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: 9
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
If *you* deem the dimensions of the crater a vitally important fact, then *you* can do the work to discover such. Somehow I doubt you have the capability to do such, so you sit here and do nothing but ask for information you are unwilling to go in search of.

Aren't Troothers great?


Actually, I think you'll find it's been Joey Canoli who has deemed the crater dimensions a vitally important fact. Tezza's comments have just been in response to that.

Aren't OS supporters great?

Rewey




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   

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




I love how the circular crater has built-up walls of sand where the wings
would have met the ground.

I also love the lack of debris and ground damage from the tail section.


As mentioned before, I love how the grass is undisturbed in the close up
of the 'wing' markings.

I seem to love many things in this post...even how GL's cling on to the
most pathetic examples of aircraft ground damage. It might as well be
a picture of a pink Unicorn.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


It was a real and genuine crash site, dude. They're not showing you what the entire crash site looks like and the reason why is obvious- 90% of the images contain scenes of former passengers turned into jelly and/or turned inside out. It's the same reason why they always withhold photos of every OTHER crash site.


There are plenty of aircraft crash site photos to compare with flight 93's. It's as simple as google. You say bodies or "jelly" were at the crash site which is why we don't have a full photo. I beleive it was estimated that around 37,500 gallons of jet fuel were onboard the plane when it crashed. If the 10,000 gallons on the each of the flights that struck the Towers could cause steel to melt shouldn't we see evidence of more drastic buring? Like incinerated bodies? Whats even more unnerving is that PDEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection) took soil samples from the crash site a few days after and found no evidence of a large volume of jet fuel at the crash site. The PDEP Secretary David E. Hess stated that the the reason for lack of fuel in the soil was probably due to the consumption of the fuels by the crashs hazardous fire. There wasn't a very large fire though, at least not one that looked like it had consumed the amount of fuel clamied to be present. I digress, regardless of the fuel or fires, many plane crash sites have a ton more debris then flight 93's. There are larger photos of this crash site as well, so bashing this particular picture is mute.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by LaughingMan1121]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Wing sticking out of ground??? I see you are a crack aircraft accident
investigator - Been watching Wiley Coyote toons lately ....


Actually, I LOVE this argument, too...

How about this hole allegedly left by a Boeing...



Remind you of anything?



Who's been watching Wile E Coyote toons???

Rewey



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


So, what is wrong with the hole, exactly? Here is the question - we now can simulate just about anything on computers, predicting physical behaviour. Why not construct a model (computer) and show us exactly what you think should have happened. And before you ask, I am not concerned by the dimensions or shape of the impact crater - you are - so I think the burden rest with you to prove that the crater we see in the photos is not consistent with what happened that day.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by LaughingMan1121
 





There are plenty of aircraft crash site photos to compare with flight 93's. It's as simple as google. You say bodies or "jelly" were at the crash site which is why we don't have a full photo. I beleive it was estimated that around 37,500 gallons of jet fuel were onboard the plane when it crashed. If the 10,000 gallons on the each of the flights that struck the Towers


Actually was about 5500 Gallons of fuel - jet fuel weighs about 6 1/2 lbs
per gallon so would be approximately 37,000 POUNDS of fuel at impact.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

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



No.

The bare soil inside the crater.

How did that happen?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   

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?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Actually, I think you'll find it's been Joey Canoli who has deemed the crater dimensions a vitally important fact.


No, you did by making an issue of it in your OP.

I've been challenging you for a simple reason - it shows what a poor researcher you are.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
So Cough back Cough on Cough topic,ahem we have here a hole.(Not talking about the posters)If we could agree on dimensions,we could also agree the wings on the aircraft either were or were not too long to fit into the hole.If not,there must be wing debris that did not go in the hole.If the fuel bladders in the wings had fuel,woulden't the wing shaped gashes be more like craters themselves as the fuel exploded?We have pictures of fireballs,both here in Shanksville and at the twin towers.The non crater shape of these alleged wing impressions means,1.there was no fuel,or no plane 2. it all went into the ground and burned slowy from lack of O2 which would have yielded a smoky fire(which would have burned the grass)3.it all went into the ground and is still there unburned.But no residue was found?We need a new investigation,let's call it Occam's Investigation.I don't know any Occam's.Cool name though.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

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.


Actually, yes. You were asking about the soil AROUND it being cleared of grass.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
No.

