The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


mirage....Jet-A is not exactly kerosene.

Jet-A does have a lower flash point than, say gasoline. Meaning, it is more difficult to ignite than gasoline. There are more volatile jet fuels, such as Jet-B, for instance, used by the Military, which burn hotter. That's why we have pages in the Operating Handbook, in case we are on a Military Charter, and must be fueled with something other than Jet-A....the engines must be monitored more closely, and a logbook entry made....but, this has nothing to do with UAL93, it is just another nugget of info that maybe no one has heard before.....

As to the color of the smoke? I really don't know. A really efficient engine should produce no smoke, but of course that's in a 'perfect' world.

All depends, on the nature of the 'fuel', and any other contanimants that may exist....ever had a fireplace in your home? I've seen woodburning fires produce not only white, but gray and black smoke.....

All I can say is, this thread has not PROVEN the lack of a B757 crashing at Shanksville, despite the Op's claims to the contrary. NOR has it PROVEN that a B757 DID crash there.

This thread is inadequate to provide the 'PROOF' that many crave.

There is simply an argument....one side shows pictures (pictures which I personally believe are just the ones that the 'no plane' side wish to convey) and the other side asks about the other evidence....just to start, the debris, and of course, the CVR and DFDR. (Some mention the DNA evidence, but I am not privvy to this....) Please, these Flight Recorders could NOT be 'faked' in such a way to fool the dozens, if not hundreds of people who had access to them. The only way for this to have been 'faked' is if all of the experts who handled the Flight Recorders were told to stay silent.

I suppose, it is possible. People, even hundreds of people, could have been threatened, or 'bought' off....possible, but is it 'plausible'??

Let's see what any others have to say......

reply to post by IvanZana


Ivan....please, be more specific. All you said was 'Flight 585'. That was United Airlines 585, Colorado Springs, CO....and I'm not sure which year, I'm guessing from memory it was in the mid 1980s. It, the airplane, rolled over as finishing a turn from Base to Final Approach (sorry for the techinical speak).

It was a Visual Approach to the runway....the airplane was at an indicated airspeed of about Vref+5Knots....or, somewhere around 120-130 knots.

There were many, may theories surronding this accident, some not so savory. AND, this before the Internet was a factor in spreading rumors.

I won't bore you with all of the rumors and suppostions, will just focus on the fact that the airplane, UAL585, impacted from an altitude of about 2000 feet over the ground, at about 130 knots. Into a ground surface distinctly different from the ground at Shanksville, PA.

Compare to an airplane, more massive, at higher speed, into soil far different than existed in Colorado Springs.

Please note, as well.....the Flight Recorders were recovered, both at Colorado Springs, and at Shanksville. AND....other small pieces were recovered from Shanksville.

I have no connection to any other members, here on ATS, but I recently read a very good point, made by another member...."When did Cruise Missiles begin adding seatbelts"? Not an exact quote, but pertinent to the topic. WHY would pieces of seatbelts, airline seat pieces, fragments of airliner structure, an APU (not to be incorrectly confused with, and used to try to 'prove' that a B757 wasn't there...because it didn't "match" the Pratt&Whitney engines that were known to be installed on United's jet) show up in Shanksville, from a 'cruise missile'???

Problem is, it's in the editing. Seems to be similar to the current American Election campaign....'spin' the way you want it to spin, ignore anything that contradicts your point. This is not investigation, it is 'agenda'.....

Have to *edit* again, because I forgot to mention something else. I have flown with many pilots with lots more experience in the Rockies, in smaller airplanes...but especially in the Rockies, or any similar Mountain Range, winds can be very tricky. In dry (low humidity) conditions, the winds will blow, and be affected by terrain, and no clouds will form to alert a pilot. Also, the reported winds at your destination (Colorado Springs, in this case) can be vastly different than the winds at eve a few thousand feet above the airport, when in Mountainous Terrain.

My point is not to criticize the pilots of UAL585...they were trained, as we all are, to fly Vref+5 knots, given the airport's reported winds....AT THE SURFACE! I emphasized there. If winds at the surface are 'reported' as strong, then we use Vref, + one/half the steady, and all of the 'gust'....up to a maximum of +20 knots. I just would never be down to Final Approach Speed (Vref+5), in a Visual Approach, at that point....the turn to Final. ESPECIALLY if there was a lot of turbulence.

OK, said that, hope it meant something to those who read it. Point is, a B737 hitting the ground at, roughly, 140 knots is just not the same as a B757 hitting the ground at around 500+knots. Kinetic energy is multiplied exponentionaly, based on velocity. It's either squared, or it is squared on the square...maybe a phycisit can be more clear, here.








[edit on 7/31/0808 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 7/31/0808 by weedwhacker]

I am still waiting for anyone to explain why the crater casued by Payne Stewarts little Learjet was bigger then the crater that was supposed to be casued by a 757.

