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.

 

Flight 93 Did Not Crash In Shanksville or Shot Down.

page: 13
30
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please explain, then, the two Flight Data Recorders (FDRs).

OK? WHAT is your explanation for them?


You mean the ones that are not consdered evidence?




posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please explain, then, the two Flight Data Recorders (FDRs).

OK? WHAT is your explanation for them?


You mean the ones that are not consdered evidence?


I would assume, of course, that you can cite the legal finding wherein the FDR's were rejected as evidence in a court of law otherwise you have again been found to be.....



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by shasta9600
 


How can you be so certain??


There wasn't a plane crash in Shanksville.


Based solely on those stupid "conpiracy" websites?? So, you trust and believe them rather than accepting the truth of the overwhelming amount of evidence from the site? AND the ATC radar data?

The airplane was tracked, on radar, to the impact point. At least, until below the ability of the radar antennas to hit the primary target (skin paint). It briefly 'squawked" altitude (Mode C) from about 8,000 feet, but it impacted moments after that.

The airplane impacted the ground at tremendous speed --- haigher than any previous airplane crash in history. The forces shredded every piece into millions of tiny fragments, for hte most part. In such events, the physics are complex and chaotic, so there remained a FEW larger pieces....and that certainly is not surprising.

The two Recorders were able to be read-out....so they also stand as testimony to the event.

The airpolane impacted, and mostly buried into the soil. What happens to a bullet, if fired into dirt or sand?

A small bullet, even with such low mass, moves at tremendous velocity. Basic physics, velocity/energy....look it up.

Please look at this photo:


This is just one image from the piecing back together the itty, bitty tiny pieces of debris recovered after the SwissAir 111 crash off the coast of Nova Scotia.

The jet hit the water, because it was out of control due to an inflight fire in the cockpit area, at a very high speed.

Power to the Recorders was lost, due to the fire, well before impact, so exact speed is not known (as is known with UA 93).

Since the reason for that crash was unknown, it was painstakingly re-constucted....using that steel frame you see, to give it its original 3-D shape, to aid the investigation.

There is no mystery WHY UA 93 crashed --- all data obtained merely filled in as much detail as possible, to get a sense of the timeline, and to try to comprehend the Human tragedy as well. Since no mechanical faults, then there was no need to determine 'cause' based on that line of inquiry. We KNOW it was a criminal act.

Please note how small the fragments are...ringing any bells, yet?



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


I will state that my feelings of flight 93 being shot down was an immediate reaction. As a former Marine and in a family full of active duty military types, this was a no-brainer. We all knew what had happened when we heard that another plane crashed in the middle of nowhere. Like so many others during that time, I was glued to my set for days, constantly flipping through the news channels to glean new tidbits here or there. The crash sight didn't make sense to me either, and it was also something I pointed out early on.

Another note...I very CLEARLY remember seeing (when it happened), a news report and interviews talking about the Pentagon, and that it was not a plane at all, but a missile. This was the first time I had heard anything that resembled my sentiments of how the building looked. I even commented to my family, "they can't possibly expect us to believe that a massive commercial airliner went into that building! Where is it? That hole is not big enough, the damage isn't bad enough, and where did the wings and engines go?"

Also, I very clearly remember news reports of REPORTERS and civilians alike, talking about the second plane that hit the WTC, and that it was all white, with no windows or markings on it. I remember watching this and feeling like this story was going to blow up when we found out what really happened, but it never did, and the "official" story settled, while all the eyewitness accounts that defied the official story disappeared.

This situation reminds me quite a bit about the space shuttle explosion, and how several news stations reported (and even SHOWED it on TV!) a blue light zipping up to and around the shuttle before it exploded when it was going through reentry. Then like magic, it disappeared as if it never happened.

Anyway, great stuff here!



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The airplane was tracked, on radar, to the impact point. At least, until below the ability of the radar antennas to hit the primary target (skin paint). It briefly 'squawked" altitude (Mode C) from about 8,000 feet, but it impacted moments after that.

