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.

 

It wasn't Flight 93 in Shanksville!!

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, no it is not. Thats what the county coroner said someone told him. Not the "official story".

So you think Wally Miller is repeating a story from some Joe-Schmoe[s] as if it were the official story?!? ROFLMAO

These "Joe-Schmoes" apparently told one of the land owners too and this land owner describes these Joe-Schmoe's as:


Pennsylvania's Ground Zero
Written by Tim Lambert

"According to investigators, the cockpit of the aircraft separated from the plane upon impact and flew into the trees, where it disintegrated.



At least not in the real world.

Well I agree with you there, that story perpetuated by the investigators couldn't possibly happen in the real world. lol


Again, just making stuff up and then challenging others to prove it. Its your claim, you back it up with "official" sources.

You calling Wally Miller a liar?


The front 1/3 of the plane, including the cockpit, slammed into the ground off of the wing and the front 1/3 broke off and flew up into the trees and there was a fireball behind it and the remaining 2/3'rds went down in the ground.



Nope, there is no official explanation as to why the trees were not dripping with blood. Why? Because rational adults don't need an official explanation.

Why would the trees be dripping with blood when most of the plane supposedly went underground?




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Roger, I am still waiting for your several agencies that got 93 confused on radar with 1989.


I am still waiting for you to give me the information i have asked for.

When you give me the insurance company for 93 i will repeat the agencies for you.



Roger, did I EVER claim to know who the insurance company is for UA? NO! I told you I have their attorney's contact information.

YOU made the claim that SEVERAL AGENCIES got 93 confused on radar with 1989.

Back it up or recant it.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Roger, did I EVER claim to know who the insurance company is for UA? NO! I told you I have their attorney's contact information.


If you have the attorneys infomration you should be able to get the insurance information.


Back it up or recant it.


When you back up what you say you have.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


Flight 93 was confused on radar for Flight 1989 as confirmed by several agencies.




This is your claim. You have failed to back it up. Admit that you are wrong or back it up.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by ImAPepper]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Look at the news photos of that God-awful crater, created when the hijacked jetliner hit the earth at a speed of 500 miles per hour and forever altered the landscape, both literally and figuratively. The blackened hemlock trees in the background of those pictures once marked our property line. Now they have been cut down as a result of fire damage and pollution from jet fuel.

According to investigators, the cockpit of the aircraft separated from the plane upon impact and flew into the trees, where it disintegrated. The biggest portion of the aircraft that was recovered, a piece of the fuselage, was found after officials drained a pond some 2,500 yards away from the crater. The infamous three-page letter in Arabic encouraging the hijackers was also found nearby, along with credit cards and the plane's black boxes.

My visit to the property is nearly a month after the crash, but there are ever-present reminders of the horrible event that destroyed the lives of 40 innocent people and the innocence of millions.The smell of jet fuel fills my nostrils. Everywhere I look, tiny pieces of debris cover the soft dirt.


Sounds like the site of a plane crash to me.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Sounds like the site of a plane crash to me.

So you finally agree with the following quote:


According to investigators, the cockpit of the aircraft separated from the plane upon impact and flew into the trees, where it disintegrated.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Can you please describe what the debris field should have looked like. Please know that there were MANY aircraft crash investigators and not ONE have come out to state that they don't think flight 93 crashed there.

While you're at it, take a look at flight 1771 that crashed. It will leave you scratching your head.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper

Sounds like the site of a plane crash to me.

So you finally agree with the following quote:


According to investigators, the cockpit of the aircraft separated from the plane upon impact and flew into the trees, where it disintegrated.


I don't necessarily disagree with you except to the extent that an article in a newspaper is not an official document. I don't care who is being quoted. When a judge reviews a case he doesn't ask for copies of the evening newspapers to see what they said happened during the trial, the judge asks for the official transcripts of the trial.

I don't doubt that some of the investigators on the scene may have speculated about exactly what happened at the moment of impact, but please show me in a final document or admit that it is not official. Being that the cause of the crash is not in question, then even though public speculation of this sort is frowned on officially, it is not harmful to the investigation.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



b]I already did and showed a drawing showing that the planes did cross paths.


I have a question about that picture (in a PowerPoint format --- had to find a way to show it, don't have PP on the other computer).

Basically, from the source you offered, I see where the UAL 93 and DAL 1989 crossed (this is AFTER UAL 93 had been commandeered) and the times listed were interesting to me.