Weedwhacker, do you know of any other pictures of the crash that show anything more than a ditch?

Because I can't find any.

Do you know of any other pictures of plane crashes that resemble the ones of flight 93?

Because I can't find any.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA....where is the picture of Payne Stewart's LearJet crash site?

A LearJet that fell from the sky, under the force of gravity, because it lost pressurization, the pilots did NOT open a valve to supply O2 to their masks, was part of their pre-flight duties....

So here's the scenario, of Payne Stewart's LearJet: Explosive, or maybe even a rapid decompression, at altitude. Time of Useful Consiousness varies, depending on altitude and the partial pressure of O2, and the individuals' tolerances. In any event, the two pilots donned O2 masks, but got nothing, since they DID NOT open the valve in the pre-flight. They lost consciousness. The airtplane, on auto-pilot merrily flew along, until fuel was exhausted. Engines quit, electrical buses, powered by the engine-driven generators, lose electricity...the Auto-pilot trips off. The airplane, trimmed for cruise flight, but now with no thrust, stalls, AND falls under the force of gravity. It is entirely different than a POWER-ON intentional dive into the ground!!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA....where is the picture of Payne Stewart's LearJet crash site?

Well its real easy to find the information and photos.

en.wikipedia.org...

Impact occurred approximately 1713Z, or 1213 local, after a total flight time of 3 hours, 54 minutes, with the aircraft hitting the ground at a nearly supersonic speed and an extreme angle. The Learjet crashed just outside of Mina, South Dakota, in Edmunds County on relatively flat ground, and left a crater 42 feet (13 m) long, 21 feet (6.4 m) wide and 8 feet (2.4 m) deep.

upload.wikimedia.org...

upload.wikimedia.org...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hmm...

en.wikipedia.org...

Jet fuel is clear to straw colored. The most common fuel is an unleaded/paraffin (kerosene) oil-based fuel classified as Jet A-1 (otherwise known as AVTUR), which is produced to an internationally standardized set of specifications.

Close enough. I actually starred your post, too.

Please, these Flight Recorders could NOT be 'faked' in such a way to fool the dozens, if not hundreds of people who had access to them.

I disagree. It is quite feasible to do. Note that people who read or listen to the FDR/CVR respectively, don't get their hands on the originals. Only the NTSB (usually) get to get their hands on the source material. Everyone else gets copies on different media, so the originals wouldn't be available in the first place.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

I disagree. It is quite feasible to do. Note that people who read or listen to the FDR/CVR respectively, don't get their hands on the originals. Only the NTSB (usually) get to get their hands on the source material. Everyone else gets copies on different media, so the originals wouldn't be available in the first place.

I believe in the case of flight 93 the CVR was so heavily damaged, the manufacturer of the CVR had to obtain the information from the device.

I will have to find the link somewhere.

quote]Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I believe in the case of flight 93 the CVR was so heavily damaged, the manufacturer of the CVR had to obtain the information from the device.

I will have to find the link somewhere.

911research.wtc7.net...

A source close to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) who asked to remain anonymous when asked about the " ongoing [black box] investigation, " told us that "the NTSB never closely examined the cockpit voice recorders (CVRs) and flight data recorders (FDRs) recovered from American Flight 77 which hit the Pentagon, and United flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania. " This, while the FBI has continued to quietly dodge vexing questions related to its prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and how the Bureau’s widely-reported inept and mishandled information protocol cost so many lives.

The source added that “the [CVR and FDR] tapes were sequestered by the FBI and quickly taken to its Quantico, Virginia labs where analysis was conducted solely under the Bureau’s influence in order to maintain complete control.” However, according to the individual with knowledge of the investigation, “there were a few NTSB officials allowed to observe, but their influence on the probe and tape inspection was minimal at best.”

We also talked to Michael Thompson, chief engineer in the CVR/FDR division of Allied Signal-Honeywell Corporation in Redmond, Washington -- according to his counsel, Mark Larson.

We asked Thompson if he was the person in charge of flight data recovery in the 9/11 investigation, since Honeywell manufactured the data recorders in operation on all four Boeing jets involved in the September 11 crashes. “I cannot answer that under advice from legal counsel,” he said.

Since his legal counsel, Mark Larson of Tempe, Arizona, was unavailable for a conference call, Thompson told us, “On advice of my legal counsel, I cannot answer any legal questions pertaining to that incident.” [On November 19, 2002 at 12:16 pm, Honeywell transferred our initial call to Mark Larson, corporate in-house counsel for Honeywell, who in turn told us to contact Michael Thompson regarding any questions we might have about the 9/11 CVRs and FDRs.]

