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: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



...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.


Like you and your OS, right!


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?


Operation Northwood dose not talk about 911 and if it dose please show where they talk about four airplanes crashing into the WTC, or crashing a plane into the Pentagon, or crashing a plane in the ground in Shanskville PA. Operation Northwood dose not prove anything about the OS of 911. Operation Northwood was an event that never happened and thank god for John F Kennedy, who told our military Generals no, that he would not let them have their false flag operation. You have to be in a deep state of denial if you think that our Military leaders wouldn’t try it again 40 years later and use similar technique that was in Operation Northwood .


Did they stage a terrorist attack to frame Iraq? NO!


In my opinion, it was a small group of people in the Bush administration who plan the attacks and used a very small group of military men who are experts in aviation and demolition to pull off the events of 911. This group in my opinion was very loyal to Dick Cheney and this also explains why Cheney had his own assignation squad.

Do I have any proof that the Bush administration help carry out 911 NO! No one will. These treasonous murdering people know if they are ever caught they know that the American people will have a public hanging and put these murdering thugs to death.

A false flag operation is a conspiracy it has been proven many times in the pass.


False Flag Terrorism
"False flag terrorism" occurs when elements within a government stage a secret operation whereby government forces pretend to be a targeted enemy while attacking their own forces or people. The attack is then falsely blamed on the enemy in order to justify going to war against that enemy. Or as Wikipedia defines it:
False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension.

www.wanttoknow.info...



They framed that toilet of a country of Afghanistan.


Yes they did, the Bush administration sold a bill of lies to the American people and most of us sleeping sheep including me bought into it.


Did they plant WMD in Iraq to show the world we had justification to invade? NO!


No one is saying America planted WMD in Iraq where did you get that from?


We admitted we didn't find anythign and allowed the whole world to laugh at us.


The reason why the whole world is laughing at us is because the Bush administration are terrible lairs and now are hiding behind National security secrecy.


Did they plant wreckage of aircraft to show us how bloodthirsty the terrorists are? NO!


Where is you’re proof that the FBI or other government official did not plant airplane wreckage? You are making a claim, now back it up!


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.


Yep, in my “opinion” they did.


Did they even show us crystal clear video of the plane hitting the Pentagon? NO!


No they showed us nothing because in my opinion, they are hiding what really hit the pentagon. Of all the 80 videos and other security surveillance from other business aimed toward the pentagon. After a lawsuit that was filed by Judicial, Watch under the F.I.O.A all we got was a few lousy frames of edited nothing.


They showed us a single grainy photo of something moving 200 yards away.


We don’t even know what it is, no one has been able to prove a thing nothing, nada.



Your false flag operation sounds like a bunch of retarded 15 year old kids came up with it.

LOL What dose your OS fairytale sound like, Get real!


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


It is you that is in a deep coma and refuses to wake up I guess you feel safe in la, la land.

You have no evidences to prove to me that the OS is true?

Why do you believe in the OS? Oh that’s right, you cant answer that one, that is a question that all disinformationist will avoid like the plague because the truth is the last thing they want to deal with, right?




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

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



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

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



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
How is Rewey supporting his argument that the crater is ~50' wide.
All you want to do, Tezza is to spin, avoid, dodge and deflect.

I don't know how Rewey is supporting his claim and I don't really care.

Joey, it is difficult for you tp progress in this thread, when you can't supply a key piece of evidence about the crater. You believe that crater was made by Flight UA93 - but you have failed to link me to any official government source that can tell me about that crater. Why have you failed to do this, Joey?

Why was your official government report so lacking, to not produce any public documents about the crater?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

I don't know how Rewey is supporting his claim and I don't really care.


It is difficult for Rewey to progress in this thread, when he can't supply a key piece of evidence about the crater.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
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.



Keep in mind that the plane was IIRC 40 degrees inverted, but also had some yaw to it as it hit the ground.

To visualize this, if you were on the ground at crash time, and standing perpindicular to the marks that the wings made, the plane's body would have been at the ~ 1:00 position. If you were standing in line with the wing marks, it would have been at ~ 1:30. This can also be visualized by seeing where the burn marks are - 7:00. The exact details were given in the recorders.