OK, looking again, I see that your source ALSO shows an earlier moment of paths crossing, BEFORE the hijacking. They were in near vicinity between 09:29:50 (United) and 09:35:03 (Delta). (All times EDT). Of course, there is an approx. 5 minute window there, with airplanes moving at about seven miles per minute, mind you, at normal cruise speeds.

Do you notice that odd curve in Delta's ground track? Wonder WHY that is?

Well, of course I'll explain...

Just looked up the BTS data. Delta 1989 (N189DN) was scheduled from BOS-LAX. Published gate departure time of 0800. ACTUAL was 0805. Then, taxi for takeoff, and wheels OFF occurred at 0825. From Boston, remember.

Now...United 93 actually had just about a similar delay...scheduled 0800, actual 0801, wheels OFF at 0828, according to BTS. (This is interesting, because I hadn't yet compared the FDR times to the BTS times. Would be worth looking into, with the ATC tapes and their times). (Oh dear, more fodder for the P4T cult...uh oh...) Anyway, the FDR shows the initial acceleration for takeoff at 0842. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING on the FDR graph that's available here (link) comports with MY experience from flying out of Newark...operating actual airplanes, I should mention. For many, many years.

For example, the initial heading set on the MCP was 060. THAT is normal for takeoffs from runway 4L or 4R, and it's been ascertained that the airport was in that configuration that morning. I won't waste space describing other examples.

~~~~~

So, anyway...they BOTH were airborne at close to the same time, and on almost the same initial routing, it looks like, at least as far as around the Great Lakes, or thereabouts, where routes would diverge.

In shorter words, the United was climbing to cruise altitude, and the Delta was in the way, as there was an altitude conflict, restricting the separation needed for United to continue to climb to the flight planned FL350. ATC solved that by vectoring Delta to the south (left turn, looks about 20-25 degrees). There is an ATC recording somewhere, I think I remember hearing it, will look. It has the ARTCC controller telling Delta to turn. You can also find the United CVR transcript and compare, too. I think the Delta was pointed out to the real pilots as traffic. If you have the time to look for it...

AFTER the hijacking, and United's transponder was turned off, Delta stayed ON COURSE until it turned, as directed when the airspace system was shut down, and headed for Cleveland, as a nearest suitable diversion airport.

I cannot see how a normal flight, like Delta 1989 with a normal transponder would be mistaken for United 93.

One thing that could have happened, though, was some confusion on frequency changes for Delta, being handed off, either from crossing into different ATC sector airspace, or due to the decision to land him in CLE. There may have been a short communication lapse, leading to some fears (unfounded) on the part of some controllers, of HIM being hijacked as well.

This is the kind of everyday normal event that gets blown out of proportion by the conspiracy sites...


















Departure procedures from BOTH airports (Boston and Newark) can seem frustratingly complicated, it is due to the congestion within the airspace, in the Northeast Region.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Strange...

After the Space Shuttle disaster in which those bodies were subjected to far greater speeds & forces than that of the mysterious "flight 93" ever could reach and then crashed into the ground, investigators found skulls, bones (some intact) and aircraft (a space ship actually) parts etc.

However, in the case of Shanksville PA where an airliner crashed there seems to be a different case of "forensic facts" in which I for one, do not believe.

The OS says that the plane crashed so hard that it covered itself up underground..

My how convenient was that? And I'm ridiculed for doubting the OS


[edit on 30-12-2009 by mikelee]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
The OS says that the plane crashed so hard that it covered itself up underground..

My how convenient was that? And I'm ridiculed for doubting the OS

What's funnier is most of the skeptics don't agree with that part of the OS!



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by mikelee
The OS says that the plane crashed so hard that it covered itself up underground..

My how convenient was that? And I'm ridiculed for doubting the OS

What's funnier is most of the skeptics don't agree with that part of the OS!


what's funnier is that you misrepresent what skeptics agree with or not.

YOU do not speak for skeptics, nor do you represent what skeptics believe correctly.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
YOU do not speak for skeptics, nor do you represent what skeptics believe correctly.

OK, so what do you skeptics believe on how much of Flight 93 supposedly buried as opposed to remaining above ground?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by mikelee
The OS says that the plane crashed so hard that it covered itself up underground..

My how convenient was that? And I'm ridiculed for doubting the OS

What's funnier is most of the skeptics don't agree with that part of the OS!


what's funnier is that you misrepresent what skeptics agree with or not.

YOU do not speak for skeptics, nor do you represent what skeptics believe correctly.


Boy you sure do ass-ume alot here. I never claimed to "speak" for anyone.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