And yet the air traffic controllers at Johnstown airport commented how weird it was that they couldn't see Flight 93 with their binoculars from the tower when is should have been visible. Hmm.


The airplane impacted the ground at tremendous speed --- haigher than any previous airplane crash in history. The forces shredded every piece into millions of tiny fragments, for hte most part. In such events, the physics are complex and chaotic, so there remained a FEW larger pieces....and that certainly is not surprising.

False. Flight 1771 reportedly crashed in a dirt field at around 700 mph, yet even though most of the plane shredded into tiny pieces as Flight 93 supposedly did, most of 1771's wreckage remained above ground.


The two Recorders were able to be read-out....so they also stand as testimony to the event.

Are you telling us with 100% certainty that Flight recorder data can't be made up?


The airpolane impacted, and mostly buried into the soil. What happens to a bullet, if fired into dirt or sand?
A small bullet, even with such low mass, moves at tremendous velocity. Basic physics, velocity/energy....look it up.

Wow weedwacker, I started a thread about where was most of UA93's alleged wreckage and don't recall you chiming in that most of the wreckage was buried. I also started a thread asking why did the media not report it right away when most of UA93 was found buried where a lot of your skeptic buddies disagree that most of UA93 was buried, but I don't recall you chiming in that one either to correct them. Why not?

Anyways, if UA93 mostly buried as you claim, what empirical evidence do you have that most of UA93 was buried?



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 




And yet the air traffic controllers at Johnstown airport commented how weird it was that they couldn't see Flight 93 with their binoculars from the tower when is should have been visible. Hmm.



Did you bother to Google Map the area, the Johnstown-Cambria County Airport, and its distance from the Shanksville crash site???

Because, even though the travel distance by car is 29 miles, let's assume the direct distance is about 20 miles. Ever tried to spot a Boeing 757 (even using binocs) from 20 miles, when you don't even know anything other than general direct to look??? An arc that extends from West, c/clockwise to South??? And this doesn't take into account any intervening visual obstructions....such as terrain or buildings.

Also, look up something known as "Line-of-Sight" and determine whether an airplane low on the horizon, relative to your vantage point, and 20 miles away can be expected to be visible when only 2,000 to 3,000 feet AGL.

Come on....if you wish to believe these whacky conspiracy theories, at least do some research, don't just take them at their word without vetting the facts!!!


[edit on 10 February 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Flight 1771 reportedly crashed in a dirt field at around 700 mph, yet even though most of the plane shredded into tiny pieces as Flight 93 supposedly did, most of 1771's wreckage remained above ground.


"reportedly"...."supposedly"?? You, of course, refer here to PSA 1771, from 1987. I know it well...

"reportedly"??? It happened!!

Look it up. And, different terrain composition.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
- Are you telling us with 100% certainty that Flight recorder data can't be made up?

- Wow weedwacker, I started a thread about where was most of UA93's alleged wreckage and don't recall you chiming in that most of the wreckage was buried. I also started a thread asking why did the media not report it right away when most of UA93 was found buried where a lot of your skeptic buddies disagree that most of UA93 was buried, but I don't recall you chiming in that one either to correct them. Why not?

- Anyways, if UA93 mostly buried as you claim, what empirical evidence do you have that most of UA93 was buried?

Three questions weedwacker purposely avoided answering. Why weedwacker?

[edit on 10-2-2010 by ATH911]



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by ATH911
- Are you telling us with 100% certainty that Flight recorder data can't be made up?

- Wow weedwacker, I started a thread about where was most of UA93's alleged wreckage and don't recall you chiming in that most of the wreckage was buried. I also started a thread asking why did the media not report it right away when most of UA93 was found buried where a lot of your skeptic buddies disagree that most of UA93 was buried, but I don't recall you chiming in that one either to correct them. Why not?

- Anyways, if UA93 mostly buried as you claim, what empirical evidence do you have that most of UA93 was buried?

Three questions weedwacker purposely avoided answering. Why weedwacker?

