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.

 

Why Shanksville forest more fire damaged than crater & grass?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Why was there more fire damage to the forest than the crater and grassy field surrounding the crater?

Remember, most of UA93 supposedly buried deep into the ground and it went in the ground so fast it didn't have a chance to burn.








posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
in the nose dive
the stress of the plane caused an engine to fall off
and catch the trees on fire



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
in the nose dive
the stress of the plane caused an engine to fall off
and catch the trees on fire




I may be wrong, haven't researched to much into the whole f93 crash, but I believe one engine was found in the ground(plane imprint crater) and the other impacted then bounced or was thrown into a pond nearby.

Also, the official story is that the FDR had the whole jet intact until impact, don't quote me though.

I believe that the so called fire damage we see, according to the official story, was due to flash over from the impact fireball.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 





Why was there more fire damage to the forest than the crater and grassy field surrounding the crater?


Because on impact the forward 1/3 section of the plane broke off and was
projected into the trees by momentum

Fuel also sprayed into the tree line and ignited










Notice all the debris among the trees?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Why was there more fire damage to the forest than the crater and grassy field surrounding the crater?


More fire "damage" - more fuel for fire in the forest. Fireballs expand and rise, not sink.

Wow, this is so simple, anybody who has ever seen fire can figure that out.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
A couple of things...

A) where did this "most of flight 93 buried itself into the ground" claim come from? From what I heard, the thing shattered like a mirror when it hit the ground straight on. You're not going to see photos of that for the same reason you don't see too many photos of any crash sites- they never release pictures of remains of crash victims.

B) out of all the different facets of these 9/11 conspiracies, why on EARTH are you people trying to claim the gov't faked the crash site? Not only does faking a crash site serve absolutely ZERO purpose for the risk involved in staging it, it's completely pointless to fake a crash site to fool us and then turn around and cover up the fake crash site they made to fool us. Airplane crashes aren't exactly some great novelty, either.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
in the nose dive
the stress of the plane caused an engine to fall off
and catch the trees on fire

How could one engine breaking off in mid-air and landing in the forest cause more fire damage to the forest than the grassy field where the wings/fuel section supposedly hit???



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Because on impact the forward 1/3 section of the plane broke off and was
projected into the trees by momentum

1st, if UA93 crashed in a nose dive, how in the world did the cockpit section break off and land in the woods and the rest of the fuselage behind it tunneled deep in the "soft" ground???

2nd, what is in the cockpit that would make it so combustible to cause it to explode and cause fire damage?!?


Fuel also sprayed into the tree line and ignited

1st, what would have ignited the fuel if it sprayed into the forest, the explosive cockpit?!

2nd, how did fuel spray into the forest when most of the plane supposedly "went in the ground so fast it didn't have a chance to burn"?

3rd, how did the fuel cause more fire damage to the forest than where the wings/fuel tanks supposedly hit the grassy field?


Where was the location of this piece at the site? Why is there no logo paint on the outside (lower left corner bent around that exposes outer side)? Why no fire damage to the ground/foliage around this piece of wreckage?


Where was the location of this piece at the site? Why is this piece the ONLY piece at the scene that show United colors? Why no fire damage to the ground/foliage around it?


I see hardly any pieces of debris. Where's all that 1/3 of the plane you claim landed in the woods???



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
More fire "damage" - more fuel for fire in the forest. Fireballs expand and rise, not sink.

Wow, this is so simple, anybody who has ever seen fire can figure that out.

So simply one of your skeptic buddies said an engine broke off mid-air and caused it?
So simply another of your skeptic buddies said the cockpit section broke off and landed in the woods to partially cause it?

And how did this "fireball" only scorch (slightly) the inside of the crater and the forest, but not scorch the area in between?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
A couple of things...

A) where did this "most of flight 93 buried itself into the ground" claim come from? From what I heard, the thing shattered like a mirror when it hit the ground straight on.

See the link in my OP so you don't look *SNIP*


You're not going to see photos of that for the same reason you don't see too many photos of any crash sites- they never release pictures of remains of crash victims.

Like these?

**WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES _ VIEW AT YOUR DISCRETION**

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...
www.vaed.uscourts.gov...


B) out of all the different facets of these 9/11 conspiracies, why on EARTH are you people trying to claim the gov't faked the crash site?

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 18/4/2010 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
More fire "damage" - more fuel for fire in the forest. Fireballs expand and rise, not sink.

Wow, this is so simple, anybody who has ever seen fire can figure that out.

So simply one of your skeptic buddies said an engine broke off mid-air and caused it?
So simply another of your skeptic buddies said the cockpit section broke off and landed in the woods to partially cause it?

And how did this "fireball" only scorch (slightly) the inside of the crater and the forest, but not scorch the area in between?


First and foremost, you have only seen the same photos that I have and for you to make the absolute determination as to what was effect by the burn and what was not is disingenous at best and down right deceptive at worst.

Before you start challenging people to explain the phenom that you claim to know, first prove it exist.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

There are plenty of photos that show no scorch marks on the grass field around the crater and inbetween the crater and damaged forest.

Stop lying hooper.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Like these?


