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: 27
30
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Thanks OP for bringing up a tireless subject.

Reading these threads is like watching people take bets on which way the government will go: forced oppression or truth and liberty to seek it.

I feel sorry for the OS sect. Nothing we can do for them, before, and especially after.




posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by davidmann
 



I have no problem IF it is proved conclusively that it was a shoot-down. In fact, I thought of this idea:

First, we thought that since it is public knowledge that the order was given to authorize the shoot-down, I think the Public would have had no problem with it, so I did not see why the Gov't would not 'go public'.

Yet, we still have the other evidence, the CVR and FDR that show no indications of loud explosions (the CVR) nor any electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic system interruptions (the FDR).

In fact, both Recorders showed no anomalies up until the impact, and recall that the FDR also records flight control position info. What's more, the airplane climbed, briefly, from its steady altitude of 5,000 MSL, up to about 10,000, then dove into the impact from that point.

Now....a hypothesis: (In honor of mikelee, I will toss this out there...)---

Let's say, for sake of argument, that UAL 93 WAS hit by ammo from an F-16. Perhaps, all that occurred in the air was the outer portion of one wing was destroyed. This would cause an uncontrolled roll moment, which could lead to the nose-down, inverted finally moments prior to impact.

In my scenario, even taking out the outer wing would destroy one aileron, and cause a leak of hydraulic fluid, which should have shown on the FDR data.

BUT, let's say there was some way it wasn't recorded...and the shoot-down occurred, THEN it is learned of the revolt by passengers...quite a dilemma. Is it the contention that THIS is a reason for any "cover-up'? Or, have I just created a subset 'conspiracy' theory?



posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

First, we thought that since it is public knowledge that the order was given to authorize the shoot-down, I think the Public would have had no problem with it, so I did not see why the Gov't would not 'go public'.



I have to completely disagree. If the public would have been so ok with a shootdown then why has it been mired down in so much double speak, denials, corrections, and then eventually a quietly whispered truth. There are still people that do not even know WTC7 went down. How many more do you suppose have no clue there was a shoot down order admitted to?



posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And it was finally determined to not be a crime. I assume that you were able to get all the FBI investigation reports and all the chain of custody docs for the human remains of the victims?


Why can't you understand the simple fact that the FBI investigated Flight 800 as a crime scene FIRST?

Funny also how the NTSB was able to do a reconstruction from all those tiny little pieces that were recovered but there is no evidence of a reconstruction being done for any of the 9/11 planes like Flight 93 that people like you state lots of pieces were found.



posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper

Why can't you understand the simple fact that the FBI investigated Flight 800 as a crime scene FIRST?


Actually, I think you will find that the FBI and the NTSB worked the investigation jointly until such time (about 16 months I think) that it was determined that the crash of Flight 800 was not the result of any criminal activity. Ergo, there was no "first".


Funny also how the NTSB was able to do a reconstruction from all those tiny little pieces that were recovered but there is no evidence of a reconstruction being done for any of the 9/11 planes like Flight 93 that people like you state lots of pieces were found.


Those reconstruction are not done just for giggles, they are very expensive, time consuming and dangerous. For this reason it is only done when it will contribute something to discovery of cause. In the case of Flight 93 and 77, reconstructing the plane does not contribute to discovering why someone hijacked it.



posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Actually, I think you will find that the FBI and the NTSB worked the investigation jointly until such time (about 16 months I think) that it was determined that the crash of Flight 800 was not the result of any criminal activity. Ergo, there was no "first".


As usual your lack of reseach shows yet again. Their were 2 seperate investigations done and the FBI is the main investigating agency in a crime scene.


In the case of Flight 93 and 77, reconstructing the plane does not contribute to discovering why someone hijacked it.


Well i have 2 simple words for you that you seem to keep forgetting or ignoring.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



Well i have 2 simple words for you that you seem to keep forgetting or ignoring.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.


Thank you.

You finally get it. Accident investigations and criminal investigations are two different things. They serve different purposes. They are conducted differently and with different missions. Flight 93 crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania on the morning of September 11, 2001 due to criminal activity. Knowing the exact mechanics of the crash had no bearing on the criminal activity that caused it to crash, killing all on board.

