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.

 

Hoodwinked at Shanksville: Fairy Tail

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
What caused this faint "vert tail-like" impression in the grass skeptics?



Seems like you guys agree that there is no way it could have been caused by Flight 93's tail section slamming down on it at 580mph and shattering into millions of pieces so small you can't see them.

So that leaves you with quite a dilemma:

1. What caused that "vert tail-like" impression in the grass that's shaped like a 757's tail?

2. Where is the marks Flight 93's tail section left if it hit that soft patch of ground so hard that it was essentially obliterated by the soft ground?




posted on May, 16 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
So do the skeptics concede they can't debunk "Fairy Tail"?



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by im_being_censored
What caused this faint "vert tail-like" impression in the grass skeptics?



Seems like you guys agree that there is no way it could have been caused by Flight 93's tail section slamming down on it at 580mph and shattering into millions of pieces so small you can't see them.

So that leaves you with quite a dilemma:

1. What caused that "vert tail-like" impression in the grass that's shaped like a 757's tail?

2. Where is the marks Flight 93's tail section left if it hit that soft patch of ground so hard that it was essentially obliterated by the soft ground?


The wing scars arent caused by wings. The scar was there pre-911. The verticle tail scar is not even that, it too was present pre911.

Sooooo, in conclusion..... something made a bomb crater in a pre-exsisting earthworks scar.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana- The wing scars arent caused by wings. The scar was there pre-911.

- The verticle tail scar is not even that, it too was present pre911.

- Sooooo, in conclusion..... something made a bomb crater in a pre-exsisting earthworks scar.

- I agree, but it wasn't the '94 scar. It was a newly formed one pre-911.

- I believe it was made after the "crash."

- I essentially agree with you on that.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Here's a simple test: if you threw 130 tons of metal at the ground at 500 MPH, would you realistically expect the earth to swallow it up?

No.

Why? Just look at the Moon for examples of what happens when high velocity objects hit a surface. The same would happen to that jet, only on a smaller scale. The tail would be quite obvious, even though the speed suggests it would not be.

It sounds unbelievable that the earth ate the aircraft whole that day, therefore it didn't happen.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Very well put MoD.

I just wonder why truthers aren't pushing the tail impression oddity more since the skeptics haven't been able to debunk it. Don't they want to solve 9/11, or just try to win arguments?



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

Sooooo, in conclusion..... something made a bomb crater in a pre-exsisting earthworks scar.


Where's the burned grass from the bomb going off?

No burned grass = no bomb or any other explosive device. It is irrefutable proof that there was NO BOMB used to make that crater.

You cannot refute this or explain why the grass isn't burned.

Just give up now, the fairy tale stories about bombs being used are thoroughly debunked now.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Where's the burned grass from the bomb going off?

No burned grass = no bomb or any other explosive device.

Just give up now, the fairy tale stories about bombs being used are thoroughly debunked now.

OK, so we got 757's loaded with fuel and bombs being impossible to cause the Shanks crater.

I'm cool with that. Do you support an investigation now Seymour?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by IvanZana

Sooooo, in conclusion..... something made a bomb crater in a pre-exsisting earthworks scar.


Where's the burned grass from the bomb going off?

No burned grass = no bomb or any other explosive device. It is irrefutable proof that there was NO BOMB used to make that crater.

You cannot refute this or explain why the grass isn't burned.

Just give up now, the fairy tale stories about bombs being used are thoroughly debunked now.





You just officialy destroyed the official story. Welcome aboard.


No grass burnt, no plane parts, no landing gear, no nothing to resemble that a plane has crashed there. = No plane crash in shanskville.



The theory that flight 93 crashed in shanskville has been debunked for years now. There is no evidence that says that a fully fueled comercial airliner went down in Shanksville on 911.

To a couple of new viewers out there, realize there are government workers who are paid to lie and obsefucate the truth such as the 2 or 3 debunkers who have failed to uphold the official story here at ats.

No plane crashed in Shanksville. No flight 93, spread the word.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

The theory that flight 93 crashed in shanskville has been debunked for years now. There is no evidence that says that a fully fueled comercial airliner went down in Shanksville on 911.

To a couple of new viewers out there, realize there are government workers who are paid to lie and obsefucate the truth such as the 2 or 3 debunkers who have failed to uphold the official story here at ats.



No, I just debunked that there was a bomb used.

BTW, where is the earth that would have been thrown out of the crater? No earth = no bomb. There's another point of proof that NO BOMB was used in Shanksville.

No bomb = FL 93 made that hole.

Also, viewers should be aware that there are govt workers hired to make ridiculous claims about no planes, and that bombs were used. They are paid to make claims that are easily debunked to discredit the truther community, so that the more serious investigooglers aren't taken seriously here on ATS.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by im_being_censored

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Where's the burned grass from the bomb going off?

No burned grass = no bomb or any other explosive device.

Just give up now, the fairy tale stories about bombs being used are thoroughly debunked now.

OK, so we got 757's loaded with fuel and bombs being impossible to cause the Shanks crater.

I'm cool with that. Do you support an investigation now Seymour?


Good point... Starred....

"No burned grass = plane crash" - Seymore buttz

Lie down before your hurt yourself seymore, Captain


[edit on 13-6-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

"No burned grass = plane crash" - Seymore buttz



Oh, there's plenty of burned grass, and plane parts if you know where to look. Don't you know where that would be?

