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.

 

Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?

page: 18
9
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


I served. I think outside the box.

As someone such yourself who obviously did not serve either because you were chicken sh** or just don't care to do anything but razz the men & women who defend freedom so you can spout off all of your anti military BS I'll say that it was a pleasure to defend your freedom of free speech and expression of same.

I'll also add that your sentiments are in no way reflective of the rest of the population because they know that people like you, with that attitude, could not defend them in times of conflict.




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


The skin may be thin aluminum. The fuselage framing is not.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Well said sir. A definite star on that one.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Thank you Sir. And I might add your reply was deserving as well.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
The skin may be thin aluminum. The fuselage framing is not.


The framing is still no match for the reinforced wall and collumns.

Have you seen the video done by Purdue that shows the plane being shredded as it enters the buiilding?

If the steel lattice if the WTC can shred the fuselage how is going to stand up against reinforced walls and collumns?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Anyway, though --- this has WHAT again to do with UA93?


Question for you since you like to psot yuor knowledge.

Would the 30MM training rounds in the F-16s take down 93?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


So, explain how the nose gear of one airliner penetrated one side of a tower, traversed the building and still had enough punch to knock a chunk of the "lattice" out? If the airplane was truly "shredded" I mean....

Plus, do a little more research on the Pentagon's upgrading



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


I think it's safe to say that a fusilade of 30mm rounds hitting a wing or empennage of a Boeing 757 (or any other airplane) would sufficiently compromise the structural integrity of the airplane, and cause a catastrophic in-flight break up. Especiall in the case of either wing, and the resulting uncontrollable rolling moments that would result.

Case of the empennage, then a pitching moment.


So, that being said, WHERE is the evidence of all of that debris, FROM these aleged 30mm rounds, along the ground track of UA93 prior to the impact point???



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
So, explain how the nose gear of one airliner penetrated one side of a tower, traversed the building and still had enough punch to knock a chunk of the "lattice" out?


The nose gear is made of steel, might want to do some research on what an airliner is made of.

Funny though how the landing gear got out of the plane if it was inside the wheel well.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
So, that being said, WHERE is the evidence of all of that debris, FROM these aleged 30mm rounds, along the ground track of UA93 prior to the impact point???


The first F-16s in the air had 30MM training rounds

Well we have the 2 distinct debris fields that are far from the impact site..

We also have an engine core that was far from the impact site.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


30mm???

Forgive me, just a lowly FLAP, never flew in the military, so my knowledge of armament on today's fighters is only available from declassified sources, such as wiki...


The F-16 is equipped with an M61 Vulcan 20 mm cannon in the left wing root with the F-16A distinguished by having four vents behind the port for the M61 cannon whereas the subsequent F-16C has only two vents behind the cannon port.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


I served. I think outside the box.

As someone such yourself who obviously did not serve either because you were chicken sh** or just don't care to do anything but razz the men & women who defend freedom so you can spout off all of your anti military BS I'll say that it was a pleasure to defend your freedom of free speech and expression of same.

I'll also add that your sentiments are in no way reflective of the rest of the population because they know that people like you, with that attitude, could not defend them in times of conflict.


Me...?....chicken-chit? Nope! I am a human being who is here not for the purpose of killing others but rather, learning and loving!

Defend what? Who? Me? Us? It's our own government that's attacking its own people not a bunch of radical cave-dwellers.
Even if it were 'terrorists' (which is not the case but.....) how can they penetrate us if we're so well guarded. protected and defended? It's rubbish. I can't get on a friggin airplane with a nail clipper but all these clever terrorists manage to not only get one board with devices (box-cutters) but..........cause so much ground damage too!!!!! Simply amazing!

Are you serious? Osama is backed by the CIA. For the love of gawd. Wake up.
The military is not defending anything/one rather, it's attacking and taking over innocent countries.
We are NOT the global police.
Let's stick to our business, on our land and maybe WWIII can be thwarted.


Now.....back to the thread. Shanksville is nothing but a big fat lie, as is WTCs and Pentagon.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 



Shanksville is nothing but a big fat lie...


Just what, exactly, is a lie?

Oh, and this astounding deduction is based upon.....?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Forgive me, just a lowly FLAP, never flew in the military, so my knowledge of armament on today's fighters is only available from declassified sources, such as wiki...


Sorry the 30MM was to be on a different version then those in the air.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Guess here's an example of the F-16 firing its cannon. (It's for comparison with an A-10's 30mm).



F-16:




Either way, get behind an airborne target, and hit it...yup, gonna do damage, and will result in LOTS of collateral damage, i'd think....



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
This topic gives me a headache when trying to explain the inconsistencies of that entire day.
Listen......you totally without a shed of doubt, believe in the OS?
Cool! That's great! Doesn't really change my beliefs so at the end of the day, who really cares?
Stay blind.
Stay in the dark.
Do as you're told.
Believe what you're fed.
Watch a LOT of TV in your down-time and...be sure to vote every four years because after all.....your vote DOES matter (see: Diebold)

Peace be with you. I am outta here!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


Well, really the

...inconsistencies of that entire day.
exist only and were manufactured solely by the conspiracy websites that are all over the Web.

Innuendo, misconceptions, misunderstandings --- fueled again and again by poor research and/or a purpose-driven agenda to FOOL would-be fellow conspiracy theorists. Probably in order to sell some trinkets....

Funny how these sorts of things spring up, and refuse to die.

Doesn't take long to find OTHER similar beliefs, on a wide variety of things, but just looking at some highly publicized aviation disasters, for instance:

There is an entire site devoted to STILL questioning the "official story" of Pan Am 103!!!!!

Honestly, there is an incredible array of totally incompetent people out there. Coupled with "gut feelings" in some cases, and pure greedy 'entrepreneurship" desires in others.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Either way, get behind an airborne target, and hit it...yup, gonna do damage, and will result in LOTS of collateral damage, i'd think....


Kind of like the crash site in Shanksville.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Nice try....to ignore the entire thread (again)...


Kind of like the crash site in Shanksville.


No, IF UA93 had been hit while in flight, the mess on the ground would have looked a lot more like Pan Am 103 remains....or, IF it had not been overwater, then like TWA 800. Scattered over a far wider field of area than in Shanksville.

BIG pieces. Breaking off, as airplane disintegrates. Arcing down, as forward momentum slows, due to atmospheric friction (drag) and gravity pulls them down to Earth. BUT, an intact airframe keeps all its little bits pulling along together, UNTIL hitting the ground in one big WHOOSH! THUMP! BOOM! Kapow --- and thar she blows, as the resulting explosion bursts, and debris is hurtled around form the central point.

Other natural forces also contribute to spread of lighter weight material.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Other natural forces also contribute to spread of lighter weight material.


Like the lighter weight material at 2 sites far from the impact site?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join