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: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Like these?

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


Why, thank you, ATH, I honestly didn't know these photos were released.. I'm giving you a star for supplying fresh material here.

That said, I don't see how this doesn't simply flush your original arguments all over again. It's obvious that human remains were recovered, and the remains definitely can be linked to being the people who were known to be on the plane. It's intellectually dishonest to say these were random people since they all had living relatives who could supply DNA to compare to, so how on EARTH can you cling to the claim the crash site was staged?

You can fake a landing gear or a gauge off a dashboard, I'll agree...but you can't fake DNA.




posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

That said, I don't see how this doesn't simply flush your original arguments all over again.

My argument in this thread is Why Shanksville forest more fire damaged than crater & grass?

Can you give me a reasonable explanation for that one?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 





My argument in this thread is Why Shanksville forest more fire damaged than crater & grass?

Can you give me a reasonable explanation for that one?



Let me explain - plane traveling at 580 mph impacts ground, fuel tanks
rupture, fuel travelling at 500+ mph will be projected FORWARD (refernce
Issac Newton and Laws of Momentum)

Fuel because of high speed will be aersolized in mist. Fuel mist cloud will
be ignited into fire ball which will singe objects in close proximity, including
trees.

Seen this in person at crash of Lear 35 - trees in area where singed

NY Times account




An investigator for the board, Chauncey Twine, said the airplane crashed at an 80-degree angle, clipping trees and landing amid rocks and boulders at 3:15. An explosion followed, sending flames higher than treetops, residents said.

''If the angle of descent was not as great,'' Mr. Twine said, ''the fire would have spread. By impacting at that angle, it was fairly contained.''



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Let me explain - plane traveling at 580 mph impacts ground, fuel tanks
rupture, fuel travelling at 500+ mph will be projected FORWARD (refernce
Issac Newton and Laws of Momentum)

Fuel because of high speed will be aersolized in mist. Fuel mist cloud will
be ignited into fire ball which will singe objects in close proximity, including
trees.

I think you're confused on what I'm asking,

if a plane crashed and left that crater, why is there MORE fire damage that section of forest than the crater and grass surrounding the crater that's even in between the crater and damaged forest section, especially when UA93 supposedly mostly buried so fast it didn't have time to burn?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Fake DNA


NY Times article, DNA can be faked


If you approach everything in this world, as many truthers seem to do, that all is faked then you render your own existence meaningless. What solid point of reference do you have ?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 





I think you're confused on what I'm asking,


You are the one confused

According to Wallace Miller, coroner of Somerset County PA, forward 1/3
of aircraft broke off on impact and ploughed into tree line

Some of the heaverier objects - jet engine, flight recorders were driven
into ground

Considerable amount of fuel would be projected forward by momentum
burning patch of woods

Like I said seen this same pattern at crash scene....



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
If you approach everything in this world, as many truthers seem to do, that all is faked then you render your own existence meaningless. What solid point of reference do you have ?

Not that everything is fake, but certain smoking gun parts of the official story can be faked.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
You are the one confused

According to Wallace Miller, coroner of Somerset County PA, forward 1/3
of aircraft broke off on impact and ploughed into tree line

Some of the heaverier objects - jet engine, flight recorders were driven
into ground

So 30% ploughed in the trees, 5% was driven in the ground. Where's the other 60% that would be needed to equal the claimed 95% recovered in total? Yes, I am confused.


Considerable amount of fuel would be projected forward by momentum
burning patch of woods

Like I said seen this same pattern at crash scene....

There are fuel tanks in the forward 1/3 section of a 757???



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Well, to be accurate, Mr. Miller was simply repeating an account he had heard from the FBI. Either way, it doesn't sound like what he heard was a forensic account, just a general description.

Also, no, the "front" section of the plane does not contain fuel. That is contained in the wings, a fact that I am sure you aware of by now, but if you were not aware of this common knowledge then you need to read up about airplanes a little bit and understand how they are made and what they are intended to do.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Well, to be accurate, Mr. Miller was simply repeating an account he had heard from the FBI. Either way, it doesn't sound like what he heard was a forensic account, just a general description.

Your point?


Also, no, the "front" section of the plane does not contain fuel. That is contained in the wings, a fact that I am sure you aware of by now, but if you were not aware of this common knowledge then you need to read up about airplanes a little bit and understand how they are made and what they are intended to do.

Um yeah, I know. I was just seeing if thedman knew!



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
Well, to be accurate, Mr. Miller was simply repeating an account he had heard from the FBI. Either way, it doesn't sound like what he heard was a forensic account, just a general description.

Your point?


Also, no, the "front" section of the plane does not contain fuel. That is contained in the wings, a fact that I am sure you aware of by now, but if you were not aware of this common knowledge then you need to read up about airplanes a little bit and understand how they are made and what they are intended to do.

Um yeah, I know. I was just seeing if thedman knew!



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Fuel tanks are located in wing and center of fuselage

When United 93 crashed was over 5,000 gal of fuel, 33,000 lbs

On impact the impact the tanks ruptured the fuel would be projected forward -

Like I said seen it on Lear crash, which has 1/5 the fuel load of 757

Trees forward of the main impact point were singed from fireball

Now how do think the trees got burned? Could be the fuel was thrown
forward by the momentum of the impact ?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
On impact the impact the tanks ruptured the fuel would be projected forward -

But how could it do that when the rear 2/3 of the plane, which would include the fuel tanks, buried deep underground? And even if some fuel landed above ground, why didn't it splash and burn the crater and grassy field more than the forest?



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by thedman
On impact the impact the tanks ruptured the fuel would be projected forward -

But how could it do that when the rear 2/3 of the plane, which would include the fuel tanks, buried deep underground? And even if some fuel landed above ground, why didn't it splash and burn the crater and grassy field more than the forest?


So you think the plane augered into the ground in a whole and complete unit, intact and structurally coherent, huh? That there was no explosion, no fragmentation as a result of the plane structure responding to the kinetic load of the impact?

That is truly amazing and completely at odds with what any modern human adult of normal intelligence and average experience would expect. It speaks of an almost cartoonish view of the physical world. Which, of course, explains why you are so amazed that the press wouldn't announce something like that immeadiately.

I don't even know how to begin to eduacte you about how things work in the real world because I can't even imagine the baseline of knowledge that you work from.

This is all dependent, of course, on the idea that your comments are genuine and not just a trolling expedition, which I suspect they may be.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
NY Times article, DNA can be faked


I must tell you that innuendo games do not work on me. What evidence are you going on that the DNA at the Shanksville crash site had been faked? Do you actually have something, or are you simply making up stuff on your own as you go along?



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
My argument in this thread is Why Shanksville forest more fire damaged than crater & grass?

Can you give me a reasonable explanation for that one?


I wasn't there so I don't know, but if you want me to speculate, the investigators had to dig up all the bits of wreckage buried by the crash, so what you're seeing isn't a crater caused by the plane impact. You're seeing the fresh dirt churned up from the recovery process.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

if a plane crashed and left that crater, why is there MORE fire damage that section of forest than the crater and grass surrounding the crater


Maybe cuz there's more vegetation that can burn in the forest than just the foot high grass found between the crater and the forest.

Most people would realize that.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

So you think the plane augered into the ground in a whole and complete unit, intact and structurally coherent, huh?

Um, no.

2



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
if you want me to speculate, the investigators had to dig up all the bits of wreckage buried by the crash, so what you're seeing isn't a crater caused by the plane impact. You're seeing the fresh dirt churned up from the recovery process.

They didn't start digging the ground until the 13th. There are plenty of photo/videos that show the crater with debris and little bit of scorch marks inside the crater before they started digging.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join