodys perspective.

But the first thing that I think about with this 'conspiracy' is Occam's Razor.... Just makes sense that it was most likely a plane. This is not to say that I don't acknowledge that the government did know of 9/11 before the event. I just find it highly unlikely that they were involved in the actual attacks.

I mean look at the complete and utter destruction in these crash pictures. Sure there is definitely identifiable debris in these pictures, but this is a very good representation of the forces involved in a crash. And to my knowledge these crash pictures are from incidents that were unlike 9/11. In the fact that the 9/11 crash was traveling at a much higher velocity, in the sense of magnitude and direction.

And to the OP, I definitely respect your opinion, but to say that this is clear evidence that this was a conspiracy and a plane did not cause the crater is in a way, jumping to conclusions. I understand where you are coming from, but without being on scene and seeing the actual debris, it is very improbable that we would be able to come to any definitive conclusions.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by tmayhew01]

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 11:26 PM by Beefcake

What more can you say it was shot down Rummy even said so.

YouTube Link

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 11:29 PM by TangoVooDoo

So, Bush is called the dumbest president ever, labeled a dumb hick from Texas but yet he is credited with pulling off the greatest inside job ever?

The first picture looks like the crew had been there a good deal of time already which could mean that the material left over had already been removed.

So the first responders ALL said that there was no crash? I don't follow this crazy idea that the government was behind this but again I have never heard of any signed written statement by the first responders that state there was never any crash.

Also, WHY? I mean why would the government go to such lengths to pull off such a intricate and orchestrated job and not think....."Hey what about crash material?"

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 11:31 PM by tmayhew01

reply to post by Beefcake

Great evidence supporting your opinions and theories, but this just doesn't do enough justice for me in light of the situation. I think the only definitive way we could prove or disprove these theories is to see what was recorded in the planes "black box" and FAA's flight records...

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 11:33 PM by CaptainAmerica2012

reply to post by TangoVooDoo

STill doesnt answer the question. Whatever caused the little crater in Shanksville on 911, did it have wings? if so where did they strike? Did they have fuel on board, if so how much? and where did it go?

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 11:35 PM by rogerstigers

Originally posted by TangoVooDoo
So, Bush is called the dumbest president ever, labeled a dumb hick from Texas but yet he is credited with pulling off the greatest inside job ever?

Not to pick nits, but I don't know of many 9/11 advocates who think Bush was at all in control of the situation. Most believe he was a pawn and if he knew about it at all, he was certainly not in any position to stop it.

I am still on the fence about 93. I certainly agree that the crash site is very anomalous. I just don't know. *shrug*

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 11:50 PM by Beefcake

reply to post by rogerstigers

I agree, personally i don't think Bush was in on anything tbh he is too stupid to be trusted with this better to keep him ignorant.

This was an intelligence operation. The US does not entrust the running of the country to a stooge that serves 4 or 8 years and then leaves. The president steps in and puts on a show while a shadow gov't runs the country. I think its been like this since for a very long time and was increased exponentially after JFK was assassinated.

Presidents don't know jack anymore about what is really going. Cheney on the underhand...

"We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will. We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful. That's the world these folks operate in, and so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective." -- Dick Cheney, Vice President of the USA, interview with Tim Russert in NBC Meet the Press

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 12:01 AM by rogerstigers

reply to post by Beefcake

And to those who might say that Dick was exaggerting or whatever, I say I do this sort of thing all the time in my line of work. Oftentimes it is so much easier to get things done when there is a lot of money or reputation on the line if you just don't bother askng permission. Always easier to ask for forgiveness.

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 12:13 AM by Rewey

You might be interested in this, Captain America...

www.4shared.com...

Rewey

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 01:28 AM by CaptainAmerica2012

Seems like no one can point out where they think the wings hit the ground.

Is there an "official" page that explains the crash site and the physics as to why no plane was found?

I know we have all seen the fake evidence images of black boxes and plane parts that were released 6 years after the event buy none explain why flight 93 had no wings or jet fuel.

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 06:40 AM by hooper

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012
Seems like no one can point out where they think the wings hit the ground.

Is there an "official" page that explains the crash site and the physics as to why no plane was found?

I know we have all seen the fake evidence images of black boxes and plane parts that were released 6 years after the event buy none explain why flight 93 had no wings or jet fuel.

No, you're right - no one can explain why no plane was found there. Just plane parts. And pieces. But no plane. Where do you think they buried the survivors?

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 07:34 AM by CaptainAmerica2012

reply to post by hooper

Your post doesnt prove anything but your ignorance.

If there were being 757 parts found then they were planted.

Can you show us where you believe the wings would of hit that soft dirt?

[edit on 11-9-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 08:03 AM by hooper

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012
reply to post by hooper

Your post doesnt prove anything but your ignorance.

If there were being 757 parts found then they were planted.

Can you show us where you believe the wings would of hit that soft dirt?

[edit on 11-9-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]

Sorry, I didn't realize they were planted. My mistake. You, of course, have some direct evidence to support this allegation, correct? Which you will share with us shortly?

Look at the crater photos. Look at the shape of the crater. Think about the swept wing design of the plane.

reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 08:04 AM by warrenb

reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012

Ignoring the MSM BS/Silence, I thought we had resolved this already?

Mayor of Shanksville says "No Plane"

“There was no plane,” Ernie Stull, mayor of Shanksville, told German television in March 2003:

“My sister and a good friend of mine were the first ones there,” Stull said. “They were standing on a street corner in Shanksville talking. Their car was nearby, so they were the first here—and the fire department came. Everyone was puzzled, because the call had been that a plane had crashed. But there was no plane.”

“They had been sent here because of a crash, but there was no plane?” the reporter asked.

“No. Nothing. Only this hole.”

thewebfairy.com...

Check the link for the first on the scene witness video of the "crash" scene.

Yes, there was no plane. Just like the Pentagon.