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.

 

Shanksville Deconstructed - Part One...

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
Just because someone can recognize the lack of evidence for the official story doesn't mean they subscribe to any particular conspiracy scenario.

I don't pretend to know exactly what happened but I find it odd there are not photos of debris at the crash site...



Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Jezus
 


You keep saying that as if you say it enough eventually it will be true...There are photos of wreckage at the site.


Can you post some of these photos?


Originally posted by hooper
But there is more then enough to prove something large and metallic (like a plane) exploded, disintegrated,


Are there other cases of planes disintegrating or submerging into the ground?

Surely this is not the first time in history a plane hit soft ground at a high speed...




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Well...er...we have lots of photos...er...we can't show those because there's body parts...or those either...ongoing investigation,y'see....and the rest,why that is covered by National Security.But here's the script to believe.Oh,here's one. sarcasm



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
The whole story is just soooo ridiculous i cant believe grown men with average intelligence would give the OS a nanosecond of their time ...

Plane crashes but no wreckage....

80% of plane buried upwards of 45 feet deep in "soft" accomodating soil...

Soil which then, having swollowed the plane, re seals itself so no plane or wreckage is visible...

A local coroner describing the scene as having "not a drop of blood..."anywhere....

No seats, no fuselage, no wiring, no wing sections, no fuselage....etc.

Just a photo of a mysterious looking and very rusty engine part....one photo from the crater....ONE......no more!!

Then theres the other mystery "window" part...also mysterious because of its rust....RUST!!

Does this not seem a little odd..??

Can you not smell it....??

Do I need to go on.....??



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It's obviously fresh, since the soil inside the crater appears loose and friable. Not hard and compacted on the surface from rains like if the crater had been there for a while.


Funny how you can determine from the photo that the soil inside the crater appears loose and friable, yet you claim I can't determine that there are elements inside it which have survived the alleged impact undisturbed...


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Also, where is your analysis for whether or not the clump of grass is attached to a dirt clod, which appears to be resting above the grade of the new crater. Or do you disagree?


Sorry, Joey. I thought I'd discussed this earlier. I do disagree, as I don't believe the gradient of the slope is sufficient that a clump or clod of grass would 'slide' down the side of the crater, to come to rest at the bottom in a vertical position. Sorry - I just don't. I believe the lines I put on the OP photo showing the gradient of the slope are accurate - they are not steep enough for such a clod of grass to make that transition. Nor do I believe that it could land there after the kinetic force of the plane (CameronFox's 1484 pounds of TNT).

Rewey



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Rewey...you need the Rose Coloured Lenses Mr. Canoli wears...till then you will see nothing!!

My advice...ignore his "clump of grass" argument.....thats how bad its got for them....deflecting from the real Q's you pose, and turning it into a Blades of Grass debate...pathetically funny!!

And also a sign of desperation methinks.....



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
The whole story is just soooo ridiculous i cant believe grown men with average intelligence would give the OS a nanosecond of their time ...

Plane crashes but no wreckage....

80% of plane buried upwards of 45 feet deep in "soft" accomodating soil...

Soil which then, having swollowed the plane, re seals itself so no plane or wreckage is visible...

A local coroner describing the scene as having "not a drop of blood..."anywhere....


No seats, no fuselage, no wiring, no wing sections, no fuselage....etc.

Just a photo of a mysterious looking and very rusty engine part....one photo from the crater....ONE......no more!!

Then theres the other mystery "window" part...also mysterious because of its rust....RUST!!

Does this not seem a little odd..??

Can you not smell it....??

Do I need to go on.....??


Agreed.

The entire 9/11 debate is ridiculous.

This is clearly a cover up on an astronomical scale.

People need to their trust common sense a bit more.

Nobody on this earth can honestly believe Flight 93 Crashed in Shanksville.

All you have to do is look at the picture

And look for the wreckage of a plane.

Nothing. Zilch. A hole in the ground.

