30 millon truthers willing to give $1 - lets reconstruct flight 93, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 24-10-2009 @ 04:00 PM by kiwifoot

It would be impossible to recreate the tether incident from STS 75.

I don't think we could realistically build the pyramids to see if it's possible.

BUT, it would be possible to BUY a Boeing 757, fill it with fuel, and remotely crash it into the ground.

How much? I've scoured the web and except for some answers on YahooAnswers and a report from the New Zealand Government (saying it costs NZ$ 100m for 2) I can't find a price for them.

SO lets say $30 million US dollars, to buy fuel and rig it for the crash and find the right area to crash it into (so that the impact will be similar to the one in Shanksville).

We could fly it according to the official flight plan, crash it in the exact same way as the Official Story, then look at the impact crater, wreckage and debris field, and see if they are right.

So come on you truthers, get you dollars out, $30 million should do it, we could put it in the bank, ooops, not such a good idea!

[edit on 24-10-2009 by kiwifoot]

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 04:43 PM by star in a jar

I remember one time there being a discussion to crash a plane into the ground as part of a tv show, but it was scrapped for some reason.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 05:22 PM by kiwifoot

reply to post by star in a jar

at least I'm not the only crazy one on this planet!

It would be a telling albeit expensive experiment!

Kiwifoot

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 05:40 PM by impressme

It might prove that flight 93 didn’t crash. We would have to film it with hundreds of cameras to catch ever angle on impact. I think the government will stop the experiment because the truth would be revealed. Oh well, it was a good idea.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 05:43 PM by Reheat

reply to post by kiwifoot

You need more money to pay for the pilots funeral expenses and to compensate his widow and/or offspring.

On the otherhand, I doubt you'll find a volunteer. I suggest you draft Balsamo of pffft. It will be the only chance he ever gets to fly a heavy jet!

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 05:45 PM by GoodOlDave

I heard of an experiment back in the 80's where the Air force crashed an F4 Phantom into a concrete wall, to see what happened if a plane crashed into a nuclear power plant. The plane shattered into a trillion pieces like glass.

Sort of the same way the aircraft wreckage was found at Shanksville.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 05:47 PM by ashamedtobehuman

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 06:26 PM by deadline527

reply to post by GoodOlDave

An F4 Phantom and a Boeing 747 have substantial differences. Comparing the two would be completely illogical and give a false idea of what really happened.

While I have seen that video of the F4 Phantom hitting the wall, it was going a much greater speed then a 747 could ever come close to, is made from lighter materials, is much smaller, and I'm sure somebody with experience in aircraft mechanics would be able to elaborate much more on the differences.

At the very least, the wings would have broken off.

I would love to see this experiment take place, but we dont have to do this because plenty of plane crash photos are available all over the internet. They all show massive amounts of wreckage and debris. What was seen at the pentagon and shanksville crash sites is completely impossible to an educated mind.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 06:37 PM by darkwing81

reply to post by kiwifoot

Are there really that many truthers?
There's probably only about a few thousand in the whole country.

And most of them are here on ATS!

[edit on 24-10-2009 by darkwing81]

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 06:47 PM by impressme

reply to post by darkwing81

Why do you believe in the OS? What was the proven evidences that convinced you that the OS is true?

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 06:51 PM by Reheat

Originally posted by deadline527
reply to post by GoodOlDave

An F4 Phantom and a Boeing 747 have substantial differences. Comparing the two would be completely illogical and give a false idea of what really happened.

You're kidding, aren't you. Can your educated mind tell the difference between a 747 and a 757/767 which are what were deliberately crashed on 9/11.

Originally posted by deadline527
While I have seen that video of the F4 Phantom hitting the wall, it was going a much greater speed then a 747 could ever come close to, is made from lighter materials, is much smaller, and I'm sure somebody with experience in aircraft mechanics would be able to elaborate much more on the differences.

Using your educated mind how fast do you estimate that F-4 was going? A B-747 cruises at Mach .82 -.84. How fast does your educated mind tell you that is?

