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: 22
9
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by CTBAPRBR
 


Not this again.......

Yes, whoever made that clip might have had some fun with editing software in the last 8 years. The problem that people like you (who believe it was faked on video) have been unable to explain, is how the footage of that jet slamming into the tower, ended up on so many private cameras?




posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CTBAPRBR
reply to post by hooper
 



Hey friend look at this and tell me what you think


www.youtube.com...



No offense but this is exactly the kind of thing that allows people like swampy over their to label all people seeking the truth as "truthers" and then claim we all believe it was holograms, special effects, etc. Honestly, I would not even mention it if it were at least related to the thread. For a long time now it has been considered that videos like this are purposely posted just to give "truthers" a bad name. The thing that makes me wonder is what does this video have to do with this thread? I did have the sound off if that is what I am missing.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Back on topic.

Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?...

My opinion is that after it was gathered due to the scene being quickly cordoned off it was collected then the primary peices that could yield any discerning or damaging evidence of oh, lets say a missile strike, was removed asap.

Because 95% of that crash was dang sure not in any photos released thats for sure.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Im not saying it was holograms
But we have had the technology to make that possible since before 911



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by blankduck18
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Im not saying it was holograms
But we have had the technology to make that possible since before 911



I get you. I totally understand, I really really do. My problem is that personally I do not care for the argument. I keep that to myself as much as I can since it is not a place where information should be doled out based on the feelings of the potential volunteer recipients...but...this thread is specifically about flight 93. So when I see something that is already somewhat suspicious as purposeful disinfo being spread to make "truthers" look bad and it is completely off topic, I really really really have to wonder why it would be introduced at all.

Maybe they just got the wrong thread. It happens.

As far as hologram technology goes, I still have seen no proof of that in anyway but that would also not really apply to this thread since flight 93 is not surrounded by footage and eyewitness accounts. I highly doubt they used a hologram to make a hole in the ground...so still. I think these fantastical claims are great for what they are, where they belong.

[edit on 1/10/10 by Lillydale]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
The landing gear could not have ended up where it did because is was
stowed?


How did it get out and through the wall and collumns if it was stowed?

The landing gear is well protected inside the well wheel.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Oh, Roger....oh no you didn't!!!


How did it get out and through the wall and collumns if it was stowed?

The landing gear is well protected inside the well wheel.



Truly, when you make statements like that (AND for some reason get stars ?
?) then I'm afraid credibility diminishes....

Here, just ONE example to ponder --- from 1979. American Airlines flight 191. Crashed on takeoff out of O'Hare. #1 engine separated from wing, broke hydraulic lines, leading edge slats then retracted on left wing, due to loss of hydraulic pressure to hold them extended. Altered lift on left wing, it stalled (stall warnings and and slat assymetry warnings disabled from damage) so airplane rolled uncontrollably to left, over and in.

Point being made is this: The landing gear was retracted, and in the wells prior to impact. You should know that as far as that crew were concerned, it was merely an engine failure, and they reacted as such. Which includes, as procedure, the normal retraction of the gear right after liftoff.

Of course, since the airplane impacted an immovable object (the ground) it was shredded, totalled, devastated, smashed into many, many bits (in a way similar to, but NOT exactly like AA 77).

So, AA 191 --- gear retracted and, as you said, "protected inside the well wheel" --- (I think you meant "wheel well") --- yet, take a gander of this photo from the crash site of AA 191:



See that??? That big ole' landing gear there??? Now, how do you suppose THAT got out of its "protected well wheel"??? Hmmmm?


Oh, and another point to make, regarding flight numbers after a major fatal crash...you won't find "American 191" anymore as an operating flight number, just as you won't find "American 11" or "American 77" either. (Or, 587, 965, and more...) because they are retired by the company that suffers the loss, out of respect.

I wish more people would understand that....



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by REMISNE
 





See that??? That big ole' landing gear there??? Now, how do you suppose THAT got out of its "protected well wheel"??? Hmmmm?



