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: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 






And a perfect excuse for why our miltary spending has tripled since.

Now we are protected... but from who?


I'm liking you more by the minute, Pill! LOL!




posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 





As for secondary debris field - it was in reality only 1 mile away. Composed of paper scraps and insulation, lightweight materials blown by wind The 6-8 miles comes from dumb asses who typed location into mapping programs and got "DRIVING INSTRUCTIONS" - tell me the debris followed the roads there Again you a liar.......


We were engaging in a debate on an adult level.....until now.....



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

edit on 31-7-2011 by NightGypsy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
[
I also remember reading another thread a while back that showed a before and after of the shanksville site, and the gash in the ground was actually present before the plane crash. Here's the image of a trench there before the plane crash occured:
Did the plane just happen to hit exactly where a pre-existing trench was?


I fixed your deceptive photo for you.This is the proper alignment of the wing scars in relation to the old mining trench.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 





I fixed your deceptive photo for you.This is the proper alignment of the wing scars in relation to the old mining trench.


Oh, yes, and without a doubt this correction of yours has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the OS is true!

NOT!



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


The point is that idiots used a mapping program - then proclaimed that the debris was some 6 miles away

The conclusion is that those who parrot the "Debris was found 6 miles away..." line are either a fool, liar or
most likely both

All its takes is look at a map and calculate the straight line distance between the 2 points

Fact that most "truthers" fail to do so and simply repeat initial lie shows their basic lack of logical thinking,
laziness and dishonesty

Wonder why nobody (at least rational people) take us seriously.....



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 


Ok I'll play your game....

Loose soil - area was reclaimed strip mine that had been filled back in

Speed - aircraft hit the ground at 575 mph as determined by flight recorder

Now just where do you expect to find an high speed object impacting the ground ....?



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 




OK Sherlock - BECAUSE THE HIJACKERS HAD LOCKED THE #$%^ DOOR to keep people out.....



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


So what pieces are smaller ?

Have sections of fuselage including several rows of windows , aircraft tire, jet engine - tell me which are smaller
than a phone book?

Look at construction bin - notice circular object, that appears to be part of landing gear wheel . Now that
would be larger than a phone book?

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Use that as comparison to rest of debris

Have you ever been to a crash scene...? I have.

Aircraft impacting at high speed are violently fragmented. Crash scene I was at (Lear 35A) the largest piece
could find was 2 x 3 ft section of tail fin Rest was little more than "metallic confetti"

Now was that something to be suspect or was the result of violent collosion of the aircraft traveling, in this case
at 350 mph, with the ground ?



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
amazing how many "truthers" are enraged about this thread. So sorry if this "hurts the truth movement" maybe I forgot to fill out my permit with the truthers inc. before posting some of my thoughts. You know what else hurts the truth movement, Bush and Obama meeting in NYC, so for all the hardcore "truthers" out there who claim to have the definitive authority alone to post comments on 9/11, why not stop the upcoming 9/11 anniversary, and if you don't, I'll say you "hurt the truth movement".

Fact remains, even if this just ran off the runway, a plane still exists, whereas the plane does not exist in shanksville.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Why would the conspirators shoot down the plane? Surely they would have wanted it to reach its destination?



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 





So you are comparing a small aircraft skidding off runway during landing to a large jet liner hitting the ground nose down at 575 mph?


Just so you know a 737-800 (this on) and a 757-200 (PA) are or comparable size. except the 757-200 is slight longer.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 


Thanks - wasnt aware of the model involved

Doesn't change the basic theme of somehow comparing a plane running off runway to that of high impact
crash into the ground.

Most of "truth squad" types are (1) not aware of the results when a plane strikes ground in high speed/high
angle crash scenario - plane is violently fragmented (and its contents including people)

Or (2) if they do ignore it because conflicts with conspiracy fantasies

As stated as member of FD walked crash scene marking out scraps of tissue. could not call them body parts,
for coroner to recover. Nice up close and personal



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Why would the conspirators shoot down the plane? Surely they would have wanted it to reach its destination?
Good point, Shanksville is a real ball-buster. But if the inverview with Colonel Donn de Grand is accurate, he claims that the Happy Hooligans, and branch of the air guard, shot it down.

I wouldn't say grunts in the military were at the closed door meetings where they planned the attacks, but I think they were definitely being manipulated by the higher ups.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur

Good point, Shanksville is a real ball-buster. But if the inverview with Colonel Donn de Grand is accurate, he claims that the Happy Hooligans, and branch of the air guard, shot it down.

