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.

 

How'd all that debris land on top of Shanks crater?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

By the same mechanism that every other plane crash that you have compared 93 to.


please describe the mechanism in more detail as to how all that debris landed on top of the "filled-back in hole."


By the same mechanism that every other plane crash that you have compared 93 to.

What else is necessary? Nothing, to the rational amongst us.

You accept that in other crashes, the debris ends up on top.

If you think that the particulars of 93 means that it should have been different, go right ahead and explain how and why.




posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Rigth here for the umpteenth million time:

loose dirt could even possibly filled back in a deep hole that was just created by a burrowing 757

hooper, you really need to stop taking things so literally all the time. None of your fellow skeptics thought I meant the section of the plane that supposedly buried remained "intact." Them along with the "rest of the world."



Somewhere between 0 and 100.

Why are you so afraid to take an educated guess hooper? Are you not educated? It's OK, we won't laugh at you if you're not.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You accept that in other crashes, the debris ends up on top.

Which other plane crash mostly buried then the hole filled in on itself leaving a crater and still had lots of shredded debris on top of the crater?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Flight 1771...

Now... i see you have not responded to my post. Will you or will you not be contacting those that were at the crash site?

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Flight 1771...

Wow, Flight 1771 mostly buried then the hole filled in on itself leaving a crater?! Didn't know that. Can you supply me a link to support that?


Now... i see you have not responded to my post.

Because you didn't start a new thread with that off-topic stuff that I kindly asked you too. I won't contribute to your thread derailing and spamming on mine with is against the forum's rules and goes against basic fundamental netiquette.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


To the OP,

Well done, keep digging on this subject, there are some people here who disagree with your fundamental points but maybe that will inspire you to keep researching and presenting better and more well thought out threads.

The level of debate on the thread and the so-called debunkers (I've called them that myself to my regret in the past) are doing an excellent job in making sure everyone really thinks through their points and focuses on the evidence and not junk science. Baring this in mind I cannot really add to the OP, I would only be adding insubstancial speculation, but I've gotta go now, trying out the Heiwa challange lol

Peace



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Flight 1771...

Wow, Flight 1771 mostly buried then the hole filled in on itself leaving a crater?! Didn't know that. Can you supply me a link to support that?


Now... i see you have not responded to my post.

Because you didn't start a new thread with that off-topic stuff that I kindly asked you too. I won't contribute to your thread derailing and spamming on mine with is against the forum's rules and goes against basic fundamental netiquette.


All your threads are carbon copies of the other 20 plus ones. They all deal with your trumped up anomalies. It makes no difference what thread I post in.

Remember, you are asking specifically in this thread about the debris and how it landed. (MANY of your threads are about the debris and what the debris field should look like.)

I offered you contact information where you can discuss first hand about the debris and debris field. These people were there, sir. Why wouldn't you want to talk with them? Are you or are you not a truth seeker? What are you afraid of? That you may indeed find the truth and it's not what you were wishing for? Obviously, you will not contact any of them. I didn't expect you to. They were posted to prove a point. Mission accomplished I guess.

In regards to flight 1771; it is the only crash site that is similar to that of Flight 93. High Speed / nose down crash. Large debris field with very little resemblance of a plane.

Watch this video regarding flight 1771: Pay close attention to the crash scene around the 3:30 - 4:00 mark.




posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


STELLAR job, Six Sigma


Thanks for taking the time to refute the OP, so brilliantly. (Somebody has to, and I'm done with this person, frankly!!)

Oh....and USAIR 427 (Not "high-speed", though)

ValuJet 592

United 585 (Not "high-speed", though)

...just to name three more that are similar....


For a prime example of the shredding of the structure of an airplane when involved in high-speed impacts, there is SwissAir 111.

Won't have the same M.O. because it hit in the ocean, not the ground (so no "crater"), but the damage inflicted when hitting water is similar to hitting solid ground. For comparison purposes.






[edit on 26 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Originally posted by ATH911
Originally posted by hooper


hooper, you really need to stop taking things so literally all the time. None of your fellow skeptics thought I meant the section of the plane that supposedly buried remained "intact." Them along with the "rest of the world."


Sorry, since none of your post is based in reason or logic the only thing left is semantics. Please tell me then, of you do not believe that the plane burrowed into the ground as an intact unit then why do you keeping insisting that the bodies of the victims must also have been buried with the plane?



Why are you so afraid to take an educated guess hooper? Are you not educated? It's OK, we won't laugh at you if you're not.


Why? What good does an educated guess do? Here, you pick one:

10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You accept that in other crashes, the debris ends up on top.

Which other plane crash mostly buried then the hole filled in on itself leaving a crater and still had lots of shredded debris on top of the crater?


