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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Shanksville pics..?

page: 10
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue




Fuel is atomized and disbursed, burns very quickly


And yet it reached a high enough temperature and hung around long enough to melt steel in the Towers...wow...hahahahaha




posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ShadowChatter




then there are the times when it travels 80 floors down an elevator shafts and blows up a lobby...


Rather unusual for jet fuel to behave so inconsistently? With those sort of unreliable combustion properties you'd think they wouldn't be using it to power planes in the first place.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


There was no melted steel at the WTC. However, at 1200 degrees Fahrenheit, it loses 60 percent of its ability to resist strain / load.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AsherLewin11

Where do you get the crater was only 15 wide?

How big was the wreckage field.

How far down did they dig to recover wreckage.

Why would there be separate scars for wings if it hit nose and right wing first.

Where in the officials accounts was the drainage ditches ever confused being made from the wings.

Are you saying no wreckage was not recovered from the ditches.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: AsherLewin11

How did something other than a passenger jet leave the right amount and type of engines, pieces of seats, have the passenger's DNA, and identifiable fragments of fuselage?
edit on 5-11-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
From flight 93 Memorial Park, Questions and Answers.




9. How big was the crash site and what did the wreckage look like?

The first responders described the crater as about 15 feet deep and about 30 feet across. It was irregularly shaped. The wreckage around and inside the crater consisted of largely unrecognizable pieces of twisted metal, pieces of the landing gear of the plane, a tire, the frames of some of the seats, bits of charred paper, and remnants of luggage and clothing. Most of the pieces of wreckage were quite small, the size of a notebook or smaller. Many more pieces of wreckage, also quite small, were recovered during the investigation when the crater was excavated. Extensive searches through the wooded area south of the crash site, and even arborists in the tree tops found more debris from the crash. A pond about 900 feet southwest of the crater was partially drained to recover debris. Debris was collected from the yards of nearby homes, farmer's fields, and from around a nearby residential lake. The largest and heaviest pieces recovered were parts of the plane's two engines and a piece of fuselage with several window openings. This fuselage piece measured about six feet by seven feet and was found near the woods south of the crater. Lightweight paper items were found as far away as New Baltimore, eight miles away.

10. Did they find the plane's black boxes here?

Yes. Both of the plane's recorders, the so-called "black boxes" (which actually are orange), were found in the crash site crater. The flight data recorder was recovered on Thursday, September 13 at 4:20 pm at a depth of 15 feet. On September 14, at 8:30 pm, the cockpit voice recorder was found at a depth of 25 feet. Both were turned over to the National Transportation Safety Board for analysis. (None of the black boxes from Flight 11 and Flight 175 were recovered in the rubble of the World Trade Center. At the Pentagon, only the Flight Data Recorder from Flight 77 yielded information.)




posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: firerescue




Fuel is atomized and disbursed, burns very quickly


And yet it reached a high enough temperature and hung around long enough to melt steel in the Towers...wow...hahahahaha


Besides your straw man, who is claiming steel melted?



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

All the a accounts I find of Frank Monaco are related to recovering the wreckage of a passenger jet. Another example of using quotes of a person out of context that knows the crash site was caused by flight 93.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   



truthmovecom.blogspot.com...

TITLE: Flight 93: Police Chief tells Local Audience about Horrors of 9-11 Crash

Frank Monaco was the commander of state police Troop A at Greensburg, and the coordinator of the state's 400-man crash site team, when Flight 93 went down


by Zack Pettit
Charleston Daily Mail
May 8, 2008

The plane had hit the ground at about 600 mph at about an 80-degree angle, he said.

The earth was so soft at the point of impact, about 90 percent of the plane was underground, making the recovery of essential evidence more difficult, he said.

He said every piece of wreckage, whether it was a piece of paper or a body part, was crucial to the investigation because of how much evidence was burned up and lost in the World Trade Center attack earlier.

"It was the busiest day in Pennsylvania State Police history," Monaco said to a room of about 50 various emergency personnel. "We had flight manuals in Arabic, duct taped hands, fingers, toes ... bits of paper everywhere."




posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Funny stuff no one believes in retrospect it is more silly then when first released. Feel sorry for resident official story defenders have to defend such ridiculous information and theories

Point is a boeing 757 could not have crashed in shanksville due to the very small crater 15-25 feet when the planes fuselage alone is 14 feet and the wings are 124. No evidence of wing impacts or fuel fire and considering the ground was soft and the grass was dry flight 93 did not crash in shanksville on 911
edit on 5-11-2016 by AsherLewin11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AsherLewin11

There is no proof Frank Monaco ever question flight 93 crashed at the site.

Because of the false narratives of conspiraciest, I never realized the jet literally hit nose and right wing first. The ground was soft enough where the fractured jet and wreckage pushed into the ground. This minimized the size of the crater.

