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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Why don't you provide it.
Then refute it if you believe it's wrong.

Oh, come now, Joey... you're not going to play that same old illogical game with me are you?

You claim that the crater was made by a jet. Therefore, I'm asking you to show the government reports that give the approximate dimensions of the crater. Is it that difficult for you to supply the information?


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
And if you have no opinion..... when then I guess you're the lowest of the low...
A no-claimer......

It is far more intelligent and honest to make no claim, than to make a claim that can't be supported... think about it.




posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

I'm asking you to show the government reports that give the approximate dimensions of the crater.


Hilarious.

So then you agree that Rewey's constructed a strawman argument, since he's making a lame attempt at refuting the "os", and he hasn't included any info from the "os", nor has he done any decent analysis of the crater's dimensions.

Correct?


It is far more intelligent and honest to make no claim, than to make a claim that can't be supported... think about it.


So you're more intelligent than Rewey, since he clearly hasn't supported his argument, neither with info from the "os", nor with a good analysis like I suggested.

Correct?



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So then you agree that Rewey's constructed a strawman argument, since he's making a lame attempt at refuting the "os", and he hasn't included any info from the "os", nor has he done any decent analysis of the crater's dimensions.

Avoid, deflect, dodge, spin...

Joey, I asked you to supply the approximate crater dimensions, using an official source. Afterall, you believe that a jet crashed there, so please show how the crater's dimensions were recorded.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 



How is Rewey supporting his argument that the crater is ~50' wide.

If you can't show his technical analysis, then admit that he ain't that intelligent, by your own standards.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Rewey

Is it written down?


It sure is.

It's in every 9/11 thread on ATS, Loose Change Forums, Pffft, etc. You goofballs learn by reading.


Yeah, but sorry. I tried this argument when hooper was asking for a written down 'official story', and he said no dice. You'll have to try better.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If it's not provided anywhere, then just state it and give a better analysis of the hole.


As I've stated before, it's based on MUTUAL CONSENSUS. That means that if you read over thread after thread on sites like ATS, there's a general consensus by people supporting BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT about certain figures, such as the crater width, or the weight of the planes.

Once again, if you're not happy with those figures, please feel free to supply your own estimates or calculations. I will be more than happy to work with those.

Let me see... the boeing from wing tip to wing tip is just over 124 feet. Are you claiming that the crater is 124 feet wide? That would seem to fit perfectly with some of the OS assumptions. But I get the feeling that's not quite right.

You say it's not 50 feet, you will say it's not 124 feet... what do you estimate it to be?

I'll tell you what. I use aerial photos and mapping for my job on a daily basis. Sometime over the weekend I'll try to find some decent pictures and points of reference that will allow us to accurately scale the crater.

But will you accept that? Will that just make me some 'moron twoofer' to you? It seems I can't win. You want me to prove it, but you won't accept anything I've said so far...

Time to put your OWN calculations up for critical assessment then, don't you think? Of course not... that's too hard...

Rewey

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Rewey]

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The upper few inches of the crater in your closeup fit the bill. NOT the crater as a whole.


Oh... you mean the edges nowhere near where the grass actually is, but much further in the background of the photo?


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
But serious question - are you TRULY claiming that your smoking gun is a clump of grass?


Let me demonstrate what an ace reader you are...

Firstly, can you show me ANYWHERE in this entire thread where I've claimed:
1. The plane never landed there
2. The plane was shot down
3. I don't support the OS

I merely asked if anyone could properly explain why the grass is still growing there intact in the impact crater. It seems that you have automatically taken offence to that, as it appears to question your own version of the events, or does not appear to fit in with what you accept as the OS. Thus you immediately jump on the defensive and start attacking ad hominem.

Secondly, if you care to read the TITLE of the thread, it clearly says 'Part ONE', implying there are other parts to discuss once this thread has reached its conclusion.

So, given that neither reading nor maths seems to be your forte, I'll have to elucidate for you - clearly, the clump of grass is NOT the alleged 'smoking gun'...

Everyone else here seemed to pick that up. Well done class...

Rewey

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

As I've stated before, it's based on MUTUAL CONSENSUS. That means that if you read over thread after thread on sites like ATS, there's a general consensus by people supporting BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT about certain figures, such as the crater width,


I seriously doubt that. prove me wrong by supplying multiple links where the rational side of the disagreement - my side - agree that the crater is 50'. Or admit you're lying.


Once again, if you're not happy with those figures, please feel free to supply your own estimates or calculations.


It's your claim that the crater is 50'. You stated this with ZERO analysis that I can see. It's your claim. Now support it. Or become a no claimer like Tez.


I'll tell you what. I use aerial photos and mapping for my job on a daily basis. Sometime over the weekend I'll try to find some decent pictures and points of reference that will allow us to accurately scale the crater.


Remember to include something of a known size - a positively identified pickup truck, fire truck, etc, with verified model and lengths, etc if you're gonna do it. Otherwise, it's rubbish.


But will you accept that?


yep.


Will that just make me some 'moron twoofer' to you?


