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.

 

Flight 93 Did Not Crash In Shanksville or Shot Down.

page: 18
30
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


What photo is in question??


This photo, used by a 'debunker'


Complete fraud. Fabrication of evidence. No sources and not even a wheel from a flight 93 the Boeing 757.


This picture was posted by hooper, he claims it came from Flight 93. Proven to be faked and fraudulent evidence. Very poor tactic. Yuk. Shame shame.




posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
These are rhetorical questions but please enlighten us with your interesting logics (debunkers)

Using this image

or this one

How deep is the official depth of this crater?

How wide is the crater that was caused on 911?

How wide is the wing span of a Boeing 757?

What is the Diameter of the fuselage of a Boeing 757?

The height of the vertical stabilizer?

Did the wings strike the ground?

What angle and speed did it hit the ground officially?

Where are you getting the official story from. Please post a source for the official conspiracy/story. No dammed fooled debunker pages please.

Oh and....


Why did this Iran plane crash leave a massive crater and also leave no doubt that a plane crashed when the Shanksville incident was quite opposite and left everyone with doubt?

Most people were in doubt on 911 seconds after showing the video and images.



[edit on 3-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
This picture was posted by hooper, he claims it came from Flight 93. Proven to be faked and fraudulent evidence. Very poor tactic. Yuk. Shame shame.


Pot, meet kettle. For two days now you have avoided my question as to your source for the picture YOU labeled "Flight 1771". The post in on page 17 on this thread found here

Here is the photograph Shadow posted.




Those that have researched Flight 93 and flight 1771 know the similarities between the aircraft. More importantly, Shadow... we know the differences.

Difference # 1

Flight 93 was a Boeing 757-222.

Flight 1771 was a BAe 146

Here is an illustration of "The Smile of Stockton, the aircraft lost on PSA flight 1771.


You, Shadow have been caught with willfully placing false material on this thread which could result in a posting ban. But, that's not up to me.






[edit on 3-3-2010 by ImAPepper]



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


All apologies, my mistake, I indeed posted the wrong picture link. No biggie.

Now back to the topic.

The crater was not caused by a Boeing 757. I have asked 7 people who are physics majors and professors. They all, I mean all of them disagree that it could of been caused by a Boeing 757.

The physics of cratering proves this. What a couple of them told me was that the crater size tell of something no bigger that a car or even a considering the speeds that were given. No to mention the lack of fire, parts or any evidence that shows that a plane crashed there. Out of context images show from 2006 is not considered good evidence but also shows sign of being fraudulent and planted. Of course some peope will disagree, but thats normal.

The wing marks in the above pictures were not caused by wings at all and were present before 911. This has been proven. Therefore what caused the crater WAS NOT A BOEING 757.

Sorry. Experts all agree. (quote this line ad-nauseum)

I would ask the debunkers for answers but their answers are really meaningless and redundant. These 4-6 people have been marginalized as pushing overly debunked and fabricated material.


In other words, their words are pointless and most people have put them on ignore considering they were debunked and shown to be false in most of their efforts to kill threads and annoy readers who come here. That is their goal.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
dble post


[edit on 3-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

All apologies, my mistake, I indeed posted the wrong picture link. No biggie.


Apology accepted.




Now back to the topic.


That was on topic.


The crater was not caused by a Boeing 757. I have asked 7 people who are physics majors and professors. They all, I mean all of them disagree that it could of been caused by a Boeing 757.


I call B.S. on this one. Unless you can produce these "professors". ...actually your entire post serves no purpose.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Here is another picture of the Iranian plane crash which crashed in a close match to air speed, terrain and size.


There is not one 'conspiracy loon' that even questions whether this was caused by a plane. It obviously was.

It has nothing to do with people hating the gov, or loving conspiracies or both, it has to do with real intellects who know they have been fooled. They like I read the evidence, heard the evidence and seen the evidence..... I scored 178 on my last i.q test, I am not stupid, neither are most of ATS users.

Stop insulting them.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]

[edit on 3-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Care to give us the date and flight number?

Thank you



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Care to give us the date and flight number?

Thank you


Google doesnt bite.....

Caspian air Flight 7908 The aircraft was completely destroyed after it crashed into an agricultural field, carving a crater up to 10 metres deep.

also.... Three hours after the crash, fires over a 200 square metres (2,200 sq ft) area still remained.

Opposed to the shankville crater that was claimed to be only 6 FEET deep with no fires or burnt grass.



[edit on 3-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]

[edit on 3-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   


"The hole was about 15 long and 10 wide" - Wow, Last i checked the fuselage is over 175 feet long, and over 12 feet thick. The wingspan is over 124 feet.


The fuselage diameter is about the same size as the crater size which would make the crash scene an impossibility using cratering physics the crater would be 2 or 3 x time bigger not to mention the angle that flight 93 was said to have come in, the crater would be a long trench. This is not even mentioning that the width was 15 feet yet the wingspan of the plane is over 124 feet.
Now compare to IRan plane crash


[edit on 3-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



would make the crash scene an impossibility using cratering physics


Finally, someone has used science to make an argument.

Please post a copy of the "cratering physics" calculations for review and further consideration.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
[vid]RJOlwcJ6OkA[/yvid]

"The hole was about 15 long and 10 wide" - Wow, Last i checked the fuselage is over 175 feet long, and over 12 feet thick. The wingspan is over 124 feet.


