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: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
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.

If the plane was on its back, how would any of its wings hit first any more so than if the plane was on its belly?


Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ATH911
 


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

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

No where in your article did it mention the figure of 1/3, nor what happened to the rest of the plane. Please show me where you got the 1/3 figure.


And since you failed to address it the first time, here's my question again:

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




posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 
Good job!Although most plane crashes don't leave this much of the plane intact there is something left that resembles a plane and that did not happen in Shanksville.It's the same thing with the buildings on 911,when you compare them with a controlled demolition.I find it strange that people usually with common sense,(my husband included)refuse to believe what is in front of their eyes...I don't get it



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
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!
I think ,and this is only an opinion ,that someone should try holding up a bank with the dreaded boxcutters
and see how far they get



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Alright guys, I've been doing a little digging on this website that has images of plane crashes, and I'm struggling to find any airplane crashes that have confetti like remains. Here are the closest ones I've found to the Shanksville crash site that have the smallest pieces of debris:
Irkutsk, Russia. As we can see here, the plane is pretty damn big:


Here's another one from Charolette, North Carolina:
But this one's a small little fella:


Here's another one near Chachapoyas, Peru, however due to the mountain that it crashed into there isn't really anything to compare the size of the debris with other than some rocks and shrubs:
This is the model of airplane:


This one happened in Roselawn, Indiana.
But just like with the Peru airplane crash, there's really not a lot to compare the size of the debris with. One thing that caught my attention is the lack of a massive crater from the large airplane. Here's the airplane before it turned to bits and pieces:


However for every one airplane crash I found with very small pieces of debris and not a lot of reckognizably large pieces, there are 30 more that have huge chunks of the plane still intact.
edit on 31-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TWILITE22
 





I think ,and this is only an opinion ,that someone should try holding up a bank with the dreaded boxcutters and see how far they get


Another member demonizing the boxcutter!! LMAO

But.....come to think of it, I could use some extra cash. Where's my Exacto knife?

(*****searching, searching****)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 
I usually try to stay out of these threads because I find it a waste of time trying to convince people it on way or another.It's quite plausible that military shot it down,but if that is the case why lie about it?I mean we're all grown-ups here ,why not tell us the truth?



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Alright guys, I've been doing a little digging on this website that has images of plane crashes, and I'm struggling to find any airplane crashes that have confetti like remains.

"Confetti-like" remains is a very relative term. There have been a few high speed crashes that reduced the plane to phone book-sized pieces on average. However the problem with UA 93 is that the FBI supposedly recovered 95% of the plane. Regardless if UA 93 was mostly reduces to small pieces or not, there's been no proof that anywhere close to 95% of the plane was recovered other than the word of the FBI. To compound this problem, we've also been told that after the plane allegedly crash, about 80% of the plane was buried deep in the ground! Of course the only evidence of that was one engine and two black boxes that had supposedly been dug out of the ground. So with UA 93, the real problem of the official story is a LOT of unaccounted for debris.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TWILITE22
 



I usually try to stay out of these threads because I find it a waste of time trying to convince people it on way or another.
Dude I don't even know what I'm trying to convince them, I haven't even established a clear-cut stance on the Shanksville plane crash. There are members of the military giving extremely strong hints that it was shot down, and then a Colonel (whose credentials are questionable) claims that he knows the pilot that shot down Flight 93. Then we have Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld accidentally saying that Flight 93 was shot down.

But then there's very little large debris from a huge plane....



It's quite plausible that military shot it down,but if that is the case why lie about it?I mean we're all grown-ups here ,why not tell us the truth?
Oh I wish that's how the world worked.....my guess is probably because the families of the victims of Flight 93 would be outraged that our own military would kill civilians. But I think shooting it down was 100% justified, as I explained earlier in this thread.
edit on 31-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Thats not a misguided belief. It's a well-established fact.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by TupacShakur
 
It's quite plausible that military shot it down

The evidence doesn't fit that. There were no signs of debris leading up to the crater, missile streaks in the air, explosion in the air, or a smoke plume if the plane crashed further past the field with the crater. Multiple witness saw a plane fly over Indian Lake -- which the official trajectory didn't do -- so there's strong evidence of a flyby.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ATH911
 


Thats not a misguided belief. It's a well-established fact.

OK, let's see it then.



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


Add this one - Lear 35A, Largest piece at scene was 2 x 3 ft section of tail fin, landing gear light thrown
75 yards striking parked car

www.aircraftone.com...

Have personal knowledge of this one as it came down in my neighborhood and as member of FD walked
crash scene marking remains for coroner to recover



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Wow...this thread makes sense. Look at that plane...there is plenty of wreckage to see. However, Flight 93 supposedly totally disappeared after crashing???? This photo is proof right here. I would send this photo to the NTSB...maybe they just need prodding that it is possible to crash and have visible wreckage.

Great work my friend. You should become a crash investigator. This country needs astute individuals such as yourself to find out what really happened.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I'm pretty satisfied with all the evidence I've considered regarding the dubious 9/11 events. So conclusive is the existing body of evidence that I don't recall having to grasp at a single straw to draw the conclusion that the official story was an absolute lie, without question. So I see no need to grasp at straws now. But we appreciate your efforts nonetheless. Keep up the fight brother!



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
One question:


Seriously?



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:58 AM
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.


While you are 100% correct in the matter, I have often found the lack of debris to be a bit puzzling. I'm not calling this a conspiracy based on this observation, but there have been plenty of high-speed, steep rate of descent ground collisions that have left plenty of debris.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Dont be raggin on op. made a mistake. Its human.
Back to subject, When planes crash the debris dosent just dissapear. We would have seen flaming melting remains which you dident see at the pentagonor shansvile its like the plane never existed.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
The above was hacked by my friend. However, the points been made that no debris was found, which is strange but there are only 2 plane crashes with no remains.
I think I got it
Aliens



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



Hi,

Wow some of those plans are really #ed up.

Thanks,



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Alright guys, I've been doing a little digging on this website that has images of plane crashes, and I'm struggling to find any airplane crashes that have confetti like remains.

"Confetti-like" remains is a very relative term. There have been a few high speed crashes that reduced the plane to phone book-sized pieces on average. However the problem with UA 93 is that the FBI supposedly recovered 95% of the plane. Regardless if UA 93 was mostly reduces to small pieces or not, there's been no proof that anywhere close to 95% of the plane was recovered other than the word of the FBI. To compound this problem, we've also been told that after the plane allegedly crash, about 80% of the plane was buried deep in the ground! Of course the only evidence of that was one engine and two black boxes that had supposedly been dug out of the ground. So with UA 93, the real problem of the official story is a LOT of unaccounted for debris.


My problem with the FBI recovering 95% of the plane is, how is it that on a day when everything goes wrong for the government, the military can't seem to locate 4 hijacked planes in the air but the FBI has ground forces recovering the plane before the military is even in the skies?! No way that is normal.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join