So then why the heck are you making complaints like...

I see hardly any pieces of debris. Where's all that 1/3 of the plane you claim landed in the woods???

...when you already have your own answer: you weren't there, so you can only analyze the site through the tiny scope lens of the photographs that were taken and made public. They're not going to publish the photos of human remains so you can't be so arrogant as to claim there weren't any human remains solely becuase they're not showing you photos of remains.


If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.


Yes, I can see why you'd be so attracted to that quote. Ignore the Bronco chase, the book that traces how the murder was committed, and the jail sentence for armed robbery, and instead rely on cleverly organized propaganda. It's typical conspiracy theorist misdirection to make things look the way you want it to look. I must tell you that misdirection doesn't work on me.

I will ask again- why on EARTH would the gov't waste their time faking a crash site out in the middle of nowhere and then turn around and try to cover it up? Not only it it extraneous to the conspiracy and servers no purpose whatsoever, it adds too many unnecessary layers to conspiracy already bursting at the seams with convolusion and complexity.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So then why the heck are you making complaints like...
I see hardly any pieces of debris. Where's all that 1/3 of the plane you claim landed in the woods???

I've haven't seen any evidence that even comes close to suggesting 1/3 of any section of a UA757 landed in the woods somewhere. Where is it???


I will ask again- why on EARTH would the gov't waste their time faking a crash site out in the middle of nowhere and then turn around and try to cover it up?

I don't why so much as if they did or not.

I think the plane crash is clearly staged there. That's all I need to know to make arrests.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper
 

There are plenty of photos that show no scorch marks on the grass field around the crater and inbetween the crater and damaged forest.

Stop lying hooper.


Your opinion about what those photos show and do not show is so noted. Please explain why anyone should be troubled to explain why you hold the opinions that you do.

Thank You.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Ironic given the fact this is the largest US terrorist attack as well as one of the most disputed in terms of what actually happened. Yet the same few photos of flight 93's wreckage seems to be all there is.

Flight 93 was shot down. Shanksville was just one of the sites. And the one they couldn't secure fast enough so it became the "crash site" for the whole thing.

But the trees were most likely the result of debris that fell and ignited the under growth

[edit on 4/17/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Your opinion about what those photos show and do not show is so noted. Please explain why anyone should be troubled to explain why you hold the opinions that you do.

Thank You.

You know it just hit me hooper,

you're legally blind, aren't you?



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
I've haven't seen any evidence that even comes close to suggesting 1/3 of any section of a UA757 landed in the woods somewhere. Where is it???


Hold on one cotton picking minute! You openly admit you're relying exclusively on the photographs they released, and it's patently obvious they're withholding a lot of photos becuase it contains images of human remains so there's necessarily a lot of information you won't be seeing, and then you turn around and say "you haven't seen any evidence". That's like insisting on a diet of celery and water and then turning around and complaining how hungry you are.

You posted reports of eyewitnesses who were physically there who stated the bulk of the plane crushed in on itself and was buried 15-20 feet into the ground. I wasn't there and I'll venture a guess that you weren't either, so why are you ignoring these eyewitness accounts which you yourself are quoting?


I don't why so much as if they did or not.

I think the plane crash is clearly staged there. That's all I need to know to make arrests.


Huh?!? You openly admit you "aren't seeing the evidence you're looking for" so how can you say that's enough to make arrests? What are you basing that statement on, precisely?

Methinks you're simply seeing what you yourself want to see, so if you're of a mind that there's some secret conspiracy afoot, you'll more than happily use your imagination to fill in the blanks yourself. Call me ignorant, but from where I come from, airplane crashes aren't particularly any rare or mysterious thing so they don't need any such extraneous layers of embellishment.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You openly admit you're relying exclusively on the photographs they released, and it's patently obvious they're withholding a lot of photos becuase it contains images of human remains so there's necessarily a lot of information you won't be seeing, and then you turn around and say "you haven't seen any evidence".

Wrong on two parts. 1st, I showed you photos of dead bodies from the Pentagon. There are even WTC photos of body parts (and jumpers). 2nd, enough photos of Shanksville have been released of the whole area where you'd see obvious remains if 1/3 of the fuselage had stayed above ground.


You posted reports of eyewitnesses who were physically there who stated the bulk of the plane crushed in on itself and was buried 15-20 feet into the ground.

No witnesses. Just an unproven claim by the FBI.


Call me ignorant, but from where I come from, airplane crashes aren't particularly any rare or mysterious thing so they don't need any such extraneous layers of embellishment.

Yet no one can show me the evidence that 1/3 of a 757 landed above ground and 2/3-80% of a 757 was buried.

Shouldn't be too hard to do if those claims are true.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by ATH911]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Yet no one can show me the evidence that 1/3 of a 757 landed above ground and 2/3-80% of a 757 was buried.

Shouldn't be too hard to do if those claims are true.


Since you are the primary claimant as to that finding, I would expect that you would be able to provide a singular and unimpeachable source for those opinions. Not just some cobbled together assumptions based on "special" readings of press interviews. Or some one-off interpretation of photos.

You keep asking people to rationalize and justify your opinions, why?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join