supposed "rare" united 93 footage.

The motto of ATS is DENY IGNORANCE.

Ignoring evidence that doesn't fit ones agenda is about as ignorant as it gets.

Ok I won't deny there was a plane, even Rumsfeld said so remember this?

This is from an old thread of mine here. I thought Rummy made a strange comment.

ATS Link

Originally posted by Realtruth
Talk about Freudian Slip! I would hope everyone would weigh in on this info.

Sorry Folks, no denying this information. I originally found this for my 757 didn't hit the Pentagon Thread, but I thought that it was so interesting and significant that I would start a new thread.

Rumsfeld - "The people who shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon."

[edit on 27-5-2007 by Realtruth]

Originally posted by sensfan
The motto of ATS is DENY IGNORANCE.

Ignoring evidence that doesn't fit ones agenda is about as ignorant as it gets.

and, what evidence is that? have you plotted out all the trees in 3D to determine the radius of the debris field? have you proven with these pictures that the debris was not spread out over four miles, like the report said? have you shown us the wing spars, and explained why the FAA didn't do a reconstruction of the crash?

have you proven that those are even photos of the debris from flight 93, and not some other plane crash, or worse, staged scene?

why was this photographer 'allowed' to take pics, when the 'crime scene' was closed off to everyone else?

why didn't this photographer get wider views that encompass the whole crash site.

you seem perfectly willing to ignore the evidence presented in the opening post.

in other words, ..."whatever, buddy".

well again I have to say Al Gore has hit the head of the nail.
America and its democratic process let along the process new reporters and facts for the use of thinking lacks Logic and Reason

the guy said
"I see nothing of a plane, no smoke, no fire, nothing but phonebook size pieces and a small hole.
nothing that a plane crashed here!"

then bang its never questioned again

No Logic or Reason
None what so ever.

Nice to see some here, and thats why I am here.

You are relying on the explanation of a reporter your basis for stating that there is no plane at Shanksville. Billybob, why don;t you plot it out and prove it false. That is what is needed, not denial. Anyone can state 'that is not true" but it is someone else who proves something wrong. Believe in something does not make absollute proof.

93 was shot down, and that is eveident by the debris field. There are plenty of pictures on the web that show large pieces of the plane. There were many artcles retreived from the site also. A plane crashed there. Bottom line. They found pieces of that plane many,many feet deep.


This footage is about as rare as Paris HIlton steeping out commando.

I have a general question for you guys.

I see alot of posts about how the footage from 9/11 was doctored, faked, etc...

Why is nobody suggesting that this footage isn't faked either? I'm not saying it is, I don't think it is...But I wonder why nobody questions this footage yet questions any and all footage that goes against their beliefs.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I dunno what any of you are on about.
I clearly see a plane, amongst those tiny pieces of debri...
There's as much of a plane there as in the pentagon...

Funny, 4 planes were used, but only PROOF of 2 planes exists...

Hey there's one of the things I forgot to mention in my "insane" thread: them not jus tgiving us the damn proof of the other things like the NTSB reconstructions / warehouses / whatever it is they have.

Originally posted by tribaltrip

Make your own judgements.

Video

So has anyone tried figuring out exactly where those houses are and therefore where that debris field is????


I'll keep my eye out for that in the Archive.org news videos that I do have. If I find it maybe I'll rip screnshots and blow them up using HLS / police grade photo enlargement software to get a better idea of that's there.

Originally posted by esdad71
Billybob, why don;t you plot it out and prove it false.

because.
insufficient data.

does not compute.

there are not 'plenty of pictures', or we would have seen them, here, on ATS.

Aircraft part



Debris field



piece of fuselage



More fuselage




the pictures prove there were pieces bigger than a phone book. Now, these are pictures of aircraft parts. It crashed. It also shows how large the debris filed was. It was shot down. There were hijackers on board who killed the pilots, a passenger and FA.

Please take the time to read this timeline with no conspiracy included

link

There is your start.

"FBI Briefs the Media on the Crash in Pennsylvania", CNN, September 13, 2001

interesting mix of yes and maybe, there.

[ext]"Secret Police Dictate Truth"[/urlquote]

yeah, it was shot down. i thought we disagreed about everything?

[edit on 28-5-2007 by billybob]

wow.
check out this page...page

check out the spambot, specifically, for a trip a little further down the rabbit hole.

I am a believer in the country I was born in. My ancestors did not leave Ireland for oppression, that is why they left. 93 was shot down, and that is why there is such a movement with the WTC. misdirection, make something over here happen and no one looks over there.

I mean, you have Rumsfeld slipping which is so much more convincing then Silverstien saying pull it. Cheney said it to, with Mineta.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The ground at both of those 737 crashes was mountainous terrain. Much harder than and Shanksville.

As for the debris 8 miles away according to reports it was all paper and insulation. The light weight materials that you would expect to find miles away from a big crash like this.

I live outside of Pittsburgh. The crash by the airport here in the mid 90's wasn't mountainess terrain. It was almost identical to the terrain at Shanksville.

