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: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: AsherLewin11

Fifteen feet is narrower than a plane with an eleven and a half foot cabin diameter? Since when? A 757 fuselage diameter is only about 14 feet.




posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Both were recovered. One separated prior to impact, probably because of them rolling the aircraft. The other was found crushed at the crash site.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Hey....the video......showed no debris except the drone leftovers at Shanks......then some was evidently trucked in.....use all your God given good sense to logic this out better, the [snipped] logic is quite transparant and extremely weak.....let's talk about the puffball smoke at Shanks....twas a cute little puff....not a heavy smoke.....as with a thick film fuel.....see how the logic tells the story...

chopper footage and live on the video comment at the pent is more damning even....I'm not just a pilot, I'm Air Force so for the shill to have a chance better ramp up the lies and tag team mis-information....
edit on 2-11-2016 by GBP/JPY because: our new King.....He comes right after a nicely done fake one

edit on 2-11-2016 by GBP/JPY because: last minute thought there....yezz

edit on 2-11-2016 by GBP/JPY because: like those boys coming south out of Tinker

edit on Wed Nov 2 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AsherLewin11

Fifteen feet is narrower than a plane with an eleven and a half foot cabin diameter? Since when? A 757 fuselage diameter is only about 14 feet.


Obvious common physics eludes you

So by your [snip] position you are claiming a fuselage with a 14 foot diameter leaves a small 15 foot diameter hole from a extreme speed and trajectory crash. Very [snip] position to imagine people would buy it his. Also there were no wing impacts.
Wing scars were a knee jerk fabrication promoted by the pod people disinformation campaign

Something exploded or crashed there but it was not flight 93
edit on 2/11/16 by masqua because: Edited out uncivil comments



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

edit on 11/2/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY

Here have a read


Lt. Kevin Schaeffer from the Navy Command Center recalled that "on a service road that circled the Pentagon between the B and C rings, a chunk of the 757's nose cone and front landing gear lay on the pavement a few feet away, resting against the B Ring wall."


Or how about this


"The nose of the plane just barely jutted out into A/E Drive (the street that runs around the inside of the building). It made a perfectly round, 5-foot hole in the wall. There was one set of landing gear (presumably from the nose) out in A/E Drive. But most of the plane's skin was in pieces not much bigger than a piece of notebook paper."


Or this


"I thought it was a terrorist bomb. . . .But then I saw the landing gear. It was on the ground in the alley between the B and C rings. When I saw it there, not only did I realize an airplane had struck the Pentagon but it was clear that the plane had come through the E, D, and C buildings to get there." (Paul K. Carlton, Jr., U.S. Air Force surgeon general,


Want some pictures as well just let me know



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: AsherLewin11

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AsherLewin11

Fifteen feet is narrower than a plane with an eleven and a half foot cabin diameter? Since when? A 757 fuselage diameter is only about 14 feet.


Obvious common physics eludes you

So by your ignorant position you are claiming a fuselage with a 14 foot diameter leaves a small 15 foot diameter hole from a extreme speed and trajectory crash. Very silly position to imagine people would buy it his. Also there were no wing impacts.
Wing scars were a knee jerk fabrication promoted by the pod people disinformation campaign

Something exploded or crashed there but it was not flight 93


Something crashed there and left 1,500 pieces of human remains totaling about 600 pounds, that contained the DNA of every passenger on Flight 93. Something crashed there and left the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder from Flight 93. Something crashed there that was identified by eye witnesses as an airplane.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: RKWWWW

Thee evidence was planted by crashing a passenger plane? Sarcasm by the way...



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AsherLewin11

Again, prove the wings, already stressed by high speed, didn't tend to fold towards the fuselage as the wing sections entered the crater started by the nose.

There was a fireball at the crash.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Wouldn't the wings fold forward on impact?



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

If the right wing and nose hit first, then the fuselage would push in to the crater, and then the left wing would push into the fuselage.

The plane did not stike perpendicular to the ground where nose and wing surfaces would hit fresh dirt.

Seems the plane hit right side and then the left side following it into the already disturbed ground. Thus, no wing indentations. Just one big crater.

Didn't think to look for a simulation.....


Flight 93 simulation
m.youtube.com...#



www.nps.gov...

Flight 93 struck the ground at a 40 degree angle almost upside down, hitting right wing and nose first, at a speed of between 563-580 miles per hour

The first responders described the crater as about 15 feet deep and about 30 feet across. It was irregularly shaped.




