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: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by tooo many pills
 




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


I'm not sure if you ever rode a plane before 9/11 but the cockpit doors were barely thicker than the plane's bathroom doors. If mulitple people really wanted in, they could have kicked or rammed the door in quite easily even if it was locked...




posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Do you have a better video?



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 


Of the B-52 crashing? Nope. And if I did, it has nothing to do with Flight 93, so why post it?



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Of a plane crashing head first...



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 


Unless it was a 757 of the same age, diving at the same speed and same angle, it wouldn't be a valid comparison.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I think it's a perfectly valid comparison. Yes, it's not identical but for you to disregard it completely is ludicrous. It’s much better than the OP's.

That's like saying a video comparison between two skyscrapers falling (a WTC and a control demolition of a building) aren't valid because one building was a little older and a different model. Yet, both fell virtually the same way (straight down), but supposedly the technique used to make them fall was completely different.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 


Different age aircraft will have structural differences.

Different speeds/angles of impact will have a direct bearing on the wreckage left behind.

So to have a valid comparision, you would have to DUPLICATE the conditions.

And then your statement about comparing different skyscrapers....wow......you must be the same type of person that thought a B-25 crashing into the Empire State Building, was the same as a 767 hitting the Towers.......



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Why do I have the feeling you would say the exact same thing even if I had video of a 757 crashing into the ground one degree less than perpendicular to the ground and one mph faster...?

A large plane crashing into the ground at high speed is a large plane crashing into the ground at high speed. It does not have to be exactly identical to prove a point or to gather information from it. Yes, the angle of the crash of the B-52 isn't perfectly perpendicular to the ground, nor is it traveling at 545mphs, but that doesn't mean the two cannot be compared at all. That is just being ridiculous and oblivious to the world. Nor does it mean that flight 93 should have disintegrated, except for a small piece of an engine that was covered in dirt, which they had to dig out.

You must be the same type of person as Hooper and Weedwacker that believes the OS to a T without a shadow of a doubt, even though there are serious holes everywhere you look. Oh wait... What do you guys joke about on your lunch break anyway? Freefall speeds and b-52 videos? Or do you just go home and cry about what they make you do.


edit on 31-7-2011 by tooo many pills because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tooo many pills
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Why do I have the feeling you would say the exact same thing even if I had video of a 757 crashing into the ground one degree less than perpendicular to the ground and one mph faster...?

A large plane crashing into the ground at high speed is a large plane crashing into the ground at high speed. It does not have to be exactly identical to prove a point or to gather information from it. Yes, the angle of the crash of the B-52 isn't perfectly perpendicular to the ground, nor is it traveling at 545mphs, but that doesn't mean the two cannot be compared at all. That is just being ridiculous and oblivious to the world. Nor does it mean that flight 93 should have disintegrated, except for a small piece of an engine that was covered in dirt, which they had to dig out.

You must be the same type of person as Hooper and Weedwacker that believes the OS to a T without a shadow of a doubt, even though there are serious holes everywhere you look. Oh wait... What do you guys joke about on your lunch break anyway? Freefall speeds and b-52 videos? Or do you just go home and cry about what they make you do.


edit on 31-7-2011 by tooo many pills because: (no reason given)


Ah yes the "you are a government disinfo agent" accusation again. I really wish I could find where to apply for that job. Your problem is that you have been reading way too many conspiracy sites to get your information about Flight 93. YOU think all they found was a small piece of an engine, where I KNOW they found DUMPSTER loads of pieces of Flight 93, everything from seat belts to fuselage skin to a large piece of the turbine of the OTHER engine a relatively short distance from the impact. Take a look at some of the news videos taken that day of the houses/garages next to the crash site....all that confetti lying there.....pieces of Flight 93.

Now, if you COULD produce a video of another 757 hitting the ground at an extreme angle, at high speed, then that would be a more valid comparision.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 



Ah yes the "you are a government disinfo agent" accusation again. I really wish I could find where to apply for that job. Your problem is that you have been reading way too many conspiracy sites to get your information about Flight 93.


Yeah, finally a reply to that! I really hope you guys aren’t all the same person… that would just be weird. But seriously who sits in a conspiracy site on the 9/11 forum all day arguing with people that are asking questions, and then always… and I mean always revert back to the official story when in doubt like its the New Testament? Not even one little thing bothers you about the official story? Maybe some of the coincidences involving our military? Or anything at all? It all just makes perfect sense to you? Are you even bothered by the aftermath, wars, and Patriot Act that were jammed down our throats because of 9/11?


YOU think all they found was a small piece of an engine, where I KNOW they found DUMPSTER loads of pieces of Flight 93, everything from seat belts to fuselage skin to a large piece of the turbine of the OTHER engine a relatively short distance from the impact. Take a look at some of the news videos taken that day of the houses/garages next to the crash site....all that confetti lying there.....pieces of Flight 93.


Page 2... pics... How do you think this conversation started? Wait a second... did you just say confetti?


