Shanksville forest damage conflicts with official story?

Originally posted by hooper
Told you where it is, and who you have to contact to see it.

You want me to post evidence of what i claim so you should also have to show evidence of what you claim.

If you cannot show evidence then do not make the claim.

reply to post by REMISNE


I posted the owner and the location of the material you are looking for, wouldn't want to be accused of tampering, go see for yourself. With your own two eyes. While you are contacting UAL to make those arrangements maybe you can ask for some serial/model/parts numbers too. Its all right there - all you have to do is make a little effort and all your questions could be answered, you could find the truth - that is your goal, right? To find the truth?

Originally posted by hooper
I posted the owner and the location of the material you are looking for, wouldn't want to be accused of tampering, go see for yourself.

Why is so hard for you to post the evidence i ask for?

Funny how i can post evidence and you cannot.

Why are you so afraid of the truth?

[edit on 16-2-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


Sorry, I haven't yet figured out how to post pieces of metal. I am working on it.

Just to set the record straight, you've never presented "evidence" of any kind, shape or form. Plenty of your opinions, i.e. "reasonable doubt" hand waving but nothing that could be construed as "evidence".

Originally posted by hooper
Just to set the record straight, you've never presented "evidence" of any kind, shape or form. Plenty of your opinions, i.e. "reasonable doubt" hand waving but nothing that could be construed as "evidence".

Oh you mean like the eyewitnesses, photos and videos of the molten steel?

Like NIST's own document stating they did not recover any steel from building 7 to test?

Would you like me to continue?

reply to post by REMISNE


No, I would like you to start.

A few news articles wherein a few people use the phrase "molten steel" is not evidence of the existence of molten steel, it is evidence that people used that phrase to describe something they saw.

And before you start, I am not calling anyone a liar. Unlike you, I know that word means. You, on the other hand like to throw it around everytime you hear something you don't like.

Originally posted by hooper
A few news articles wherein a few people use the phrase "molten steel" is not evidence of the existence of molten steel, it is evidence that people used that phrase to describe something they saw.

So you must be calling the eyewitness liers? Do you have proof they are lying?

Well anyone with common sense can see the photos and videos show molten steel, plus the video of the fire chief's statement about the conditions.

The only people who cannot see it is people who do not want to see it, who do not want to know the truth.



[edit on 16-2-2010 by REMISNE]

The trees that were damaged from the alleged flight 93 crash suffered damage consistent with a concussive blast rather than a fuel laden aircraft. Most of the damaged trees suffered no burns. The blast trajectory was also off from the trajectory of the plane but more in tune with the indian lake fly-over which was opposite of the official flight path.

The people who witnessed or heard the indian lake fly-over described something other than a Boeing 757 and more in tune with a cruise missile or surrogate ( 1 seater trainer).

There were multiple exercises taking place over pennsylvania. In some cases a surrogate is used for tracking purposes to take place of a commercial airliner or cruise missile. They were running multiple drill that did have a mock cruise missile attack over the u.s. It is quite possible the crater was caused by a cruise missile, bomb or very small surrogate 1 seater craft but most definitely not a Boeing 757.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by hooper

 

Can you please explain how the part of the plane forward of the fuel breaks of and EXPLODES and then BURNS TO NOTHING?

Could you please explain why you are asking such a silly question?

What is silly about the question? This is what I am reading from your precious narrative, not mine. The story you are here defending says this is what happened. Are you telling me it is silly to wonder why part of the plane with no fuel in it could possible suffer a greater fire damage than the part of the plane with fuel did, especially after it was 'thrown clear.'

Please explain what is silly about my question, the logic of my question or the premise. I do not believe that silly premise either but you are defending it so please explain how it makes any sense at all.

Thanks.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


What you are hoping nobody notices and what you forgot is what ever caused the crater in Shanskville on 911 did not have wings anywhere near the size of a Boeing 757 for none struck the ground. There is no wing impressions or evidence that what caused the crater had wings consistent with a Boeing 757 or it's fuel capacity.

It has been proven years ago that flight 93 the boeing 757 did not crash in Shanskvlle on 911. Why cling on to a bunk story? Maybe you should update those dammed fooled conspiracy debunking sites you trust your information from.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Shadow Herder]

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

What you are hoping nobody notices and what you forgot is what ever caused the crater in Shanskville on 911 did not have wings anywhere near the size of a Boeing 757 for none struck the ground. There is no wing impressions or evidence that what caused the crater had wings consistent with a Boeing 757 or it's fuel capacity.

I do not think you read my post as this makes no sense. I do not believe the OS and I know there are no wing marks. I am not sure what you are trying to state. According to the OS the forward 3rd of the plane broke off before impact and bounced into the woods. According to the OS, it burned up completely into nothing. I need to know how that happens to part of a plane with no fuel on it that is thrown clear of the tanks before they impact.

I think maybe you are responding to someone else?

It has been proven years ago that flight 93 the boeing 757 did not crash in Shanskvlle on 911. Why cling on to a bunk story? Maybe you should update those dammed fooled conspiracy debunking sites you trust your information from.