There are far too many people that stall the progress of 9/11, and it's not very difficult to see through this particular cover up not to mention many others.
Planes don't evaporate into thin air and leave a hole in the ground. Next question please.
Where is Flight 93 and what happened to the passengers?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Funny how you can determine from the photo that the soil inside the crater appears loose and friable,


Nt funny at all. You blew up the photo and it's pretty clear.


yet you claim I can't determine that there are elements inside it which have survived the alleged impact undisturbed...


No, you can see it just fine, I'm sure. It's just that you're wrong about the grass being undisturbed.


Nor do I believe that it could land there after the kinetic force of the plane (CameronFox's 1484 pounds of TNT).

Rewey


Then you're not very smart. What goes up, must come down.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni

My advice...ignore his "clump of grass" argument


This was bolded in Rewey's first post - "How could grass, which was allegedly struck by Flight 93 plunging into the ground remain undisturbed, and remain growing vertically, even on the newly-formed slopes of the impact crater?"

It's an important part of his OP.

So Rewey, do you want to drop it?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Rewey


Got a source for that, champ?



Sure.

You admitted that 50' was wrong.

Then you suggested that we use another figure.

Waypastvne did an excellent job of analyzing the width and so I proposed we use that. You gave no objection to that, so that's what I used.

Do you now have an objection?


Bump for Rewey.

Do you have an objection or not?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
N(o)t funny at all. You blew up the photo and it's pretty clear.


Riiiiight... so you can tell compaction level of soil from the photo, but not the state of the grass inside. Don't care to admit you're being a little subjective in your observations, there?


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Then you're not very smart. What goes up, must come down.


No kidding. But what goes 'directly' up, comes directly down. What is struck by a plane at 40 degrees does not come directly down.

According to you I'm not very smart, but that's pretty simple stuff.


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Do you have an objection or not?


Like I said, I'm more than happy to use his estimation (even though I still don't agree with it entirely, based on his using photos from after 9/11, but that's just me). So what you're saying is that the grass and scrub was hit by the end of the wings, not the centre.

Are the wings that diverse in their construction? The centre parts will crush the grass, but the tips won't? Pretty sure it's the same framing and the same aluminium skin...

Rewey



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Originally posted by Rewey
Do you mean all of this green grass all around the 'wing imprint' on the left?



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
No.

The bare soil inside the crater.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
clearing the soil around it of ALL grass, down to bare soil.


By the way... care to admit you were wrong there? That you were mistaken about what you were asking for? That you were changing tack? Changing your story? I point out one photo of green grass surrounding the crater, and NOW you mean the soil inside the crater...

Go on, Joey... you know you can do it... man up...

Rewey



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey
(even though I still don't agree with it entirely, based on his using photos from after 9/11, but that's just me).


Crater photo 9/12/01



same photo with 9/11/01 video frame overlay




The crater looks the same size on the 11th as it does on the 12th to me.

My visual estimations of the crater are: wing marks 130 ft, crater width 60ft and 40 ft across.

What are your estimations Rewey?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
My visual estimations of the crater are: wing marks 130 ft, crater width 60ft and 40 ft across.

What are your estimations Rewey?


You guys are missing the point of the OP entirely - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's not on purpose, although I'm starting to wonder...

The elements shown in the photo of the OP are INSIDE the crater. Regardless of whether it's at the centre of the wing or the end, it is INSIDE the crater, which the OS version of events says can ONLY have been created by Flight 93 crashing into the ground with the kinetic equivalent of 1484 pounds of TNT.

So here's the point of the OP - how did these elements inside the crater survive this impact? It really is that simple. That's all I want to know. If you can't answer that - FINE! We'll just move on...

So to answer your question, my estimations matter as little as your estimations - both are estimations, which we SHOULDN'T HAVE TO RELY ON, given that a full investigation was done on the site in order for the case to be taken to trial. We SHOULD be able to rely on some sort official record or documentation surrounding the crater dimensions, but for some reason, no-one seems to be able to provide a link to that...

