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.

 

Shanksville PA

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Map summarizes the location of the most well-documented debris fields:
Primary crash site at 40°03'03" N lat & 78°54'17" W long
Location of an engine: 2000 feet away
Indian Lake marina: 3 miles away
New Baltimore: 8 miles away

Analysis of the debris distribution suggests not only that the Flight 93 was shot down, but that it was flying west at the time it was shot down. If you draw a line through all three main debris fields and draw a box to include a mile north, south and west of this flight path, such a highlighted area should give a good representation of the scope of potential debris fragments locale.

sources:
1. 'Black box' from Pennsylvania crash found, CNN.com, 9/13/01
2. FBI: Early probe results show 18 hijackers took part, CNN.com, 9/13/01
3. Authorities deny Flight 93 was shot down by F-16, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/14/01
4. Unanswered questions: The mystery of Flight 93, Independent.co.uk, 11/13/02

[edit on 5-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]




posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by The Blind Eye
 





Analysis of the debris distribution suggests not only that the Flight 93 was shot down, but that it was flying west at the time it was shot down. If you draw a line through all three main debris fields and draw a box to include a mile north, south and west of this flight path, such a highlighted area should give a good representation of the scope of potential debris fragments locale.


Just curious, what is your experience with shooting down aircraft?

I only ask that because if you have studied the debris and where it was found you will quickly figure out that Flight 93 was not shot down. Not to mention, the CVR and the FDR indicate that the plane was intact up until impact with the ground.



BTW...what was left of that engine was 900 feet away.....not 2,000.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
if you have studied the debris and where it was found you will quickly figure out that Flight 93 was not shot down. Not to mention, the CVR and the FDR indicate that the plane was intact up until impact with the ground.



From CNN news article archives.cnn.com...
...investigators say they've found debris from the crash at least eight miles away from the crash site. A second debris field was around Indian Lake about 3 miles from the crash scene. Some debris was in the lake and some was adjacent to the lake. More debris from the plane was found in New Baltimore, some 8 miles away from the crash.



Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
BTW...what was left of that engine was 900 feet away.....not 2,000.



From UK's Independent news article 911research.wtc7.net...
the FBI says... the jet-engine part flew 2,000 yards on account of the savage force of the plane's impact with the ground.


As for my 'expertise', a basic understanding of physics and simply comparing this crash to prior crashes of similar measure in size, speed and circumstances... is all that anyone needs to draw these same conclusions.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by The Blind Eye
 


Kinda figured that was the response I was going to get. A misinformed one...When I have time later, I will post why.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by The Blind Eye
 


Ah but you are failing to notice some important facts about the debris distribution. The debris found at the so-called "2nd" site consisted of light debris. Light debris meaning shreds of cloths, insulation, straps, papers, magazine pieces, nylons, anything that can be picked up by the winds and carried. The force of the impact and explosion of fuel was more than enough to lift these shreds high into the sky and have the winds which were blowing from NW to SE to deposit them downwind in New Baltimore. They didnt report heavy chunks of fuselage or engines landing there, only light debris. This is consistent with a crash that happened in a dive. Not with being shot out of the sky or breaking up in mid air. If those were cases, we should have seen chunks of debris upwind from the crash site and much earlier before impact. There should have been larger pieces of fuselage landing before the crash site's area. But we didnt. Its all downwind from the origin of the crash site.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Blind Eye

As for my 'expertise', a basic understanding of physics and simply comparing this crash to prior crashes of similar measure in size, speed and circumstances... is all that anyone needs to draw these same conclusions.


Can you please list the plane crashes that you feel are compatible with Flight 93?

If you haven't really compared similar crashes, please read about flight 1771.

en.wikipedia.org...


Google Video Link



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I have checked all you guys out, based on your works/posts and collaborative efforts in "debunking", i think it's safe to say some, if not all of you get a check in the mail for preserving the OS lie... so i will save us all valuable time and effort in debating this obvious fraud.

For those who are on the fence on whether or not to take on this worthwhile field-trip investigation, just take every piece of data available... especially those details that the OS conveniently leaves out and you'll see that their is more to this than meets the eye. This rabbit hole along with the others (WTC & pentagon) requires some digging and heavy lifting, so don't listen to those who try to scare you, dismiss or distract you from asking and looking for answers that make sense.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar

04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.

Radar Coast Mode activates when a transponder is inoperative (or turned off) and primary radar tracking is lost, which enables ATC to have some sort of reference of the flight after losing radar coverage of the physical aircraft. When an aircraft target enters "Coast Mode", ATC is alerted in the form of a blue tag on the target as well as the tag letters switching to CST. ATC will readily recognize when an aircraft enters "Coast Mode".
According to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Flight Path Study, United 93 allegedly impacted the ground at 10:03am, September 11, 2001. The following transcript excerpts are provided by the Federal Aviation Administration. It is a conversation between Air Traffic Control System Command Center - East, Management Officers (ntmo-e) and other various facilities. The conversation is as follows in real time:

pilotsfor911truth.org...



