Shanksville Deconstructed - Part One...

I see a lot of pictures of a smokey hole...

There isn't one photo of actual plane pieces at Shanksville?

Originally posted by Jezus

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...

Really? You mean you check the entire history of aviation and never found an example where when a plane hit the ground parts of the plane embedded in the dirt? Never? Nowhere? Not once? Wow. Knock me over with a feather. I assume in your search you also never found a situation wherein a plane broke into small pieces when it hit the ground.

Originally posted by Jezus
I see a lot of pictures of a smokey hole...

There isn't one photo of actual plane pieces at Shanksville?

Again, look at the Mossaui trial photos, there is a photo of the woods with debris on the gorund.

reply to post by Jezus


Perhaps should do some real research rather than parroting conspiracy sites

Fuselage pieces

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Jet engine

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Scattered pieces

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Originally posted by hooper
Really? You mean you check the entire history of aviation and never found an example where when a plane hit the ground parts of the plane embedded in the dirt?

What do you mean parts?

Apparently in the case of Flight 93 we are suppose to believe...

1. Most of the plane completely vaporized
2. ALL pieces not vaporized were embedded deep in the dirt or miles away.

Are their any other cases of plane crashes like this?

I guess we are suppose to believe this is the first time in history a fast moving plane crashed into soft dirt...

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by hooper
Really? You mean you check the entire history of aviation and never found an example where when a plane hit the ground parts of the plane embedded in the dirt?

What do you mean parts?

Apparently in the case of Flight 93 we are suppose to believe...

1. Most of the plane completely vaporized
2. ALL pieces not vaporized were embedded deep in the dirt or miles away.

Are their any other cases of plane crashes like this?

I guess we are suppose to believe this is the first time in history a fast moving plane crashed into soft dirt...

Why are you SUPPOSED to believe that? Who is telling you that? In what official document did you read this? Nobody is saying that kind of stuff but conspiracy afficiandos looking for something to argue about when there really isn't anything to argue about.

dudes, i still feel really bad about posting innacurate information. I am going to ban myself. Please continue the debate. May you expose the truth. Someday this site will have a real secret revealed. The way Dick Cheney slipped up, the look in his evil eyes, that was the clincher for me. The plane was shot down.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Jezus
I see a lot of pictures of a smokey hole...

There isn't one photo of actual plane pieces at Shanksville?

Again, look at the Mossaui trial photos, there is a photo of the woods with debris on the gorund.

Those photos you mention are dated 2006 and there is no source or mention as to where they were found. The other picture is of a 40 yard garbage bin that was 1/3 full so roughly 3-5 tonnes. Obvious fraudulent evidence. You must be quite ignorant to consider this as evidence.

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Jezus
I see a lot of pictures of a smokey hole...

There isn't one photo of actual plane pieces at Shanksville?

Again, look at the Mossaui trial photos, there is a photo of the woods with debris on the gorund.

Those photos you mention are dated 2006 and there is no source or mention as to where they were found. The other picture is of a 40 yard garbage bin that was 1/3 full so roughly 3-5 tonnes. Obvious fraudulent evidence. You must be quite ignorant to consider this as evidence.

Yes, yes, how could I be so ignorant to believe that something entered into as evidence in a court of law is, in fact, evidence.

You really have to work on your math skills. 1/3 of fourty yards is 13.33 yards or 360 cubic feet. 5 tons equals 10,000 lbs. 10,000/360 equals 28 lbs per cubic foot. What material weighs 28 lbs per cu foot? Aspen Wood - does that look like aspen wood to you? Grain? Coffee? How about water? Nope water weighs 62 lb/cu.ft. So even if it were 1/3 filled with water it would still weigh 11 tons. Shall we say aluminum? Solid aluminum weighs in at 165 lb/cu.ft. Lets deduct 25% for air space and plastics - that is still 23 tons.

The plane weighed in at, I believe about 100 tons, so just that one photo of one roll-off accounts for almost 25% of the plane.

reply to post by hooper


You said.

Originally posted by hooper
more then enough to prove

But you can't supply ONE SINGLE PHOTO of airplane pieces AT the impact site?

I'm not talking about random photos of the woods...
I'm not talking about random metal pieces...

So like I said...

Originally posted by Jezus
Apparently in the case of Flight 93 we are suppose to believe...

1. Most of the plane completely vaporized
2. ALL pieces not vaporized were embedded deep in the dirt or miles away. (EDIT TO ADD) or tiny and indistinguishable

Are their any other cases of plane crashes like this?

I guess we are suppose to believe this is the first time in history a fast moving plane crashed into soft dirt...

Since when to large commercial airplanes disappear on impact?

[edit on 15-10-2009 by Jezus]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2746980e87c2.jpg[/atsimg]


That's the dirt clod and grass clump that Rewey is claiming was undisturbed.

I circled the dirt clod that is held together by the grass roots. It's inside the larger circle.

Clearly, the rational reading this will realize that Rewey is wrong or lying when he makes that claim.

Troofers, of course will be unmoved.

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

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

Originally posted by hooper
Why are you SUPPOSED to believe that? Who is telling you that? In what official document did you read this?

I think that's his point...

Largest ever attack on US soil.
Largest loss of civilian life on US soil.
Largest 'terrorist attack' recorded worldwide.
Terrorist group thwarts world's largest military superpower 4 times on one day.

Shall we write a report on it? Write an official document?

Nah. Sounds too hard...

Rewey

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Rewey

 

Where the hell is this "official story" written so that we can all see it? And really, bent grass and shrubs? What are you - some kind of animal tracker? You think grass can't grow that way? How do you know that the grass wasn't bent before the photo was taken by persons at the scene trying to put out any residual fires? That is a fire truck in the background you know. Please prove that there is no other cause to the position or shape of that vegetation.