I wouldn't say grunts in the military were at the closed door meetings where they planned the attacks, but I think they were definitely being manipulated by the higher ups.


I think there's a very good chance it was shot down. But that doesn't really help the Truth Movement because then another contorted story has to be cooked up to explain why the conspirators would allow that to happen.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 




I think there's a very good chance it was shot down. But that doesn't really help the Truth Movement because then another contorted story has to be cooked up to explain why the conspirators would allow that to happen.
I agree, that's why earlier in this thread I said I'm not a huge fan of discussing this topic since it requires lots of speculation.

To be honest, I think Shanksville actually didn't go according to plan. IMO, that fourth plane was supposed to hit somewhere big in DC, maybe the Capitol building, and that would make Americans feel utterly hopeless and defenseless. But maybe our multi-billion dollar military isn't completely incompetent, and they actually got around to doing something about the hi-jacked airplanes.

The whole situation is just really sketchy. There's an airplane crash with very few large pieces of debris, and a smoking crater that just happened to form over a pre-existing trench. Then we have a report of a fighter jet passing over somebody's house (Now I can't find that interview....awesome). Then there's members of the military giving very strong hints that they shot it down to save lives. But then if they did shot it down, why is there so little debris? The debris is what really suprised me about that whole site, even traveling at hundreds of miles an hour, I have a hard time believing that the plane turns to confetti on impact.




posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


You might want to do some research on the good ole Col. First, he never could make up his mind if he was Marine, Army, or Air Force. Then he claimed to be part of OSS Detachment 101 (members of which have NEVER heard of him) serving in Burma during World War II. Then he is a lead arms negotiator...then an arms seller...

Frankly, his name pops up in a number of different databases relating to phony veterans/veterans who lied about their records.....Which is truly sad in Col de Grand Pre's case. Because according to his records, the man was earned a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star in Korea. He indeed did retire as a Colonel....in the National Guard, after spending the majority of his career in Civil Affairs.

To date, nothing else has shown up listing him as actually having served in Burma, the Pentagon, as an arms negotiators (which is actually a CIVILIAN responsibility in our government)..........

In other words, this decorated combat veteran, for some reason, decided to start embellishing his career a long time ago.


The North Dakota Air Guard, did not shoot down Flight 93. The pilot that was credited with this, is Col Rick Gibney (Major at the time of 9/11) who was subsequently decorated for his actions that day......those actions being picking up the New York Director of Emergency Management, who was attending a conference in Montana, and flying him back to New York in an F-16D on the morning of 9/11/01. On a side note, the Happy Hooligans ceased flying F-16s several years ago, switching to the Air Force version of the Learjet, they come through my base every couple of months....and its a running joke with them now about their dealings with the "9-11 Truth Movement" some of whom have appearantly made themselves into quite the asses with their phone calls about the subject.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 





amazing how many "truthers" are enraged about this thread. So sorry if this "hurts the truth movement" maybe I forgot to fill out my permit with the truthers inc. before posting some of my thoughts.


"Enraged?" That's a bit of an exaggeration. I don't see anyone "enraged" over your post. I think your intentions were good when you in posted this comparison. But those who've been debating this issue for all these years with debunkers know that unless all circumstances surrounding the two scenarios match as closely in detail as possible, the comparison is dismissed and ridiculed. That is what happened here. This plane crash doesn't involve the same set of circumstances as the one involving Flight 93.

On a side note.....are you sure this is the same Filosophia that posted this comment:



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.



I'm scratching my head. As per the above comment, you imply that you, yourself, are a "Truther" when you say you will continue to believe the government's story is "full of it.," but in the next breath, you're lambasting "Truthers" because some of them didn't like your comparison.

What's up?



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by tooo many pills
 


Ok I'll play your game....

Loose soil - area was reclaimed strip mine that had been filled back in

Speed - aircraft hit the ground at 575 mph as determined by flight recorder

Now just where do you expect to find an high speed object impacting the ground ....?


So you are saying there were no visible debris because the plane hit an abandoned mine so hard it went into the Earth?

I think the hull of the plane should have been found completely crumpled up, nose at the bottom and the tail at the top, unrecognizable of course. It would have been an explosion and huge fire, similar to the "fire" that brought down the WTCs. It would have burnt and melted all of the metal at the crash site into a big piece at the bottom of that "hole." There would be tons of little pieces too. The wings most likely would have shattered off in both directions on the outside of where the engines were located. There would differently be bigger pieces of debris from this.



?



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 


Why do you offer a video of a B-52 that has stalled and crashed into the ground a lot slower than Flight 93? Just curious.....




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join