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: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

It didn't atomize, most of the aircraft was recovered and is stored at Iron Mountain. But what exactly should happen when an aircraft hits the ground in a nose dive, at high speed? There's not going to be much left that's recognizable.




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Geez - don't you people know anything.....

The plane is supposed to be sitting on the ground with its nose bent

Just like Wily Coyote in the Road Runner cartoons

Which is where is most of the truthers get their information......



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

It didn't atomize, most of the aircraft was recovered and is stored at Iron Mountain. But what exactly should happen when an aircraft hits the ground in a nose dive, at high speed? There's not going to be much left that's recognizable.


most of the aircraft was recovered? this is news to me.

I've had a hard time pulling up that information. where have you read this?



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

When it smacks into the ground nose first. As the plane pushes nose first, it's just going to compact the ground and push into layers of growing density.

Passat, it's a secret. Top soil is compactable, with the lower layers dense enough to support building foundations. Especially if the ground is rocky or holds large deposits of clay. Maybe it's composed of both rocks and clay.

Psst, another secret. Sand is almost self compacting and is very dense. I heard sand can stop bullets and shrapnel when used in sand bags.


Point is. The ground is hard. It's going to fragment the plane if the plane strikes at an angle that doesn't allow for the crashing plane to glance off into another direction.

Also, large parts of planes have the ability to burn up if the crash results in a fire and allowed to burn uncontrolled.

If you were as critical of the movement and spent as much time questioning the snake oil salespersons like Richard Gage, Steve Jones, and Dr Wood, you would be closer to the truth. 911 conspiracies, they are like a religion.




flight 93 did not "atomize." where did you get this information from?

i have never mentioned any of the people you're connecting me to in my posts.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

There were multiple news articles at the time. There were differing accounts as to how much, but it was quite a bit of the aircraft. They took 10 construction bins to Iron Mountain and placed them into storage, filled with wreckage.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Please tell us what the Shanksville crash site should look. Typical conspiracist. Will not answer a simple and direct question. Like the truth will interfere with their religious like belief.

Nice to ignore the statement planes can be destroyed by uncontrolled fires.

I just posted a vedio showing the devastating effects of an aircraft hitting a solid object head on at high speed. Also stated large portions of planes can be totally destroyed in the event of an controlled fire.

Planes hitting soild objects head on at high speed tend to atomize.


And you are right, the amount of atomization depends on tbe density, angle, and size of the object the plane hits.

BUT, there is nothing unusual about the Shanksville crash site. That is the point. Are you saying the earth is not soild? How big should the fragments of airplane be? Sorry. Simple physics.

Concrete can be up to 150 pound per cubic foot. Sand can be up to 130 pounds pet cubic foot.

There is nothing unusual about the Shanksville crash site. Sorry if this interferes with your pseudoscience.

So to continue, you need to prove:

That aircraft traveling at 500 mph do not tend to atomize when hitting a soild object head on. The earth is massive, dense, and solid.

What the Shanksville's crash site should look like.

What the average size of the crash fragments should be.

Bottom line, I made a point. There was nothing unusual about the plane totally fracturing into small and almost unrecognizable wreckage at Shanksville.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

I've been at a crash scene - Lear 35 hitting ground at 80 deg angle/ 350 mph

Only recognizable piece was 2 x 3 ft section from tail rudder

Rest was "metallic confetti" scattered about

Did find a light from landing gear 75 yards away after hitting parked car - Now try explaining that to insurance
company.....



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Back in the 70s or early 80s an A-6 went in almost straight down, and was near mach 1 at impact. They found the engines compressed to roughly 3 feet long, six feet underground. Those were about the biggest pieces found.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Not trying to one up anyone. Just hate for this example of a plane hitting an immovable object at high speed to be lost in the comments.

Especially when it aggravates conspiracists searching for the truth while stuck on false narratives.

Others persons have posted the video during 9/11 Pentagon debating with great impact.

Thanks to the person / persons that original included the F-4 crash test footage in threads.

F4 Phantom Jet Hits Concrete Wall at 500 MPH - YouTube
YouTube app - 8 years ago

youtu.be...

edit on 27-10-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: FlyingFox

It would appear this was one of those planes like hit the pentagon.

You remember that don't you?

The wings just folded back as they and the engines disappeared through a little hole.


No it didn't the picture of the hole you refer to was NOT the impact it was caused by debris from the plane


Have you seen this picture.




posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   
The official dimensions of the small crater by Rollock scap yard was no more than 15ft diameter and only ten feet deep. Much too small to have been caused by a commercial airliner.

Eyewitnesses claimed to have seen something no larger than a van flying low before it inverted and aimed for the ground.

There are photos of plane parts but they were released 6 years later and hold no credibility.

No large airliner crashed in shanksvilla on 911



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

Please tell us what the Shanksville crash site should look. Typical conspiracist. Will not answer a simple and direct question. Like the truth will interfere with their religious like belief.

Nice to ignore the statement planes can be destroyed by uncontrolled fires.

I just posted a vedio showing the devastating effects of an aircraft hitting a solid object head on at high speed. Also stated large portions of planes can be totally destroyed in the event of an controlled fire.