Rewey



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
The whole story is just soooo ridiculous i cant believe grown men with average intelligence would give the OS a nanosecond of their time ...

Plane crashes but no wreckage....

80% of plane buried upwards of 45 feet deep in "soft" accomodating soil...

Soil which then, having swollowed the plane, re seals itself so no plane or wreckage is visible...

A local coroner describing the scene as having "not a drop of blood..."anywhere....

No seats, no fuselage, no wiring, no wing sections, no fuselage....etc.

Just a photo of a mysterious looking and very rusty engine part....one photo from the crater....ONE......no more!!

Then theres the other mystery "window" part...also mysterious because of its rust....RUST!!

Does this not seem a little odd..??

Can you not smell it....??

Do I need to go on.....??


That does seem odd - too bad none of it is true. Try again, this time stick with the facts.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Originally posted by waypastvne
My visual estimations of the crater are: wing marks 130 ft, crater width 60ft and 40 ft across.

What are your estimations Rewey?


You guys are missing the point of the OP entirely - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's not on purpose, although I'm starting to wonder...

The elements shown in the photo of the OP are INSIDE the crater. Regardless of whether it's at the centre of the wing or the end, it is INSIDE the crater, which the OS version of events says can ONLY have been created by Flight 93 crashing into the ground with the kinetic equivalent of 1484 pounds of TNT.

So here's the point of the OP - how did these elements inside the crater survive this impact? It really is that simple. That's all I want to know. If you can't answer that - FINE! We'll just move on...

So to answer your question, my estimations matter as little as your estimations - both are estimations, which we SHOULDN'T HAVE TO RELY ON, given that a full investigation was done on the site in order for the case to be taken to trial. We SHOULD be able to rely on some sort official record or documentation surrounding the crater dimensions, but for some reason, no-one seems to be able to provide a link to that...

Rewey


I think you are missing the point of the resonses to your OP. They are begging the question - you have not shown that what you are looking for explanations of is technically accurate. Challenging someone to explain something that may not have happened is rather futile.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Can you post some of the photos of the debris ?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by hooper
 


Can you post some of the photos of the debris ?


Look them up, try Google Images with the search phrase Flight 93 or Shanksville, Pa



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey
but not the state of the grass inside.


No, it can clearly be seen that it's a dirt clod. It appears to have landed there in some manner. I outlined it for you:



ETA:%%^^&*((**& it shows a thumbnail. How do I make it appear as a photo inside the thread?


What is struck by a plane at 40 degrees does not come directly down.


I'll bet that other than an argument from incredulity, you can offer zero evidence of this didn't happen, regardless of what you say about the direction of the plane.


So what you're saying is that the grass and scrub was hit by the end of the wings, not the centre.


Yep. And to remind you again of why I've been harping on this, is to prove that you're a poor researcher.

AND one that originally defended it with a claim of general consensus as to your figure,only to have it disappear when you realized your error.

I'll let other readers decide if there's some significance to.



Are the wings that diverse in their construction? The centre parts will crush the grass, but the tips won't?


You felt it was an important part of your OP. You tell US why you felt it to be an important point.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

So here's the point of the OP - how did these elements inside the crater survive this impact? It really is that simple. That's all I want to know. If you can't answer that - FINE! We'll just move on...



I've answered it already.

No grass remained undisturbed.

You're lying if you claim it did.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Jezus
 


You keep saying that as if you say it enough eventually it will be true. There are photos of wreckage at the site.



Originally posted by hooper
But there is more then enough to prove something large and metallic (like a plane) exploded, disintegrated, deconstructed, whatever at the site on 9/11.


So you can't/won't post any photos to back of this claim?

I also can't find any cases of planes "disintegrating" or submerging into the ground on impact...



new topics




 
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join