The fuselage diameter is about the same size as the crater size which would make the crash scene an impossibility using cratering physics the crater would be 2 or 3 x time bigger not to mention the angle that flight 93 was said to have come in, the crater would be a long trench. This is not even mentioning that the width was 15 feet yet the wingspan of the plane is over 124 feet.
Now compare to IRan plane crash [vid]5LJoz4PRang[/vid]

[edit on 3-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]


Now that's my point all along! wears the Body's an Flames , Huge bits of the Jet! an you would normally get rubbish everywhere an the two huge Engines were did they end up? wheres all the seats? an luggage I just "for the like of me" cant understand how anybody who believes the official story cant get there head around this!

[edit on 4-3-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Google doesnt bite.....


You posted an Iranian plane crash. I believe there were 5 in 2009 alone. I think people would appreciate you sourcing your posts. You don't have a greeat history with accuracy. Case in point:



Opposed to the shankville crater that was claimed to be only 6 FEET deep with no fires or burnt grass.


Another deliberate false statement Shadow... Your truther friends are going to start getting angry with you!


AFTER THE ATTACKS: THE PENNSYLVANIA CRASH; Searchers Find Plane Cockpit Voice Recorder
An F.B.I. spokesman, Bill Crowley, said the recorder, which was found at a depth of 25 feet about 8:30 p.m., appeared to be in good condition.



Oh... in regards to the Iran jetliner...

"The aircraft was completely destroyed after it crashed into an agricultural field"




[edit on 4-3-2010 by ImAPepper]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Thank you for posting the photos of the blackened smoking trees, like I said people could believe you or thier lying eyes.

Keep digging that hole of incredulity.

Unlike you, everybody else understands the chaotic and unpredicatable nature of fire and explosions.

Keep trying though, this is fun.


Yes, there's some smoke. It looks more like that of a campfire than the black, noxious smoke generated by burning gasoline, titanium, rubber, and plastic though.

I've been reading this thread with equal parts amusement, interest, and wonder, and am not really taking a position on either side. The one thing that I can't get past is the crash site itself. To posit that a 757-200 can careen to earth at that rate of speed and all but COMPLETELY disappear, leaving a rather unimpressive indentation at the point of impact, and cause no visible collatoral damage to the surround grass, even (!)......well, it strains credulity to say the least.

Are there any known precedents to this?



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Google doesnt bite.....




Opposed to the shankville crater that was claimed to be only 6 FEET deep with no fires or burnt grass.


I didnt make up the six feet claim chum. That is what the official and witnesses claim. First responders, Wally miller. etc. Show us a source of any claim the says it was deeper.


AFTER THE ATTACKS: THE PENNSYLVANIA CRASH; Searchers Find Plane Cockpit Voice Recorder
An F.B.I. spokesman, Bill Crowley, said the recorder, which was found at a depth of 25 feet.


This is very typical and sorta sad of you to be so sloppy and misleading.
The claim of the BB being found that deep meant that they had to dig that deep. The crater was only 6 feet deep.

Using that sleepy logic means that the black box was not even burried.

The crater was 6 feet deep and 10-15 feet wide.

Research the topic before you lose what credibility you have left.
Oh... in regards to the Iran jetliner...


IRAN PLANE CRASH---"The aircraft was completely destroyed after it crashed into an agricultural field"

Yes, no denying that and yet there were tons of plane parts, massive crater and it was very deep,. It left no question that a plane crashed.


The Shanksville crater proves that no Boeing 757 crashed there. Why do you 5 guys always ignore simple physics.

124 foot wingspan, 12 foot diameter fuselage..... Crater 6 feet deep and 10-15 feet wide. Nice logic, would have to be a moron to believe that which most of ATS users are far from.
No evidence of inertia or mass anywhere remotely close to the size of a Boeing 757.

The Crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757.



[edit on 4-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


"10-15" feet wide, huh?

Earlier you said it was ten feet...several times.

BUT, one of the 'truther' buddies out there, says it's "at most" 30 feet!!!

So....can't you agree on this???

BTW, this dude makes his scientific measurements merely from examining photos and estimating.

flight93hoax.blogspot.com...


Do you see what is the real hoax?

It is because a whole host of amateur "know-little-to-nothings" have had nothing better to do in their parent's basements all these years other than make this stuff up, based on their own "intuition" or "feelings", or that uber-scientific method of examining the few photos available, and trying to act as if they are suddenly experts on everything.



[edit on 4 March 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
post
psot


[edit on 4-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Now, I waded into the muck and filfth that is the "9/11 conspiracy" blog world...how's about you read some items from actual aviation professionals?

www.airliners.net...



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hmmm, still dont want to post the 'official' dimensions of the hole.....


Here is W. Miller. He was at the crash site and was allover the crater/

Skip to the 2 minute mark if you have seen the video before, if not enjoy.


"The crater was 6-8 feet deep"



[edit on 4-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Seen it.

Seen this?



Dylan Avery seems as recalcitrant as just about any "Truther" out there. AND, seems completely inexperienced to be attempting to do what he and his college buddies are doing.

ya know...all this talk about "crater size" or "crater depth" is pointless.

It's better to understand and study the soil composition, at the impact site.

Only analgoy I can think of is a high-velocity bullet, fired into sand, versus into harder material.

Sand will tend to fill back in, after the impact.

So, the size of the disturbance to the surface is not a good indicator of what went through it initially.

You have to consider the incredible speed, and the equations of physics: mass, velocity, energy. I'm sure you know that equation.

With an IQ of 178.


Also, in "your" video --- did Wally say that he actually witnessed the impact??

He seems to, the way he describes the first third "breaking off" and flying into the woods.

With your understanding of projectiles, vectors, momentum and such...does that seem logical to you?

Maybe...because of the angle...but I don't know, since I've never witnessed such a thing.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join