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.

 

For those who think Flight 93 was shot down...

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Could you please repost them?


"1. If it was shot in the air before the crater and crashed in that field causing the crater, why is there no debris on the ground leading up to the crater?"


I will repeat my answer.

You seem to forget or ignore the fact of the 2 seperate debris fileds which show more of a shoot down scene then a crash.

Also the engine core found a distance from the crash.



[edit on 20-3-2010 by REMISNE]




posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
You seem to forget or ignore the fact of the 2 seperate debris fileds which show more of a shoot down scene then a crash.

Also the engine core found a distance from the crash.

I thought that response was to someone else.

Your response seems like an answer to my 2nd question, which you fail to fully answer it.

You response is incomplete.



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I have seem so many simulations as to why the twin towers collapsed and witc 7 but nothing dealing with the very small crater in shanksville.

I would love to see someone explain using a simulation and diagrams as to why the crater in Shanksville was 1/3 atleast the size of a Boeing 757 and only 6-10 feet deep.

If the plane were to come down on a 40 degree angle as the official story claims, then why was the no long oblong crater? Why is the crater in Shanksville almost round with no wing impact zones, no fire and a crater which is measured to be 10-30 feet in diameter and only 10 feet deep?



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Because the WHOLE plane didn't crash there is why the crater is so small and does not fit the OS regarding the entire plane crashed there and buried itself in the ground. The site is obviously a debris site where "something" impacted the ground and in my opinion that is where the "plane crashed here & buried itself in the ground story" was concocted.

Simple as that. A cover up fearing public outcry and massive litigation from not only the public, family members, airlines, airline groups etc if they admitted it was shot down. Not to mention that the military action of firing on a civilian vehicle would for sure not only create another type of outcry but possibly action from Congress regarding the powers of the President to use such authority. If that was admitted, then the Patriot Act would for sure not have been passed in law because only after 911, did it pass.



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Not inflating but trying to figure that piece of the puzzle.I do not see why they could not 'alter' physical evidence within either component. I know that sometimes I feel like those that say there was thermite used but the fact is that they were both found and only the original technicians who retrieved the data as well as those who edited or fixed it. Less than 10 people I would think and that is easy to cover up.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by esdad71]



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
Because the WHOLE plane didn't crash there is why the crater is so small

If a big chunk of the plane crashed in that field, that would mean the plane was shot in the air BEFORE the crater. So why is there no debris on the ground leading up to the crater?



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


In every single shoot down of an aircraft, it is NOT TRUE that there will always be a trail of debris leading up to it. These are "cookie cutter" shoot down scenarios that in real life just don't apply.

But, there were three debris fields regarding flight 93. I think many folks have had the "crater too small for aircraft" drilled into their heads for so long that any other possibility seems out of the ordinary. When its just out of the ordinary of what they have drilled into thinking for so long.


[edit on 3/21/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
In every single shoot down of an aircraft, it is NOT TRUE that there will always be a trail of debris leading up to it.


Do you have a source for this or just your theory?



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by mikelee
In every single shoot down of an aircraft, it is NOT TRUE that there will always be a trail of debris leading up to it.


Do you have a source for this or just your theory?




I do not do other people's research for them given the fact that there are sources one can find and determine from doing so, that what I stated is a fact. I suggest a little reading and that will allow you to arrive at the same conclusion as I.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by mikelee
In every single shoot down of an aircraft, it is NOT TRUE that there will always be a trail of debris leading up to it.


Do you have a source for this or just your theory?



Based on your own statement to another member below in another thread regarding flight 93, I think you obviously understand this.




The plane did not need to break up in mid air to cause the debris fields. - Remisne



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
All I am going to say is that I specifically remember, the first 2 days after 9/11, witnesses reporting they saw something fly towards the plane. Then after that you never heard the point again.

If the military shot it down, I *think* they would of had time to organize and do it by then.

But the let the country believe that the people took it down, because the lawsuits and the emotional recoil would be been BAD.

Not that I would actually blame the governmetn for doing it.

As I always said, I felt sorry for the person who got that order.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


I remember several reports stating that in no uncertain terms that it was shot down and thats what prompted me to believe that it was for sure, shot down.

Anyway, below is a link to all of the newscasts on 911 and the days after that show all of these witnesses and reports.

911 archive of vids (newscasts)



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
More importantly though per the prosecution's own evidence during the ZM trial
the gov payed the cockpit voice recorder which provided the following sounds....


During the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the contents of the cockpit voice recorder of Flight 93 were played for the jury. On April 12, the government released a transcript of the recording, but not the recording itself. A report two years prior to the publication of the Commission's Report -- when the crash time was widely recognized as 10:06 -- stated that "the last seconds of the cockpit voice recorder are the loud sounds of wind, hinting at a possible hole somewhere in the fuselage."


I don't care what anyone else says about "no planes" or doubts that it was shot down, per the gov's own admission by presenting this evidence it proves that the plane's hull was breached and that the shoot down explanation is more likely than other theorys.



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
I do not do other people's research for them given the fact that there are sources one can find and determine from doing so, that what I stated is a fact. I suggest a little reading and that will allow you to arrive at the same conclusion as I.


So thanks for admiting you do not do research and cannot post sources to support your theories.

If you are going to state something as a fact you must provide sources to support it.



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Its common knowledge as to what I stated so if you prefer to just resort to the typcial and boring "thanks for...." routine then thats fine with me. Nothing new there at all, thats for sure.



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
Its common knowledge as to what I stated so if you prefer to just resort to the typcial and boring "thanks for...." routine then thats fine with me.


Its also common knowledge that if you are going to state a theory as fact you must provide facts and evidence to support your theory.



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Its a fact despite that you refuse to do any of your own reasearch in order to deny ignorance. I do not cater to people anymore and do their work for them. If you have your doubts about what I say....then look it up.

[edit on 3/22/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
Its a fact despite that you refuse to do any of your own reasearch in order to deny ignorance.


Sorry but its not a fact if you cannot post evidence to support it.

I have done more research then most people on here combined, and can show my research, FOIA request and e-mails.

Can you show you your research done to find the truth?



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
I have seem so many simulations as to why the twin towers collapsed and witc 7 but nothing dealing with the very small crater in shanksville.

I would love to see someone explain using a simulation and diagrams as to why the crater in Shanksville was 1/3 atleast the size of a Boeing 757 and only 6-10 feet deep.

If the plane were to come down on a 40 degree angle as the official story claims, then why was the no long oblong crater? Why is the crater in Shanksville almost round with no wing impact zones, no fire and a crater which is measured to be 10-30 feet in diameter and only 10 feet deep?


Like i said above. A compromised aircraft will not have the velocity or inertia as a one that is not. Just google the lockerbie crash and you will see that large portions of the plane can be found strewn about. The shanksville site lacks any evidence that it was caused by a Boeing 757 let alone one that has been compromised. Just simple common sense.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join