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.

 

NTSB document : flight 93 multiple crash sites

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
The logic is simple.


Yes terrorist logic is simple.

A. Cause as high a body count as possible and as much terror as possible.


particularly since the hijackers were relatively lightly armed and relying on the generally accepted practise of cooperating with hijackers.


You just answered why the hijackers would not have a problem with taking a plane with a full load of passengers.




[edit on 24-3-2010 by REMISNE]




posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


So lets say you want to hijack a plane with the express and primary purpose of crashing that plane into a land based target and you had a choice of attempting a hijacking of plane full of passengers or a plane that was near to empty, now don't forget your primary mission is to hijack the plane and crash it, are you telling me you would purposely choose the plane with the most passengers because you can kill more people that way? Really?



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
now don't forget your primary mission is to hijack the plane and crash it, are you telling me you would purposely choose the plane with the most passengers because you can kill more people that way? Really?


Yes if i was a terrorist i would pick the plane with the most passengers to get a high body count even i did not make my primary mission.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


So you would purposely and expondentially increase the risk to your primary mission in order to marginally increase the value of your secondary mission?



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
So you would purposely and expondentially increase the risk to your primary mission in order to marginally increase the value of your secondary mission?


Yes because of what you already stated, accepted practise of cooperating with hijackers.

Oh and body count is not a secondary mission, body count it also always a primary mission with terrorist.



[edit on 24-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
OK, enough sniveling in my thread...we all know body counts are the desired effect in traditional terrorism but also so are impact methods of target, size of event, landmarks (WTC were the targets, people were just an added bonus) political targets/assassinations. Back on topic of my thread.....

I do agree that the "/" device is used to incorporate multiple items however, it is more typically used to include multiple aspects that are known to be joined or together for the intended purpose. The report clearly and intentionally states the crash sites were both water & land. Indicating multiple sites.

[edit on 3/26/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
OK, enough sniveling in my thread...we all know body counts are the desired effect in traditional terrorism but also so are impact methods of target, size of event, landmarks (WTC were the targets, people were just an added bonus) political targets/assassinations. Back on topic of my thread.....

I do agree that the "/" device is used to incorporate multiple items however, it is more typically used to include multiple aspects that are known to be joined or together for the intended purpose. The report clearly and intentionally states the crash sites were both water & land. Indicating multiple sites.

[edit on 3/26/2010 by mikelee]


No the use of the "/" device is simply shorthand for and/or. Save space on the form, that is all. Look around at other forms. So the form was asking terrain and/or water. In the most general terms, those are you most basic choices. The craft either crashed on the land or in the water. There may be cases were both apply, like the crash in the everglades and more than a few runway overshots were the craft ended up in wetlands, like at JFK. Not a reference to "multiple debris sites". The form really doesn't care.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hey Hooper,

I understand about the use of it but the form will be interpreted by people using it so it must be utilized in the sense of the incident it refers to. Take care...Mike



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
The record below from the NTSB dataset contains the brief of accident report currently on file. It indicates that:

* In flight collision with land/water.

Meaning the aircraft has multiple debris/crash sites. As I have stated for over a year now. If the crater in Shanksville PA were in deed the ONLY crash site, then it would be listed so on this document as "collision with land" only.


Sorry, but you are wrong to assume that meaning in that phrase.
As Hooper has explained to you and Pteredine has pointed out, the meaning of that phrase is not what you are saying.




posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


OK, thanks for your clarification on that.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder



I agree tho that the crash site was not caused by a Boeing 757. The eyewitnesses all claim to a see a craft the size of a van and none of them claim to see a craft that was shot at or coming down in pieces.


[edit on 23-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]


Hello,

None of them claim to see the plane impact the ground either, so for someone to say it could not have been a 757 would be wrong. What i believe some of these folks saw was not "van sized"..maybe from a distance, but could it not have been the reported Vanity Fair private jet that was asked to stay in the air and report what the were seeing?? Also, i think engine parts were found 25-30 feet down in that crater, but you mentioned parts only being 6-10 feet down, could you provide a link to that please? Unfortunately, Flight 93 smacked that ground at 500+mph upside down, the front snapped off into the woods, the rest just basically melted like butter over hot rice into the dirt. Just my opinion.

Bud316



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join