Why should I believe the movement when they quote persons out of context. Conspiraciest do not understand the devastating and total destruction of a high speed jet crash. The movement tries to dismiss the fact flight 93 hit at an angle that drove the jet into the ground with no hope of deflecting into another direction. There are numerous accounts of extensive fires at the site. When conspiraciest never give the date and context of photographs. There is at least one conspiracy theory claiming physical wing scars left at the site prove their false narrative of flight 93 not crashing. When the movement states the size of the crater as it suits them and ignores the depth the wreckage pushed into the soft ground. Never explains how something other than flight 93 left the right type and correct number of engines. How the extensive debris field and buried wreckage ended up at the crash site. How the black box recorders ended up 15 and 25 feet in the ground. How DNA in the form of remains ended up at the crash site. How the movement fails to explain if flight 93 didn't crash, why this was not detected by radar tracking, Flight 93 was visually identified by other flights when transponder signal was lost, where flight 93 went to, where the passengers and crew went, and why their families mourned their desths.

edit on 5-11-2016 by neutronflux because: Added fact about transponder.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight




And yet it reached a high enough temperature and hung around long enough to melt steel in the Towers...wow...hahahahaha


Wasn't the fuel it was the contents of the building, much of it being made of plastics which burn with 50-100 % more
energy than organics (wood, paper, cloth)

Fuel acted as lighter to ignite the rest of flammable materials ......



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
They mixed it up with flight 1989. Either way the crater in shanksville was not created by a boeing 757 as a 124 foot plane cannot leave a crater only 15-25 feet long and 10 feet deep considering the alleged craft was claimed to be going over 500mph at only a 40 degree angle. No evidence if wings or the massive tail section ever hitting the ground. This was soft fill dirt with unbroken unburnt dry grass.

TELL your friends flight 93 didn't crash in shanksville on 9/11
edit on 5-11-2016 by AsherLewin11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-11-2016 by AsherLewin11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight




And yet it reached a high enough temperature and hung around long enough to melt steel in the Towers...wow...hahahahaha


Wasn't the fuel it was the contents of the building, much of it being made of plastics which burn with 50-100 % more
energy than organics (wood, paper, cloth)

Fuel acted as lighter to ignite the rest of flammable materials ......


And yet SOMEHOW there was paper flying everywhere around the twin towers while metal file cabinets vaporized.

I'm pretty sure I've asked you this before, but of the thousands of file cabinets ( 20,000 being a modest guess ) how many were recovered? How many fragments? Even a handle perhaps?



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: AsherLewin11
They mixed it up with flight 1989. Either way the crater in shanksville was not created by a boeing 757 as a 124 foot plane cannot leave a crater only 15-25 feet long and 10 feet deep considering the alleged craft was claimed to be going over 500mph at only a 40 degree angle. No evidence if wings or the massive tail section ever hitting the ground. This was soft fill dirt with unbroken unburnt dry grass.

TELL your friends flight 93 didn't crash in shanksville on 9/11



Because you don't understand high speed crashes and the soil composition, all you have is you don't like the shape of the crater?

So sad you don't try to understand ever crash has its abnormalities, understand the specifics to flight 93, do not research the actual evidence, are blinded by the need for the USA government to be in control of everything, ignoring the overwhelming evidence of visual verification, radar tracking, and physical evidence at the crash site.

Even more saddening, you have no narrative supported by any evidence to supersede what you label a lie. False movement narratives using 9/11 for personal gain, personal fame, book sales, and YouTube likes.



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: RKWWWW


You must be quite young. Melted steel was all over the papers in late 2001. Reports from firemen, steam rising from the depths, hot spots visible from satellites overhead.



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: AsherLewin11
a reply to: neutronflux

Funny stuff no one believes in retrospect it is more silly then when first released. Feel sorry for resident official story defenders have to defend such ridiculous information and theories

Point is a boeing 757 could not have crashed in shanksville due to the very small crater 15-25 feet when the planes fuselage alone is 14 feet and the wings are 124. No evidence of wing impacts or fuel fire and considering the ground was soft and the grass was dry flight 93 did not crash in shanksville on 911


Not only that, but the ACARS data showed the airplane used as Flight 93 that day was still airborne somewhere in Illinois, 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed in that field in PA.

A magnificent deception.



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
'It is easier to fool a man than it is to convince him he has been fooled'



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642
'It is easier to fool a man than it is to convince him he has been fooled'



No truer words have ever been spoken



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: RKWWWW


You must be quite young. Melted steel was all over the papers in late 2001. Reports from firemen, steam rising from the depths, hot spots visible from satellites overhead.



True, I wasn't even born then, but since neither of us were at any of the events of 9/11, and we are relying on data and documents, it doesn't matter. I'm aware of the rank speculation about molten steel from firemen, however I'm not aware of that it was tested and confirmed as steel. Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you can link to a source for those tests. Like the saying goes: if you have the data, let's talk about the data. If we are going with opinion, let's use mine.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join