In the case of Flight 800 the investigation was done in tandem or jointly until such time as it was determined that Flight 800 crashed due to causes other than criminal activity. The reconstruction was done to assist in the determining the non-criminal cause of the crash.



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
"In the case of Flight 93 and 77, reconstructing the plane does not contribute to discovering why someone hijacked it."

So, what you are saying is, instead of reconstructing the airplane to definitively determine or rule out if the crash was caused by a bomb, mechanical failure, shoot down, or any other reason, it is better to assume the proximate cause (hijacking) for whatever reason and not conduct such a basic investigation?


Unfortunately, such shoddy investigative techniques and jumping to conclusions are not only unacceptable and completely biased, they stink of a cover up. Any investigator worth his salt will tell you that proper investigative protocol does not consist of putting the cart before the horse.

Secondly, it would be extremely difficult to reconstruct two aircraft which apparently never existed, as per the lack of evidence (aircraft wreckage) at the scene.



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
proximate cause (hijacking)

jumping to conclusions


Proximate? Jumping to conclusions?

When you have record (phone calls) of the victims telling you what happened that isn't exactly "proximate". Besides, how do you know that the FBI did not exam the wreckage for evidence of explosives? That doesn't neccessarily require a full reconstruction of the plane, now does it?

When you have record of the victims telling you that they are going to do something and then minutes later the plane crashes it isn't exactly "jumping to conclusions" now is it? You have the FDR data that tells you the exact behavior of the plane in the seconds before the crash do you really need much more? When the incident is put into the context of all the events of 9/11 then the case is pretty much closed.

As to your claim regarding the amount of wreckage at the site, that is based solely on your review of the limited number of photos that have been released, not any in-depth foresenic analysis. You are more than welcome to your opinion, but in the end that is all it is.



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You finally get it. Accident investigations and criminal investigations are two different things.


No i am the one who stated from the beginning that this is a criminal investigation and certain things must be done and certain documents must be prepared. Most of which has not been properly done or shown for 9/11.


The reconstruction was done to assist in the determining the non-criminal cause of the crash.


Reconstructions are also done as part of a criminal investagation.

Let me ask you a simple question. In the case of a murder do the police just go by what they think happened or witnesses or do they still do a COMPLETE investigation?





[edit on 19-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper

No i am the one who stated from the beginning that this is a criminal investigation and certain things must be done and certain documents must be prepared. Most of which has not been properly done or shown for 9/11.


You realize that there is a difference between saying that they "haven't been done" and "I haven't seen them", right? Or are we back to you declaring that if you don't see the documents that they don't exist? You have repeatedly admitted that you have not seen the crime scene reports but somehow or another are completely cognizant of what and what is not included in the reports. How is that?



Reconstructions are also done as part of a criminal investagation.

Let me ask you a simple question. In the case of a murder do the police just go by what they think happened or witnesses or do they still do a COMPLETE investigation?


The police do AN investigation. The word complete is an adjective of your choosing. They adjust the investigation depending on the circumstances. Please show me where law enforcement agents, in the pursuit of an investigation, have reconstructed an entire airplane in order to determine why it was hijacked.





[edit on 19-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
The police do AN investigation. The word complete is an adjective of your choosing.


No it is not an adjective of my choosing, not in a criminal investigation there are set rules and regulations you must follow for a complete investigation.

So far you and others have failed to show that these proper rules and regulations were followed.



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
From the ideas posted here I can imagine a more horrible shoot down. Imagine 20mm rounds hitting the passengers in the plane and it slowly blowing apart, horrible.



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


Yes, that would be horrible...except it didn't happen that way.

IF any cannon rounds had hit the fuselage it would have been recorded by the FDR. The cabin altitude (pressure) would have changed. The FDR records such data (along with several hundred other bits of data).



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



So far you and others have failed to show that these proper rules and regulations were followed.


So you are assuming that they weren't even though you do not have access to (and probably never will) any of the criminal investigation files and crying "conspiracy"?