When we asked Thompson if he had ever seen or been involved in any recovery analysis of the 9/11 CVRs or FDRs, he stated, “That’s a legal question, and on advice of counsel, I cannot answer any of those questions. You need to talk to Mark Larson about this.” [This surprised us, because we are aware that the memory chips from which the NTSB and/or FBI tapes are derived is raw data and cannot be manipulated. Thus, the “ongoing criminal investigation” excuse could result in either obstruction or suppression of fact.]

[edit on 2-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

What do they have to hide?

This doesn't happen for other crashes. They're hiding something.

Honeywell is in on it now too!!!

Come on now. This was in 2002 prior to the Mousoui Trial.

Yeah... the manufacturer was asked to assist in recovering the data.... must be work of the Neocons.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
What do they have to hide?

This doesn't happen for other crashes. They're hiding something.

Yes, it does seem like they are hiding something. I mean we can see all kinds of information on crashes like Flight 800, and it was a crime scene too.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes, it does seem like they are hiding something. I mean we can see all kinds of information on crashes like Flight 800, and it was a crime scene too.

Well, that investigation ended and the official report was released August 23, 2000.

The WTC investigation is still ongoing, and no official reports have been released yet.

Pretty elementary to see why you can get info for one crash investigation and not the other.

Originally posted by gavron Well, that investigation ended and the official report was released August 23, 2000.

But we could get information on the crash scene while it was ongoing, unlike any of the 9/11 crash scenes

The WTC investigation is still ongoing, and no official reports have been released yet.

Why is it still ongoing? Its been 7 years we should be able to get some information by now.

Plus the fact that the FAA and FBI have refused to release some information that should be released.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
What do they have to hide?

This doesn't happen for other crashes. They're hiding something.

Yes, it does seem like they are hiding something. I mean we can see all kinds of information on crashes like Flight 800, and it was a crime scene too.

There are actually similarities between the two events. Hundreds of witnesses saw a missile rise up from the Pacific off the east coast and impact TWA Flight 800.

Hundreds of firefighters, police, EMTs and first responders heard a demolition countdown and bombs detonating before WTC 7 collapsed.

But when the "official story" is released, eyewitnesses -- even hundreds who saw and heard the exact same thing -- are ignored.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
There are actually similarities between the two events. Hundreds of witnesses saw a missile rise up from the Pacific off the east coast and impact TWA Flight 800.

Well and the thing about Flight 800 too was that the FBI and NTSB had some problems with interagency fighting about jurisdiction. And they disagreed on evidence.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
There are actually similarities between the two events. Hundreds of witnesses saw a missile rise up from the Pacific off the east coast and impact TWA Flight 800.

Well and the thing about Flight 800 too was that the FBI and NTSB had some problems with interagency fighting about jurisdiction. And they disagreed on evidence.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well and the thing about Flight 800 too was that the FBI and NTSB had some problems with interagency fighting about jurisdiction. And they disagreed on evidence.

Even after hundreds of witnesses saw a missile impact Flight 800 AND explosives residue was found on several rows of seats, they STILL ruled it a center fuel tank explosion, even though no ignition source was ever found and no 747 fuel tank had ever exploded, before or after:

What happened behind row 23?

August 30, 1996

SMITHTOWN, New York (CNN) -- Additional traces of explosive residue have been found in the wreckage of TWA Flight 800, federal investigators said Friday, but that does not prove the July 17 crash was caused by a bomb.

A source close to the investigation told CNN the residue came from the same explosive detected in laboratory tests on microscopic evidence last week, but was found in a different part of the plane, making it difficult to draw a pattern. The source didn't say where the recent residue was detected. Law enforcement sources said the earlier trace evidence was residue from PETN, a chemical ingredient of plastique or plastic explosives. Those traces of PETN were found between rows 15 and 25 on the right side of the passenger cabin.

www.flight800.org...

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Instead of honestly admitting a tragic mistake, the FAA ordered a $1 billion fuel tank retrofit 12 years later. Unbelievable.

If the government would lie about this, they'd lie about anything.



[edit on 3-8-2008 by GoldenFleece]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece


Hundreds of firefighters, police, EMTs and first responders heard a demolition countdown and bombs detonating before WTC 7 collapsed.

This is NOT a true statement.

The number of firefighter, policemen, EMT's, and first responders that heard a countdown =

ZERO


The number of people that claim to have heard

- first, a "pulse that sounded like a countdown"

- then, " heard a countdown"-------

ONE

Mr. McPadden is not around anymore for some reason. Was it because his constantly changing story was not true? I don't know.

As far as the "bombs detonating" .... thats not accurate either. While buildings are on fire, there are several things that could sound like "bombs".

I would love to see this list of "hundreds" that you claim.

I know you wont though.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
This is NOT a true statement.

A true statement would be that more and more first responders are speaking out against the official story.