Originally posted by deadline527
At the very least, the wings would have broken off.

They did, in both cases. Are your eyeballs connected to that educated mind?

Originally posted by deadline527
I would love to see this experiment take place, but we dont have to do this because plenty of plane crash photos are available all over the internet. They all show massive amounts of wreckage and debris. What was seen at the pentagon and shanksville crash sites is completely impossible to an educated mind.

Using your educated mind, please tell us the difference between the kinetic energy of these crashed aircraft photos and that of UA 93 at Shanksville.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Reheat]

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 07:10 PM by ATH911

Reheat, when are you going to prove your claim that the bulk of the airplane at Shanksville buried itself into the ground?

reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 05:10 PM by Reheat

The bulk of the airplane at Shanksville buried itself into the ground, but there were also plenty of small pieces scattered over the general area of the crash site.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by ATH911]

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 08:12 PM by TeslaandLyne

Remote control via satellite but who is in charge of satellites.
You need a crystal clear day like 9/11/01 for best reception.
Still don't think all the trouble would be done even though airliners
were crashed by remote control in fire safety tests.

The mind control method seems to work best just train the 'enemy'
or the candidate.

UFO cults were a CIA project that waited for UFO saucers to take them
to heaven and when no saucers arrived they went to heaven the easy way.

A smaller plane is better for remote control but what happened to the
airliner and passengers. So its real crashes by real mind control
candidates. Weather we (the bad guys of the we) or Osama was the
enabler to the suicide terrorist. Atta being in some government program
must have been in someones conspiracy theory.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 08:16 PM by TeslaandLyne

reply to post by ATH911

Buried itself.
Thats a good one.
Like an airline plowed through the Pentagon and disappeared.
Small plane in both cases at least.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 08:43 PM by paranoiaFTW

Ok, OP can be the guy who gets to fly it into the ground since he is for the truth. What does it matter if he gets to know the answer? This is for bettering the understanding the events isn't it?

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 09:18 PM by Reheat

reply to post by ATH911

Thanks for your personal invitation to participate in your UA 93 thread. I respectfully decline because I prefer to not get into extended conversations with those who have irreducible delusions. That leaves time to swat flies and other necessities of life and living.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Reheat]

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 01:35 AM by ATH911

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by ATH911

Thanks for your personal invitation to participate in your UA 93 thread. I respectfully decline because I prefer to not get into extended conversations with those who have irreducible delusions.

You mean like those people who believe most of Flight 93 was buried?

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 01:37 AM by ATH911

Originally posted by kiwifoot

SO lets say $30 million US dollars, to buy fuel and rig it for the crash and find the right area to crash it into (so that the impact will be similar to the one in Shanksville).

How about we give you $30 million if you can prove most of Flight 93 was under the crater?

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 03:13 AM by Lillydale

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by kiwifoot

You need more money to pay for the pilots funeral expenses and to compensate his widow and/or offspring.

On the otherhand, I doubt you'll find a volunteer. I suggest you draft Balsamo of pffft. It will be the only chance he ever gets to fly a heavy jet!

Yet another wonderful product of our educational system. I learned that reheat is little more than hot air some time ago but for anyone on the fence, please read the opening post. Is it overly long? Complicated? Circuitous? Can anyone explain why reheat, among others, managed to just completely miss

and remotely crash it into the ground.

or is it that the word "remotely" has been terribly missunderstood here?

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 12:05 PM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by deadline527
An F4 Phantom and a Boeing 747 have substantial differences. Comparing the two would be completely illogical and give a false idea of what really happened.

You say there are substancial differences but you don't mention what they are. For one thing, both cases were of essentially hollow, metal aircraft moving at a great speed, and for another, they both hit solid, immovable objects. The only substancial difference I can see other than size is that the F4 phantom was being propelled along a track on the ground at a simulated flight speed, while the passenger jet was cruising at actual flight speed.

I have to believe that when one aircraft shatters like glass, the odds that the other will shatter like glass are pretty good, regardless of what size the aircraft happens to be. Physics doesn't play favoritisms.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^