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: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
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.

So foot high or shorter dry grass doesn't burn at all?!




posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
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.


Would you mind providing one? I'm looking through your own sources and I see THIS photo of a shovel in the foreground, and in the background, a bulldozer. This means they're taking photos of the crater *during* the recovery process, not *before* the recovery process, which necessarily means your photos were taken after the 13th.

Photo taken during the recovery process in Shanksville

So it turns out my speculation is correct: the supposed pristine dirt you're seeing really IS the dirt being churned up and pushed around during the recovery process, so your comparison of the crater area with the outlying areas is invalid.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Would you mind providing one?

All the three photos in my OP. The first two were taken on 9/11. The bottom one was taken by the FBI on 9/12.


I'm looking through your own sources and I see THIS photo of a shovel in the foreground, and in the background, a bulldozer.

Photo taken during the recovery process in Shanksville

Um yeah, that one was taken on 9/13. No where have I used it for this topic about the fire damage. You have that photo confused for another topic.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
All the three photos in my OP. The first two were taken on 9/11. The bottom one was taken by the FBI on 9/12.


Where are you getting these dates from? I'm looking at the very place you're getting these photos from (www.vaed.uscourts.gov) and I don't seee any reference of when these photos were taken.


Um yeah, that one was taken on 9/13. No where have I used it for this topic about the fire damage. You have that photo confused for another topic.


The topic of this thread IN YOUR OWN WORDS is, "My argument in this thread is Why Shanksville forest more fire damaged than crater & grass?". I just told you why- the crews retrieving the wreckage had to dig into the ground to get at it, meaning that you're seeing fresh dirt in the crater. You're claimign those photos were taken before the retrieval process began and I'm asking where you're getting that information from.

That of course is overlooking the question, how much fire damage do you expect churned up dirt to show, anyway?



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

So foot high or shorter dry grass doesn't burn at all?!



There wasn't much there.



And besides, the plane was traveling from the 1 o'clock to 7 o'clock in that photo, so not much fuel would have ended up in the field anyways.

You should know this too.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

There was grass all the way around the crater and grass between the dirt road and forest, yet none of that dry grass was even scorched. Why not?

Fuel from a crash won't bounce from where the plane crashed and lob over and avoid hitting in between.

You should know this.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



There was grass all the way around the crater and grass between the dirt road and forest, yet none of that dry grass was even scorched. Why not?


Exactly how is it that you were able to esatblish these "facts" so affirmatively?



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

There was grass all the way around the crater and grass between the dirt road and forest, yet none of that dry grass was even scorched.


Sure it was. It's plain to see. Denying this is nothing but trolling.


Why not?(IOW, why don't I see it?)


You DO see it. You're just lying about that fact.


Fuel from a crash won't bounce from where the plane crashed and lob over and avoid hitting in between.


And it didn't.

You're just lying/trolling about what's plainly there.

You know this too.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Exactly how is it that you were able to esatblish these "facts" so affirmatively?

Photos.

duh



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Sure it was. It's plain to see. Denying this is nothing but trolling.

So I take it you'll be able to circle the scorched areas of grass outside the crater and inbetween the forest?


And it didn't.

You're just lying/trolling about what's plainly there.

1st, stop lying that I'm lying.

2nd, if it didn't, then how did the fuel scorch the forest without scorching anything between the forest and crater?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
Exactly how is it that you were able to esatblish these "facts" so affirmatively?

Photos.

duh


So, in the end, what we are talking about is your opinion with regard to what is shown in the handful of photos that have been released. Just wanted to get that straight. There are not "facts" here, just your unprofessional opinion. And you think your interpretation of these photos warrants a new investigation, huh?



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I thought there were rules against trolling at this forum?

Anyways, skeptics have no logical explanation to explain why the forest got more fire damage than the grass field surrounding the crater. They have to resort to attacking me (like ad hom attacks ever work).



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
I thought there were rules against trolling at this forum?

Anyways, skeptics have no logical explanation to explain why the forest got more fire damage than the grass field surrounding the crater. They have to resort to attacking me (like ad hom attacks ever work).



There was grass all the way around the crater and grass between the dirt road and forest, yet none of that dry grass was even scorched. Why not?


So which is it now? Did the grass get less scorched than the forest or not at all? Or more to the point, you really can't tell exactly from the photos the exact level of damage and are just looking for some trolling bait?



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
So which is it now? Did the grass get less scorched than the forest or not at all?

Not at all would equal less scorched, would it not?!

Talk about trolling.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
So which is it now? Did the grass get less scorched than the forest or not at all?

Not at all would equal less scorched, would it not?!

Talk about trolling.




You got caught trying to pitch a change up. You went from none to less than somewhere else. What's the matter? Just admit it, you have nothing. You are trying to convince no one that the government is playing some kind of shennanigans because you think you can convince people about what they are seeing in a photo, and it just isn't going anywhere. So you try a little different tack, you say well maybe I'll just go with less fire damage rather than none, maybe they'll buy that angle.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join