FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

Originally posted by jackinthebox



Show me.

Wadda ya wanna know? (apart from the fuel)

You know very well that research involved down this path would take far more than an email. So don't be disingenuous. It makes you look foolish.

More to the point, if it was so easy to get those answers, why don't we have that material already after all these years?

I am not being disingenuous sir. E-mailing people for answers will answer many questions. The VAST majority of other questions are easily found on the internet.

I never said I would be "intact" so kindly refrain from making baseless assumptions.

Then tell me what would be left of you after a plane hits your house while your in it.... at 5oo MPH exploding on impact?

you are the one that stated the weight of your remains would be the same.

reply to post by IvanZana


You have been to a disaster drill like the one at shanksville? Where? When ?

Can you back this up with evidence.

OOOOPssss Forgot... evidence is a dirty word to you Ivan.



[edit on 10-5-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Swamp, I've tangled with Ivan before....he is renowned (IMO) for the 'quote pull', hit and run approach to obfuscate and mis-direct....

You see...I write what I know. I never, ever intentionally take another's sentence out of context, and try to 'spin' it in order to support one of my points.

I know that most ATS members are too smart to fall for that kind of baloney.....but that's not why I don't do it, personally. Reason I don't 'pull' the sentence out of a posted quote is because of the disengenuity it could then convey....

Here on ATS, we sometimes get a 'ding' from a Mod, if we pull the full quote down, in order to respond....we see this all the time.

I've made this mistake many times....but hint!! as long as the new post is 'in reply' to someone gone before, just click on that blue link, and see what the previous person wrote....saves room, and puts it back into context.

Somewhere, someone suggested..."think before you post"....good advice.

WW

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Umm....two mangled hulks that used to be engines were recovered.....so which engine do you think was missing?

I could be wrong, but from what I understand, the official story does not account for a second engine and that they had hoped to find it in the lake.

Please show me the two engines. Even official documentation would be helpful.

reply to post by jackinthebox


I was unaware of the 2nd engine being found. I will look into it at well. But thing for a second...If the NWO ... Jews.... Bush... whomever.... You think if they were planting evidence they would forget something as important as a 2nd engine???

Oh... I am on my 2nd MArguritta.. (spell check) and I am the bartender.... this 1800 TaKillya is yummy... research may be hampered by the severity of my buzz.



[edit on 10-5-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

reply to post by ThroatYogurt

Wadda ya wanna know? (apart from the fuel)

I want to see the eighty percent of the plane that was recovered. (Not to mention an explanation of how eighty percent of the plane survived, without being apparent, while human remains were reduced to a mere few hundred pounds. Does it not stand to reason that even half of the human remains should have been recoverable if so much of the plane actually was?)

I want to see the documentation matching serial numbers on flight recorders to the manufacturer details for the plane.

I want to see the second engine that is claimed to have never been recovered.

All chain of custody documentation and interview information of all people responsible to maintain the integrity of the chain of custody.

And of course, the fuel really is a very big missing piece to this puzzle.

E-mailing people for answers will answer many questions.

Yes, it might answer a few, but as I said, I am not a professional 9/11 investigator. And you know as well as I do, that what I am talking about could not be answered with five-minute email. Your assertion is absurd.

The VAST majority of other questions are easily found on the internet.

I came to ATS looking for the answers. To this forum where a wide variety of people collaborate and post their findings. If you have proof of something, post it. But don't expect me to go on a wild goose chase to prove something that I do not believe. Could new evidence change my mind? Sure. I've been wrong before. Like when I swallowed the official story that we were spoon fed originally.

Then tell me what would be left of you after a plane hits your house while your in it.... at 5oo MPH exploding on impact?

you are the one that stated the weight of your remains would be the same.

And I stand by my statement. Well, within a few pounds anyway. But the bulk of me would still be there. Just like the mangled messes on the sidewalks at Ground Zero.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


Buuuuhhaaahaahhh!!!! TY, very funny.

Patron here (more expensive....)!!!



I don't have cites about engine debris being found.....but I assure you, at that velocity, an engine would likely disentegrate....

Remember, the strongest pieces in the engine 'core', as is constantly referred to on ATS sites, is the titanium ring where the blades are mounted. The titanium is used in the 'hot' section....I guess people are generically calling it the 'core' of the engine.

Why on Earth would the entire innards of the engine survive the impact intact?!? At the speed and forces they imply, it is ludicrous to think that an intact engine would be recovered from the impact zone.

Titanium is strong, and holds up well under high heat, so it's used in the hubs of the 'hot' sections of engines. The turbine blades, also titanium, are either mounted in the hub, as individual components, or in the case of the smaller 'stages' might be cast in one piece....trimmed and balanced, of course, before assmely on the concentric shafts.....

But, titanium is not indestructible....

See....a modern jet engine is composed of a multitude of parts. AND, since there are very few similar crash scenes to compare with UAL93, then trying to equate previous recovered 'engine cores' to UAL93 is not relevant.

WW

reply to post by ThroatYogurt

But thing for a second...If the NWO ... Jews.... Bush... whomever.... You think if they were planting evidence they would forget something as important as a 2nd engine???

Well, I won't go so far as to say that evidence was deliberately planted necessarily. Especially to begin with. It might very well have been a drill scene, staged to look realistic, and somehow and for whatever reason got dragged into all of this, perhaps even inadvertantly.

Then there is this to consider...


If 9/11 was a domestically complicit conspiracy, how did “they” mess it up so bad?

Oh... I am on my 2nd MArguritta.. (spell check) and I am the bartender.... this 1800 TaKillya is yummy... research may be hampered by the severity of my buzz.

