Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Reheat - Hole in the Ground

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by trebor451
of such a porous and loosely packed ground shows the lack of not only experience in these matters but common sense, as well.

Instead of using subjective terms such as 'porous' and 'loosely packed' to describe the soil, could you please quantify these terms?

Also, please provide a geological study of the site that proves that your quantities are correct.

I can't take anything at face value, so it's not possible for me to believe that the soil was 'porous' or 'loosely packed' just because you stated it on an internet forum. Common sense dictates that you'll be able to support your claims. Thanks.


If the dirt was hard and nonporous, wouldn't there be substantially more debris outside the crater? Woudln't the engines be located outside the crater?

I'm not a soil engineer, but I know what happens if you throw something onto hard dirt as opposed to soft dirt.

Therefore, for the OS to hold true, the dirt would need to be porous and soft, enabling the plane to bury itself into the ground.

But lets let a more authoritative source speak on the condition of the soil:



The strip mine is composed of very soft black soil, and searchers said much of the wreckage was found buried 20 to 25 feet below the large crater. " -Standard-Times (09/11/02)


Soft soil....




posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Where are the litererally THOUSANDS of papers, books, cameras, lunch trays, wiring, clothing, shoes, cutlery, luggage, eyeglasses, etc, etc, etc.) Are we to believe all these items were forced into the ground as well?

Where is the area of burned ground that should have been MASSIVE due to jet fuel?

I AM speculating here, but it looks just like maybe a UAV with some ordinance strapped on that crashed. (Hence the scorched trees).

Maybe the "white jet" that was sent into the area to double as 193.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajesticJax
Where are the litererally THOUSANDS of papers, books, cameras, lunch trays, wiring, clothing, shoes, cutlery, luggage, eyeglasses, etc, etc, etc.) Are we to believe all these items were forced into the ground as well?

Where is the area of burned ground that should have been MASSIVE due to jet fuel?

I AM speculating here, but it looks just like maybe a UAV with some ordinance strapped on that crashed. (Hence the scorched trees).

Maybe the "white jet" that was sent into the area to double as 193.


Not only that, why are there no pictures of all this debris that was allegedly dug up out of the hole?

A massive plane crash in the midst of a massive attack on America and we have a handful of suspect pictures of the crash scene?

Why don't we see more pictures like Pan Am 103

More debris from a plane blown up in the sky instead of one that embeds itself into a crater!


How much common sense does it take to realize that something is amiss at the crater in Shanksville?

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Swing Dangler]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
It's apparent that "I" am not familiar with crash dynamics of a high speed
airliner?


Based on your belief that the "tail section" of an airliner crashing at a high rate of speed should be "near the surface", yes, it is quiet apparent you are not familiar with crash dynamics or aircraft mishaps.

Is english not your native language? I thought I was pretty clear.

If you *do* claim some sort of expertise in this area please feel free to discuss why the tail section of an aircraft crashing at 400 or 450 mph into the replaced soil of a reclaimed strip mine should be "near the surface" when the force vector (at some degree beyond 90 degrees vertical) and directional debris field (heading of 170-180 degrees) both suggest aircraft disintegration and complete structural break-up based on impact forces.

If you have some sort of alternative theory that would result in recognizable piece-parts of the aircraft residing "near the surface" and not be subjected to the aforementioned stresses, please feel free to post that here.

In the meantime, I would recommend you stay away from the more complex discussion fora, such as this one, and concentrate on whatever you feel is your area of expertise.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

And yet the aircraft was reported miles past here over Indian Lake, minutes after the alleged crash in this mining strip? What kind of fools would believe the nonsensical government lies?



Over Indian Lake? THen where did they go from there? Wasn't this the plane crash where people reported being on cell phones during the actual crash? I guess I am not understanding your point on this.... are you saying the crash never occurred? or that a particular picture looks fakey?

