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.

 

Evidence no plane crashed & buried in Shanksville; piles of dirt, but no piles of plane debris

page: 30
26
<< 27  28  29    31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by 007Polytoks
 


Yes...."truther" games. Trying to trot out dissimilar crashes, either from abject ignorance of the differerences, or purposely to distract and distort:


Airbus A-300-605R

Was going about 300 + miles an hour when it crashed into a residential community, and it did a direct nose dive.

Why did all the fuel blow up, and create fires that spread?
By the looks of things the grass around the crash site would light up pretty fast.


THAT was American 587. THIS is untrue: "did a direct nose dive." The speed? The FDR recording stopped, as the engines broke free and all normal electrics failed, in flight. Last speed ony 259 knots. FAR, far less than United 93.

Engines separated because of the huge lateral g-loads, in flight....due to the First Officer's incorrect actions, over-controlling the rudder. THAT caused the vertical fin mounting flanges to snap (all SIX of them) and the vertical tail assembly came off....lateral side loads overstressed the engine mounts, resultiing in engines coming off. With thrust gone, airplane would not accelerate any more....and its fall to the ground was NOT "a direct nose dive"!!

With both engines gone, that significantly altered its CG (center of gravity). Those engines are forward of the CG...so, with all that weight now gone, the airplane was more "tail heavy"....and this kept the nose from dropping down much. IT mostly "pancaked" into the ground, nearly flat.








edit on 30 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That was a nice an entertaining simulation!
Sad to imagine the people falling to their death like that though.


I think the 2 short video's below make a solid case that Flight 93 did not crash.

9/11 Flight 93 Shanksville, Mayor says No Plane Crashed!







9/11 Flight 93 Shanksville, No Plane! No Crash!


edit on 30-1-2011 by amy2x because: Spelling Error

edit on 30-1-2011 by amy2x because: Change spacing



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by amy2x
 


Umm, no Amy, Ernie Stull did not say that no airplane crashed there. He words were taken out of context by the person who interviewed him. The full video of that interview includes that Mr. Stull also said this:




"They just found the two turbines because, of course, they're heavier and more massive than everything else. But there was almost nothing left of the actual airplane. You can still find plate-sized parts out there. And Neville from the farm over there found an aluminum part from the airplane's outside shell behind his barn that must've been about 8 by 10 or even 8 by 12 feet."


www.spiegel.de...



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Again, how could 80% of a 757 get buried and the only thing that looked to have come out of the ground was dirt?!?


There should have been roughly 24 cars-worth of debris coming out of that "hole" if Flight 93 weighed approx 60 tons (minus fluids).



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


And thats where you continue to fail concerning Flight 93. You think that if an airplane hits the ground and explodes, that you are going to find every last ounce of the airplane when you have gathered all the wreckage. That never happens. Wiring, carpet, plastic interior members, seat cushions, hydraulic lines etc....all items consumed by fire. Also, the aluminum skin will melt and in the process some of its weight will be lost in the process.

Not to mention, to this day, parts of Flight 93 are still being found around the crash site.....



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by amy2x
 


Umm, no Amy, Ernie Stull did not say that no airplane crashed there. He words were taken out of context by the person who interviewed him. The full video of that interview includes that Mr. Stull also said this:




"They just found the two turbines because, of course, they're heavier and more massive than everything else. But there was almost nothing left of the actual airplane. You can still find plate-sized parts out there. And Neville from the farm over there found an aluminum part from the airplane's outside shell behind his barn that must've been about 8 by 10 or even 8 by 12 feet."


Wisnewski disputes the accusations below.I don't have contact with Wisnewski so I can't confirm details of the article.Can you?


When Der Spiegel confronts Stull with the English translation of these passages in the book and the film script, the man is speechless: "My statements were taken completely out of context. Of course there was an airplane. It's just that there wasn't much left of it after the explosion. That's what I meant when I said 'no airplane'. I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes."

Wisnewski disputes accusations that he manipulated Stull and mentions a statement Stull made in the WDR film, in which his description was correctly reproduced: "The airplane was completely destroyed. Bang! It crashed into the ground and disintegrated - completely."


www.spiegel.de...
edit on 30-1-2011 by amy2x because: fix html

edit on 30-1-2011 by amy2x because: add text

edit on 30-1-2011 by amy2x because: Add text



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by amy2x
 


And your point is what Amy? That you lied in your earlier post about the Mayor saying there wasnt an airplane?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ATH911
 


And thats where you continue to fail concerning Flight 93. You think that if an airplane hits the ground and explodes, that you are going to find every last ounce of the airplane when you have gathered all the wreckage. That never happens.

So 95% of the plane wasn't recovered as the FBI claimed?


Wiring, carpet, plastic interior members, seat cushions, hydraulic lines etc....

Feel free to show me a pic of any of that.


all items consumed by fire. Also, the aluminum skin will melt and in the process some of its weight will be lost in the process.

Look, they are saying 80% of the plane was buried, not me.


Not to mention, to this day, parts of Flight 93 are still being found around the crash site.....

So did most of the plane survive, or not? Which is it?
edit on 30-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by amy2x
 


And your point is what Amy? That you lied in your earlier post about the Mayor saying there wasnt an airplane?