Well, it's not like there's any rush at this point, so have one for me too.

reply to post by weedwhacker

See....a modern jet engine is composed of a multitude of parts. AND, since there are very few similar crash scenes to compare with UAL93, then trying to equate previous recovered 'engine cores' to UAL93 is not relevant.

Sure it is. If they recovered one, then why not the other?

And again I might be mistaken, but wasn't there a missing engine at the Pentagon too?

reply to post by jackinthebox


Yes, due to the sluggish ecconomy..the NWO / Bush administration could not afford 4 engines. Called cut backs JIB... Geeesh

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
nice pics... now all you have to do is provide evidence that this was done in shanksville..

Nice that you try to change subjects (again) after i prove my point that civilian planes can cary recon, ECM, or wepaons.

Well there is the statements of the lights flickering in the houses near the crash site and the military witnesses stating that their could have been a jammer used. All of which i have posted before.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt

Yes, due to the sluggish ecconomy..the NWO / Bush administration could not afford 4 engines. Called cut backs JIB... Geeesh

Wouldn't that be some #?! All this drama and it comes down to a failed delivery by some FedEx driver because no one paid the COD.

[edit on 5/10/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


so off-topic.....FedEx never deals in COD....you're revealing your age there, mate.

I guess the point of my post, about an engine disintegrating into thousands of pieces was overlooked.....

People, an engine will break apart. The landing struts will not. Might be twisted, and broken, but recognizable.

The jackscrews, that operate the flaps. There are dozens of components that can be referenced, just look it up. What you find is, 'naysayers' who want to deflect your research with red herrings...

It is encumbent on the 'truthers' to deny these parts don't exist....no, more so....to 'prove' beyond a reasonable doubt that these parts don't exist. AND, as a follow-through, to also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 'evidence' was planted.

So far....we get innuendo, and (I was going to say 'half-truths', but that gives them too much credit)....one/eighth truths...or less....sometimes, out-right lies, and misstatements, just to support a warped belief.

Sad, really....

It's similar (not trying to go into another thread....but I follow two of them closely) to the "Moon Conspiracy" nutjobs who exist.

(Hey, didn't call anyone HERE a 'nutjob'.....need to make that clear!)

I just suppose.....very personal musings, here....that some who are determined to find a hole in the 'official story' just need a windmill to tilt at, much as some of the younger generation, who grew up on 'Star Wars', don't understand the Space Program, and thus have imagined IT WAS all fake.....because it didn't look as Hollywood portrayed it....in Science Fiction movies/TV.

I think there is a parallel here.....

There could be a psycological dis-connect, when it comes to 9/11.....the horror is so terrible, some people just can't cope rationally.

There's a Doctoral Thesis in here, somewhere....please be sure to give me credit!!

Cheers!

WW

Remember, no plane crashed in Shanksville.




As you can see. No plane crashed in Shanksville on 911.

Shanksville was the site of the schedualed plane crash simulation drill exercise required by the FAA every year.

They messed up bigtime. We all know that it was part of the drills and that no plane crashed in shansksville because there is no proof that hasnt been fabricated or planted (part of the drills) that show that a fully fueled Boeing 757 crashed in the small 10x30 foot hole.

Thank you for reading.

IV

[edit on 11-5-2008 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It is encumbent on the 'truthers' to deny these parts don't exist....no, more so....to 'prove' beyond a reasonable doubt that these parts don't exist. AND, as a follow-through, to also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 'evidence' was planted.

PLease read the following statement that has beem made dozens ot times and cannot be debated.

THER ARE NO FBI OR NTSB REPORTS THAT MATCH THE PARTS FOUND TO ANY OF THE 9/11 PLANES.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Sir....

Do you have any reports from NASA that proves it was indeed the Space Shuttle Columbia that broke apart over Texas upon re-entry? Sure the parts appeared to be that of the Space Shuttle Columbia.... and sure there was 50 million spent on the invesigation... but how can we be sure it was Columbia?

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


why did they spend 50 million on that investigation, and only 20 million for the MYSTERIOUS collapses of THREE towers?

the government's arguments are WEAK and LAME.

following your argument, PROVE that it WAS the space shuttle that broke up. in all cases, we the people are expected to trust the government to be honest. this would actually be possible, if the government didn't stamp 'top secret' on EVERYTHING!

every single plane crash (all four, that is), is questionable.

rumsfeld said the terrorists used missiles on 9/11, and that the plane over shanksville was shot down.

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

 

rumsfeld said the terrorists used missiles on 9/11, and that the plane over shanksville was shot down.

On 911, Flight 93 or a cruise missile surrogate was planned for a simulated shoot down over Pennsylvania as part of the war games and or drill required by the FAA.

Remember? this is why no jets were scrambled, they all thought the 911 attacks were all part of the exercises.

Dont forget that the perps are responsible for the most idiotic conspiracies including the official myth.

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

 

why did they spend 50 million on that investigation, and only 20 million for the MYSTERIOUS collapses of THREE towers?

The mystery is to only a few that are in the so called truth movement.

following your argument, PROVE that it WAS the space shuttle that broke up. in all cases, we the people are expected to trust the government to be honest. this would actually be possible, if the government didn't stamp 'top secret' on EVERYTHING!

that was kind of the point i was trying to make to Ultima. You question the events of Shanksville. Has he questioned the Space Shuttle Columbia?
Any other plane crashes where the invesitagations were not made public?

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


hundreds of engineers and physicists disagree.
the collapses, especially tower seven, are definitely a mystery.
even the NIST ADMITS that their investigation is mostly a guess, and they barely scratched the surface regarding observed phenomena. some features were COMPLETELY ignored.

however, you seem to be one of the people who will believe anything if it's a government agency providing the information.
the government lies. constantly.
enjoy.

shanksville's debris field was 8 miles long.