Not if you do a decent job of it. If I see you doing a hash-up job of it, or plain lying, then the answer would be yes.


It seems I can't win. You want me to prove it, but you won't accept anything I've said so far...


Why should I? I see a lack of support for your statement that the hole is 50' wide.


Time to put your OWN calculations up for critical assessment then, don't you think? Of course not... that's too hard...


Excuse me, but since you are the OP, and didn't do a decent job of analyzing the crater, as proven by you agreeing to try and find some overhead photos this weekend, doesn't that make you the lazy one?



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

I merely asked if anyone could properly explain why the grass is still growing there intact in the impact crater.


Prove that it's still growing, and isn't an uprooted clump of grass. that would render your argument invalid, btw...


It seems that you have automatically taken offence to that,


yep. cuz it's an unsupported opinion that it's still growing.And you haven't defined growing either. Did you mean intact? not burned up? what exactly? vague claims shouldn't be given any weight.


the clump of grass is NOT the alleged 'smoking gun'...


I'll say. It's not anything at all. i wonder why you've included it then?



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
The debate should have ended with your OP. The fact that the grass
is still present proves nothing struck the ground in that area. The detent
was there from before.


Originally posted by Rewey



Originally posted by CameronFox
First of all. Did you happen to calculate the kinetic energy involved with the impact of Flight 93?
...
If you do the math, you will see that the kinetic energy was equal too about 1484 pounds of TNT.


How many ways can we pick apart, "Mr. Fox"? Do you really think 1500 pounds of TNT would only leave an 18 foot diameter hole...maybe 10 feet deep? In "soft" land as they claim!



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   
I'm gonna need lots more popcorn, this stuff is so entertaining



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mark_Amy
I'm gonna need lots more popcorn, this stuff is so entertaining


I have to agree. To look at a photo of a huge, smoking hole full of plane wreckage and then point to dry pieces of grass in the foreground and claim "no plane crash here"! is just hilarious!



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
...a huge, smoking hole full of plane wreckage.....


Well I wouldn't go that far, but I am enjoying the back and forth, you prove it, no you prove it palava.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Mark_Amy
 


palava?



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Mark_Amy
 


palava?


sorry...palaver....wrote it how it sounds



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
I see you have never researched false flag operation. You sir have demonstrated that you believe that your government “is not capable” of committing a false flag operation in the United States. You sadly underestimate your government and the propaganda they spew from your media, you sir are asleep.


...and you're so madly in love with these damned fool conspiracy stories that I daresay it would inflict physical pain on you to ever concede they actaully may be wrong. The whole reason I know this "faked crash site" bit is rubbish is specifically *becuase* I followed your advice and read the Northwoods report. And what do I find?

-staged harrasment of civilian aircraft by fighters with fake Cuban markings

-Remote controlled craft blown up by (supposedly) Cuban antiaircraft missiles

-Staged invasion of Guantanamo by Cuban exiles wearing Cuban army uniforms

Every single step of Northwoods led to a single, crystal clear purpose- to make Cuba look like a belligerant so that we could invade. THIS would have been a real false flag operation, had they gone ahead with it. On the other hand, what does YOUR false flag operation entail? Did they stage a terrorist attack to frame Iraq? NO! They framed that toilet of a country of Afghanistan. Did they plant WMD in Iraq to show the world we had justification to invade? NO! We admitted we didn't find anythign and allowed the whole world to laugh at us. Did they plant wreckage of aircraft to show us how bloodthirsty the terrorists are? NO! They dug a hole in the middle of nowhere to fool us and then turned around and concealed the hole they dug to fool us. Did they even show us crystal clear video of the plane hitting the Pentagon? NO! They showed us a single grainy photo of something moving 200 yards away. Your false flag operation sounds like a bunch of retarded 15 year old kids came up with it.

Dude, if this doesn't wake you up out of your daydreams, nothing will.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I have to agree. To look at a photo of a huge, smoking hole full of plane wreckage and then point to dry pieces of grass in the foreground and claim "no plane crash here"! is just hilarious!


"full of plane wreckage"

Are you talking about this photo?




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I believe so.

There is lots of wreckage in that photo. Nothing very large though. Which is typical for a high speed nose down air crash.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


That's the one - smoking hole full of plane wreckage. Now I guess the next tack is to ask me to cirlce the pieces, give you part and serial numbers, match them to the airline maintenance logs and post it all on the internet. The even if I did that, the next tack would be too take an inventory of the missing pieces from the log match ups and declare "inside job"!

Do I pretty much have that right!



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
How is Rewey supporting his argument that the crater is ~50' wide.

How are you providing me any official sources to show the dimensions of the crater?

It's your official government story, but you can't give me a basic fact like the crater dimensions.

All you want to do, Joey is to spin, avoid, dodge and deflect.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
A boeing 757 - 200 has a wingspan of 124 ft 10 inches.

I took this photo and put a red dot at the end of each wing mark




I then went to google earth and using the ruler tool I marked out a 124.68 ft mark near the same location and took a screenshot.



The crater actually looks to big to me. But then the plane has a lot of sweep in the wings that can be spread out to make up the differance.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join