Reheat - Hole in the Ground

reply to post by waypastvne

---

Really? I see no sign that the plastic is melting. How did somebody get the plastic on the engine rotor without leaving footprints? Maybe they did it while the engine rotor was still in the bucket and up on harder ground, or still in the delivery vehicle?



Larger photo of engine rotor allegedly found buried at Shanksville



That is just a short animation proving nothing. How do you know how that smoke is reacting? These are still photos of the same smoke.



Looks like an ordinary burning garbage dump to me. Who piled the dirt back up on top of the alleged burrowing 90 tons of aircraft? If there is a 90 ton plane down there; then where is the 90 tons of dirt it displaced?

Soil is 2500 pounds per cubic yard. Therefore 90 tons of soil would be 72 yards of soil. (2500/2000=1.25 90/1.25=72) Weights That would be three of these trailer loads piled on top of the hole.

23.7 yards

And exactly how would the dirt be piled on top (without the backhoe or the trailers) if the earth opened up and swallowed the aircraft?

Shouldn't the dirt be sprayed out in a concentric circle and unable to flow back into the hole like water? How could an aircraft enter a hole it created at high speed, and somehow replace the dirt it displaced on top of itself?



Alleged crash site



[edit on 6/22/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by turbofan

---

Hmm right, "no debris". at the site. Turbo, your cherry-picking skills are simply astonishing.

Hey what about all of this?





























Now Turbo, I know this is extremely difficult for you to understand or figure out, but take a good look at another plane crash's debris. The following is from SwissAir flight 111, an MD-11. For reference, this is what an MD-11 looks like:



Now THIS is all that was left of it after a 300 knot nose down impact into the water:







Now a 757 is smaller than an MD-11, however, take a good look at the recovered debris from the MD-11 and the 757. Notice something? Shards remaining. Tiny bits and pieces of the aircraft. Both look very similar and we can see the debris from Flight 93 all over the place, mostly smashed to bits and scattered around, and it looks an awful lot like the MD-11 debris which was recovered. Now I dont know why this is so difficult to understand or figure out, unless you are purposely ignoring the facts and hand waving them away simply because they do not fit with your preconceived notions.

Yet more incorrect info and poor analogy:

SwissAir 111
www.cnn.com...



You are pretty much on ignore as you continue to dodge questions, and
provide inaccurate information.

Your linked photographs have already been reviewed and just recently
compared to flight 1771 crash debris.

yes. And is it me or is there some sort of relaxed feeling floating on this crash site?!?

About the anti-truthers here, I'm wondering: given other circumstances and presented with the same photographies, would they keep the same story or do they only have their opinion because they trust their own government?
Same for the twin towers (that really were three): if it was happening let say in the old USSR, would they believe the official story?

TheTilde

reply to post by turbofan

---

And yet you say there was no debris. So who is being inaccurate here turbo?

Enough with these childish games turbo.

reply to post by turbofan

---

There were thousands of eyewitnesses! That always proves there was a plane.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by jrnsr

---

Thousands huh? List their names, and show me their video testimony.

Of course. They must have been the heavenly host of angels looking down from the clouds.

Hmmmm. I wonder how the government loyalists are going to assemble the heavenly host for their public sworn statements? Probably won't work any better than their failed expeditions to Arlington Virginia.

Sure am glad I don't have the job of defending this disintegrating 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY.

reply to post by turbofan

---

Right right. Says the one who doesnt understand anything that has been said in the simplest way. Way to spin turbo, way to spin.

For the last time, there WAS debris in the crater, there WAS debris outside the crater, there WAS debris found INSIDE the crater, there WAS a fireball which created a mushroom cloud on impact, and there were NUMEROUS witnesses that saw the plane INTACT slam nosedown into the ground. And as a final insult for you, there is plenty of debris at the site, YOU chose to ignore it and ignore everyone else. And here you go off in a childish way, storming off the playground simply because YOU cannot face facts. Bye bye!

reply to post by SPreston

---

*Yawn*

Ah Spreston, agian with the "government loyalist" label of anybody who doesnt conform with your fantasy of no planes and magical flyovers with so called" evidence" that a 10 year old would find laughable? And yet, with all your twisting, wishing, and hocus-pocus parlor tricks, you still cannot find a decent shred of evidence that can even support your magical claims. All you can hang your theory on is the edited and twisted accounts, innuendos, and outright LIES. And you say the "Offical story" is crumbling? You cant even find a single person who saw the magic flyover at the Pentagon! You don't even understand the complexity behind day to day flight control operations, yet you spout off words and the technical jargon as if you have some authority, without even understanding a thing, and yet you ignore those who have REAL experience, and instead put lables on them simply because they know more than you and they call you on your BS makebelieve.

