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: 20
9
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by seataka
 



How many people are commonly confronted by a government of the money, by the money and for the money?

Oh.. All of us.. except those still in the federal trance...

You will see what we tell you that you saw...After all, We are the experts...and we hold all the strings, now dance, monkey, dance... and maybe Ill still give you your foodstamps..


Oh please do tell me how it is that I too can slip the bonds of dependency and be such a free and open spirit such as yourself?

Do I first assume that anything anybody tells me at any time and anywhere is a lie and that I have to make my own mistakes?

If so, excuse me, for I am going to be very busy researching, well, everything - think I'll start with this internets thingy and see if that is real, wonder how I test for.....




posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Sit back. Hands off the keyboard. Breath.

Just saying it might be "interesting" to go there and snoop around. Thats all. No need to preach to the choir.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
www.911myths.com...

i dont know if anyone posted this yet, i stopped reading through around page 10 i couldnt read the next 10 pages, it would be like another 2 hours before i was done.

in this picture, right above the yellow warning/watermark in the middle of the bottom of the picture. why is this piece of debris buried? from what ive gathered reading this thread with supposed explanations in links. the plane hit the ground at about a 45 degree angle, half of 90 degrees which would be vertical. nose first into 30 feet of loose earth that they used to bury an abandoned coal mine. and then after it buried itself it exploded. right? so how long is a 737? more than 30 feet long right? where is the other 30+ feet that didnt get buried? i guess its all these little pieces you see scattered in the woods right? ok how come all the debris went into the woods? and how come the plane didnt break up when it impacted the ground? sure it buried itself into 30 feet of loose earth going 500mph+ but the end of the plane that didnt get buried instantly should have come to a sudden stop and broken off from the buried part of the plane then went flipping off into the wood which is heading in the direction i assume the plane was traveling before crashing. maybe thats what happened? if broke off then exploded into the woods.

that would explain why all the debris is forward of the crash site, why theres none (going on pictures and video taken right after the crash) behind the crash and to the direct sides of the main body. and it probably explains how that piece of wreckage in the picture buried itself in the woods under branches and #.

i was thinking maybe its the head of a shovel that they were using to dig something up when the picture was taken, but it cant be a shovel because one side of it is a straight line and the other side it jaggy. so why is this particular piece of debris buried when all the rest and the official story says it should be sitting on top of everything else?

[edit on 5-1-2010 by abcddcba]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by abcddcba
 



I don't doubt the fact that burned peices are there. If you thinking like a 100% die hard conspirator then "they" burned the peices before they planted it there.

If your objective yet still do not buy the full OS then perhaps it could be possible that some of the crash debris did land there while covered in jet fuel on fire.

If your level headed then you must be wondering how a full sized airline completely buried itself into the ground without leaving some bigger peices. The OS plays off of the average citizen's mind type thinking being that many average persons would agree, because they have no experience or other reasons to doubt due to many years of dumbing down, that "sure, it was diving going at full speed and so the whole thing disintergrated into very small peices".

Then you have the fact that debris was found well away from the primary crash site. Indicating that the plane either began to fall apart before it hit the ground (torsion from rolling, missle impact, or gun shot from inside and decompression?)

Many unanswered questions despite the OS and those who refuse to ask questions of it.

911 Commission Panel member Richard Ben-Veniste: "It don't matter whats inside, the American people don't read".

[edit on 5-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by abcddcba
 


The forward 1/3 of Flight 93 broke off on impact and sprayed debris
into the tree line. Some large pieces of the fuselage survived and were
found in the woods.

The remainder of the airliner plowed into the ground The heavier studier
pieces would survive the impact - they would be driven into the ground.
That is why the jet engines and flight recorders were recovered from deep
under ground. The remaining parts of the aircraft were fragmented on
impact into "metallic confetti" - recovery crews commented on fact
that found few pieces larger that a foor.

Have seen this myself - witnessed crash of Lear business jet. Largest
piece could find was 2 x 3 ft section of tail fin. Nothing else was
recognizable except landing gear light found 75 years away.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Believe me, NO ONE in the government, trying to make this up, would have thought of such a stupid thing to add!!!!!


This is your opinion that the people in charge would have had no imagination. There is no fact there, just what you think, and what is it based on...?


(Hint: To imagine how ridiculous it would be to "show them the axe", think about how useful it would be to hold a gun at the peephole of a hotel room door....from the INSIDE....in order to frighten a person standing in the hallway).


hint: then they have to tell a completely different story as soon as one of them has a gun on the plane. Give the terrorists guns, and the whole OS would fall apart. Think about it, since you believe the OS, you know why they did not have guns with them. Anyone that thinks the OS is a lie, knows that the liars know that too.


(Oh...and the axe...certianly, by now, I hope everyone realizes that EVERY commercial passenger jet is equipped with a small emergency axe onboard. It's just over a foot or so in length, and is stowed in the cockpit).


Bigger blade than a box cutter, easier to harm from a distance with, has weight to do damage whether the blade cuts or not. Point? You believe they would use box cutters no problem but you would have to be insane to imagine they used an axe unless they really used an axe? This seems sloppy for you, WW.


OK, so we have the CVR, as mentioned above. The FDR, showing all systems on the airplane operating normally UNTILL everything ends at the same time, on impact.


Have you heard the CVR? What does the FDR show that tells you there was a passenger uprising?


NO system failures, from cannon fire.

NO engine failures (from cannon fire).

NO flight attitude changes, other than those indicated, and agreeing with, control surface deflections, and control wheel movement.


Not relevant at all.


Finally, back to the CVR...