UNITED 93 DATA PROVIDED BY US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT OBSERVED EVENTS

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain United Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder information, consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict observed events in several significant ways:

1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.
2. All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.
3. Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach claimed by the US Govt.
4. Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells. Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich explosion.
5. Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.

In May, 2007, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that United Airlines Flight 93 created the impact crater as reported, in Somerset County, PA on the morning of September 11, 2001 .According to the US Govt, United Airlines Flight 93 approached Somerset County from the North-Northwest at a high altitude on the morning of September 11, 2001 .

However, many witnesses contradict altitude as well as approach path. Also according to reports, and as the impact crater suggests, United Airlines Flight 93 impacted terrain at an almost vertical 90 degree angle, while the Flight Data Recorder shows a 35 degree angle with up-sloping terrain, further reducing impact angle.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

You see folks, it is this "creditable information" that the OS believers choose to turn their backs on. This is the “proven facts” that pokes holes in their OS; they do not want to discuss this information because it proves the OS is a lie.

The only responds I will get from the “OS believer” is ridiculing the Truth.

To the OP, I would be interested to know what you all do find with the metal detectors. Hopefully you might find some airplanes parts with some serial numbers on them. My bet will be, they will not belong to said plane, this will prove that the FBI planted the crash debris as some of us suspected. This also explain why the FBI didn’t investigate any of the four airplane crashes, Perhaps they didn’t want to record any of the airplane time change out parts serial numbers because, they don’t belong to said airplanes as the government claims. As if our government doesn’t lie.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by The Blind Eye
 





I have checked all you guys out, based on your works/posts and collaborative efforts in debunking, i think it's safe to say some if not all of you get a check in the mail for preserving the OS lie... so i will save us all valuable time and effort in debating this obvious fraud.



ROTFLMAO. Typical position when someone finds themselves outgunned. Thats okay. We understand.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Why? What is wrong with hearing and seeing them on TV? Or reading their statements in the press?


Maybe becasue the media has lied in the past.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Why? What is wrong with hearing and seeing them on TV? Or reading their statements in the press?


Maybe becasue the media has lied in the past.




Haven't met a human being yet so hasn't lied in the past. That's a very broad and general indictment. The "media" comprises a lot of sources. Print, electronic, etc. So you believe nothing that you read or hear? That is a terrible burden. Do you believe anything you see on the internet? Where do you think you are more likely to run into purposeful falsehoods - on the internet or in the "media"?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



You see folks, it is this "creditable information" ...




Really, if I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times....

"PilotsFor911Truth" are certainly NOT "creditable" (
)

Everything they post, bray about, and try to spin and put over on gullible people (Send Your Donations Today!) is either incredibly flawed due to incompetence, or skewed by them (also known as "lying") in order to keep fooling their "core" patsies who keep donating.


Each and every point in EVERY ONE of those "P4T" citations is wrong, and has been thoroughly trashed, and refuted numerous times.

Especially the "United 93 still airborne" nonsense.

But, you see, even the WRONG material never gets removed. So, it keeps infecting the interwebs, day in and day out....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here, impressme....

Read up on some REAL information, not that garbage from the merry band of know-nothings working out of Balsamo's basement.....

www.historycommons.org.../11=ua93&timeline=complete_911_timeline





[edit on 8 January 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
But, you see, even the WRONG material never gets removed. So, it keeps infecting the interwebs, day in and day out....


You mean like the official story?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooperDo you believe anything you see on the internet? Where do you think you are more likely to run into purposeful falsehoods - on the internet or in the "media"?


Well i for one can think for myself so i do not go by just what i see and hear in the media.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




The only responds I will get from the “OS believer” is ridiculing the Truth.


As I said, the only thing you OS believers will do is insult the truth and make up un-supporting lies to discredit creditable professional people.


You see folks, it is this "creditable information" ...



See what I mean.


Really, if I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times....

"PilotsFor911Truth" are certainly NOT "creditable" (
)


That is you uninformed opinion, nothing more.


Everything they post, bray about, and try to spin


Stop right there, if any one is doing any spin it is clearly you.


and put over on gullible people (Send Your Donations Today!) is either incredibly flawed due to incompetence, or skewed by them (also known as "lying") in order to keep fooling their "core" patsies who keep donating.


It is obvious, that you are hurt by the Truth, get over it.


Each and every point in EVERY ONE of those "P4T" citations is wrong, and has been thoroughly trashed, and refuted numerous times.


That is untrue but, you know that, don’t you? You have been on here for years crying everyone is wrong but you. My what a big ego you have.


Especially the "United 93 still airborne" nonsense.


That is a fact whether you like it or not, that was found under the FOIA and you cannot discredit it, no matter what you do.

If it is nonsense, then why don’t you demonstrate with proof with creditable internet links that proves that the FOIA is all a lie?

I will be waiting for this proof.


Here, impressme....


No thanks, I try and stay away from disinfo websites.

