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.

 

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

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
My question is what happened to peoples loved ones that boarded that plane, that morning? They never came back home. There had to be a plane with people on it that morning.




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.



Oh yes, the American Free Press - very reliable. Sorry, next?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


from Spiegel:


In the book, Wisnewski describes the scene as follows: "And then it becomes apparent that something is troubling Ernie Stull. On the one hand, it's what the leading authorities of the United States - the FBI, the CIA, the President - have claimed. On the other hand, it's what his brother-in-law and his friend told him. 'There was no airplane,' says Ernie Stull, speaking partly to us and partly as if he were listening to his own voice, checking to see if he had heard himself correctly. One and half years after the catastrophe, he still shakes his ., completely at a loss, and helplessly extends his arms: 'No airplane'."

When Der Spiegel confronts Stull with the English translation of these passages in the book and the film script, the man is speechless: "My statements were taken completely out of context. Of course there was an airplane. It's just that there wasn't much left of it after the explosion. That's what I meant when I said 'no airplane'. I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes." /quote]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by hooper
 


from Spiegel:


In the book, Wisnewski describes the scene as follows: "And then it becomes apparent that something is troubling Ernie Stull. On the one hand, it's what the leading authorities of the United States - the FBI, the CIA, the President - have claimed. On the other hand, it's what his brother-in-law and his friend told him. 'There was no airplane,' says Ernie Stull, speaking partly to us and partly as if he were listening to his own voice, checking to see if he had heard himself correctly. One and half years after the catastrophe, he still shakes his ., completely at a loss, and helplessly extends his arms: 'No airplane'."

When Der Spiegel confronts Stull with the English translation of these passages in the book and the film script, the man is speechless: "My statements were taken completely out of context. Of course there was an airplane. It's just that there wasn't much left of it after the explosion. That's what I meant when I said 'no airplane'. I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes." /quote]




Exactly and literally. There was no plane. The plane was gone, there were only plane parts and pieces left - some big and some small.

It hit the ground at something like 65% of the speed of sound.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.


You can't really believe that. Why do you insist on repeating nonsense?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted 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.


You can't really believe that. Why do you insist on repeating nonsense?


The images and evidence have been reviewed by experts and they have concluded that the little hole in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757. (FLIGHT 93)

Any child can see this. Trying to bury truth with ignorance is really not working at all anymore. You are only revealing your true nature of infesting these threads with nonsense. Try to refute my claims from the basement on dads computer is weak. Armchair experts...pfff.l


Show me in those pictures where you think the wings struck the ground and where all those thousands of liters of fuel went.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted 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.


You can't really believe that. Why do you insist on repeating nonsense?


The images and evidence have been reviewed by experts and they have concluded that the little hole in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757. (FLIGHT 93)

Any child can see this. Trying to bury truth with ignorance is really not working at all anymore. You are only revealing your true nature of infesting these threads with nonsense. Try to refute my claims from the basement on dads computer is weak. Armchair experts...pfff.l


Show me in those pictures where you think the wings struck the ground and where all those thousands of liters of fuel went.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]


Show you on a photo where the fuel went? Really?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


i don't know what the big deal is Captain. a plane crash with no
evidence of a plane, it's passengers and their bouncy luggage, no crew.
this could mean only one thing herr capitan. i've seen this many
times.
it's the old liquify and evaporate do to the forces of velocity x pound of psi phenomena.
the wings and tail evaporated before the even made contact w/ the
ground. don't tell me you've never heard of the lef x vpp phenamenan?
there any grave sites for these people that died in this"crash"?

[edit on 11-9-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   


The images and evidence have been reviewed by experts and they have concluded that the little hole in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757. (FLIGHT 93)

Any child can see this. Trying to bury truth with ignorance is really not working at all anymore. You are only revealing your true nature of infesting these threads with nonsense. Try to refute my claims from the basement on dads computer is weak. Armchair experts...pfff.l


Show me in those pictures where you think the wings struck the ground and where all those thousands of liters of fuel went. ent.


1. What experts?
2. Child? Oh, you make me laugh.
3. Armchair experts in what? You stated that experts have proven this with a few grainy pictures.
4. It was an abandoned mine that it hit. Soft ground. Read a book.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Aluminum does not "vaporize" on impact. At least not in this reality. I think the pictures were taken after most of the debris had been cleared.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
Aluminum does not "vaporize" on impact. At least not in this reality. I think the pictures were taken after most of the debris had been cleared.


