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.

 

Wonder why there were two United 93 crash sites?

page: 8
18
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by trollertrollzo
 



Okay so I watched your video. At first speculation, I honestly began to change my opion, I know, imagine that. But after googling that and there actually being a few posts here on ATS about the comparison, I have gathered all the information I needed to completely contradict everything about your theory. Now believe me, I am not here to offend you and nothing of the sort, I just am trying to get to the bottom of this, as I am sure you are so take what I am about to say for what its worth. Flight 1771 was a BAe 146 which weighs about 93000lbs at take off. Flight 93 as you know was a 757 and (as I stand corrected from earlier) weighs about 255,000lbs. Flight 1771 was at a much steeper angle as it crashed (10 degrees) opposed to flight 93's angle (60 degrees) and 1771's flight speed was much faster (something like 720mph) opposed to the slower of the 2 in flight 93. So, how does a larger plane leave less (nearly nothing) in the immediate crash area when a smaller craft hitting nearly vertical leave, MUCH more debris? I just dont understand.


Difference is that Flight 93 impacted old reclaimed strip mine - soft soil

Much of the aircraft (forward 1/3 broke off and flew into the woods) ploughed into the ground In some cases
up to 25 feet deep Because of that little debris visible on surface

Here is one of the engines being recovered from the crater



Here is picture of bin holding recovered aircraft debris filled 10 of them with 60 tons of debris



Here are collecting and sorting recovered debris





Right, well I was debating with someone else about why I thought flight 93 was obviously staged, and I believe that is the point you are trying to make here....so I just wanted to let you know that we are on the same page already. The one who needs convincing is the one who pointed to flight 1771 and flight 93's simalarities




posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


Its the weather - been very hot recently

Truthers are yearning to break free from mommy's basement.....



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by charlyv



Rest of the aircraft ploughed into ground at 575 mph At the speed the debris was smashed unto fragments - seen it my self at plane crash which hit at 350 mph Not much left when impacted into the ground


It's true, I have seen it as well. You have to see the aftermath of a high velocity T-Bone with the ground to understand what happens. The reason why the top area of the cockpit bubble went sideways is the pressure at the moment of impact pops it like a balloon and it explodes, giving it enough vector to avoid going down the hole being made.

The debris trail? As the majority of the plane is going into the ground, at the same time light debris is sucked up the air vortex in the trail of the falling aircraft. The wind gets the plume and deposits it , sometimes miles away from the crash site.

No sheep crap here.


Absolutely not! It's BULL poo.lol
Then where are the bodies of the passengers??
Why didn't at least ONE of the dudes in the cockpit end up with the cockpit debris??? You people and your damn stupid reports and silly pictures. sheeesh
edit on 4/19/2012 by longjohnbritches because: AND VORTEXES silly



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
That field with no plane debris just doesn't look right. The FBI agent (someone mentioned this earlier) sounds like he's lying to his wife after coming home late from a topless bar with lipstick on his collar. I think the second debris field was a cover story to throw people off from what they're seeing with their own two eyes, which is... There. Is. Just. No. Wreckage. In. That. Field.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Have you ever seen a plane that's been shot down? Had a couple of AIMS launched into it or SAMS from the ground. I have. What hits the ground isn't a whole helluva lot. If you hit both engines, they are pretty much destroyed, the wings fracture, usually there's some form of fuselage stress that may or may not tear it apart.

Fantasy, I wish it was.

Cheers - Dave


In the very few crashes where planes have smashed into the ground at high speed (bear in mind pilots are usually trying not to crash) there isn't much left either.

The point I was making is that you're making a fairly simple explanation needlessly complicated in order to make it fit your story. A story for which there isn't much evidence. That's not good use of Occam's razor.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Have you ever seen a plane that's been shot down? Had a couple of AIMS launched into it or SAMS from the ground. I have. What hits the ground isn't a whole helluva lot. If you hit both engines, they are pretty much destroyed, the wings fracture, usually there's some form of fuselage stress that may or may not tear it apart.

Fantasy, I wish it was.

Cheers - Dave


In the very few crashes where planes have smashed into the ground at high speed (bear in mind pilots are usually trying not to crash) there isn't much left either.