Your whole post to me had nothing to do with this thread topic. You certainly enjoy insulting and ridiculing other people’s opinions. You certainly have no problems of expressing yourself emotionally.

If you cannot respect anyone’s opinions, then why should we respect you or your opinions?

My information from Pilots for 911 Truth still stands and it is very creditable. I have yet to see anyone of you OS believers prove it is false, period.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I am still waiting for the people that believe the official story to post any real, physical evidence that supports the offficail story.

Oh, thats right they cannot since most of the evidence has not been released.


[edit on 9-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Here's your problem, impressme...you believe the P4T as 'gospel', and don't really understand enough to research more deeply for yourself

It is, also, important to understand that the time coding ON the United 93 FDR comes from the onboard clock (Captain's) since at that time the airplane was NOT equipped with GPS updating capability.

Now, from the ATC transcript, obtained via FOIA:


1405 (10:05 a.m.)

ntmo-e: ok united ninety three we're now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty two hundred feet

doug: now transponder and he's eighty two-hundred

ntmo-e: southeastbound still

doug: eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him

ntmo-e: correct

doug: ok buddy

10:06

ntmo-e: ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three
doug: all right


Do you understand what any of that means?

See, the P4T won't bother to tell you ALL the details, they want to hide and distort, leave out anything that doesn't fit into their increasingly shaky position on the matter.

So, let's look...the transponder had already, previously been selected to "STBY" (same as turning "OFF"), yet for some reason it squawked briefly, and the ATC computers registered it at 10:05 local EDT.

(I have no idea WHY the transponder may have been placed back into the "ALT ON" position, or even all the way to "TA/RA", IF it happened at all. But, since they had been AT 5,000 feet, and it seems that the passengers were at the door, and the hijackers decided about then to put it down, it's conceivable that someone in the cockpit brushed the panel, and the transponder knob was repositioned by accident. Pure speculation, but it is possible). OR, a computer glitch with the ATC system, perhaps...

Radar contact lost, just one minute after...and the time trace on the FDR shows it ending at 10:03, so it's only a three-minute discrepancy. Not much, really, and perfectly understandable IF the Captain's clock was off by that much, and/or IF you take into account a slight time lag involved as the ATC computers receive, digest, then display the information on the screens.

P4T would leave the impression that everything is instantaneous, to the millisecond --- that is simply not the case.

NOW, when I looked at the FDR data (Also, BTW, from an FOIA request...hmmmm???) that shows the altitude trace, I see that United 93 had leveled off at 5,000 feet at about 09:58:30, and had been steady on a heading of about 120 degrees for quite some time.

The heading select knob was moved to 090 at about 09:57, and the airplane's heading changed in accordance, steadying on 090 by 09:58.

(Sorry for using readily available information that was ALSO released by the government --- the very same government you accuse of "faking" it all...)

The autopilot was disconnected at 10:01, and at the exact same time heading, altitude and airspeed data went from steady to erratic. This would also be about the time the passengers were at the door, trying to break in.



There is more, but suffice to say there is ample evidence that fits perfectly well with the scenario of United 93 rolling over and being intentionally dove into the ground, at the location near Shanksville as reported.

Too bad that certain people, like impressme, actually refuse to look at any sites, data, facts that don't comply with his already pre-determined mindset. THAT is the funniest part, from the post up above (and I didn't quote it, but it's there for all to see).

Also, there is far more bad info out there, not sure if it's also promoted by P4T regarding the airplane heading, and direction of flight...thought I saw them trying to claim it was heading WEST---but then THEY use the very FOIA ATC transcript, in order to bring doubt upon the time aspect, and IN THAT TRANSCRIPT the controllers are talking about UA 93's direction of flight.

Go ahead, click on the link provided by P4T, and decide for yourselves.

Or, just believe everything THEY tell you, even if it's wrong, or skewed to promote their pet beliefs.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's a comment to add, because it's important:

IF I saw anything in these data that somehow showed the Bush Administration to have been as responsible as some so desperately wish to believe, THEN I'd be right there along with everyone.

I despise Bush, and the entire legacy of his administration, (possible exception being Colin Powell, who I think is an honorable man). I hate Bush Sr. (but laugh and kinda go "Aw, shucks." when he skydives) and reserve most of my derision and bile for Reagan, and his policies, failures and over-blown adoration seen today.

BUT, merely hating Bush and trying to find something, anything, in order to promote some darned fool "conspiracy" nonsense, as in, "They planned and executed this attack on our own people" just goes beyond belief, into ridiculous territory.

I could sit squarely on the side of "LIHOP", but I am more inclined at this point to think it was merely an intelligence failure, oversight, combination of errors and poor communication and bungled opportunities. A bit like we saw on Christmas Day, with the "underwear bomber."











[edit on 9 January 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Here's your problem, impressme...you believe the P4T as 'gospel', and don't really understand enough to research more deeply for yourself[/qute]

Like you and others believe the official story as gospel.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join