But no you stick to such pathetic labels as "government loyalists".
It really doesnt help your side at all.

[edit on 6/30/2009 by GenRadek]

In other words... Turbofan once again admits defeat. If he ignores you, that means he can not refute what you are posting.

reply to post by CameronFox

---

right, and you've missed the many unanswered questions I've asked
all of you?

When GenRadek is ready to answer the oustanding questions, I'll be
happy to admit 'defeat'.

reply to post by turbofan

---

And what questions are those? The ones I and others have already answered numerous times for you which you still dont understand? Cause so far I have answered your questions, yet you have either A) Ignored them; B) Hand waved them away; or C) Did not understand the answer, ignored it, AND handwaved it away.

PS: turbo, they recovered 2 million pieces of Swissair Flight 111. About 98% they recovered of the aircraft.
Guess how much of UA Flight 93 they recovered? 95%. Mostly in itty bitty peices.

[edit on 6/30/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by CameronFox

---

Turbofan, SPreston, Myself or Anyone Else Supporting The Real Truth On ATS Are Not Admitting Defeat.

The People Who Are Seeking The Real Truth & Helping It Surface With All The Time They can Spare Will Never Give Up or "Admit Defeat"

Simply, They could not be bothered with You or GenRadek Until You Answered These Real Questions On This Thread Logically.

Once You & GenRadek are 100% In Touch With Your Surroundings, Recognize who your True Friends & True Enemies Are: including on a Psychological Level


- You Then Will Be Able To Answer These Questions Logically & Truthfully.

Cheers.

edit -spelling & grammar

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Skyline666]

Can you show us photos of the scene before the cleanup started to support that claim?

reply to post by ATH911

---

Well sir, if you would please click back a few pages you will see a whole series of photos of the crash site and debris field. I have already posted them.

[edit on 6/30/2009 by GenRadek]

I don't see any photos taken before the cleanup that show anywhere near the amount of the debris to support the reported 95% of the plane recovered claim.

Where was all that alleged debris?????????????

reply to post by ATH911

---

Ahh I see! You expect to see every single piece of the aircraft correct, strewn over miles and miles? yes of course THAT is the only way for you to believe it! Did you not see the photos at the one farm area? Or the woods? Ahh but whats the point? Even if you saw it you wouldnt believe it. Its a pretty lame game really. You demand "proof" for every damn little thing that we "debunkers" say, and yet you will swallow hook, line, and sinker (and pole) of any lame half-baked idea of "shoot down" or "no plane" or "magic missiles" or "faked plane" with so called "proof" that is flimsier than a rickety old shed in a hurricane.
And yet, when we point out the too numerous illogical fallacies of your claims, YOU ignore them and stick your head deep deep deep in the sand.
Since when do they take photos of every single shred of the aircraft at the crash site? Do you even understand how something in this situation is taken care of? What reason is there to photograph every shred of the aircraft, discover every single serial number of every shred of the aircraft? The ONLY time they take such undertakings in investigations, is when there is an ACCIDENT. In the case of Flight 93, it was NO accident. They KNOW what brought down the aircraft. An engine didnt fail. The hydraulic system didnt fail. There was NO mechanical failure. There was no pilot error. This was a deliberate event. A suicidal terrorist at the control plowing the aircraft into the ground. Plane crashes. End of story. Now its up to the investigators to find WHO was at the controls, HOW MANY terrorists were on board, what are their IDENTITIES, and how they managed to control the craft. If you know a driver INTENTIONALLY rammed his car into a group of people screaming death to Jews, or something, the investigators are not going to photograph every single piece of the car, check the brakes, the steering wheel, etc etc etc. They wil investigate the driver. This is not rocket science, its common sense. Common sense. Something that, unfortunately, is not too common arond here.

Now had the plane been blown up in mid air (ala PanAM103) then yes you would need to check the entire aircraft to find the cause. Air France, another crash that needs extensive investigation. However an intentional crash is just that: INTENTIONAL. NOT an accident.

[edit on 6/30/2009 by GenRadek]

LMFAO... there are many people that are on record as seeing the plane crash. Thousands? I don't think so.

Well over a thousand were witness to the human and airplane debris. I believe the number is over 1,500. Are they all "on video?" I highly doubt it. There are however MANY eyewitnesses to the plane going down that are in print with the Pittsburgh Post gazette. If you were indeed searching for the truth, you would have known this.

By the way, how you making out with the information I forwarded you?