The point I was making is that you're making a fairly simple explanation needlessly complicated in order to make it fit your story. A story for which there isn't much evidence. That's not good use of Occam's razor.


In all other crashes bodies are found.
In four supposed crashes on one day you think you could even ATTEMPT to use
"The old dull and rusty Occam's double edge????"
Damn fool reports and pictures mumble,mumble
You are unsafe with sharp objects.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Yes it actually does, the same amount of sense actually that put bankers opposed to the development of the FED on the Olympia masquerading as the Titanic ;-)


How would you do that in practice? How would you make sure that people wanted to go to New York at that time? And in 2001 how would you ensure that Cantor Fitzgerald and the rest had rented the correct office space? And why did people want to get rid of Cantor and its employees, and the employees of other banks in the top floors of the WTC?

How would you keep something like that quiet? The numbers involved in making sure that exactly the right people were on board the titanic, and exactly the right people were in the WTC would be enormous. And in the banking industry they have kept this quiet - the battle between the 'good' and 'bad' banks - for years? Despite the fact that bankers are all recruited from the same colleges and all work in the same markets?

Imagine you worked at Salomon Brothers (say) and one day you were called into an office by a boss. And he told you that they were involved, with dozens of other financial institutions, in a plan to kill thousands of other bankers and spark a war in the Middle East. And at the same time solve an asbestos issue and balance some government books. Would you stay quiet about this? And do you assume that absolutely everyone involved would, right down to the guy who has to answer the phone and tell people that only Cantor Fitzgerald can rent the relevant office space so, sorry, the caller can't take the lease?

The whole thing is insane.


But you concentrate on just the international bankers when 2.2 trillion dollars at the pentagon went missing the day before 9/11 as announced by Rumsfeld.


It didn't go missing the day before. And it had been mentioned several times during the Clinton presidency.


Have we seen any investigation into where that taxpayer money miraculously disappeared? Survey says, NO!


Unfortunately survey says Yes. And a large amount has now been accounted for. It's a scandal, certainly, but they didn't just ship a trillion or two in used notes out the back of the Pentagon and then cover it up the next day with a load of plane hijackings.

Anyway, think about it for a moment and try to answer this question. Why would Rumsfeld announce the missing money? Instead of admitting to it and then covering it up, why not just not mention it at all?



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches



In all other crashes bodies are found.
In four supposed crashes on one day you think you could even ATTEMPT to use
"The old dull and rusty Occam's double edge????"
Damn fool reports and pictures mumble,mumble
You are unsafe with sharp objects.


When you just make stuff up you don't improve my view that you're just a troll. Body parts were found at Shanksville, consistent with what you would expect in a very high speed crash. DNA identification was carried out.

You clearly agree with the respondent above that they shot down a plane in order to make it look like they weren't behind the attacks. Most people find this notion pretty ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 



In all other crashes bodies are found.


They found bodies or more correctly body parts, which is what you get in a high speed/high impact crash

The bodies are fragmented into what is called "human hamburger" - scraps of tissue with few recognizable
pieces

Seen this myself (guess dont see many plane crashes in mommy's basement land....)

Walked crash scne marking the body parts for coroner to recover - only recognizable piece(s), half of a chest,
hand minus fingers and several amputated fingers

Here is what was found at Flight 93


As coroner, responsible for returning human remains, Miller has been forced to share with the families information that is unimaginable. As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Yes it actually does, the same amount of sense actually that put bankers opposed to the development of the FED on the Olympia masquerading as the Titanic ;-)


How would you do that in practice? How would you make sure that people wanted to go to New York at that time? And in 2001 how would you ensure that Cantor Fitzgerald and the rest had rented the correct office space? And why did people want to get rid of Cantor and its employees, and the employees of other banks in the top floors of the WTC?


They were giving discounts. You might also want to look at the floor fill charts for the WTC since its building.


How would you keep something like that quiet? The numbers involved in making sure that exactly the right people were on board the titanic, and exactly the right people were in the WTC would be enormous. And in the banking industry they have kept this quiet - the battle between the 'good' and 'bad' banks - for years? Despite the fact that bankers are all recruited from the same colleges and all work in the same markets?