Looks like Rewey has a problem then.

It looks like his 50' claim is a lie.

Imagine that.....



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It is difficult for Rewey to progress in this thread, when he can't supply a key piece of evidence about the crater.

Just as it is extremely difficult for you to progress in the thread when you have no official government link to tell me anything about the crater.

Again, Joey, you have been caught out dodging, spinning, avoiding and deflecting... Why can't you supply any official sources about the crater?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

To visualize this, if you were on the ground at crash time, and standing perpindicular to the marks that the wings made, the plane's body would have been at the ~ 1:00 position. If you were standing in line with the wing marks, it would have been at ~ 1:30.


I am very confused by this. What exactly do you mean by 1:30?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It is difficult for Rewey to progress in this thread, when he can't supply a key piece of evidence about the crater.


Although it seems you have not been able to provide ANY official or government source which includes a measurement of the dimensions of the crater, as Tezza has repeatedly asked you to provide...

Seems it goes both ways...



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Looks like Rewey has a problem then.

It looks like his 50' claim is a lie.

Imagine that.....


Actually, I'm happy to admit that it may not be accurate, but I'd stop short of calling it a lie.

Why? Firstly, it's not particularly central to the issue raised in the OP - the grass and scrub pointed out WERE inside the crater which, according to the 'official story' could ONLY have been created by Flight 93. Whether it was struck by the inside edge of the wing or the outside is a minor issue. If you want to point out something which indicates they are NOT inside the crater, feel free.

Secondly, as pointed out on numerous posts, the '50 foot' estimation was based on other posters around ATS and the comments made by those arriving at the scene first, such as:


"WTAE-TV's Michelle Wright toured the crash scene and said that a crater of about 30 to 40 feet long, 15 to 20 feet wide and 18 feet deep was created by the crash."



"The apparent point of impact was a dark gash, not more than 30 feet wide, at the base of a gentle slope just before a line of trees."


Clearly, there is a difference between 125 feet, and some of the much smaller estimations provided by those first on the scene. As I was not one of the first arriving at the scene, I am not going to tell them what they saw...

Again, if you can please point out one official source which gives an accurate description about the dimensions of the crater, I'm more than happy to work with those...

Rewey



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
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



The only problem I have with this photo is that is is after 9/11, as can be seen by the clean-up and excavation crews already set up (by the tents and vehicles on the road).

If you have any photos showing a similar aspect taken on the day, it would be good to see... I was going to raise the crater width in another Part of these 'Deconstructed' threads. I have another photo taken on the day which shows an interesting perspective, but as I stated in the OP, I wanted these threads to remain on track with the specific issue raised in each OP...

Rewey



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw


Again, Joey, you have been caught out dodging, spinning, avoiding and deflecting... Why can't you supply any official sources about the crater?


Why can't Rewey supply any official sources about the crater?

Again, Tezza, you have been caught out dodging, spinning, avoiding and deflecting...



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Since Rewey cannot do it, can you please supply and official source for the crater?

[edit on 10/11/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

To visualize this, if you were on the ground at crash time, and standing perpindicular to the marks that the wings made, the plane's body would have been at the ~ 1:00 position. If you were standing in line with the wing marks, it would have been at ~ 1:30.


I am very confused by this. What exactly do you mean by 1:30?


1:00 would have been ~ 30 degrees

1:30 would have been ~ 45 degrees



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

1:00 would have been ~ 30 degrees

1:30 would have been ~ 45 degrees


OK, thanks. There are a few ways to interpret that and since people hear speak a few different versions of English, I had to ask. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Seems it goes both ways...


Exactly.

Cuz only the delusional would claim that the crater/wing marks don't match a 757. Which is exactly what you did.

And that's the problem with the whole troof movement. Twoofs make crap up about how wide the crater was, since it wasn't mentioned in any report that I'm aware of. So then they can claim whatever they want, and make any claim they want. Which is exactly what you did.

And then they make the bold assertion that the crater is 50', giving ZERO analysis as to how they came up with this figure, thus in their delusional mind proving that a 757 couldn't have hit there. Which is exactly what you did.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Actually, I'm happy to admit that it may not be accurate, but I'd stop short of calling it a lie.


