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 Crash Site Does Not Look Unique , After Looking At This .

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Well, I seem to remember seeing this one before. well done to the OP for bringing it up.

As to the inevitable denial that this is clearly a plane where UA93 wasn't, I really don't get it. A quick search shows that 1771 was a BAe 146. Now, the 146 has an MTOW* of 42,184kg. The MTOW of the 757 is 115,680kg. Infact, the empty weight of the 757 is about 50% greater than the MTOW of the 146. So, considering that I wonder where we get this 60% of a 757 size.
With this information I can't see why it is surprising that you get more light debris from the BAe 146. 1771 was apparently also impacting well over it's cruise speed as well, by about 200mph. It could have started breaking up before it hit the ground, thus releasing a lot of light debris that we see.


Could someone tell me why an aircraft is expected to leave lots of large pieces of debris when it hits the ground at high speed almost perpendicular to it, please?

* Maximum Takeoff Weight.

Edit: Was I the only one who as a child watched those sort of programs the day before going on long haul flights?

edit on 23-1-2011 by apex because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



I've never heard a truther suggest personal effects wouldn't have survive if a commercial airliner crashed there, so this is a moot comparison.


So , are you saying that you have never seen the scores of posts on ATS , where someone is implying , or outright accusing the 'hidden-hand' of planting personal effects of the hijackers at the crash site of flight 93 , such as the I.D. and the red bandana ?


edit on 23-1-2011 by okbmd because: corrections



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
yeah you can actually see debris in this video.. unlike 93.. whats the similarities?

I'm not going to watch every second of this 5 video set.. I've seen wreckage so it doesnt look like 93... hogwash



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   


The crater is too small to have been cause by a high velocity Boeing 767 coming in at less than 49% angle but thats not the obvious. The scars that extend out of the crater are not caused by wings and no one has ever said they were caused by wings as you can see there is dry unbroken grass and the impression are obviously weathered let alone any of a tail fin. REMEMBER the plane came in inverted (upside down)

Therefore the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 767 or anything remotely the size.

edit on 23-1-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Therefore the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 767 or anything remotely the size


Yo Sherlock - Flight93 was a Boeing 757



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


I say the grass is broken - there, mystery solved. Any other arbitrary declarations need clarifying?

Really, how long are you going to go on with this?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Therefore the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing....... anything remotely the size


Flight93 was a Boeing .....


Thedman, weedwhacker, hooper, We will try this again. With the image provided above or any shanksville crater pic, show us where the wings would of struck the ground and where the vertical stabilizer hit the ground if the crater was caused by a Boeing 757 commercial aircraft.
As you can see in this picure that the indentations in the ground that appear to have been caused on Sept 11 2001 was not created at that date. They are weathered and most likely due to erosion or other but not from whatever caused the crater or flight 93 the Boeing commercial airliner as the official story is trying to claim.

This question has been presented to you yet again. We know the answers but we would like an 'official' answer from you ATS resident 911 forum 'debunkers' *people who parrot the official story even tho they were shown that the official story of 911 has been proven false.

Where did the wings and the tail fin hit the ground (if they hit at all) if the crater (10x30 feet) was to have been caused by a Boeing 757 (flight 93) on September11th 2001?

This will be the 1st question. This time answer it and use intelligence rather than insult everyone.


edit on 24-1-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Where did the wings and the tail fin hit the ground


Just a hunch but I'll say the same place they hit at the Pentagon..Nowhere



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
This next photo IS NOT FLIGHT 93 but an Iranian plane crash that recently happened. The Iran plane crash was very close to the offical events that cause the small 10-30 foot crater in Shanksvile. i.e Terrain, speed, and size of craft.
n

Here is the Shanksville crater. Now proven NOT to have been caused by a Boeing 757 a.k.a Flight 93 as even a child can see.

edit on 24-1-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



show us where the wings would of struck the ground and where the vertical stabilizer hit the ground


Prove that these items would have survived, intact, long enough after the initial impact to make an impression.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



Prove that these items would have survived, intact, long enough after the initial impact to make an impression.


Did they hit the ground??
That usually leaves an impression..



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


That is what I am asking.

After the leading point of the craft made contact with the ground, how did the remainder of the plane behave? Did it all stay intact as some sort of super monolith, immune from deformation until its contact with the earth or is it more likely that the initial impact caused a wave of enormous energy to repeat through the structure? The plane, like most modern jets, had a swept wing design meaning the wings would not have impacted the ground (if they survived at all) at a uniform point in time.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



The plane, like most modern jets, had a swept wing design meaning the wings would not have impacted the ground (if they survived at all) at a uniform point in time.