Appears to me that (in the photos) there are alot of people on the ground at the crash site and it would be unlikely they would conspire. No report on other debris, but I bet there is a good bit



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


What expertize have you demonstrated? NONE. Common sense would expect that your aircraft which allegedly nosed in would deposit its wreckage in the order in which it entered the soft dirt of the strip mine. If you are cramming peanuts in a hole, the peanuts in first get crunched more and more as others are added in behind. But the last peanuts in don't end up in the bottom of the hole.

Common sense would expect that the tail section which was on the back end of the aircraft would enter last and remain closer to the surface as it impacted up against the remainder of the 90 tons of 757 aircraft already allegedly in the hole.

Common sense would expect that the black boxes in the tail section would remain together near the surface, and not one 15 feet deep and the other 25 feet deep way way deeper than the alleged engine rotor.



Common sense would expect that the 6 ton turbofan engine would not be mere inches below the surface, and that shattered pieces of its cowling and the wing it was attached to would be shattered near it. But nothing. Absolutely nothing in the hole.



Of course common sense would also expect that this is all nonsense and no 90 ton aircraft buried itself in a strip mine in Shanksville. Is simple common sense really in such short supply in America these days?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Questions:

1. If it wasn't an airliner, what was it?

2. If it wasn't an airliner, why did 'they' crash it in a field? 'They' only wanted to give the impression the WH was a target as well?

Why not crash some gutted (possibly government) aircraft instead?

More difficult to cover up or they just didn't think about it?

More questions might follow.

Looking forward to a cogent reply.

Best regards.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Good to see threads about Shanksville are still going here.

The official story of what happened to Flight 93 is that after it crashed upside-down, it's cockpit broke off and bounced into the woods (and apparently shattered into small pieces afterward). The rest of the 757, which officials claim about 80%, tunneled it's way down through the ground and the hole made from the plane burrowing its way under self-sealed itself, leaving behind only a shallow 10ft-deep crater, blocking any view that a 757 had just burrowed deep down into the ground.


(Hi-res photo)

The FBI, who where the excavation crew in the yellow and white hazmat suits, reportedly had to dig about 15ft under the crater to start finding the buried plane and down to a depth of about 45ft to find all of it.

They claim 95% of Flight 93 was recovered, so about 15% of the plane had to be above ground if 80% was recovered underground.

The only photo that supposedly shows evidence of 80% of a 757 being dug out of the ground is the trial photo of the engine scrap next to a backhoe bucket. Coincidentally, this engine scrap is small enough to fit in the very backhoe bucket seen next to it.



They do show a photo of part of a black box that looks to have been photographed down in a hole, but it's a closeup photo that shows no signs that it was actually taken in the excavated hole in Shanksville, so we have no way of knowing where it was photographed.

What happened to Flight 93's tailsection, is quite a "tail."

So that is the extraordinary official story of what happened to Flight 93 after is allegedly crashed in that Shanksville field and as they say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" and so far I haven't seen any extraordinary evidence to make me believe 80% of a 757 was under that shallow crater, or a 757's cockpit broke off and flung into those woods.


PS - As for the title of this thread "Hole in the Ground," there was no hole in the ground. Only a shallow crater.




[edit on 14-5-2009 by Killtown7]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme


CameronFox, here is ONE experienced, aircraft crash investigator who does not buy into your OS.


Thank you for this. Please allow me to slightly shift the goal posts.

How many investigations has he physically been on? Not how many i's were dotted or t's that were crossed as a pencil pusher.

Has he read the NTSB report? If so, what about it does not make sense to him to allow him to NOT believe flight 93 crashed in Shanksville?

As stated in the past, I do not visit that crock of a website due to the fact that Captain Bob records and POSTS IP addresses.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown7
Good to see threads about Shanksville are still going here.


Flight 1771 Killtown. Look into that will ya?

Thanks, and are you still denying the Holocaust?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Is english not your native language? I thought I was pretty clear.


No Hablo Inglés



Maybe you can take a class, or two in English?

Did you forget the official story stating UA93 dug itself into the ground
and was covered up by a rain of magical sand falling from the heavens,
leaving a crater like impression?