I didn't right the article and can't confirm the details.Actual words in a video speak louder than words.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596


"They just found the two turbines because, of course, they're heavier and more massive than everything else.


www.spiegel.de...

Two???


Never heard that one before. Another source to confirm?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


It means that people like you who continue to carp over the "95% of the plane was recovered" suffer from a horrible case of tunnel vision. And that makes it impossible for you to accept the facts.

1. Flight 93 was a United Airlines flight.
2. It was hijacked by Muslim terrorists who planned to crash it into a building
3. The passengers became aware of the earlier events of the morning.
4. Those passengers realized that that was going to be their fate as well and decided to take action.
5. During an attempt to retake the jet, it crashed into a former strip mine outside Shanksville, Pa.

Those are the facts (shorter list, there are many other facts I could have added).



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by amy2x
 


So rather than doing the research, you place all your faith in an edited video. Now, why am I not surprised?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ATH911
 


It means that people like you who continue to carp over the "95% of the plane was recovered" suffer from a horrible case of tunnel vision. And that makes it impossible for you to accept the facts.

Sorry something like a claim that most of the plane was recovered is hard for you to provide evidence for. You'd think it would be easy if that much was really recovered.



Flight 93 was a United Airlines flight.

Then why all the silver "plane debris" at the scene?

Also, how many pieces of the hundreds photographed to see UA logo colors on?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


They paint the exterior of the plane fusleage in the airline colors. The wings were white/silver. Fail, again.

And enjoy the tunnel vision with the rest of it.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ATH911
 


They paint the exterior of the plane fusleage in the airline colors. The wings were white/silver. Fail, again.

And enjoy the tunnel vision with the rest of it.

The "silver" I'm taking about is like the shiny silver you see on the brushed aluminum fuselage of an AA plane. The silver on the wings of both planes look more of a dull, unbrushed aluminum. But I'll stipulate it's all "silver."

So the silver on the wings, which makes up a lot less than the % of the colored fuselage, just happens to appears in a lot of the debris photos and the UA logo color happens to only appear in ONE photo of ONE piece that happens to one of the largest pieces to allegedly survive. Do you know that odds on that?!

And btw the way, it's almost been 10 years since 9/11 and you skeptics have yet to prove most of the 757 buried and was unearthed from the ground, all the while the cameras of the world were aimed at the crater area. Talk about your epic failures.
edit on 31-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 





And btw the way, it's almost been 10 years since 9/11 and you skeptics have yet to prove most of the 757 buried and was unearthed from the ground, all the while the cameras of the world were aimed at the crater area. Talk about your epic failures.


Tell me, if 40 or 80 or 90 percent of the airplane was buried in the ground, how does that affect the facts I listed above? If it was only 40 percent of the plane in the crater does that mean Flight 93 wasn't hijacked? If it was 100 percent in the crater, does that mean little green men shot down Flight 93?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


O wow....

You call me out for "playing games"....

That plane crashed into a mountain, not soft dirt that was at shanksvill.

You would assume that the plane WOULD have been pulverized into millions of little pieces if it had hit HARD ground like a mountain going at those speeds. Unfortunately according to the official investigation the ground around Shanksvill is SOFT, and 90% of the plane was BURIED under the ground.

Also note jet fuel would act very differently when impacting a mountain, then a bunch of soft dirt with grass on top. Why did the grass around Shanksvill not set alight from the plane exploding into all these millions of pieces like you claim it did?

Also you fail to note that this plane was going Mach 1.2 or 850 mph according to www.airdisaster.com...

Who is the one playing games??

Or did you just forget 350 miles an hour difference?
edit on 31-1-2011 by 007Polytoks because: Correction



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
This gets even better.

Surprising how they actually had footage of this crash.....Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771

Go to 3:05+ and you will see footage of the miles of debris that was left over when this plane crashed.

Once again, where is the debris from flight 93?

You chose a very bad crash to try to compare, try again.......

www.youtube.com...


edit on 31-1-2011 by 007Polytoks because: Fixed youtube link



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by 007Polytoks
 
Welcome aboard Polly. These boys are all about 'the facts', and ultimately that's what will be their undoing. Can't figure out what motivates a man to betray the truth and foster a lie.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



And btw the way, it's almost been 10 years since 9/11 and you skeptics have yet to prove most of the 757 buried and was unearthed from the ground....

Uh, prove to whom, exactly? The jury is back and the verdict is that Flight 93 crashed in that reclaimed strip mine in southwestern Pennsylvania on the morning of September 11, 2001. Been that way for quite a while now. All your appeals to the opposite have failed. There is no clamour to "re-investigate". So all you have managed to do in 10 years is repeat the same phrase over and over and over again, and to no suprise no one else has joined in. So I would say at this point the burden is yours - prove Flight 93 had some other fate.

....all the while the cameras of the world were aimed at the crater area. Talk about your epic failures.

So, if "all the worlds cameras were aimed" at the crater (and of course that is very far from the truth as there was an ongoing search for survivors in NYC at the same time) then where are the photos? All confiscated as part of the masterplan of those that were "in on it"?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 27  28  29    31  32 >>

log in

join