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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
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



Nevermind, I guess they just did not load for me or something. My bad.

[edit on 10/12/09 by Lillydale]




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

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.


I've actually done a search through the old threads today. I WAS mistaken. The '50 feet' referred to was the DEPTH which the 'official story' supporters were claiming. They were saying that pieces of the plane were being excavated from 50 feet below the surface... my bad there... hands up... first to admit it...


Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Rewey
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.


You're absolutely right. Why would I base something on the eyewitness reports of those who arrived at the scene first? That was very sloppy of me. Now I know to only use measurements in the official report on the site. Can you please provide a link for that?

Seriously, I'd hate to rely on first-hand eyewitness accounts. A link to an official source would be tops.

And before you say that it doesn't exist, consider the Pan Am tragedy. That was a LONE terrorist detonating a LONE bomb on a LONE plane, and yet there were countless reports made on the details of the wreckage and damage on the ground.

But 9/11 was an expertly co-ordinated attack, on multiple planes with precision flying and precision timing, by a huge group of terrorists, resulting in the deaths of THOUSANDS of US citizens... are you telling me that no-one got out there with a tape measure and jotted down a few details? A few measurements? They were planning to make a few claims in court, won't they? Prosecute a few people?

"We found a red bandana, guys! That'll be enough! Just bin the rest and fill in the hole..."

Rewey



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

I've actually done a search through the old threads today. I WAS mistaken. The '50 feet' referred to was the DEPTH which the 'official story' supporters were claiming.


So this is the second thread about Shanksville, and you can't even get that right? Nice.

I'll retract the "liar" then. Congratulations.

But let me get this straight - first you stated there was a "general consensus" about the hole being 50' wide, presumably cuz it supported your OP. But now that you've reread the old threads, only "os" beleivers are saying that parts were found at 50' deep? What happened to your consensus now? Did it just disappear cuz it doesn't bolster some part of the deconstruction?

Looks like blatant dishonesty now. Oops, guess I'll have to retract my retraction unless you have an explanation about how the "general consensus" has now vanished.

Do you need to change your OP now, since it's clear that the thick part of the wings aren't where the grass clump was? Why did you edit out that part in your response?

Or does it not matter?


Seriously, I'd hate to rely on first-hand eyewitness accounts. A link to an official source would be tops.


I'm not aware of any. I did what I've been imploring you to do, and what another poster HAS done twice in this thread.

That which you are avoiding.

If the info apears to be unavailable, do it yourself. Looks like you're not gonna.

Imagine that.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

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?


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

Rewey is an official government story non-believer, yet he continues to refuse to provide any of his own analysis about the crater.

Why is it that Rewey continually fails to provide this information? Why is it that Rewey won't provide readers with his analysis about the crater?

Rewey, why do you not believe the official government story about the Shanksville incident, yet you continually fail to provide basic investigative facts about the incident?

According to you, Rewey, the official government story is supposed to not 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, Rewey? Was your OP about Shanksville lacking a basic investigative analysis?

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



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


Please explain why they would be investigating the crash to the extent of measuring the impact crater? Exactly what would be gleamed from that piece of info? There really wasn't a lot to investigate, was there? You usually "investigate" to try and find out what happened, right? So what was unknown that the dimensions of the impact crater would have resolved?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
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 .


First you try and claim that Northwoods has nothign to do with the gov't's penchant for false flag operations, and in the very next sentence you say that it does. Make up your mind.


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.


In MY opinion you're makign crap up off the top of your head to suit your own paranoid account of things. Come to think of it, many of your fellow 9/11 conspirators here I.E. Bonez think that way, too. Go ahead and ask him. I'll wait.


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


Good grief, you have the attention span of a moth. I said we *didn't* plant WMD in Iraq, that's the whole point. If these secret conspirators went through all the trouble of pulling off this false flag operation to frame Afghanistan then I ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY ?GUARANTEE they'd likewise sneak WMD into Iraq to flaunt to the world as justification to invade. Doing so would be a lot easier to do than planting CD in an occupied building. We obviously didn't. How do you explain that?


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!


Now that's about as ridiculous a statement as it gets. I don't need to prove the FBI *didn't* plant wreckage any more than I need to prove the attacks *weren't* done by UFOs, North Koreans, or the guy who draws the "Dilbert" cartoons. You're the one refuting the claim the wreckage came from a jet liner impact so the responsibility is yours to prove the wreckage *was* planted.


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.


..but YOU are the one who's claimign the gov't has the ability to plant wreckage, manufacture evidence, employ disinformation agents, etc etc etc, so if they wanted to lie to you and say it was something other than, well, whatever the heck you think it really was, then they'd simply manufacture whatever evidence they'd need to show it definitively was an aircraft. You're the one who's claimign there necessarily had to be crystal clear photos of the aircraft to begin with.

Your opinions aren't very consistent.


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


Have you been living in a cave?? We know muslim fundamentalists have been known to hijack aircraft, we know musllim fundamentalists have been known to pull off suicide attacks, and we definitely know muslim fundamentalists go bananas when Danish newspapers print cartoons about Mohammed. The only obfuscation being introduced anywhere here is coming entirely from you truthers.