Umm ok, on that note....back on topic.... where is the landing gear, tires, wings, fuselage, seats, miles of wiring, hundreds of seatbelt buckles and other heavy, almost ubreakable equipment from flight 93?



Your answers are almost entertaining. Look forward to them.

Obtw, the answer of, the plane came down so fast bla bla doesnt cut it, Show us some air crashes where nothing is found. Dont show us pictures of plane parts released in 2006 of a fuselage section because it has been proven as being suspect and or planted. Dont show us the image of the 1/3 full, 40 yard bin with rusted scrap metal and less than 5 tons of it. That bin has been placed with the scrap in it already. Rollock scrap yard provided the bins for the shot which is mere meters from the 'crash site'



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Here is another photo of the site taken within just a few hours of the crash.
Nothing. Nada. Zilch.




posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Shadow, it is incredible that you'd ask such a question when the POINT should have been obvious to everyone else.

Let's try to use some commonplace examples that (I hope) finally everyone will comprehend:


I'll start with the most obvious --- kinetic energy and momentum.

Example is a bullet. I doubt anyone will argue that a bullet thrown at a person, by hand from a second person, isn't going to penetrate the targeted person's skin, and certainly isn't likely to cause much injury. True so far?

OK, now let's use some other method to launch that bullet...say, a sling shot, Bart Simpson style.

Yeah, that's gonna sting a bit more (might even put an eye out, if the aim is just right...but that's because our eyes are a weak point on our bodies, one of several).

Finally, fire the bullet, as it was designed, from a gun or rifle. That can be fatal, and the bullet, if it doesn't go completely through the victim, will lodge inside somewhere.

Capisce???

So, with UA 93 (another flight number that's officially "retired", along with UA 175 BTW...) we have an intact airplane moving at upwards of 480 knots and impacting the ground at a very steep angle (the estimation is somewhere about 45-degrees from horizontal).

AA 191, in my earlier example, was moving far slower. Typical speed at rotation and in the climb for a heavy DC-10, loaded as it was that day, would be rotate at ~160-165 knots, and accelerate to what's called "V2" or better, which also varies by weight, airplane model, and ambient temperature. Generally in the ~180-190 knots for the DC-10. (I can look this up in the NTSB report, if you wish, and get exact figures for that event).

About the only similarity was the approximate angle of impact. Compared between the AA 191 and UA 93 (and, I admit that RESMINER there, who I responded to, threw me off-thread because I think he was referring to AA 77 at the Pentagon, but in any case the premise he expounded was incorrect, both for AA 77 and UA 93, so this still works here...)

AA 191, on impact at much slower velocity, and into very different sort of terrain than at Shanksville, didn't have the KE to penetrate deeply, not nearly in the same way that UA 93 did.

Recall a bit of physics, about KE and momentum. Forces increases as a SQUARE of velocity.

Just a reminder since many have been away from school for too long:


Note that the kinetic energy increases with the square of the speed. This means, for example, that an object traveling twice as fast will have four times as much kinetic energy.

en.wikipedia.org...


This is the simple reason that so many components of UA 93 were able to bury, along with a relatively soft (compared to, say, asphalt/concrete/packed dirt) terrain at Shanksville.

You have to assess EVERY airplane crash based upon the circumstances.

Sometimes (most times) an airplane will be scattered over a larger area, as it doesn't impact with a mostly or nearly vertical component of motion.

Anyone with a sense of intellectual honesty who desires to stop "spinning" facts and ignoring evidence will learn a great deal from simply studying in more detail, and fully trying to understand the implications, of other airplane accidents, in order to come to a palce of better comprehension.

Or else, those who choose to remain ignorant of physics and facts may continue to do so, it is a personal choice.





[edit on 12 January 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
All of the science & physics in the world don't explain how the aircraft crashed in this spot. As seen in 1994 and the day of the crash.

Pennsylvania crash site



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


mike, you've used this photo(s) before, yet we haven't seen your explanation for them.