NO sounds of ANY sort to indicate that the airplane had been struck by "friendly fire", not from an F-16, nor anything else.


What sounds did you hear, exactly?

[edit on 1/5/10 by Lillydale]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ProRipp
 


I guess the most curious thing to me is how conspiracy believers like to apply "common sense" to things like airplane crashes and building collapses. Exactly how many people are "commonly" confronted with these experinces wherein they can develop a common knowledge? How did you develop your baseline from which you were able to deduce that these things are extraordinary?


Correct me if I'm wrong but usually after a plane crash there is a lot of debris. Not small enough amounts where its carried away by a small cleanup crew.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Not relevant at all.


That just about describes the response to my post.

I am wondering if it was read in a hurry, because it certainly seems to have been completely misunderstood.

But, no matter...I expect most people were able to comprehend.

Still, here's the point regarding the OP: Can anyone prove that there was not debris from United 93 recovered near Shanksville?

Can anyone show that the debris collected that was not natural material, but was obviously introduced to the area, was taken in any other way than via a crashed airplane, that flew over, and down into the ground?

Can anyone who wishes to think that the airplane was "shot down" show in the FDR data when that occured, in flight?

(Oh, you see, that is why a portion of my earlier post was deemed "not relevant" by someone, when in fact it IS relevant to understanding the point of the OP).

Also, more relevance concerning the CVR. The transcript does NOT indicate any sounds of an explosion, such as would be heard if the airplane had been shot down.

It is important to note that sounds of that sort should have been picked up by the microphone. An example was the TWA 800 flight. A sound of an explosion was on the CVR tape. In that case it was consistent with a fuel tank explosion sound, but nevertheless a controversy still exists with a conspiracy bent on THAT issue as well...people are just never satisfied, it seems, unless they have a "conspiracy" to gnaw on.....



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar


Correct me if I'm wrong but usually after a plane crash there is a lot of debris. Not small enough amounts where its carried away by a small cleanup crew.


Exactly, 'common sense' tells us this but obviously all sense's were suspended that day, a bit like physics aswell really when you think about it !

[edit on 033131p://01America/Chicago06 by ProRipp]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Zomar
 


Just curious where you think there was a "small" clean up crew? At the "smallest" site, Shanksville, there were over 1,500 workers.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
The fact remains, that each of the airliners took out some chunks of the steel lattice upon impact...and sections of the airliners still had enough momentum to take out lattice on the other side as well. Just as Flight 77 had enough velocity to penetrate the reinforced outer wall and continue through.


Actullay the fact is that the airframes of the planes at the towers were shredded by the steel lattice befoe making it to the inner steel beams.

Flight 77's airframe (might) have had enough enough velocity to penetrate the outer wall but it would not survived to make it through the 3 rings.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 





Flight 77's airframe (might) have had enough enough velocity to penetrate the outer wall but it would not survived to make it through the 3 rings.


And you base that opinion on?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And you base that opinion on?


The simple facts of what the Pentagon and airframe are constructed of.

Nose of 757 is graphite composite. Cockpit and most of airframe is thin aluminum.

Wall of Pentagon.

10 inches of concrete
8 inches of brick
6 inches of limestone.

TOTAL DEPTH 24 inches.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Are you sure the entire wall is 24 inches thick?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 





Nose of 757 is graphite composite. Cockpit and most of airframe is thin aluminum.


So what about the rest of the aircraft?

Things like jet engines which weigh about 6 tons each and made of high
strengthalloys

The Keel beam which runs length of the aircraft, provides structural
stength and supports the cabin floor/cargo bay

The landing gear designed to take impact of 200,000+ (weight of 757) lbs
aircraft hitting runway at 150 knots - massively built of steel alloys to take
stress

The wing spars and ribs - especially section between engines and fuselage
which support the entire wing

Aircraft skin while built of light aluminium alloys is covering some pretty
heavy and massive structures - like wrapping a baseball bat in foil



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by REMISNE
 





Nose of 757 is graphite composite. Cockpit and most of airframe is thin aluminum.


So what about the rest of the aircraft?

Things like jet engines which weigh about 6 tons each and made of high
strengthalloys


The Keel beam which runs length of the aircraft, provides structural
stength and supports the cabin floor/cargo bay

The landing gear designed to take impact of 200,000+ (weight of 757) lbs
aircraft hitting runway at 150 knots - massively built of steel alloys to take
stress

The wing spars and ribs - especially section between engines and fuselage
which support the entire wing

Aircraft skin while built of light aluminium alloys is covering some pretty
heavy and massive structures - like wrapping a baseball bat in foil


Good point there thedman!!!!!

So where were all of these "high strength" items then? As a compliment to you only, you sound as if you know quite a bit about aircraft, so I'd love to hear YOUR explanations exactly as to what became of these upon impact. Please educate us all with your obvious vast knowledge of the mattter.

Have a nice day



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Shucks, Roger disappeared before he answered my last post. Any other truther care to answer the question.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


So I take it El AL Flight 1862 also shouldnt of happened, where a 747 crashed and cut right through not only a concrete wall, but an entire apartment building?

El AL Flight 1862



www.airdisaster.com...

A 747 flying at much lower speeds on takeoff managed to cut right through an apartment building, cutting it in two. Not only did it crash into the wall, but it went right through it! And it was MUCH thicker than the Pentagon wall! I mean it was an entire apartment building and it went right through it at take-off speeds. Woah! Physics at work man!

[edit on 1/8/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Be happy to:

24-inch-thick outer wall per a 60 Minutes II report titled "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November2001



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
OK, back on topic:

Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join