Well, like I said, the rational amongst us realize that the mechanism that results in debris being scattered - whatever that mechanism may be - accept that it happens in any crash, and don't need to have it explained in detail.

This is why you need it to be explained.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
It's so funny when debunkers think they debunked something when it's not even the point of the thread.


Hey debunkers, why don't you actually try READING the OP, from beginning to end. Maybe then you'll understand what I'm getting at. And here's a hint, it has NOTHING to do with the size of debris left behind.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


As has been pointed out to you earlier in this thread there is a considerable body of evidence to the effect that UA 93 went down at Shanksville .

There is the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder recovered from the site, radar, air traffic control tapes and records, phone calls from passengers and crew to loved ones, visual sightings by other aircraft and witnesses on the ground, recovery of body parts and personal possessions of UA 93 passengers and crew from the site, recovery of Boeing plane parts from the site.

If you were to cast an objective eye on all this overwhelming evidence you would also note that the individual parts support each other. Eg: the transmissions from UA 93 recorded by Air Traffic Control marry up exactly with the Cockpit Voice Recorder. The Cockpit Voice Recorder also reflects what passengers were saying in their phone calls. Radar records marry up with the Flight Data Recorder etc.

Against all that, you do not seem to me to even have a half-way plausible account of what happened to UA 93 and its passengers and crew if they didn't crash at Shanksville. If you have, please let me hear it.

With that background situation, I don't think you should be surprised if people are underwhelmed by your amateur view of what the crash site should look like.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


If most (thats your conjecture but we'll live with that for now)of UA93 burrowed deep (deep is an adjective of your choosing) in the ground after it supposedly crashed, how did all that debris land on the surface of the crater (please note that the "surface of a crater=a hole") if the reason there's no visible hole left in the ground (except for that big hole in the ground in the photos you posted)by the alleged burrowing 757 is because the loose soil supposedly fell back in on itself and covered up the hole (how convenient!)? (please keep in mind that you are using the word "buried" more precisely the fragments of the plane were embedded in the soil not unlike a bullet shot in the ground).



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
It's so funny when debunkers think they debunked something when it's not even the point of the thread.


Hey debunkers, why don't you actually try READING the OP, from beginning to end. Maybe then you'll understand what I'm getting at. And here's a hint, it has NOTHING to do with the size of debris left behind.


Einstein ~

You have access to the crash scene investigators. When will you be contacting them? When will you explain to us what the crash sceen should look like.....

Did you watch the flight 1771 video? Pretty interesting huh?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
As has been pointed out to you earlier in this thread there is a considerable body of evidence to the effect that UA 93 went down at Shanksville

Yet you guys can't address to the topic of this thread.


Against all that, you do not seem to me to even have a half-way plausible account of what happened to UA 93 and its passengers and crew if they didn't crash at Shanksville.

You're a skeptic. Why would I think you'd say anything else but that?



Why don't you stop derailing and trolling and try addressing the topic at hand?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 


If most (thats your conjecture but we'll live with that for now)of UA93 burrowed deep

hooper, for the umptenth time, stop lying and trolling. I've showed you a dozen times where the media and Memorial workers are stating most of UA93 buried. And you guys call us deniers.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Einstein ~

You have access to the crash scene investigators. When will you be contacting them? When will you explain to us what the crash sceen should look like

Dipweed ~

Were any of them there at the time of the crash? No? Then how would any of them be able to explain any better than anyone else how all that debris landed on the top of the crater if the alleged deep hole made by the reported burrowing 757 had filled back in immediately after it burrowed?


Did you watch the flight 1771 video? Pretty interesting huh?

Yes, interesting how it crashed steeper and about 100 mph faster than UA93 allegedly did, but most of it stayed above ground.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by ATH911]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Dipweed ~




Awww how cute.


Were any of them there at the time of the crash? No?




Wait...what?




Then how would any of them be able to explain any better than anyone else how all that debris landed on the top of the crater if the alleged deep hole made by the reported burrowing 757 had filled back in immediately after it burrowed?


That's what AIR CRASH INVESTIGATORS DO! They investigate!

When will you be contacting them with your inquiries? Well? When will you?....

I didn't think so.




Yes, interesting how it crashed steeper and about 100 mph faster than UA93 allegedly did, but most of it stayed above ground.



Similar crash... similar results... Oh, please point out where you got your information as to how much of the plane ended up in the crater for the flight 1771 crash.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Me, trolling? You've been asking the same lame questions for months and not being able to accept the answers.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



How'd all that debris land on top of Shanks crater?


Where is the "top" of a hole? I can see the top of a mountain, the top of a building, the top of a tree, the top of, well, anything that is sticking up above the plane of reference. But where is the top of a hole?

Then you wonder why you never get straight answers to your "questions".



new topics




 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join