The bare soil inside the crater.

How did that happen?


Really? The bare soil in the crater? I imagine that when a crater is made, the top soil and grass is removed - ie. leaving the crater. I would assume that is how the inside of the crater would be... bare soil... Not that difficult is it?

Rewey



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

I imagine that when a crater is made, the top soil and grass is removed - ie. leaving the crater. I would assume that is how the inside of the crater would be... bare soil... Not that difficult is it?



Not for me, since the wing did it.

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.

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?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaughingMan1121
There are plenty of aircraft crash site photos to compare with flight 93's. It's as simple as google. You say bodies or "jelly" were at the crash site which is why we don't have a full photo. I beleive it was estimated that around 37,500 gallons of jet fuel were onboard the plane when it crashed. If the 10,000 gallons on the each of the flights that struck the Towers could cause steel to melt shouldn't we see evidence of more drastic buring? Like incinerated bodies?


No becuase like I said, they're not going to release photos of *any* human remains, regardless of their condition. I know there have been ghouls in the past who happened by and took photos of human remains that were released later to the public, but you'll never see any such photos released by the feds. I'm really, really, REALLY hoping I don't have to explain why they don't want to show you photos of, say, the crushed in decapitated head of a twelve year old girl lying scorched on what used to be an aircraft engine.

Thus, I find the claim that something suspicious is going on is not really convincing when it's a documented fact you are only seeing 1/1000th of the photographic material they made of the site. I find it even less credible when the self styled plane crash forensics experts here ignore the fact that the feds are just following the same policy they do for all other crash sites.



Whats even more unnerving is that PDEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection) took soil samples from the crash site a few days after and found no evidence of a large volume of jet fuel at the crash site. The PDEP Secretary David E. Hess stated that the the reason for lack of fuel in the soil was probably due to the consumption of the fuels by the crashs hazardous fire. There wasn't a very large fire though, at least not one that looked like it had consumed the amount of fuel clamied to be present.


I doubt you are using correct photos for your analysis. For one thing, all the photos I've seen were after they dug up every single piece of wreckage, bone, and suitcase, so any signs of scorching would have obviously been disturbed.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


No becuase like I said, they're not going to release photos of *any* human remains, regardless of their condition. I know there have been ghouls in the past who happened by and took photos of human remains that were released later to the public, but you'll never see any such photos released by the feds. I'm really, really, REALLY hoping I don't have to explain why they don't want to show you photos of, say, the crushed in decapitated head of a twelve year old girl lying scorched on what used to be an aircraft engine.





There were no children aboard. Only one child died on 911 from the attacks. On this flight I am sure the bodies were scattered over several square miles as this plane was shot down. I can find no other expination for this disaster because debirs was found 8 miles away.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


No becuase like I said, they're not going to release photos of *any* human remains, regardless of their condition. I know there have been ghouls in the past who happened by and took photos of human remains that were released later to the public, but you'll never see any such photos released by the feds. I'm really, really, REALLY hoping I don't have to explain why they don't want to show you photos of, say, the crushed in decapitated head of a twelve year old girl lying scorched on what used to be an aircraft engine.





There were no children aboard. Only one child died on 911 from the attacks. On this flight I am sure the bodies were scattered over several square miles as this plane was shot down. I can find no other expination for this disaster because debirs was found 8 miles away.


Exactly what debris was found where that convinces you that Flight 93 was shot down?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


This is a good question.

Where is the wreckage?

Where are photos of plane pieces?

Are there other cases of crashes where the whole plane completely disappears?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by hooper
 


This is a good question.

Where is the wreckage?

Where are photos of plane pieces?

Are there other cases of crashes where the whole plane completely disappears?


The wreckage is in stroage at a facility near Pittsburgh, Pa. The photos of plane pieces are all over the internet. The whole plane did not disappear.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Can you post any photos of wreckage at the site?

All I can find are photos of the hole.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Someone once said, I believe "Cameron Fox":

'Flight 93 had the impact force of 1450 pounds of TNT'


Does THAT[see photo above] look like a hole that 1450 pounds of TNT would make?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by hooper
 


Can you post any photos of wreckage at the site?

All I can find are photos of the hole.


Really? Look a little harder - try the Mossaui trial exhibits. And please excuse me if I spelled that wrong, never can remember how to spell it.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join