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.

 

Pennsylvania crash site coincidence?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Badgered1
 



Now when the terrorists hijacked the plane, they used "boxcutters" right?


That is what is thought they used. Who knows for sure. We know what we know. They may have had guns, bombs, clubs, knives, we will never absolutely know for sure. Everybody that does know for sure is dead.

Why?




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


mike, may I ask why you posted these sentences, because they are very non-sequitor:



* There were no shoot down orders for that plane there however there were such orders for the one that crashed in Shanksville PA.

* That plane didn't didn't turn around and begin to . towards the DC area after 3 other planes used in an act of terrorism hit their targets. The plane in Shanksville PA did.


Do you know why the Caspian airliner crashed? The circumstances of the emergency, the cause?

I'll tell you this, rather than linking. The Tupelov (Russian-designed/built airliner) had tail-mounted engines (like the Boeing 727, DC-9, MD-80).

An engine caught fire. The fire suppression system did not extinguish/deal with the fire, it burned out of control. Enough damage occured to the area in the tail, the horizontal stabilizer is VITAL to controlling an airplane for aerodynamic reasons. Structural failure occurred before they could get to a safe landing site.

The horiz. stab. basically provides an aerodynamic balance in flight, w;thout it the forces will cause the nose to immediately go down, and the flight path to the ground would resemble UA 93's. (Difference, though, is the speed. The crew, with what they had, did not intentionally wish to hit the ground, nor did they elect to do it with maximum speed, as seen in the UA 93 crash).




* Donald Rumsfeld, SECDEF on 911 didn't say that plane had been shot down. However he did say that the plane over Pennsylvania WAS SHOT DOWN.


I thought I covered this already. Rummy was in on the fact that the shoot-down order had been authorized, so he ASSUMED, upon early reports of UA 93 being down, that it must have been a result of the shoot-down order!

Remember, please, this is the numbskull who said, in reference to the Iraqi invasion, and its difficulties, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wish you had...) (I paraphrase....)



* That plane there has a massive amount of debris some of which is substancial in size. The aircraft that was shot down over Pennsylvania did not leave such debris.


mike, mike....cannot you see, yet, that IF the UA 93 had been hit, by a missile or F-16 cannon fire while airborne, then there WOULD be very many, many much larger, larger pieces, spread out over a much, much larger "footprint".

Think....airplane hit, in flight, pieces break off. They almost immediately reduce their velocity, because they are no longer attached to the airframe that was moving them along, and the air resistance slows them down, as gravity pulls them down towards the ground. They fall at terminal velocity, NOT the very high velocity they would have still had if still attached.

See?

Very elemental and basic physics.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Think....airplane hit, in flight, pieces break off. They almost immediately reduce their velocity, because they are no longer attached to the airframe that was moving them along, and the air resistance slows them down, as gravity pulls them down towards the ground. They fall at terminal velocity, NOT the very high velocity they would have still had if still attached.

See?

Very elemental and basic physics.


Gee, even a pilot should know that depeding on where the missile or rounds hit there might not be pieces breaking off.

Very basic common sense.








[edit on 17-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Really???

Are you serious with this?:




Gee, even a pilot should know that depeding on where the missile or rounds hit there might not be pieces breaking off.


When a person's logic is failing, they resort to this???

Do you seriously believe that a missile hitting a Boeing 757 (or cannon rounds) won't peel off pieces??? Really?

How difficult is it to understand that any "kill" fatal enough to result in the downing of something as big as a B-757 is going to leave collateral damage, as in, pieces falling behind and under the flight track???

Please provide ANY evidence of any such debris, after all these years, in order to promote this "shoot-down" scenario.

EVEN a heat-seeker hit on an engine wouldn't mean an immediate dowing (depending so much on the hit, and what damage was done to the wing...).

I mean, you guys are thinking Hollywood, or Star Wars here, it seems.....



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


So now we are going to put enough missiles or cannon rounds into an airliner to shoot it out of the sky.....and NOTHING is going to come off the airliner? On what planet?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Except for the engine and various other debris. You guys assume incorrectly that should a missile impact an aircraft that size it will just become a vast amount of debis. This is incorrect and wrong.

Cannon fire from an F16 in the choice spot would bring it down without such a drastic effect. A missile striking the engine would do the same thing.

>Why do you think the plane rolled? - It lost an engine on or shortly after impact of the missile!