"The OS says that the plane crashed so hard that it covered itself up underground.."

Yeah, you gotta love that one. Instead of the soft dirt dispersing outward from the force of the impact, the dirt managed to perfectly cover a huge aircraft which was able to drill and bury itself underground. Maybe there is quicksand underneath that dirt which managed to swallow everything up.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by RipCurl
YOU do not speak for skeptics, nor do you represent what skeptics believe correctly.

OK, so what do you skeptics believe on how much of Flight 93 supposedly buried as opposed to remaining above ground?


I believe that most of the plane was destroyed on impact, most of it found within the crater it created, with many parts spread out over 500 yards surrounding the area.

This is supported by:
NTSB report
Eye Witness
Local Law Enforcement reports
Photograhs
and the 300 volunteers who scoured the forest near the crash site for 2 1/2 weeks, picking up the plane parts.

You'll find that this is the widely accepted official account of what happened to Flight 93. And that the FDR and CVR supports that the plane was hijacked, and that up until impact everything on the plane was functioning accordingly.

This is also supported based on RADAR data that tracked Flight 93 until impact.

And supported by Yates Gladwell, who was in the Dassault Falcon 20, who was asked by the FAA to follow the plane:


There was such a jet in the vicinity - a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corporation, an apparel company that makes Wrangler, The North Face, and other brands. The eight-passenger VF plane (mostly white with gold markings) was flying from the company's headquarters in Greensboro, North Carolina, to Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where the company had a manufacturing facility at the time. The Johnstown-Cambria airport is 20 miles north of Shanksville.

According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3,000 to 4,000 feet" - not 34,000 feet. "They were in a decent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1,500 feet of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it." Newell says the plane circled the crash site twice and then flew directly over it in order to mark the exact latitude and longitude on the plane's navigation system.

Reach by Popular Mechanics, Gladwell confirmed this account. Concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, he asked to be quoted directly.

Newell says he has received dozens of calls from people who want to ask him about the company jet's activities on September 11. "There's nothing to hide," he says, "But the vast majority of them want to make out some kind of story that's just not there."



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"The OS says that the plane crashed so hard that it covered itself up underground.."


can you source this statement? Because of all the paperwork and reports I've read, none of it stated this so simply.


Maybe there is quicksand underneath that dirt which managed to swallow everything up.


the area was part of a reclamation project of what used to be a mining area. if you had known this you wouldn't have made such an uneducated statement.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Yeah, you gotta love that one. Instead of the soft dirt dispersing outward from the force of the impact, the dirt managed to perfectly cover a huge aircraft which was able to drill and bury itself underground. Maybe there is quicksand underneath that dirt which managed to swallow everything up.

The theme of the day was airplanes penetrating inside objects to conceal that they were actually planes.

But the last theme of burying down in the ground and being covered back up is stupid beyond anyone's belief. Most of the skeptics here seem to agree with that too!



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Yeah, you gotta love that one. Instead of the soft dirt dispersing outward from the force of the impact, the dirt managed to perfectly cover a huge aircraft which was able to drill and bury itself underground. Maybe there is quicksand underneath that dirt which managed to swallow everything up.

The theme of the day was airplanes penetrating inside objects to conceal that they were actually planes.

But the last theme of burying down in the ground and being covered back up is stupid beyond anyone's belief. Most of the skeptics here seem to agree with that too!



again putting words into other people's mouths when that is not the case.

I aske you again to stop speaking for skeptics when you have no clue what they believe.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee

This is a site that "Denies Ignorance" .... are you living up to the slogan? Your title to this thread is a lie and against ToS here at ATS.


Wrong. The site is a conspiracy website, by it's own admission.

From ATS' front page...

The Above Top Secret Conspiracy Community Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

YOUR type of ignorance is what we are ignoring



[edit on 29-12-2009 by mikelee]


Ummm, no Mike. I was around when ATS adopted the Deny Ignorance mottoy, and I can assure you that the type if ignorance we are trying to deny is that which you are showing on a daily basis. Refusing to accept clear evidence because it does not agree with your belief is ignorance. And I, for one, along with many others on here I am sure, will continue to deny your ignorance by pointing out the facts, and not being so hard headed we can't listen to reason.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join