[edit on 10-2-2010 by ATH911]



Apologies for quoting the whole thing, and all the nesting, but "ATH911" quoted himself, and offered a challenge (implied) for some reason, with innuendo directed towards me. Why??

Anyhooo...

So, to accuse me of 'purposely avoiding answering' really grinds my gears!! How rude! I happen to be human, and might not have recognized those ridiculous 'challenges' as actual questions --- the still look rhetorical and argumentative, to me.

#1) - FDR data made up?? Since you even asked that question it demonstrates a solid lack of understanding about FDRs, the hundreds and hundreds of data points that they record, all in binary....and just how daunting a task it would be. Combined with all of the ATC recordings that match, controllers/pilots talking, radar data, etc. AND the CVR too!!!

So, no....I cannot see how it all could have done, in such complexity, and not have been found out, by now, by the dozens of experts who have studied it by now (maybe hundreds?)

If YOU have solid evidence as to how it was done, by all means bring it...but simple innuendo does not an "argument of proof" make.

#2) - Media reports "right away" about it being buried??? You really think that is a valid question? And that I somehow would be privvy to EVERY media oiutlet, access they had to the site, and whether they chose to speculate early o in their reporting, or out of deference, sometimes, to the victims' families decided to back off???

Did I chime in to either of those two threads of yours? I don't recall -- (you say you don't remember either). Well, my posting history may not go back that far, since ATS can't be expected to log it for easy reference beyond the last hundred or so. Go review your threads, and get back to me, mmmmmmKay?

#3) - "Empirical evidence"??? What, exactly, would YOU accept as sufficient "empirical evidence"?

As was suggested, in your threads (I do remember having read them, from time to time) contact United Airlines to see if they are in possession of the debris. OR the FBI, if they still have control or possession of it, and are storing it for some reason.

I would suppose, in such an event, that the "sifting" through of the entire area to collect as much debris as possible wasn't for the 'crash' investigation, since we know WHY it crashed --- recovery of the Recorders was, of course, vital.

BUT, for the sake of the families, being able to recover as much Human remains as possible was important, too.

If you cannot understand the sensitivity of that aspect of this event, and why sometimes not EVERYTHING that the ghouls in the "truth movement" want to see is released for their persoanl scrutiny, then I cannot help you.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ever tried to spot a Boeing 757 (even using binocs) from 20 miles, when you don't even know anything other than general direct to look???




Sometime shortly before 10 a.m., the direct line from Cleveland Air Traffic Control rang inside the control tower at Johnstown-Cambria County Airport, 70 miles east of Pittsburgh.
Did Johnstown tower have any radio contact with a large aircraft about 20 miles to its south? Supervisor Dennis Fritz and controller Thomas Hull picked up binoculars -- the tower has no radar -- and scanned the horizon to the south. The day was clear and, from the highest point in the area, they could spot radio towers in neighboring Somerset County. A large plane would have stood out.
"We didn't see a thing," Fritz said.

Hull went on the radio and broadcast an open message: "Aircraft 20 South of the field, contact Johnstown tower ... ."
Ninety seconds later, Cleveland called back. The plane was now 15 miles south and heading directly for the Johnstown tower.
"We suggest you evacuate," they told him.
Fritz ordered trainees and custodial staff out of the 85-foot tower. He and Hull stayed at their posts and scanned the south with binoculars. It occurred to Fritz that the plane must be flying below the level of the mountain ridges around them.


As to the official flight path of UA93, the plane would NOT have been below the level of the mountain ridges around them. A 757 should have been visible. I don't think any witnesses reported a 757 around the area.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
#1) - FDR data made up?? Since you even asked that question it demonstrates a solid lack of understanding about FDRs, the hundreds and hundreds of data points that they record, all in binary....and just how daunting a task it would be. Combined with all of the ATC recordings that match, controllers/pilots talking, radar data, etc. AND the CVR too!!!


That is not an answer. There is no "yes" or "no" in there. Data points can be faked. I have had to read binary code in order to find errors in corrupt files. It is not impossible, just hard to do without a computer.


So, no....I cannot see how it all could have done, in such complexity, and not have been found out, by now, by the dozens of experts who have studied it by now (maybe hundreds?)

