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.

 

Plane crashes in Guyana, Doesn't Disappear upon impact. 9/11 still a total lie

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   


compared to



You see, usually when there is a plane crash there is some type of remnant of the plane that crashed. So if anyone has a picture of a plane that actually crashed at Shanksville I'd like to see it otherwise I'll just continue to believe the government's story is full of it.



+15 more 
posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
The plane in your OP skidded off the runway on landing and everyone lived..

Are you seriously trying to compare the two?

Think man think.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
How much more proof do people need?



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Was it flown nose first into the ground or were the pilots trying to land APPLES WITH APPLES!!!

You guys never compare like with like because you haven't got a CLUE!!!!



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Thats because one is real footage and the other is cgi cartoon.
I'll let you decide which is which.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Weak sauce dude, check out this website. It basically catalogues all of the plane crashes around the world.

But yeah, the Shanksville plane crash site is a joke. There were like 4 pieces of debris larger than a phonebook. There was also a secondary debris site 6-8 miles away that was closed off by the FBI, and a witness saw a jet flying away from the crash site. I think it was shot down by our military, and there were members of the military basically admit that it was shot to prevent life on the ground.


We received a report from the FAA that Flight 93 had turned off it's transponder, had turned, and now was heading towards Washington DC. The decision was made to try to go in and intercept Flight 93...It was about 10:03 that the fighters reported that Flight 93 had crashed.
--Brigadier General W Montague Winfield


The words that I remember as clear as day was 'We will take lives in the air to preserve lives on the ground'...United Airlines Flight 93 will not be allowed to reach Washington DC
--Colonol Bob Marr
edit on 30-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Please compare and contrast the exact conditions of the crashes to enlighten us how they were the same and why the end results would match?

As I recall the one on 9/11 came in completely out of control in a rapid decent. This one appears to be a case where it was still fairly well under control. Comparing the two would be dishonest beyond reason if I'm right.

I'll anxiously await your posting of the details of both crashes and the similarities that prove them similar enough for you to make this mental leap. Thanks in advance for accommodating me if you do.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by lernmore
The plane in your OP skidded off the runway on landing and everyone lived..

Are you seriously trying to compare the two?

Think man think.


He has a point.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Are you kidding me...this really makes 911 debunkers look like ding dongs...this plane looks like it didn't make the takeoff even without reading the story behind it...as they say in Mexico El Lamo my good man...



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
hmmm

9/11 was an inside job-no doubt, but this is just bonkers. There are no similarities here, sorry dude

but keep up the fight, one day the truth may actually come out and all the OS fools will look like the mugs they are

dd



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Looks like some terrorist cut it in half with his Boxcutter



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
You are talking to the converted (well those that understand maths and physics) and need to drop stuff like this on groups that are not as educated as us here on ATS.

Often i twitter and just slip it in but good post and keep it up




Weak sauce dude, check out this website. It basically catalogues all of the plane crashes around the world.

That blew em away didn't it now.
edit on 30-7-2011 by Master_007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
reply to post by filosophia
 


Thats because one is real footage and the other is cgi cartoon.
I'll let you decide which is which.


mr cgi your as bad as yankee451



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
OK, this is silly and does not help the 9/11 truth movement one bit. by comparing this to the 9/11 aircraft

Reason, this is NOT a crash. it is a runway overrun. i.e. it landed, and DID NOT STOP in time before it ran off the runway, sometimes they don't get damaged, sometimes they do as in this case.

Main differences.

this aircraft went off thew runway maybe doing 50 mph

the 9/11 supposedly went into the ground at 500 mph.

Now I am do not subscribe to the official story, but putting out rubbish like this as comparison is not right at all, and honestly i am honlding myself back, as a professional in the aviation industry, from flaming you from here to Timbuktu

for a sane conversation on this incident go to PPRUNE



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Although the two "accidents" were not exactly the same, they are slightly comparable and I see where you are going with the thread. My favorite piece of evidence of the crash on 9/11 in Pennsylvania is that of the eyewitnesses, multiple eyewitnesses, who saw jets low-flying around the area. Some of that testimony was included in one of the documentaries on 9/11 that I saw shown on LinkTV some months ago...Staggering evidence to say the least, although I didn't go into detail in this thread, as it isn't the main topic.

So to stay true to the original post, I must say that overall I do not think the two are comparable enough to be definitive, although some things could possibly be learned from studying and researching the similarities and differences.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 





Thats because one is real footage and the other is cgi cartoon. I'll let you decide which is which.


LOL! There's a CGI cartoon of Flight 93? I would like to see that, because I saw no plane AT ALL in the footage of the crash site in Shanksville.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by 12voltz
 





Looks like some terrorist cut it in half with his Boxcutter


LMAO! Those box cutters seem to be getting more menacing by the year!



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by zionistsareterrorists
 





How much more proof do people need?


You consider this proof?

Deny ignorance, my friend!



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Ok, I actually like this comparison. Think about it, this plane broke in two when all it was doing was maybe 50 or 60 miles an hour and over ran the runway. Now increase the speed ten fold or better and have the plane impact about 45 degrees from vertical into solid ground. Imagine the destruction. That is Flight 93.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





Ok, I actually like this comparison. Think about it, this plane broke in two when all it was doing was maybe 50 or 60 miles an hour and over ran the runway. Now increase the speed ten fold or better and have the plane impact about 45 degrees from vertical into solid ground. Imagine the destruction. That is Flight 93.



.....Enter the "Debunker Extraordinaire"...........



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join