Now, if you COULD produce a video of another 757 hitting the ground at an extreme angle, at high speed, then that would be a more valid comparision.


Then you'd just tell me that particular 757 video isn't worthy because the model in my video was older than flight 93's model...


edit on 31-7-2011 by tooo many pills because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by tooo many pills
Not even one little thing bothers you about the official story? Maybe some of the coincidences involving our military? Or anything at all? It all just makes perfect sense to you? Are you even bothered by the aftermath, wars, and Patriot Act that were jammed down our throats because of 9/11?


I'm not the person you're discussing this with, but perhaps I can answer that.

Some things do bother me about the government's story of what happened. But those mainly encompass quite dull but vital things like intel failure, inter-agency rivalry and strategic incompetence and short-sightedness. This stuff isn't as exciting as shadowy teams of agents blowing up towers, or missiles being launched, but it's more important because it's real.

It's precisely because of the outcomes like the Patriot Act and the wars that I dislike 9/11 "Truth". It wastes time on ridiculous irrelevances and gives people an excuse not to do anything. In my opinion one of the things that many "Truthers" like about the notion of the hyper-powerful conspirators is that it absolves them of any responsibility to do anything.

This article sums up my feelings succinctly:

www.guardian.co.uk...

Here's the most telling paragraph:

Let me give you an example. The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks ago generated 777 posts on the Guardian Comment is Free website, which is almost a record. Most of them were furious. The response from a producer of the film, published last week, attracted 467. On the same day the Guardian published my article about a genuine, demonstrable conspiracy: a spy network feeding confidential information from an arms control campaign to Britain's biggest weapons manufacturer, BAE Systems. It drew 60 responses. The members of the 9/11 cult weren't interested. If they had been, they might have had to do something. The great virtue of a fake conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I am totally lost in this thread now. I thought the OP was offering this incident as comparable evidence that aircraft "don't vanish" when they crash. but now it seems to have flipped, saying that they do.

I am not sure which way is up any more. I guess I will go back to my day job studying the Structural Repair Manual of the aircraft I am currently working on,

PS there is NO repair in the manual for the Air Carribean aircraft there or the one in the field. It's was we in the industry call. ..... broken!



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
I KNOW they found DUMPSTER loads of pieces of Flight 93

Why do you skeptics keep perpetuating this lie? There were no dumpster loads of debris. There wasn't even a full dumpster.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 



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



There was plenty of debris - the forward 1/3 of the aircraft broke off at impact and was projected into the
nearby woods leaving debris trail









Much of the remainder was voilently fragmented and scattered aroun the impact site - reason it was not visible
was do to small size of these pieces





Only the larger heavier pieces were buried - things like jet engine and flight recorders





Did you miss my post about what happens to an aircraft in high speed crash ?

Not lot of recognizable pieces left around



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 


Thats what the passengers were attempting to do - batter in the cockpit door using a food cart

The hijackers in cockpit were attempting to keep door closed

Passengers actions were made more difficult by hijackers violebtly rocking the plane to keep off balance



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Still beating your chest over your misguided beliefs about Flight 93...sad. You were given the links to the information about the amount of wreckage recovered a couple years ago. You have even been given links to the news reports about how they were still finding pieces of Flight 93 three or four years later. You continually ignore the facts.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
There was plenty of debris - the forward 1/3 of the aircraft broke off at impact and was projected into the
nearby woods

How did the front part of the plane break off and fling into the woods if the plane nosedived into soft ground at 580 mph?


leaving debris trail

If 1/3 of the 757 projected into the woods, why does it only look like about 1/300 of a 757 worth of debris?


Much of the remainder was voilently fragmented and scattered aroun the impact site - reason it was not visible was do to small size of these pieces

Only the larger heavier pieces were buried - things like jet engine and flight recorders

Why does this part of your version differ so greatly from the official version? Where did the 2/3 of the plane go according to the person you got the 1/3 figure from?


Oh and guess how this piece was planted? (Hint: see my avatar.)

edit on 31-7-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ATH911
 


Still beating your chest over your misguided beliefs about Flight 93...sad.

You mean like the misguided belief that there were dumpster loads of debris recovered?!

edit on 31-7-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Because the plane did not hit nose first - is was on its back at a 40 deg down angle. One of the wings hit first
and dug into the ground.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Why does this part of your version differ so greatly from the official version? Where did the 2/3 of the plane go according to the person you got the 1/3 figure from?


1/3 figure came from Wallace Miller, Somerset Pa coroner, in charge of recovering/identifing the remains


.When flight 93 hit the ground, the cockpit and first-class cabin broke off, scattered into millions of fragments that spread and flew like shrapnel into and through the trees 20 metres away.

A section of the engine, weighing almost a tonne, was found on the bed of a catchment pond, 200 metres downhill.


Rest of plane was fragmented - some wound up being buried, usually the heavier pieces, rest scattered around



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join