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 Two...

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

It's like the video waytpastvne posted in Part One. He posted it to show how fuel can be thrown from a crashing plane, pointing out a similar angle of impact.



SO then you agree with him, right?

You were using your personal incredulity about lack of burn marks/grass around the crater.

And you got schooled on it.

You learned something!!!




posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Rewey

However, as this photo was originally brought into the 9/11 debate by an ‘Official Story’ supporter,



Where.

In what thread?

By who?


Give up joey your arguments are weak and pointless. Ignoring evidence and derailing topic when you are made a fool is getting old. If you dont like the truth or the topic i am sure there are hundreds of websites out there at least. Try google. I heard they can link you to some.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli





That dent was not caused by wings or a Boeing 757 was present pre 911. So the flight 93 story has been debunked over and over. No one believes a Boeing 757 crashed there. No one except ignorant loyalists to the overly debunked, recanted 911 commission.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


The topic is that "every palne crash will have a gouge in the earth parallel to the direction of travel.

So what direction was the plane traveling in that photo?

What heading?

What wing roll angle?

Pitch?

Speed?

No one knows. Not even Rewey.

Just like he didn't know that crater was more than 50' wide. he BELIEVED that it was. He was certain. he argued for it. And then when he realized he was wrong, and badly, he refused to do a simple analysis.

Typical twoofie....



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012

That dent ........ was present pre 911.


Rewey says that's been debunked. And he's right.

Your statement has as much credibility as the no planers claims.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


You replies and tactics to group facts with 'no planers' is a weak tactic that is falling on deaf ears and eyes. Your debunking skills are lack luster and your claims of evidence are unfounded and sourceless.

you claim that something has been debunked but it has been proven that the dent in the earth around the round crater was present before 911. That has not been debunked and you should quit while your behind.


You suck at this. Move on to the Alien forums or something rather than trying to derail a serious topic.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
And you got schooled on it.

You learned something!!!


Is that right?

Can you please provide the crash report for that incident, Joey? I'd like to confirm the speed, pitch, roll, colour of pilot's underwear... all the usual stuff...

Can you provide it, Joey?

Can you?

You know that according to you, the video means nothing without it.

Can you do it, Joey? Can you? Can you?

If that's your idea of schooling, it explains your level of education...

Rew

[edit on 22-10-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I just wish that Joey would hurry up with that official government story crash data that he was going to provide for the story he believes.


It'll be on his bookshelf next to the 'Twoofer Playbook' he refers to in Part One.

Rew



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So what direction was the plane traveling in that photo?


Like I said, Joey. If you can't work it out, just put your hand up and say that, and we'll all walk you through it, step by step.

But it does seem odd, given your amazing photo interpretation skills from Part One...


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
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.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
This assymetrical crater supports the "os". The plane came down from the right at ~40 degrees, and the kinetic energy "blew out" the left side... The dirt piled to the left, circled in pink, also is testimony to the ke direction.


Hypocrisy again? That'll never get old. [/sarcasm]

Rewey



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
this is evidence that the grass wasn't undistirbed.


Sorry, Joey, but there's already a thread for addressing that photo. It's called Part One. Please continue with that line of thought in that thread.

Rew



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

I'd like to confirm the speed, pitch, roll,


It was in your OP in thread 1.

Have you forgotten that already?

This is all I'm asking for this thread.

If you don't know, then just say it.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

But it does seem odd, given your amazing photo interpretation skills from Part One...



We have that data from the FDR.

therefore, an honest interpretation can be done.

The same can't be said for this thread.

Since you're unwilling or unable to provide that for this mystery crash, your statement that the plane crash photo gouge was caused by the plane's momentum is supported by absolutely zero.

Agagin, the rational realize that what you're saying is bare assertion. Nothing more.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If you don't know, then just say it.


Oh my God!!! I've told you four times now where it came from and the information that was provided with it! Just like I told you that your 'OS' buddies who introduced this photo to me and used it as a comparison didn't have it!

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend???

I'll tell you what. Give me a no b/s answer to this...

Given your understanding of how crash scenes can demonstrate kinetic energy direction, and therefore crash direction (so adequately demonstrated in Part One), what direction do YOU think the plane in the OP of this thread was moving in when it hit the ground?

Obviously we can not tell compass directions, so use the picture itself as reference. Was it left to right? Was it top to bottom? Given the EVIDENCE of kinetic energy being imposed on the ground, what direction do YOU interpret it as being?

If you can't answer that simple, no b/s, black or white question without a simple, no b/s black or white answer, then every post you make from hereon is simply diversionary, and is not contributing in any way to this forum...

Rewey



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Since you're unwilling or unable to provide that for this mystery crash, your statement that the plane crash photo gouge was caused by the plane's momentum is supported by absolutely zero.


Good one, Joey. It was probably there beforehand and the plane just happened to crash into it.