Has anybody ever confirmed the whole "strip mine" story? I'm not sure why the mining company would have back-filled and leveled off that field. Has anybody ever tracked down the origin of the strip mine story, or is something that somebody theorized at one time to explain the lack of debris and the story stuck?

You have any idea how WRONG you are?

A plane hitting nose first at a very high speed wouldn't compact it all within that hole. That's just ignorance on your part. You've watched too many movies. The width of th hole doesn't even match the plane. The hole is WAY TOO SMALL for a 757/767 to have created it.

A plane wouldn't be carrying enough fuel to burn as long or as hot as to completely disintegrate everything on impact. Do you realize how hot it would have to be for that to happen? The heat alone would have destroyed homes as if an a-bomb had gone off. they said no bodies were found. Everything jsut disintegrated....BS. Again, it take s large amoutn of heat to completely pulverize bone.

You comment at the end about this same thing applying to the pentagon is also fileld with ignorance. You ever seen the size of the hole before the section collapsed? It was only 14 to 16 feet wide. The same sized hole was found ont he back of this section. A plane that large wouldn't leave such a small hole and couldn't have made it that far into the building. Only a missle would be able to do that.

Let's talk about the very little fire damage done at the pentagon. People keep saying the fire disintegrated everything....more BS. There's photos taken after the collapse that show open books and wooden desks sitting next to the imapct area that don't have any fire damage at all. That's enough poof that there was no raging fire at the Pentagon like they say.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Anubis Kanubis
I wonder what debris from a commercial jet that had been shot down over farmland would look like?

If the plane had been shot down, or if it had been a controlled type crash, which is what we are used to seeing btw, then I would expect to see a lot more large debris. Specifically, when one is shot down, it’s going to leave some large debris scattered over a very wide area. This crash scene is consistent with someone putting a plane nose-first into the ground, at a high rate of speed. In that scenario there would only be very small pieces ejected from the aircraft, the major stuff would have been compacted down to almost nothing inside that hole.

Originally posted by greatlakes
15-20 feet length x 10 feet width impact site dimensions = Not consistent with an aircraft impact or auger into the ground.

Actually 15x20 is plenty large enough for a 757 fuselage, after all it’s not significantly bigger then a DC-9/MD-80 in diameter…

DC-9/MD-80 Cabin cross section:
External width: 10 ft 11.6 in (3.34 m)
External height: 11 ft 8 in (3.6 m)
Internal width: 10 ft 3.7 in (3.14 m)

757 Specifacations
Cabin Width =3.54 m (11 ft 7 in)
Note: I am pretty sure this is internal width

I don’t think that anyone here is going to argue that a DC-9 could make a similar sized hole in the ground. The only major difference between the two is that a 757 has a longer set of wings, bigger engines, taller tail, and a longer fuselage. The body itself of the aircraft is very small; it just looks large do to its engines and landing gear. Just look at the seating charts for both aircraft and you’ll notice that there is only one seat worth of size distance, which is less then 2 feet.

757 Seating Chart
MD-80 Seating Chart

Same thing applies to the whole in the Pentagon.

Originally posted by tribaltrip
Well i was doing my daily research in the whole 911 thing as always,
and picked up on a very odd video on youtube.
I know, i know, youtube may not be the best for qaulity but i must say the video shows some good evidence that there was never any plane there,
just a big hole and what looks like paper all over.
Make your own judgements.
Video

Dear tribaltrip:

Your video is about the closest thing to a smoking gun we will ever find showing that there were no planes on 9-11.

Sure, truth deniers will say that there may not have been a crash at Shanksville but there still were those three flights into the Pentagon and the WTC’s. Or maybe not at the Pentagon either but definitively at the twin towers!! I don’t understand that kind of reasoning. If one story is clearly a lie – as your video link absolutely proves -- then shouldn’t this cast massive doubt on the other three events? Given all the outrageously suspect circumstances there as well, shouldn’t that be a no-brainer?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

First off I assume your talking to me as you have my entire post at the bottom of your post. So let me start off by saying, how many of these aircraft have you worked on, I have worked on quite a few, matter of fact I used to turn one, and terminate one, every single day.

Originally posted by nightmare_david
A plane hitting nose first at a very high speed wouldn't compact it all within that hole. That's just ignorance on your part.

No, it’s absolutely correct. You ever seen a car that has been compacted down? You have any clue why they can crush one so small? Its because its mainly empty airspace inside the frame. An aircraft is even more so, there is almost nothing of any serious sustenance inside the fuselage that would not break into a million shards, or compress down quite nicely. The wings/fuel tanks are not much stronger, and considering they contain the fuel they tend to go to pieces really fast when that fuel ignites.

Originally posted by nightmare_david
You've watched too many movies

No, as I have worked on both commercial 757’s and 767’s, I think you “Lack of proof” movement folks have seen too many movies, and don’t have enough real experience, outside of armchair quarterbacking everything.

Originally posted by nightmare_david
The width of th hole doesn't even match the plane. The hole is WAY TOO SMALL for a 757/767 to have created it.