>Why can't the recording of the fighters who intercepted it nor the flight 93 recording be released to the public? - because they will prove the shoot down!

> Langley AFB, those guys there knows one of their own came back without "something" after it intercepted flight 93.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


So far, there is no evidence for a shoot-down. No aircraft parts were found up-track of the impact. No empty 20mm cases were found. No missile parts were found. No 20mm ground impacts were noted. No missile track was seen. No missile explosion was heard. No cannon fire was heard.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


As far as you know there were none found. There are ways to retain spent casings by the way. And if the shoot down was denied or covered up then why would anyone look for any? Kinda explains why none were found...Yet.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Frankly it's amazing how there's any evidence of anything at all. That particular day seemed to be prone to things going missing. I've mentioned before that I should have been in Vegas. The 'coincidences' were staggering.

Nobody found a 20mm casing? Really. Perhaps someone did, and we didn't hear about it. It's quite troubling how much information the public has been deprived of.

Luckily there was a well preserved drivers license of one of the crew, a .scarf of very Islamic design found in very good condition at the 'crash site.' Otherwise we would have very little to go on.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Have we forgotten that there were NO anomalies with any of the airplane's systems, from the FDR data?

You seem to have, also, the misguided notion that merely losing an engine would cause the airplane to roll over, and dive to the ground. Any multi-engine pilot will laugh at that idea.

In any case, IF an engine had been hit, had failed, anything of that nature, it would have shown up on the FDR. Not to mention also the debris that would have been in trail of the airplane's ground track.

Besides, the Government already admits that IF the airplane had not been taken down by the hijackers, in response to the passengers' actions, then THEY (the Government) would have shot it down, rather than allow it to reach a target in DC (or anywhere).

I really don't see why beating this dead horse is getting anyone anywhere...



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


If the aircraft is struck by cannon fire, it would cause considerable damage to it. This would compromse the aircraft's structural integrity. The wings, fuselage, tail, engines, if the plane is hit anywhere here, and beings to go out of control, the dynamic stress it would have been able to stand up to prior to the damage would be degraded, and the aircraft would still shed parts, sections, and possibly break up. The speed of the cannon itself would tear up the aircraft as well. Here is a video of an F-16 doing strafing runs.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by pteridine
 


As far as you know there were none found. There are ways to retain spent casings by the way. And if the shoot down was denied or covered up then why would anyone look for any? Kinda explains why none were found...Yet.


Casings are discarded from aircraft. Retaining such casings is not done because of the possibility of jamming the gun. At 6,000 rounds per minute, there should be quite a few spread along the track. Misses would impact the ground and the explosive projectiles would attract attention.
No pieces of airplane raining down over miles of track, no shell casings, noise, ground impacts, missile tracks, explosions, or anything else.



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


pterdine, and also GenRadek, you each help to corroborate a very specific point.

There is NO WAY that a traditional "shoot-down" occured in regards to United Ailrines flight 93.

...
The CVR does not, I repeat does NOT indicate any such thing, and the CVR runs until impact, when it STOPS at the SAME time the FDR stops, which also indicated nothing out of the ordinary, in terms of the airplanes's systems (I HAVE read, repeatedly, the NTSB FDR data, and EVERYTHING I see makes perfect sense to me, becasue I KNOW how to interpret it).

Anyone who wished to challenge me on the United 93 FDR data is itching for a fight.....

( and anyone who has ever heard NPR will know that reference, so don't get all excited and "alert the Mods"....
)



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Have we forgotten that there were NO anomalies with any of the airplane's systems, from the FDR data?


You mean the FDR that has not been properly matched to the plane?



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Anyone who wished to challenge me on the United 93 FDR data is itching for a fight.....


I will gladly challenge you since you do not even have the prove that the FDR is even from that plane.



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Who keeps "starring" you??????

Anyway...

Please provide the EVIDENCE for this assertion...


You mean the FDR that has not been properly matched to the plane?


Please. Please.



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


The straight down impact crater does not match up with proposed inclination of the flight 93. If it came in at an angle then the crater would look very different.



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Why? How so? Exactly what should it look like? Can you prove your assertion? Just asking questions.



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Regardless of what was used to shoot the aircraft down, we cannot and must not forget the following fact:


The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public."


That radically different story in my opinion, is that it was shot down.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join