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?


On the contrary, my answer is simple- if you believe the OS is false, then it becomes your obligation to supply us with a scenario that better fits the facts, and so far, these stories of cruise missiles, planted wreckage, and faked crash sites to frame some toilet of a country on the other side of the world in a bid to take over the world, sound like a plot some retarded 15 year old kid would come up with.

How the heck does invading Afghanistan help us take over the world, exactly? Please, explain that one to me.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
So far we have a failed attempt to "debunk" the official description of the impact crater and therefore prove a conspiracy, however, apparently there is no "official" description of the crater ergo: conspiracy. So either way we end up at conspiracy.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

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

Joey, you believe the official government story about Shanksville, yet you can't produce data to support elements of your official government story about Shanksville.

In this thread, like a few others, you have logically failed.

Your continual avoidance is noted and quite humourous at the same time.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The SO is a lie. It is your choice to be ignorant if you choose.

Here is a question that will show all of us what you are really up to and I dare you to answer it because, I don’t think you can, which will prove to me you are trolling for a fight with anyone who doesn’t believe in the OS , or if you really have some real proof of something very important, perhaps inside information from the WH.
Here is the question:

Why do you believe in the OS?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Why is it that Rewey won't provide readers with his analysis about the crater?


WTF??? I provided a link on the first or second page of this thread to a pdf copy of MY analysis of the Shanksville crater! Remember - hooper was too scared to download it.

Man...



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey
It is important to remember that the crater is only 50-odd feet long.


Can you do us a favor and either post the NTSB/FBI crash site analysis grid with the measurements and dimensions of the crash site or link to the site where this is discussed?

I ask that because I'm sure you did not intentionally set yourself up for ridicule by claiming, from whatever source, the aforementioned absolute statement of "the crater is only 50-odd feet long" without any solid and legitimate evidence of such. I'm *sure* you aren't going on someone's off-the-cuff comment like "Well I'll be a sum'gun! That there hole din' look bigger that 50' foot if it were an inch!". There are other quotes of the say saying the falling WTC sounded like "a train" or like " a herd of elephants on a rampage", and I'm sure you won't be asking us to believe that a herd of elephants ran through downtown NYC or a train precipitated the falling. Please don't ask us to believe a "50 foot" statement unless it is backed up by some official and definitive documentation.

If you choose to believe that there *is* no official or definitive documentation, then why stop at a gargantuan 50 feet? Call it a 25' hole, say there were little purple leprechauns who all faintly resemble every member of the Bush administration dancing around inside and be done with this whole thing.

To try and don the mantle of respectability and logical analysis when making up numbers by pulling them out of your grommet does not sound like a winning strategy.

But hey...that's just me.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by Rewey
It is important to remember that the crater is only 50-odd feet long.


I ask that because I'm sure you did not intentionally set yourself up for ridicule by claiming, from whatever source, the aforementioned absolute statement of "the crater is only 50-odd feet long" without any solid and legitimate evidence of such.


No, no... it was addressed at my post at the top of this page. I WAS mistaken about the crater being 50 foot long - it was the other posts from a while back where people claimed the hole was 50 feet DEEP (as in wreckage was being excavated from 50 feet below the surface...).

But it didn't change that the undisturbed items circled in the OP photo were inside the crater...

Rew

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Can you do us a favor and either post the NTSB/FBI crash site analysis grid with the measurements and dimensions of the crash site or link to the site where this is discussed?

trebor, can you do us and Joey a favour and post the exact same information so that we can view the crater dimensions according to the official government story?

In your self alleged 25 year career working for the government DoD, you of all people should be able to produce the official government documents that detail the entire Shanksville incident.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
trebor, can you do us and Joey a favour and post the exact same information so that we can view the crater dimensions according to the official government story?

In your self alleged 25 year career working for the government DoD, you of all people should be able to produce the official government documents that detail the entire Shanksville incident.


You are giving everyone else from Down Undah a bad rep, tezz, with your inability to understand logical comments and statements.

I was not in Shanksville during the impact of the aircraft nor during any of the recovery operations - never was, never claimed I was - so I am not privy to the dimensions of the impact crater. Nor am I privy to any of the official documentation that was the product of the criminal investigation (ongoing) conducted by the FAA and/or NTSB and/or FBI. I have no reason to be privy to such information - never have, never claimed such - so why you would think that my status as a civil servant working for a government organization would provide me access to such data is inexplicable - but with you asking the question, understandable.

So, I do not claim any knowledge of the size, depth, length, breadth or any other particulars of the crash site and would not venture any dimensional descriptions of such. Suffice it to say it was "the crater" or "the crash site".

I, as were many others on this board, questioning the dimensions quoted by the OP and where the author obtained them. Specificity is the very soul of credibility, and with his "50 foot" claim, his credibility was shot at the git-go.