The width of the hole is at least 2 feet bigger then the aircraft is one way, and 7 feet the other. Oh, BTW I can tell you really know your stuff about aviation when you think you can just put “757/767”, as the sizes between these aircraft are significantly different. Just for starters, a 757 is a narrow body aircraft with a fuselage size a little over one foot wider then a DC-9, a 767 on the other hand is a wide body aircraft which has to be vastly larger in circumference to accommodate LD2’s or LD8’s. Since you obviously have a significant aviation background, I’ll let you decipher that.

Originally posted by nightmare_david
A plane wouldn't be carrying enough fuel to burn as long or as hot as to completely disintegrate everything on impact.

These were early morning flights, and unbenounced to the 911 truth fools, who like writing papers on the subject with no experience, it was most likely nowhere near the half-full or less they claim. See, these morons who wrote the paper quoting average fuel loads did not have to common sense to go do some actual research, and find out how fueling works. Early morning flights are normally full of gas, as they are ballast fueled the night before to a) save time with fuel turns throughout the day, and b) so they don’t jump the chalks in the middle of the night in a good breeze.

Either way, I did not mention fire at all in my post, which you so kindly reposted in its entirety for me above, much to the contrary of this sites T&C’s.

Originally posted by nightmare_david
Everything jsut disintegrated....BS. Again, it take s large amoutn of heat to completely pulverize bone.

An aircraft contains quite enough to burn itself all the way to the ground with no outside help. Of course you have had Halon training and realize how severe that an aircraft fire is, correct?
NW Detroit fire
You do realize that almost everything inside the fuselage adds to the fire as it’s all flammable plastics, nylons, adhesives, and so on, right?

Originally posted by nightmare_david
You comment at the end about this same thing applying to the pentagon is also fileld with ignorance. You ever seen the size of the hole before the section collapsed

Hm… Let me think, yeah I think I might have seen that photo once or twice in my life.

Originally posted by nightmare_david
It was only 14 to 16 feet wide. The same sized hole was found ont he back of this section.

Which is again larger then the 13-foot diameter required for a 757 fuselage, maybe you should take some high school level geometry or something. As to the hole in the back, that was made by a chunk of a cargo doorway frame, I have said that on this site until I am blue in the face, but the geniuses from the truthtard movement still cannot seem to grasp that concept.

Originally posted by nightmare_david
Let's talk about the very little fire damage done at the pentagon. People keep saying the fire disintegrated everything....more BS. There's photos taken after the collapse that show open books and wooden desks sitting next to the imapct area that don't have any fire damage at all. That's enough poof that there was no raging fire at the Pentagon like they say.

Fire is a funny thing, it will burn or melt something, and leave something right next to it unscathed, ask any firefighter about the weird debris they find after a house fire. When you consider that the initial explosion would be more like a flash fire, leaving some areas of intense fire, and other areas with no fire, plus ejecting a lot of things that did not have time to burn. I see nothing wrong with the way that debris looks at the Pentagon, but maybe that’s cause I have some common sense.



[edit on 5/28/2007 by defcon5]

The 757s fuselage is exactly like a 737's only the fuselage is longer.

How on earth does it get explained then? As for reports of engines coming off, it can happen without use of explosives, but the only examples in the past have been at takeoff.

If excessive load is put on the engine pylons they are designed to shear off. A Boeing 757 hit another aircraft which sliced the 757's tail off. The sideload was so great that both engines flew off the airframe.

Nose diving it probably has the same results.

there are no pictures of a crash site. you(sensfan) have shown pictures that have no context. they prove nothing. they could have been photographed twenty miles from one another, for all we know.

let's focus on the ACTUAL footage of the tiny crater. there is no plane, there.

Really? I can see some of the metal skin from the fuse. I also see the core of the engines on the plane. If you want me to back it up that it was from the 757, I will.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by PisTonZOR]

No amount of techno-talk is going to change the screamingly obvious observation any rational person must make when reviewing tribaltrip's video link – no 757, 767 or 7-anything crashed at Shanksville. There is no need for detailed scientific analysis here. There is nothing to analyze, because there is nothing there (at Shanksville).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 5/28/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by tribaltrip
Well i was doing my daily research in the whole 911 thing as always,
and picked up on a very odd video on youtube.
I know, i know, youtube may not be the best for qaulity but i must say the video shows some good evidence that there was never any plane there,
just a big hole and what looks like paper all over.
Make your own judgements.
Video

Dear tribaltrip:

Your video is about the closest thing to a smoking gun we will ever find showing that there were no planes on 9-11.

Sure, truth deniers will say that there may not have been a crash at Shanksville but there still were those three flights into the Pentagon and the WTC’s. Or maybe not at the Pentagon either but definitively at the twin towers!! I don’t understand that kind of reasoning. If one story is clearly a lie – as your video link absolutely proves -- then shouldn’t this cast massive doubt on the other three events? Given all the outrageously suspect circumstances there as well, shouldn’t that be a no-brainer?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Well, with that logic...

If there were no planes, then clearly the video was edited, correct? In that case, why is it not possible that the video posted in this topic was edited too?