They billed the Titanic as the most prestigious voyage, many people, even "commoners" blew away their entire life's savings to be on that ship and hopefully meet or talk to the bankers and other "royalty."


Imagine you worked at Salomon Brothers (say) and one day you were called into an office by a boss. And he told you that they were involved, with dozens of other financial institutions, in a plan to kill thousands of other bankers and spark a war in the Middle East. And at the same time solve an asbestos issue and balance some government books. Would you stay quiet about this? And do you assume that absolutely everyone involved would, right down to the guy who has to answer the phone and tell people that only Cantor Fitzgerald can rent the relevant office space so, sorry, the caller can't take the lease?

The whole thing is insane.


I wouldn't, of course I have been shot before and I've died once on the operating table, so I really don't give a sh*t, my time will be my time. But roughly 87% of the population that are not critical thinkers, the common zombie-drone-meat-puppet, wouldn't spill the beans. About 12.9% of the balance know better to not spill the beans and that 0.1% that are left are pretty well paid to keep their mouths shut.

It's all insane? Let me be a little condescending... if you say so ;-) But there is no virtue in being sane in an insane world.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 4/21.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 



In all other crashes bodies are found.


They found bodies or more correctly body parts, which is what you get in a high speed/high impact crash

The bodies are fragmented into what is called "human hamburger" - scraps of tissue with few recognizable
pieces

Seen this myself (guess dont see many plane crashes in mommy's basement land....)

Walked crash scne marking the body parts for coroner to recover - only recognizable piece(s), half of a chest,
hand minus fingers and several amputated fingers

Here is what was found at Flight 93


As coroner, responsible for returning human remains, Miller has been forced to share with the families information that is unimaginable. As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.


If you are wearing the seatbelt during a freefall or slightly faster impact in a plane you will be cut in half. So if you are going to crash and you know it, consider your options.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackTTC6
 


Okay, then I have one question for you. What weapon was used to shoot it down?


Or any of the shoot down believers? What weapon was used?
edit on 21-4-2012 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle


They were giving discounts. You might also want to look at the floor fill charts for the WTC since its building.


That doesn't answer my question. Did they only offer the discount to Cantor and the other bankers they wanted killed? If so how did they keep other interested parties from renting the space at the full price? How did they coerce Cantor and co to move into the WTC and not another building on wall st? Cantor were a British firm. How did they know they would expand into the US at the given time?

Another thought occurs. What differentiates the 'good' bankers (Cantor etc) from the 'evil' ones? In what way were the operations of those who died in WTC1 different from other banks? And why did the other banks want them dead?

Why did they fly a plane into WTC2? That can't have been an assasination as the plane arrived too late to guarantee their deaths. Did they go through the enormous cost and risk and horror of hijacking a jet and crashing it just to provide some sort of weird symmetry?




They billed the Titanic as the most prestigious voyage, many people, even "commoners" blew away their entire life's savings to be on that ship and hopefully meet or talk to the bankers and other "royalty."


I don't think you're engaging with how hard it would be to ensure that exactly the right people who you wanted dead would be on a ship or in a building at exactly the right time.

And you think that the prestige of the Titanic would on its own be enough to ensure that all the anti-fed bankers would be on it? What if they were busy, or somewhere else, or had a scheduling conflict? Or were already in the USA?

Let's say you want Larry Smith dead, and his banking operation stopped. You try to make sure he's in England at the right time. I'm not sure how you would do this, but let's say you manage it. Maybe you organise a party and invite him. Involve hundreds of people and enormous cost. Then you ensure he doesn't want to stick around seeing other relatives or visiting other places in the UK and that the Titanic offers the best route back for him. You get him on board and then (somehow) you fake the boat's sinking. How do you ensure he's not on a lifeboat? About a third of 1st class passengers survived.

Wouldn't it be simpler just to poison him?




I wouldn't, of course I have been shot before and I've died once on the operating table, so I really don't give a sh*t, my time will be my time. But roughly 87% of the population that are not critical thinkers, the common zombie-drone-meat-puppet, wouldn't spill the beans. About 12.9% of the balance know better to not spill the beans and that 0.1% that are left are pretty well paid to keep their mouths shut.


So everybody except you would keep a mass-murder conspiracy quiet?

That seems incredibly arrogant. And not at all likely.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join