Nope, your wrong, most of the images were taken within an hour or so of the crash.
The video provided was claimed to have made moments after the crash. The trees in the background seemed to have suffered a concussive blast rather that a fuel laden fire that is why the tree stumps and branches didnt burn.





Check out this video taken moments after the explosion.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012
Check out this video taken moments after the explosion.


Well, I can certainly see wing scars in that one. Given the softness of the soil, I suppose it is a *possibility* that the plan embedded into the soil with most of its fuel and simply ruptured downwards.. *shrug* I would still expect to see fuel spray and such.

The though comes to mind of water crashes. After a certain speed, water becomes as hard and unyielding as concrete due to inertial effects on the miniscus. Wonder if that same effect to some degree exists in soil?



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


Have you seen a real plane crash?

I have (Lear 35A) - looks exactly like this. Plane is reduced mostly to
small fragments with few larger pieces mixed in. Also the fuel is atomized
and sprayed out as aersol. Ignites in massive fireball which singes
the area. Because trees still have green leaves is difficult to ignite them
Leaves are wilted and stripped off trees by heat

Here is media account of crash in my neighborhood



''We're dealing with body parts, not bodies,'' Chief Joseph Ranney said. ''Identification will be very difficult.'' Airplane parts were scattered in small pieces throughout the site on Garrett Mountain. Flames Higher Than Treetops




An investigator for the board, Chauncey Twine, said the airplane crashed at an 80-degree angle, clipping trees and landing amid rocks and boulders at 3:15. An explosion followed, sending flames higher than treetops, residents said.

''If the angle of descent was not as great,'' Mr. Twine said, ''the fire would have spread. By impacting at that angle, it was fairly contained.''




Federal, police and fire investigators sifted through the remains. The parts of the plane were scattered beneath trees, shrubs and rocks, and the smell of jet fuel permeated the air. The residents of nearby homes and the condomnium complex said the explosion rattled their homes and the flames lighted the early morning sky.



This is what jet crash looks like - not your conspiracy fantasy....



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


Have you seen a real plane crash?

I have (Lear 35A) - looks exactly like this.



There is a big difference in a Lear jet and a full size commercial airliner such as flight 93 a Boeing 757.

If your saying that the hole looks like it was made by a lear jet i would say that your pretty close to solving this conspiracy.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


Umm yeah, this is what Ernie Stull had to say about the interview you posted....




When Der Spiegel confronts Stull with the English translation of these passages in the book and the film script, the man is speechless: "My statements were taken completely out of context. Of course there was an airplane. It's just that there wasn't much left of it after the explosion. That's what I meant when I said 'no airplane'. I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes


www.spiegel.de...



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 




This image was taken moments after the crash. As you can see what is confused with "wing scars" have been there before the explosion because there is grass growing in them and was most likely caused by water considering the crash site is located on a hill.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Sorry there was 2 posts made. Deleting...

[edit on 13-9-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Here2 Israeli missiles that hit Gaza creating craters similar to the Shanksville crater.

Can you see the similarites?








[edit on 13-9-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Star and flag!
I'm not sure how it could be more obvious.
Not ONE piece of a huge passenger jet! Wow.


Clearly it's a bomb crater.
Geez, if a missle flew up some peoples butt they'd think it was a suppository.
I am sure we will tend to be skeptical and deny the evidence.
Any thing else would mean we fell for the OS hook line and sinker and
we would never admit that we we're ever wrong.
Thats unpatriotic!
Thats also a sign of "weakness".

We are soooo duped, its truly scary.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012
Check out this video taken moments after the explosion.


Well, I can certainly see wing scars in that one. Given the softness of the soil, I suppose it is a *possibility* that the plan embedded into the soil with most of its fuel and simply ruptured downwards.. *shrug* I would still expect to see fuel spray and such.

The though comes to mind of water crashes. After a certain speed, water becomes as hard and unyielding as concrete due to inertial effects on the miniscus. Wonder if that same effect to some degree exists in soil?




how do you guys actually pick and choose what you see to satisfy your own ego? if you honestley do not see marks that look like wings in this picture you can not be helped.

and calling those wing marks a "drainage ditch" is a good try,lol



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join