As far as the author claim of "the undisturbed items circled in the OP photo" (although there was nothing "circled" in the OP), I would caution against any amateur photo analysis of any photo (especially one involving aircraft crashes) unless one is personally aware of the context, technical equipment used, location of the photographer, depth of field, shutter speed, aperture setting, lens used and other technical details. In addition, I would submit the individual would have to be educated and versed in the discipline of photoanalysis in order to carry any weight or sense of legitimacy to their comments. To be ignorant of the aforementioned elements and requirements is to set oneself up for more derision and ridicule - a commonplace occurrence for Troothers, in any event, but fair warning is offered.

Toothers seem to enjoy being the Pinata at the Party of 9/11. They seem to volunteer for that job, and many of them volunteer with gusto.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
I, as were many others on this board, questioning the dimensions quoted by the OP and where the author obtained them. Specificity is the very soul of credibility, and with his "50 foot" claim, his credibility was shot at the git-go.


But like I said at numerous times throughout this thread - if you supply me an 'official' measurement, or your own estimate, I'm MORE THAN HAPPY to work with that.

Seriously... If I've mentioned again and again that I'm happy to work with whatever figures you guys would like to produce, how does that 'shoot my credibility'?

It seems that it might shoot your credibility that you continue to lambast my initial comment, whilst continually IGNORING my offer to work with any values you guys provide... I mean, if you guys can't do it...?

Rewey



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
So, I do not claim any knowledge of the size, depth, length, breadth or any other particulars of the crash site and would not venture any dimensional descriptions of such. Suffice it to say it was "the crater" or "the crash site".

Therefore, like Joey, you both believe the official government story about what happened in Shanksville, but you're both unable to supply any data about the specifics...

Tell me, trebor, who can we ask for the official government data? How can people, like you and Joey, believe what happened there, when you can't produce a single report supporting some simple data?

In your self alleged 25 year career working as 'civil servant' for the government DoD, I find it strange that you'll believe what your government tells you, without having any detailed specifics of the event.

Casual readers, many truthers are called nutjobs for wanting more transparent information about 9/11. trebor and Joey prove that the truthers have a valid point, when they can't produce data that's supposed to support their official government story.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
As far as the author claim of "the undisturbed items circled in the OP photo" (although there was nothing "circled" in the OP)...


Although the photo which had the circle was added in a later post in reply to a specific comment, I believe you'll find it was still the 'OP photo', as in 'the photo which was posted in the OP'...

Rewey



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Rewey
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?


Actually, I love this argument…

For years, you guys have used ‘eye witnesses’ as a form of evidence. Some witnesses said they saw a missile or small passenger plane hit the Pentagon, but you guys said that there were more who said it was a Boeing. ‘Official Story’ wins! Some witnesses say the plane flew north of Citgo, but more said it flew south of Citgo. ‘Official Story’ wins! Some witnesses say no planes, more witnesses say there were planes. ‘Official Story’ wins! And on and on…

But now when I reference witnesses who were first to arrive at the scene, you say I’m being pretty sloppy. Does that mean that ‘OS’ supporters have been ‘pretty sloppy’ with their arguments to date?

The reason I ask is that there’s a huge difference between 30-40 feet and 120-odd feet. If we put together all of the ‘eye witnesses’ who were first to arrive on the scene, and count how many claimed it was 30-40 feet, and count those who claim it was around about 120-odd feet, can we use the ‘OS’ supporter method of who has the most witnesses, wins?

Rewey



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

The reason I ask is that there’s a huge difference between 30-40 feet and 120-odd feet. If we put together all of the ‘eye witnesses’ who were first to arrive on the scene, and count how many claimed it was 30-40 feet, and count those who claim it was around about 120-odd feet, can we use the ‘OS’ supporter method of who has the most witnesses, wins?

Rewey


Of course not. That's most definitely NOT how it works.

If you did your own analysis, like the other poster has done twice, you'd see quite easily that 30', or 50' is ridiculous.

You still haven't had the guts to do it yet.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Therefore, like Joey, you both believe the official government story about what happened in Shanksville, but you're both unable to supply any data about the specifics...

Tell me, trebor, who can we ask for the official government data? How can people, like you and Joey, believe what happened there, when you can't produce a single report supporting some simple data?

In your self alleged 25 year career working as 'civil servant' for the government DoD, I find it strange that you'll believe what your government tells you, without having any detailed specifics of the event.

Casual readers, many truthers are called nutjobs for wanting more transparent information about 9/11. trebor and Joey prove that the truthers have a valid point, when they can't produce data that's supposed to support their official government story.


Like Rewey, you both don't believe the official government story about what happened in Shanksville, but you're both unable to supply any data about the specifics...

Tell me, tezz, who can we ask for the data that support the OP? How can people, like you and Rewey, not believe what happened there, when you can't produce a single analysis supporting the OP?

Casual readers, many truthers are called nutjobs for wanting more transparent information about 9/11. Trebor and Joey prove that's a correct assessment, since the truthers don't have a valid point when they can't produce data that's supposed to support the OP.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join