So, where's the approximately 70 tons (~80%) of 757 beneath the surface?

If the engine was found about 4 feet deep...and they normally reside
about mid pack on the airplane...then where are the pictures of the
airplane parts from the WINGS back to the TAIL SECTION as "they"
dug into the crater? Correct me if I'm wrong; the plane went in nose
first, correct?

Please don't tell me the pictures are confidential because we have already
seen part of a mangled rotor, and 2 foot square section of fuselage.

Unless you believe certain sections of UA93 were classified due to
terrorist attacks?


P.S. I agree about the title, but Mr. ReHeat insists it's a hole! Where is
that guy lately? Haven't seen him around since I posted this thread?


ETA: Trebor did not reply to these questions.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by turbofan]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
I would agree that parts of an engine would survive that sort of crash and a "tail section, fuselage, seats, wings" would not.

But a bandana would?


Exhibit Number: PA00111
Description: Red bandana recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site


Since fabric apparently survives a plane crash pretty well, where's any of the fabric from the 200 passenger seats on Flight 93?




[edit on 14-5-2009 by Killtown7]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Please stay on topic and answer my questions. I don't really appreciate
the derail. We've already provided you with at least ONE accident
investigator that doesn't agree. We've done our part. Now do yours,
and stop with the B.S.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by turbofan]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFoxFlight 1771 Killtown. Look into that will ya?

Thanks, and are you still denying the Holocaust?

What is the significance of Flight 1771?

I never denied the holocaust happened, but what in the world has that got to do with this thread? Are you trying to character assassinate me or something?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Killtown7
 


Star for you!




I guess they dug down pretty deep to find that bandana clean as a whistle
no less!

Maybe they used "Clorox", or "Downy" to get all the dirt out before putting it inside
the plastic baggie? I couldn't get my clothes that clean if my life
depended on it.

So...we have 'proof' of UA93 by recovering a bandana worn by a
terrorist , located in the cockpit.....WAY down in the hole...BUT...
not a single seat, or fabric like Killtown suggests?

How nice of the FBI to prove the existence of UA93 by releasing photos
of head wear, as opposed to seats, landing gear, rims, etc.





I love this thread almost as much as the Taxi Cab challenge, but nobody
wants to play there.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by turbofan]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
personally, i think the best evidence is the photos on this page comparing an ordinance blast to the Flight 93 crash:

www.thewebfairy.com...
(look about halfway down the page)

then it shows what a jet crash looks like... you be the judge - jet crash?

...or ordinance blast?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Can you please post ONE and i mean ONE experienced, aircraft crash investigator that does NOT think a plane crashed near Shanksville on 9/11?

How many "experienced aircraft crash investigators" not connected to the govt have looked into it?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown7

What is the significance of Flight 1771?



Watch this video on flight 1771... it may help. Thank you




posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Nothing like Shanksville.

The plane broke apart into pieces above the ground - not into the ground.

There is debris visible all over the crash site within a confined area.

The debris located '8 miles away' was found the next day and was carried
by the wind. Nothing like Shanksville where pictures were taken minutes
after "impact" and not enough wind force to carry parts away before
reporters arrived.

Nice try to relate the two. I can see why some people are having trouble
understanding how UA93 could dig itself into the ground if they can't
distinguish between simple characteristics listed above.

Crash debris field....and wind scattered debris field the next day.


[edit on 14-5-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 14-5-2009 by turbofan]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Watch this video on flight 1771... it may help. Thank you

OK watched it. What is it supposed to "help" me with other than knowing which previous crashes the govt used to help model the fake crash of Flight 93?



PS - Interesting coincidence about the crash of Flight 1771:

December 7, 1987 - The last airplane hijacking in the U.S. was a suicide hijacking which happened on Flight 1771. (Note that the number 1771 is the combined #'s of two 9/11 flight's; Flight 11 and Flight 77.)

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Killtown7]





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join