If YOU have solid evidence as to how it was done, by all means bring it...but simple innuendo does not an "argument of proof" make.


Right, so like I said. There is no yes or no up there, just that it would be hard. There are people that think my 3d animations would be impossible to do. They are people that have no idea about computers or software but hey, I do not see you claiming to know all computer systems available to people so the answer is...

Yes, but WW thinks it would be hard.

I just want to make sure we are clear on this.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
#1) - FDR data made up?? Since you even asked that question it demonstrates a solid lack of understanding about FDRs, the hundreds and hundreds of data points that they record, all in binary....and just how daunting a task it would be.

So, no....I cannot see how it all could have done, in such complexity, and not have been found out, by now, by the dozens of experts who have studied it by now (maybe hundreds?)

A simply computer flight simulator programs could produce all those points of data (in binary too!).

Did any of those experts think the data on the recorders might be forged? If they didn't (which why would they even?), how would they even think to check if the data matched up?


Combined with all of the ATC recordings that match, controllers/pilots talking, radar data, etc. AND the CVR too!!!

The flight path altitudes didn't match the witness reports from the ground. See PFT's Flight 93 video.


#2) - Media reports "right away" about it being buried??? You really think that is a valid question? And that I somehow would be privvy to EVERY media oiutlet, access they had to the site, and whether they chose to speculate early o in their reporting, or out of deference, sometimes, to the victims' families decided to back off???

A VERY valid question. The media reported on the very day that the FDR was supposed dug up on 9/13. The media also reported on the very same day when the CVR was supposedly dug up on 9/14 and in that 9/14 article, they reported about one of the engines being dug up that supposedly had been dug up when the FDR was on 9/13. Even though they reported about the alleged dug-up engine a day later, the media still reported within reason of when it was found (reporting about something the next day is normal for the media) and not a month later or so.

So now that it was clear that the media was reporting right away when plane wreckage was supposedly being dug out of the ground, why did it take the media some months & years later to report that most of the plane, and thereby most of the passengers, had been buried?

Don't you find that HIGHLY unusual???? I mean when has a commercial plane with passengers ever mostly buried in the history of aviation crashes?!? THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY!!!!!!!


Did I chime in to either of those two threads of yours? I don't recall -- (you say you don't remember either).

It's just kind of funny since most of your skeptic buddies don't seem to think most of UA93 was buried. You guys can't have it both ways you know.


#3) - "Empirical evidence"??? What, exactly, would YOU accept as sufficient "empirical evidence"?

As was suggested, in your threads (I do remember having read them, from time to time) contact United Airlines to see if they are in possession of the debris. OR the FBI, if they still have control or possession of it, and are storing it for some reason.

No I don't care who has possession of the alleged 95% wreckage "found," I want to hear from you what evidence is there that most of UA93 had actually buried and dug out from beneath that shallow crater. Just show the best evidence you think there is. I mean if most of a huge 757 was buried, it shouldn't be too hard to prove.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by ATH911]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ever tried to spot a Boeing 757 (even using binocs) from 20 miles, when you don't even know anything other than general direct to look???




As to the official flight path of UA93, the plane would NOT have been below the level of the mountain ridges around them. A 757 should have been visible. I don't think any witnesses reported a 757 around the area.


They cant prove it, their 'proof' is what has lead most people to believe that a Boeing 757 did not crash in Shanksville on 911.

They are hoping that most people are retards or drones that cant think for themselves and also seems that their rhetoric is aimed at the very lame in thought. Too bad for them.

Most people understand that a Boeing 757 did not crash in shanksville. It has nothing to do with not liking the gov. or liking conspiracies. It has to do with rational thought and understanding that has lead so many people to know and believe that what happened in Shanksville is bunk and the official story has been debunked over and over concerning Shanksville.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



A simply computer flight simulator programs could produce all those points of data (in binary too!).


Would you please do us the favour of backing up this assertion? Thanks.

Allow me to give you some perspective, from a 'user' of flight simiulators for many, many years.....