Just the whole context of above quotes.



www.nps.gov...

8. Where did Flight 93 crash? The plane crashed in an open field next to a wooded area in Stonycreek Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania at 10:03:11 am. The nearest town is Shanksville. Flight 93 struck the ground at a 40 degree angle almost upside down, hitting right wing and nose first, at a speed of between 563-580 miles per hour. It was carrying approximately 7,000 gallons of Jet A fuel at impact.

Had the plane maintained its speed and flight path, rather than crashing in Stonycreek Township, it would have arrived in Washington D.C. in 18-20 minutes. The nation's capital is about 125 air miles from the Flight 93 crash site.

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.


edit on 2-11-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Good I have managed to get debunked to shift their position on the images they once used to claim were wing scars or dents are now officially proven to have been there prior to 911.

Eyewitnesses claim to have seen something no larger than a van hit the ground.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Good I have managed to get debunked to shift their position on the images they once used to claim were wing scars or dents are now officially proven to have been there prior to 911.

Eyewitnesses claim to have seen something no larger than a van hit the ground.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: AsherLewin11
Good I have managed to get debunked to shift their position on the images they once used to claim were wing scars or dents are now officially proven to have been there prior to 911.

Eyewitnesses claim to have seen something no larger than a van hit the ground.




Show where the offical stance claimed the wings made their own separate craters.

Prove a majority of persons ever used wing scars in there debunking.

Where did I ever claim the preexisting drainage ditches were wing scars

The only reference was when I pointed out a truth movement person claimed engine craters were to closely spaced along wing scars.

Who is using false narratives that publishes bad data?

What Eyewitness are you talking about?
edit on 3-11-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-11-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-11-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AsherLewin11
Good I have managed to get debunked to shift their position on the images they once used to claim were wing scars or dents are now officially proven to have been there prior to 911.

Eyewitnesses claim to have seen something no larger than a van hit the ground.




Show where the offical stance claimed the wings made their own separate craters.

Prove a majority of persons ever used wing scars in there debunking.

Where did I ever claim the preexisting drainage ditches were wing scars

The only reference was when I pointed out a truth movement person claimed engine craters were to closely spaced along wing scars.

Who is using false narratives that publishes bad data?

What Eyewitness are you talking about?
give me time and I can show thousands of examples, diagrams and quotes from this site and every other debunker discussion pit claiming the wings hit the ground left dents, wing and fuel atomized. ENdless discussions here on ats from debunkers measuring the wing scars, and matching the scars with a plane overlay even pointing out where the vertical stabilizer hit which is part of the drainage ditch too.
.
So you see flight 93 didn't crash in shanksville

a crater 10 feet deep and 15 feet across in soft back fill soil is too small for the trajectory, speed, and of course size of a large Boeing.

Let's not forget that aside from the tiny crater there was no fuel fire-, fuel, or wings consistent with a large airliner as you can see:the dry long grass is not been broken or burnt.

edit on 3-11-2016 by AsherLewin11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: AsherLewin11

I will pass on the "thousands of examples, diagrams and quotes from this site and every other debunker discussion pit", and would settle for the sources that would support your "Eyewitnesses claim to have seen something no larger than a van hit the ground" statement.
edit on 3-11-2016 by RKWWWW because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FlyingFox

Once again, it didn't atomize. The wreckage buried itself.


You mean like a flounder buries itself on the ocean floor? LOL



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Basic physics, as speed increases, so does mass, and as you approach the speed of light, your shape appears to "elongate" making it narrower, then when it hits something the "rubber band effect" snaps and everything is turned to greasy dust.

Proof:

edit on 3 by AshFan because: add facts



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: AsherLewin11

give me time and I can show thousands of examples, diagrams and quotes from this site and every other debunker discussion pit claiming the wings hit the ground left dents, wing and fuel atomized. ENdless discussions here on ats from debunkers measuring the wing scars, and matching the scars with a plane overlay even pointing out where the vertical stabilizer hit which is part of the drainage ditch too.
.


I am not saying the drainage ditches were not preexisting, but prove they didn't recover wreckage from the ditches. Like from the lake, and trees, and wreckage buried in the ground.

When was it ever part of the official account the drainage tranches were cause by the wings and investigating officals were confused by the drainage ditches.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: AsherLewin11

And please quote an offical source on the crater only being 15 foot wide?

And how deep did they did into the ground to recover buried wreckage?




top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join