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by earthdude
 


Yes, that would be horrible...except it didn't happen that way.

IF any cannon rounds had hit the fuselage it would have been recorded by the FDR. The cabin altitude (pressure) would have changed. The FDR records such data (along with several hundred other bits of data).







I looked at some of that data and who can ever know if it was faked. If it was real it really looked like the pilot was attempting to evade a shoot down. The plane went down after a period of low altitude flying and it would not have been pressurized, thus no change would have been read by the cabin pressure indicator. I bet there are some bullet ridden pieces of it that were confiscated and destroyed.



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


No....

Even at 5,000 MSL the cabin was still pressurized. That's how the Auto Pressurization System works. The landing altitude (in this case San Francisco, which is Sea Level) is set by the crew on the overhead panel. The system looks at that, and when it detects the airplane descending after reaching planned cruise altitude, it begins to descend the cabin, on a schedule. The cabin always remains pressurized, for people's comfort. The maximum comfortable rate of descent inside the cabin for the average person's ears to equalize easily is ~300 fpm down. The airplane, even in a normal descent, can achieve 4,000 fpm (or more) quite easily. That would be very uncomfortable to most people.

[edit on 19 March 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
So you are assuming that they weren't even though you do not have access to (and probably never will) any of the criminal investigation files and crying "conspiracy"?


Thanks for admitting most of the evidence and reports have not been released so you and others are being very dishonest when you state you know what happened and are living in a fantasy wolrd by believing what you have been told by the media.

Also i have acccess to lot more information then most people on here, so unless you can post something to prove me wrong then i have to keep with the facts that are known, mainly that there is no proof to support the official story or that the FBI and NTSB followed proper rules and regulations in thier investigation.



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
So you are assuming that they weren't even though you do not have access to (and probably never will) any of the criminal investigation files and crying "conspiracy"?


Thanks for admitting most of the evidence and reports have not been released so you and others are being very dishonest when you state you know what happened and are living in a fantasy wolrd by believing what you have been told by the media.



It is almost laughable that the official story believers are using news sources to prove their point that a plane did crash when for one no news media was allowed anywhere near the crash and first responders all calim that the crater could not have been caused by a Boeing 757. It too small and there is no wing impact marks leaving a small elliptical 10-30 feet crater only 10 feet deep which is a physical impossibility to have been caused by a 124+ feet wide boeing 757.



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
So you are assuming that they weren't even though you do not have access to (and probably never will) any of the criminal investigation files and crying "conspiracy"?


Thanks for admitting most of the evidence and reports have not been released so you and others are being very dishonest when you state you know what happened and are living in a fantasy wolrd by believing what you have been told by the media.



It is almost laughable that the official story believers are using news sources to prove their point that a plane did crash when for one no news media was allowed anywhere near the crash and first responders all calim that the crater could not have been caused by a Boeing 757. It too small and there is no wing impact marks leaving a small elliptical 10-30 feet crater only 10 feet deep which is a physical impossibility to have been caused by a 124+ feet wide boeing 757.


Most people who believe the OS are just using news media reports as a source because most of those who believe in the OS simply are not creating theorys based in no evidence at all, half truths, rumors or internet conspiracy based group theory chatter. As for the rest of us, we already know the crater was not the primary crash scene and is only one of two other debris fields as evidenced below and in other threads.



For anyone to simply keep chanting the crater size, no plane crashed at all, linking those who believe it was shot down that it is somehow conspiracing with the "enemy" or represents a "dis-info agent" is evidence of the ignorance of what I call... The Pseudo-Truth Movement is trying to do in an effort to sidetrack others who may not follow word for word the real Truth Movement but nonetheless, agree that there is a conspiracy in place.

Anyone with a half-a-lick of common sense and is not rooted their minds in fantasy land KNOWS something happened in Shanksville and to follow those who keep saying nothing did is being led down a path iof ignorance by those who do not want the truth to come out at all. Unless it involves what they believe only and wish others to think.

Jusy my opinion here...Have a nice evening.




top topics



 
30
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join