Planes hitting soild objects head on at high speed tend to atomize.


And you are right, the amount of atomization depends on tbe density, angle, and size of the object the plane hits.

BUT, there is nothing unusual about the Shanksville crash site. That is the point. Are you saying the earth is not soild? How big should the fragments of airplane be? Sorry. Simple physics.

Concrete can be up to 150 pound per cubic foot. Sand can be up to 130 pounds pet cubic foot.

There is nothing unusual about the Shanksville crash site. Sorry if this interferes with your pseudoscience.

So to continue, you need to prove:

That aircraft traveling at 500 mph do not tend to atomize when hitting a soild object head on. The earth is massive, dense, and solid.

What the Shanksville's crash site should look like.

What the average size of the crash fragments should be.

Bottom line, I made a point. There was nothing unusual about the plane totally fracturing into small and almost unrecognizable wreckage at Shanksville.


so I tell you "the plane did not atomize," which is true, and you call me a 'typical conspiracist' and a 'pseudoscientist.' lol, seriously? you must be a riot to have in-person disagreements with. how long do you typically go before putting a label on someone you don't know just because they don't agree with you?

the plane did not atomize. this much is true.

what *should* it look like? I'm not an aviation expert, let alone one that has first hand experience with crash sites.

I don't know what the crash should have looked like, aside from knowing that it definitely would not look like something "atomized."

judging from other plane crashes throughout history, planes typically leave a noticeable trace of their wreckage.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Planes leave noticeable wreckage when they hit flat, at relatively low speed. Planes that hit almost vertically, at high speed, don't.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The front section bounced in to the bush says fbi and the coroner. No atomization. Engine found in pond so they say and don't forget they found hijackers passport, headband and box cutter in almost perfect condition.

The crater is around 15 feet wide and there are no wing impacts. Just a small oblong crater.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
What is a jet supposed to do when hitting the ground at high speed. I think the term used is ATOMIZES?

Seen other people post this test footage to prove a point here at ATS.

0:54
F4 Phantom Jet Hits Concrete Wall at 500 MPH
YouTube - Aug 4, 2008

youtu.be...

Please tell me what is unusual about the Shanksville crash site.

Especially when it's been pointed out at ATS planes tend to atomize when hitting solid objects at high speed.


That video was helpful. Thanks!



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: AsherLewin11

The only time planes even look like they're atomizing is when they hit a hard object, like the concrete wall in that video. There's always something recognizable left, just in crashes of this type not large pieces of wreckage that people are used to seeing. Sometimes that recognizable piece is nothing but a flap or wheel, but something is left.

In the case of the Flight 93 engine, before it hit, it was reported that they were rolling from side to side. Engines aren't designed to handle that kind of stress, and tend to separate when it happens long enough.
edit on 11/1/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Your doing it again. Using innuendo as evidence.

Going to give us insight on how the crash site should look?

Its not a matter if wreckage is at the site. Its a matter what condition the wreckage is in. Its a matter if the plane hits head on or skids. The speed of the plane during the crash.

How many airplanes hit straight into the ground?

Still ignoring large parts of planes can be utterly destroy during uncontrolled fires.

Its physics! Planes hitting solid objects head on at high speeds tends to result in wreckage that is totally fragmented and deformed. The majority of the individual parts of the plane are fragmented into bits and dust that makes them amost impossible or impossible to identify.

Is this a false statement?

How would this not apply flight 93?

Was there fire damage?

What parts should we see? Especially in a wide angle photo of a crash site. When was the picture taken anyway? After they started clearing wreckage from the crater?

Why do conspiracy theories rely on pictures taken out of context and with no proof when the photo was taken?

Why do conspiracy theories try to imply the wreckage would tend to be whole when its proven planes hitting solid ojects head on at high speed tend to atomize.

We can substitute atomize with bits and dust if it's less intimidating?



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Everyone fails at trying to explain where the wings went since none hit the ground. What the ignorant claim are wing scars is really an weathered drainage ditch since the soil was loose and soft not hard like the liars like to say.


I recommend go ogling and research these things. Some Web sites frown upon the facts.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: AsherLewin11

The wings are hollow shells, even more fragile than the fuselage. There are places along them where, if you step, you can put your foot through the skin. The spar is the strongest portion of the wing, and it doesn't run the length of the wing.

Like the engine struts, the wings are designed to take stress in very specific ways. Put stress on them in different ways and they fail. A vertical impact is one of those ways they will fail.
edit on 11/1/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: AsherLewin11
a reply to: neutronflux

Everyone fails at trying to explain where the wings went since none hit the ground. What the ignorant claim are wing scars is really an weathered drainage ditch since the soil was loose and soft not hard like the liars like to say.


I recommend go ogling and research these things. Some Web sites frown upon the facts.



Prove the wings, being light and less massive, did not have the tendency to pull / fold against the fuselage as the wing sections pushed into the crater started by the nose? Especially, when the air speed and force was already pushing against the wings.

The wings still traveling at 500 mph plus would have turned to bits as pointed out.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join