BTW, where's all the dirt that would have been thrown 10's of meters out of the hole by a bomb? Or are you avoiding that very obvious hole in your hypothesis?

No thrown dirt = NO BOMB in Shanksville.

Burned grass and plane parts = FL 93 crashed is Shanksville.

The govt workers are working hard to make truthers look bad in this thread.

Congratulations Ivan, you're doing great.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by IvanZana

"No burned grass = plane crash" - Seymore buttz





BTW, where's all the dirt that would have been thrown 10's of meters out of the hole by a bomb? Or are you avoiding that very obvious hole in your hypothesis?


Wheres all the dirt that would of been thrown 100's of meters out of the hole by a Beoing 757 nose diving at a 48 degreee angle into soft dirt?

The quality of your responses have degraded immensly recently leaving you with the crediblilty commited psychopath whilst destroying the official story.

Are you drunk?



No thrown dirt = NO BOMB in Shanksville.


No thrown dirt = NO PLANE IN SHANKSVILLE

Get your head together man.. How stupid do you think ATS'rs are?


Burned grass and plane parts = FL 93 crashed is Shanksville.


But wait you just said there was no burnt grass.

You should lay down for today.




Congratulations Ivan, you're doing great.




Thank you




Rememeber no Plane crashed in Shanksville on 911. Flight 93, boeing 757, did not crash. It was cruise missile as part of the wargame exercises.



[edit on 13-6-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I grew up about 500 yards from the area that was the sight of a major commercial plane crash a year or two before I was born. Without giving too many details (because as far as I know, this crash was pretty unique and would tell you instantly the general area where I grew up), this plane went almost straight down into a field, just as the Shanksville plane is said to have done.

I saw pictures taken by someone who lived in the area. Additionally, my uncle ran a bulldozer to take down about 20 or 30 trees in the area, and was a first-hand witness to the aftermath. He and I spoke about it several times.

When it happened, there wasn't a "few" body parts. There were THOUSANDS of pieces of bodies scattered all over. There were feet, hands, arms, legs, heads, torsos still strapped in their seats (missing all their extremities), luggage, wallets, purses, rings, jewelry, personal effects, etc. I SAW THE PICTURES WITH MY OWN EYES. My uncle had to bulldoze those trees down because of the sheer mass of human body parts in them.

To this day, if you walk that field, you will still find pieces of aluminum from the airplane. My cousin found a part of a jawbone once with some teeth in it. Other kids said it was some animal jawbone, but when my mom took a toothbrush, and cleaned it up, several of the teeth had fillings.

When the news showed pictures of Shanksville, and there weren't body parts and personal effects EVERYWHERE, I knew that something was fishy with the official story.

Now, this is fact: The BBC first reported that the plane was shot down. Whether they knew what they were talking about, or were making stuff up, is up for debate, but that *IS* what they first reported.

There is speculation that the plane was headed towards the Capitol building, and it was shot down AGAINST ORDERS TO LEAVE IT ALONE. This story, though unverified, matches with Norman Minetta's (sp?) testimony.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by sir_chancealot]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
I grew up about 500 yards from.......



[SNIP]

Everything you claimed is a lie.

How come everytime a debunker gets burned on this thread they have to call in a " I was there" forum member to clarify it.


I call bs.... nice try.... I have seen all the evidence and your full of it.

Mod Edit: Profanity and Censor circumvention

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Gemwolf]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
I grew up about 500 yards from.......



[SNIP]

Everything you claimed is a lie.

How come everytime a debunker gets burned on this thread they have to call in a " I was there" forum member to clarify it.


I call bs.... nice try.... I have seen all the evidence and your full of it.



Wow, just wow, what the hell is your problem?

Did you not read the post before you went off on the poster?

How can you have seen all the evidence when he didn't even tell you where and which incident he was talking about?

Mod Edit: Removed quoted profanity.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Gemwolf]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana



No thrown dirt = NO BOMB in Shanksville.



Burned grass and plane parts = FL 93 crashed is Shanksville.


But wait you just said there was no burnt grass.



Oh, there's plenty of burned grass and destroyed trees. It's just that none of your photos have ever shown this because they're taken from the wrong perspective. Still can't find any? Do you need help with your research, since you're obviously having problems with this?

They're in the line of travel that the FDR's agreed with. When the plane hit momentum carried the fuel and plane parts in the direction of travel.

Unfortunately for you, plane crashes don't throw dirt 100's of meters. However, bomb detonations DO throw dirt 10's of meters, evidence is in some of the photos of bomb detonations you posted in your FL 93 thread. Hilarious really, that the evidence that you post debunks yourself.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
@ EVERYONE

I would like to take this moment and remind everyone of the 9/11 forum policy:

From Here

Any inappropriate comments, insults, topic derailment, or trolling will result in immediate posting ban or account termination.
...
While we have a long standing tradition of supporting passionate debate of nearly any topic, we insist that all participates do so with respect and decorum. Spamming our forum with multiple topics and ignoring well-presented questions demonstrates no intent to show respect. And calling ATS members who disagree with their position "shills" lacks the required decorum.


Let's keep that in mind to avoid anything unpleasant.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


If we were to be able to investigate the "hole" we would find a fiber optics cable that was / is tied to the Banking industries. No Plane ... Cruise M.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


Same thing at the pentagon, no plane, Cruise M.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join