What


They MUST hit the ground..It's called gravity...
Or are they like the wings at the Pentagon that some say sort of liquified and went through the building?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by hooper
 



The plane, like most modern jets, had a swept wing design meaning the wings would not have impacted the ground (if they survived at all) at a uniform point in time.


What


They MUST hit the ground..It's called gravity...
Or are they like the wings at the Pentagon that some say sort of liquified and went through the building?


You sure? When that leading edge strikes the ground at close to 500 mph what happens to the rest of the wing structure? What effect does all that energy being transfered to the wing structure have on the wing? Does the remainder of the wing survive, intact, long enough to strike the ground as a monolithic structure?

This isn't like throwing a dart into a bowl of jello. The plane is a complex structure designed to survive certain dynamic and static loadings. Airplanes are not design to survive crashes of this magnitude, they are designed primarily to avoid them.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



we would like an 'official' answer from you ATS resident 911 forum 'debunkers' *people who parrot the official story even tho they were shown that the official story of 911 has been proven false.



For starters , please show where "the official story of 9/11 has been proven false" . What part of the "OS" has been proven false , and how was this proven ?

Has it been proven that airliners were not hijacked ? Has it been proven that those same airliners were not hijacked by muslim extremists ?

Has it been proven that the towers were brought down by anything other than the impacts and subsequent damage that was incurred ?

Have you proven that the Pentagon was not struck by Flight 77 ?

Have you proven that Flight 93 did not crash in Pa.? If this has been proven , and I don't see where it has , have you proven that it was something else that crashed there ? No , I have not seen this proof . Please prove to me what it was that crashed there , without simply saying that it should have looked different .

Maybe you could show some sort of evidence that missile fragments , or wreckage from something other than an aircraft was recovered from this site ? Maybe you could show me some proof that the engine remains as well as the fan , etc. , were in fact planted there ?

Maybe you could also show proof that the passenger remains and personal effects were also planted at the site ?

As an extra , could you also show proof that the site should have looked entirely different , by posting pics of other crashes where the planes impacted the ground at similar angle and speed ?

Can you also show proof that under similar scenarios , the impact would show definitive signs of the vertical stabilizer etc. , leaving distinct impressions in the ground ? Can you show proof that this should be the case in all crashes of airplanes that come down in the same angle of impact , and speed ?

If you could show evidence of such , I will be more than willing to look at it , but please don't expect me to just take your word that airplane crashes should look like you say they should .

If the "OS" has been proven false , why hasn't anything been done about it ? If you guys have iron-clad evidence to support your accusations , why haven't you brought criminal charges against those you accuse of being the perps ?

Maybe you don't really have evidence to the contrary , and maybe your "proof" amounts to nothing more than opinions of how things "should have" looked on that day ?

Until you show me some actual , tangible proof , then I will have to continue to believe that you have shown nothing of the sort .



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



This next photo IS NOT FLIGHT 93 but an Iranian plane crash that recently happened.


What was the angle of impact when that plane hit the ground ? What was the speed at impact ?

And , where are the impressions that "should have" been left by the wings and tail-section ?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



Maybe you don't really have evidence to the contrary , and maybe your "proof" amounts to nothing more than opinions of how things "should have" looked on that day ?

Until you show me some actual , tangible proof , then I will have to continue to believe that you have shown nothing of the sort .


Sounds about the same as the OS...
Ohh and half the 9/11 commissioners say the report was hampered by the WH..
Doesn't say much for it....



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Or are they like the wings at the Pentagon that some say sort of liquified and went through the building ?


What do you think the wings were constructed of ? Hint : they are not constructed of thick steel .

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but , the wings are like 1/8 to 1/4 inch thick , made of aluminum , and laden with fuel .

Now , with that in mind , how should the wings have reacted to being slammed into a building at 400-500 miles per hour ?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



You sure? When that leading edge strikes the ground at close to 500 mph what happens to the rest of the wing structure? What effect does all that energy being transfered to the wing structure have on the wing? Does the remainder of the wing survive, intact, long enough to strike the ground as a monolithic structure?

I can safely say that every gram of the wings struck the ground...



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



Now , with that in mind , how should the wings have reacted to being slammed into a building at 400-500 miles per hour ?


Those wings are not quite as flimsy as you make out..
Yes the skin is thin but there is structure beneath the skin..


At the very least I'd expect to see CLEAR impact damage from the wings and the 44' tail...




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join