During ANY sim session, the instructor (or anyone who operates the controls behind the 'normal' part of the sim that re-creates the cockpit) inputs a whole host of variable inputs. Per the syllabus in use, for the purposes of the training session.

A sim can be 'frozen'....re-positioned, any number of things, ALL because of (and limited by) the power (or limitations) of the particular computer operating system that is built in to the design of the particular sim, depending on which company manufactured it.

We can be "on the ground", let's say, at La Guardia....and in seconds be 'on the ground' in Paris. In a case like that, in modern sims that reproduce the impression of the FMS, the IRS, etc.... SO, to make the "flight" worthwhile things like the 'avionics' have to be re-programmed. Same thing if you're "in flight"....and the sim's position is 'slewed'....

IT IS ITS OWN COMPUTER!!!!

Has no connection whatsoever to the FDR!

It is a simulator, programmed to 'simulate'. To the best simulation possible.

ALL of the hundreds of data points in a REAL airplane are not represented in a simulator --- they don't have to be! There is NO FUEL in a simulator....the fuel guages merely are programmed to represent a fuel load, as determined by the sim operator. Similarly, every instrument in the 'cockpit' is represented by the software that runs the sim.

In order for your claim to be valid, you must now show HOW the software, from various sim manufacturers, is somehow compatable with the various FDR manufacturers, in the way that you suggest.

THAT is your challenge.

One more thing ----

You also need to understand that, in a full-flight simulator, part of the computer software that supports it ALSO has to run the hydraulics that MOVE the sim, to give the subtle impressions of movement to re-create a real 'flight'....AND, to give the pilots the proper "feel" on the controls!!! Not just the control wheel, but the rudder pedals too.

Probably one of the MOST practiced events in a sim training session is the "V1 cut".

('V1' is, simply, the 'decision speed' in every takeoff conducted by transport-category airplanes. BELOW V1, you usually reject the take-off. AFTER V1, in the event of an engine failure or other reduction in thrust from an engine, then there are procedures to follow. The phenomenom of 'assymetric thrust' comes into being in these cases, and control is achieved in multi-engine airplanes, by the use of rudder pressure. "Dead foot, Dead engine" is a common 'meme', or "gouge", taught to aspiring ME pilots.)

Point is, rudder effectiveness, based on angle of deflection, varies with airspeed....and the amount needed varies, as well, with the thrust being produced by the remaining operating engines.

These are aerodynamic forces that, in the real airplane, a pilot will "feel" in the controls, and MUST be reproduced in the sim, in order to make it as realistic as possible.

So....there is a heckuva lot more to this technology than you may realize.

It took me may words to merely describe something that I know innately.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ATH911
 



Bla Bla bla.....



As you can see any explanation offered is redundant considering the facts..... Look at the pic. As you can obviously and clearly see.... No Boeing 757 crashed there. What is confused for wing impressions were not caused by wings and was present before the crater was created on 9.11. So all that is left is a round crater obviously not caused by a Boeing 757.


[edit on 16-2-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


And all that white stuff all over the place - early September snow?

What a riot.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I would assume, of course, that you can cite the legal finding wherein the FDR's were rejected as evidence in a court of law otherwise you have again been found to be.....


Basic evidence 101.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Evidence is not relevant unless its authenticity can be demonstrated.

So far the FDRs have no authenticity sence they have not been matched to the planes by serial numbers.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And all that white stuff all over the place - early September snow?


Can you PROVE what it is?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



Evidence is not relevant unless its authenticity can be demonstrated.


I think you better read that again. Also do some other reading. Your statement doesn't even make sense on even the most basic level.

The "authenticity" of evidence does not determine whether or not it is relevant. Lets say you are accused of mail fraud. The fact that I could authenticate the Magna Carta does not make it relevant.

You do know what relevant means, right?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I think you better read that again. Also do some other reading. Your statement doesn't even make sense on even the most basic level.


It makes perfect sense.

As stated the FDRs would not be considered evidence in court because their authenticity can not be confirmed.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join