Huh? You do realize you are on my friends list and have been for a long time because we agree about so much of 9/11. I am not the one making claims. I am asking OS lovers to explain this narrative so that it makes sense.

I think you read someone else's post and then replied to mine by mistake because I do not even know what you are responding to that I said.

I asked hooper to explain his precious OS belief to me. I am not sure what you are jumping in on. Please explain.

Try including my post this time and see if what you wrote still makes sense or applies at all.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by REMISNE


First, you are very good, if not sloppy, with quote mining. You quoted me, however you left out the very next sentence wherein I stated that I am not calling anyone a liar. Unfortunately for you, the whole post is right above and all someone would have to do is scroll up once to notice how you only quoted half of what I said.

Again, I don't want to have to take you to school and explain what lying really is, and not your version where everyone is lying unless you declare that they have shown you sufficient "evidence".

These people are quoted as describing what they saw as "molten steel" because that is what they were reminded of when they saw it. Most people go their whole lives and never actually see any kind of molten metal, in any quantity, close up. They only know what they've seen on TV or in the movies or other medium. I have no problem with them using a common descriptor and when people think "molten" they make the associatation with the most commonly known metal that is a result of smolting process. This is a common and rational approach when considering what people say in interviews, as opposed to what they may say under oath as part of technical de-briefing.

I read the quotes and saw the pictures and can agree that there was red-hot masses found a ground zero during the clean-up. It is not indicative of anyhting but the presence of heat in a confined space. Not really difficult to grasp considering the circumstances - flaming wreckage from the building and a mountain of honeycombed debris.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


It is silly - BECAUSE YOU'RE ACTING ALL PUT OUT LOOKING FOR AN EXPLANATION FOR SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE ELSE JUST PLAIN MADE UP!

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

It is silly - BECAUSE YOU'RE ACTING ALL PUT OUT LOOKING FOR AN EXPLANATION FOR SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE ELSE JUST PLAIN MADE UP!

Well then you can be the hero and explain what did actually happen with sources. Thanks!!!! Knowing the real story will really help. I cannot wait.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


[QUOTE]What you are hoping nobody notices and what you forgot is what ever caused the crater in Shanskville on 911 did not have wings anywhere near the size of a Boeing 757 for none struck the ground. [/QUOTE]

Just think for one minute about what would happen to those wings when they hit the ground bearing in mind the swept wing design of the plane. The wings did not jut out at a 90 degree angle to the fuselage. Just think about that.

Originally posted by hooper
Just think for one minute about what would happen to those wings when they hit the ground bearing in mind the swept wing design of the plane. The wings did not jut out at a 90 degree angle to the fuselage. Just think about that.

I am thinking about it. What difference are you trying say that would make? You are full of hints of helpful information. Do you have any of the actual information?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Actual information as to what? The wing design of the plane? You have access to the internet, there are dozens of sites where you can find that info.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Actual information as to what? The wing design of the plane? You have access to the internet, there are dozens of sites where you can find that info.

Skipping the first thing that I asked you? Why? It would seem that you are posting for the typing practice as you have not introduced any real information about anything.

Are you going to give me the real account of what happened? You claimed that I am responding to something someone made up.

Can you clear that up for me?

As to the second part. What information? What is it you think I should be looking up? You said nothing at all. I know what the shape of the wings is. What I want to know is what you seem to think that means.

There are two questions above. They are both direct responses to things you have said. If you are going to toss things out there and then only back up some of it, do not bother.

2. Two. 1+1.

This is how many answers I am expecting at a bare minimum. Thanks!

reply to post by K J Gunderson

According to the OS the forward 3rd of the plane broke off before impact and bounced into the woods. According to the OS, it burned up completely into nothing.

What is YOUR source for this information? Maybe we should start there. What government report stated that the front 1/3 of the plane broke off and burned up completely?

There was the coroner for the county who said, in an informal interview, that an FBI person described the cockpit as having broken away from the plane. By the time you typed it up it was the whole front 1/3 of the plane and it burned into vapor. So we go from some hearsay in an informal interview with a county employee to "official story". Maybe that's where you have to really get some answers.

Originally posted by hooper
What is YOUR source for this information? Maybe we should start there. What government report stated that the front 1/3 of the plane broke off and burned up completely?

So you have nothing then? There are plenty of sources given in the OP. Did you debunk them?

There was the coroner for the county who said, in an informal interview, that an FBI person described the cockpit as having broken away from the plane. By the time you typed it up it was the whole front 1/3 of the plane and it burned into vapor. So we go from some hearsay in an informal interview with a county employee to "official story". Maybe that's where you have to really get some answers.

That is why I am asking you to tell me what did actually happen with some sources. Now I have asked 3 times. Either you are slow or playing games. Either way, I am not coming along for that ride.

You have everything you need from me to simply answer. I already asked my questions very clearly, now more than once.

If you want to go in circles, you will go alone.