The site in 1994 looks entirely different than it did in 2001. Which is to be expected, yes?

So far, you've posted at least twice these photos, with the inset, and other than finding something that someone else took the time (for whatever reason) to put together, it has absolutely no bearing that I can tell.

I found this .pdf article about strip mine reclamation properties in general, at a site somewhere in Pennsylvania, in Clarion County. It is a bit north of Shanksville (about 130 miles, by car). Since it isn't AT Shanksville, I submit this for reading and comprehension regarding the typical properties of sites that were former strip mines, and have been "reclaimed".

info.ngwa.org...

I didn't C&P, but scan down to paragraph 3.1.3 "Total Porosity", on page 115. (The gist of the article is about hydrological characteristics, post-mining activity, but this paragraph talks about he soil composition, and its porosity --- which to my layman's eyes means the soil is loosely packed, as compared to other more natural, less disturbed sites elsewhere).

Other portions were also interesting, as they mentioned various underground voids that existed as a result of the reclamation process.

I hope this helps in understanding.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I can understand why some brush this off as reclaimed mine property, soil issues, a construction aite as one poster in another thread stated etc etc.

What I do not understand is why anyone cannot see the, once in a lifetime perhaps, coincidence that the aircraft crashed in the same spot (or within a few feet) of a land anomaly that looks similiar or the same to the crash site today.

To me it only adds another unexplianed bit to the bigger puzzle of the OS.

I just wish people who defend the OS and then go on and make every effort to explain away things or, come up with an explanation at all cost, would focus that same effort to unraveling the OS.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


What? You mean you think it is odd that the "plane marks" were there before the plane crashed? How else were they supposed to know exactly where to hit?



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


mike, the photo from 1994 and the one from 2001 look completely different!

In 1994 there was that big, black gash, probably from the fact that the mining activity had been much more recent, then.

That same feature is missing in 2001.

Now, why not try an experiment?

Take a look at OTHER reclaimed strip mines, anywhere else in Pennsylvania (you might consider using that same USGS source for aerial photos) and see if you can spot any similarities in places far, far away from Shanksville, OK?

Would you do that for us please???



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


LOL



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mikelee
 


mike, the photo from 1994 and the one from 2001 look completely different!

In 1994 there was that big, black gash, probably from the fact that the mining activity had been much more recent, then.

That same feature is missing in 2001.

Now, why not try an experiment?

Take a look at OTHER reclaimed strip mines, anywhere else in Pennsylvania (you might consider using that same USGS source for aerial photos) and see if you can spot any similarities in places far, far away from Shanksville, OK?

Would you do that for us please???



I did Sir.

But the Shanksville spot was the only one where a plane on 911 crashed with almost identical ground anomalys in 1994 AND 2001.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
See that??? That big ole' landing gear there??? Now, how do you suppose THAT got out of its "protected well wheel"??? Hmmmm?.


It might have gotten out but it didt also have the velocity to do the damage like at the Pentagon?

Or was the one witness correct and the landing gear on AA77 lowered at time of impact?



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 



...with almost identical ground anomalys in 1994 AND 2001.


Honestly, you are seeing things, I think.

The only things even remotely 'identical' are the shape of the tree lines, and the fact that there exists what looks like an access road (dirt) along those lines.

In the 1994 photo there exists a huge, dark gash or some sort, which is NOT in the 2001 photo. Why?



[edit on 14 January 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The point that you are avoiding is that No plane like a Boeing 767 was found or pulled out of any field in considered to be the crash site of the Flight 93. We all know this.

What ever caused that little circular crater was not caused by a comercial airliner the size of "Fligth 93".

The dark scar was present before 911, it is not the exact one but whatever caused the gash in 1994 most likey caused the gash in 2001. The targeting systems of cruise missiles most likely aimed for the gash. Contrast is commonly used to identify targets for targeting aquisition systems.
files.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 14-1-2010 by Shadow Herder]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join