So far the OP is only asking some questions and presenting some evidence for us to look at. He's not claiming to be an expert or an animal tracker. He's just trying to find some answers and he is willing to consider all sides of the discussion.

reply to post by earthdude

dudes, i still feel really bad about posting innacurate information. I am going to ban myself. Please continue the debate. May you expose the truth. Someday this site will have a real secret revealed. The way Dick Cheney slipped up, the look in his evil eyes, that was the clincher for me. The plane was shot down.

Dude don't take it personal. I was only after the misinformation, not you. I dont want to silence any one, just correct the bad information. I know that every thing you posted was something you read on many, many 911truth websites, you didn't just make it up.

As far as Flt 93 being shot down. The only physical evidence for this is the debris field. If you reasearch the evidence you will find that it's mostly paper and other other light items. All of the heavy items were with in 100 yds or the crater.

Roger Bailey, a local volunteer firefighter, has said that as he walked through the crash's debris field, he found "mail. I guess there were 5,000 pounds of mail on board. Mail was scattered everywhere. ... It seemed like every piece of mail that I looked at was from Blue Cross and Blue Shield." [14] Faye Hahn confirmed that, after she arrived at the crash scene, she saw "papers everywhere," and she'd "bent over to check many papers on the ground and found that they were pieces of mail." [15] Journalist and author Jere Longman has claimed that Flight 93 "had been carrying thousands of pounds of mail," and added that "pieces had scattered about, envelopes with California addresses, magazines, paper on the ground and in the trees, some of the envelopes burned, some still in the same unharmed condition in which they were mailed." [16]

This paper and other light items were swept up in the rising fireball and carried down wind Just like the paper in this video.



That video was filmed 1.95 miles from the WTC and there is plenty of paper high above her that's drifting on past.



[edit on 16-10-2009 by waypastvne]

reply to post by Rewey

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...

The wings contain fuel tanks. That varies the mass of the wings, which varies the force the wings impart on the ground. The fuel tanks dont extend all the way to the tips, (there are normally empty surge tanks at the tips)and the wing tanks were not completely full. It's obvious where the fuel load ends.

Originally posted by waypastvne
The fuel tanks dont extend all the way to the tips, (there are normally empty surge tanks at the tips)and the wing tanks were not completely full. It's obvious where the fuel load ends.

See... now that's an interesting thing to bring up.

Firstly, I think both 'sides' agree that they are 'wing imprints' (I only raise that because there has been some heated debate on this before, particularly that no 'official' source will call them such).

Secondly, if I understand you correctly, you're indicating that the extent of the fuel tanks within the wings roughly coincides with the largest part of the 'wing imprint' crater. I take it that you're saying that the fuel exploding in the wing tanks is what made the crater (along with the momentum from impact), which is why the crater is not the same depth all the way along.

But others on this site (I think it was thedman, but would have to check) made comment that the fuel was thrown from the impact, landing among the trees, which explains why there was unburnt grass along its length around the crater.

Also, I think the crater tapering out towards the outer edges would presumably be from the 'swept wing' design that hooper spoke of earlier in this thread, and not from the fuel in the wings exploding...

Rewey

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by hooper

 

You said.

Originally posted by hooper
more then enough to prove

But you can't supply ONE SINGLE PHOTO of airplane pieces AT the impact site?

I'm not talking about random photos of the woods...
I'm not talking about random metal pieces...

So like I said...

Originally posted by Jezus
Apparently in the case of Flight 93 we are suppose to believe...

1. Most of the plane completely vaporized
2. ALL pieces not vaporized were embedded deep in the dirt or miles away. (EDIT TO ADD) or tiny and indistinguishable

Are their any other cases of plane crashes like this?

I guess we are suppose to believe this is the first time in history a fast moving plane crashed into soft dirt...

Since when to large commercial airplanes disappear on impact?

[edit on 15-10-2009 by Jezus]

Please look at the photo that started the OP. See all those angular things in the smoking hole? What do you think those things are?

Originally posted by Rewey

Originally posted by hooper
Why are you SUPPOSED to believe that? Who is telling you that? In what official document did you read this?

I think that's his point...

Largest ever attack on US soil.
Largest loss of civilian life on US soil.
Largest 'terrorist attack' recorded worldwide.
Terrorist group thwarts world's largest military superpower 4 times on one day.

Shall we write a report on it? Write an official document?

Nah. Sounds too hard...

Rewey

There are official documents. Unfortunately for you, they were put together by rational professionals who were not concerned about the placement of grass clumps at the impact site.

Originally posted by hooper
Please look at the photo that started the OP. See all those angular things in the smoking hole? What do you think those things are?

So there aren't any better photos?

So you agree with this statement?

Originally posted by Jezus
Apparently in the case of Flight 93 we are suppose to believe...

1. Most of the plane completely vaporized
2. ALL pieces not vaporized were embedded deep in the dirt or miles away. (EDIT TO ADD) or tiny and indistinguishable

So it is obviously a plane crash unlike most...

But maybe there are some similar cases?

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by hooper
Please look at the photo that started the OP. See all those angular things in the smoking hole? What do you think those things are?

So there aren't any better photos?

So you agree with this statement?

Originally posted by Jezus
Apparently in the case of Flight 93 we are suppose to believe...

1. Most of the plane completely vaporized
2. ALL pieces not vaporized were embedded deep in the dirt or miles away. (EDIT TO ADD) or tiny and indistinguishable

So it is obviously a plane crash unlike most...

But maybe there are some similar cases?

So you are satisfied then with the photos of the wreckage, correct? And by the way, there is no such thing as a "standard" plane crash. They are all independent events.