I agree, being wrong isn't a lie.

But claiming that people from both sides of the fence, and IIRC, on multiple boards, agree on 50' as being an accurate number...... and then not being able to supply one iota of proof to that statement...... IS a lie.

You lied about that Rewey.


Why? Firstly, it's not particularly central to the issue raised in the OP


And yet, you raised it. You used it as part of the whole "thick part of the wing struck where that grass is" statement. So it IS central to your OP. I'll NOT call you a liar about this, cuz maybe you're abandoning this now.

So why am I calling you out on this? Cuz it proves you to be a dead wrong about an issue that you NOW consider insignificant, yet one that you apparently feel ok about lying about when you mention the "general consensus" from both sides of the fence.


the grass and scrub pointed out WERE inside the crater which, according to the 'official story' could ONLY have been created by Flight 93. Whether it was struck by the inside edge of the wing or the outside is a minor issue. If you want to point out something which indicates they are NOT inside the crater, feel free.


Although it's a little grainy, I'd agree that the circled grass is inside the crater. It's the whole "still growing" that I take issue with.

I say it's a dirt clod held together by the roots that somehow got dislodged in some unknown manner and ended up back in the crater, and sitting on top of the new grade.

You claim that it's "still growing". And you haven't fully explained just exactly what this ymeans et, even though I've asked. And since you've admitted to the possibility of being wrong about the 50', which is about as much I expect anyone would ever get, your judgement is in question. Even worse, since I believe you to be lying about "both sides of the argument agreeing to 50ft", then you better bring some VERY strong analysis of that clod/grass. Cuz your cred is shot, IMHO.


Secondly, as pointed out on numerous posts, the '50 foot' estimation was based on other posters around ATS


I'll bet they're all troofers.


and the comments made by those arriving at the scene first, such as:


"WTAE-TV's Michelle Wright toured the crash scene and said that a crater of about 30 to 40 feet long, 15 to 20 feet wide and 18 feet deep was created by the crash."



"The apparent point of impact was a dark gash, not more than 30 feet wide, at the base of a gentle slope just before a line of trees."


That's not much to be basing it off of. Pretty sloppy, wouldn't you say? If you were doing a compaction analysis for a large building's foundations, I'd hazard a guess and say that you WOULDN'T rely on a soils map, and instaed go dig some holes yourself. You're making accusations on some mighty slim evidence.


Again, if you can please point out one official source which gives an accurate description about the dimensions of the crater, I'm more than happy to work with those...

Rewey



I'm not aware of any.

Which means, like I previously stated, YOU need to find a good overhead shot with something with a known size, and do your analysis BEFORE you make a wrong statement.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

The only problem I have with this photo is that is is after 9/11, as can be seen by the clean-up and excavation crews already set up (by the tents and vehicles on the road).



Again, without YOUR analysis, you have no business claiming that where the grass is, was struck by the part of the wing close to the cabin, where it is thickest.

What happens when you're wrong though?

Will it disprove the OP - that the grass is undisturbed, which couldn't happen if it was struck by the thick part of the wing, and not by the wing tip?

I'm seriously curious how far you'll take this.....



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

OK, thanks. There are a few ways to interpret that and since people hear speak a few different versions of English, I had to ask. Thanks.


Obviously.

English isn't your native language either, is it?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Why can't Rewey supply any official sources about the crater?

Casual readers to the thread should note Joey's continual avoidance to support his story.

Joey is an official government story believer, yet he continues to refuse to provide any official government data about the crater.

Why is it that Joey continually fails to provide this information? Why is it that Joey won't provide Rewey with the official government supplied data about the crater?

Joey, why do you believe the official government story about the Shanksville incident, yet you continually fail to provide basic investigative facts about the incident?

According to you, Joey, your official government story is supposed to be true and correct, so why are you so reluctant to educate us all about how big the crater officially was?

What is your problem, Joey? Was your official government story about Shanksville lacking a basic investigative report?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
That photo was taken on 9/12/01 Between 11 and 12 Oclock, before any clean up started. The crater looks just did in the aerial video taken at about 6pm 9/11/01

Same goes for the photo below.



124.9 ft





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join