Hang on... I thought you 'OS' supporters hated that theory...

I'm sure momentum had NOTHING to do with it... [/sarcasm]

Rew



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

I'll tell you what. Give me a no b/s answer to this...

Given your understanding of how crash scenes can demonstrate kinetic energy direction, and therefore crash direction (so adequately demonstrated in Part One), what direction do YOU think the plane in the OP of this thread was moving in when it hit the ground?





If you were standing on the ground at the time of impact:

1 - at the bottom of the page: it looks like it would have been coming at a downward angle of ~40-50 degrees from the left. The wings would have been ~ level from that perspective

2 - at the left of the page: down at 70 degrees from horizontal from the right. Nearly straight down.

The blue line shows the best trace of the gouge. If the fuselage made it, there wouldn't be any deflection. Rather, the wings look upswept, like a few early jets had. And judging from the grainy pic, I'd say it wasn't too recent, maybe 50's/early 60's.

Inside the pink area, the soil looks piled higher than below the gouge. i see fewer corn (?) stalks. So there was definitely some ke "up" in the pic. Below the gouge looks more like a "splash" of dirt made by the belly of the plane. So it looks like it didn't bore straight in, but rather had some "up" elevator dialed in. Trim? Pilot didn't eject and tried to save it?

This would explain the v-shaped gouge. Either a trimmed up elevator or a pilot trying to save the plane would put a g-load on that would flex the wings some.

The gouge also looks deeper in the center, made by the fuselage, just like in Shanksville.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

Where are the perfectly molded wing scars like we see in Shanks? The tail scar for that matter?

And why didn't the Shanks field have fanned-out blast marks at that field definitely shows? The Shanks field has grass too.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by ATH911]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


There you go – you calmed down and gave an opinion. Thanks. That star is from me. Maybe the fact that this is your 18th post in this thread, and it’s your only star, means that NO-ONE is interested in long-winded rants, mud-slinging and repeated requests for information that doesn’t exist. Now that you’ve calmed down and provided an opinion for discussion, it actually forms a valid contribution to this forum…

I just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying though. Based on the following comments, I put together what I think you’re suggesting below. I’ve overlayed the wings with the blue lines you drew.


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
My opinion is that the wings made it, since there are no other wing marks there.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The blue line shows the best trace of the gouge. If the fuselage made it, there wouldn't be any deflection. Rather, the wings look upswept, like a few early jets had.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
This would explain the v-shaped gouge… a g-load on that would flex the wings some.




Is this something similar to what you’re suggesting? (Using the outline of a Japanese Zero has no significance here. It’s the first outline I found of a fighter with substantial dihedral, and I liked the picture. I’m not suggesting the crater was made by a Zero).


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Inside the pink area, the soil looks piled higher than below the gouge… So there was definitely some ke "up" in the pic. Below the gouge looks more like a "splash" of dirt made by the belly of the plane.


Here I think you’re suggesting that the plane was travelling from bottom-to-top (with respect to the picture). All of the debris and ejecta covering the bottom half of the picture is backwards ‘spray’ or ‘splash’ from the impact.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Nearly straight down.


And here, you’re suggesting that it was a nosedive, or nearly vertical impact?

Is that roughly your estimation?

Rewey



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   



Thanks for posting this pic Rewey. It totally debunks that a plane crashed in Shanks!

(saying this sincerely, not sarcastically)



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Here is how I think the plane came in (red arrow):



The red arrow is the plane and the yellow arrows are the blast trajectory that SHOULD HAVE BEEN in the Shanksville field which PROVES a plane didn't crash in Shanks.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Maybe the fact that this is your 18th post in this thread, and it’s your only star, means that NO-ONE is interested in long-winded rants, mud-slinging and repeated requests for information that doesn’t exist.


Are you serious? Who cares about stars? Only troofers care about stars, since they're all here for mutual support of their delusional rantings.

If they were serious, they'd be writing papers in their particuar field of expertise and getting them published in respectable peer reviewed journals that would actually have an impact on the general population/fellow professionals, hence getting their new investigation into 9/11. 8 yrs later..... nada. Zip. Squirt.



Here I think you’re suggesting that the plane was travelling from bottom-to-top (with respect to the picture). All of the debris and ejecta covering the bottom half of the picture is backwards ‘spray’ or ‘splash’ from the impact.

Is that roughly your estimation?

Rewey


Close.

If you were standing on the ground prior to impact, at the bottom of the page, it would come from behind your left shoulder. SO the plane image needs to be rotated counterclockwise some. Maybe 40-50 degrees.

If you were standing on the ground at the time of impact:

1 - at the bottom of the page: it looks like it would have been coming at a downward angle of ~40-50 degrees from the left. The wings would have been ~ level from that perspective

2 - at the left of the page: down at 70 degrees from horizontal from the right. Nearly straight down.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join