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: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
To me its simple...

2 planes hit WTC 1 and 2....3 buildings collapse....

:


Pentagon.....Alleged plane crash site...no plane visible or found



Shanksville....Alleged crash site...no plane visible of found



The above is unique to 9/11....which is totally ridiculous.

The debunkers are clearly desperate to "sell" their side of the Story....we can all see that...

Whenever I visit the 9/11 Forums, all I see is the Usual Suspects attempting,vainly I might add, to belittle, mock and add nothing of value to the debate...they dont want the debate..they want it to go away.


You keep asking the awkward questions ATH....the questions no one can answer with a straight face.




posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
You've got one thing right.

I do find it hard to answer his questions with a straight face.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Funny you should say that...reading your replies brings a big smile to my face too!!

Consensus at last!!



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 



To me its simple...


Yep, you just make stuff up and therefore you are not constrained like the rest of us to dealing with reality.


2 planes hit WTC 1 and 2....3 buildings collapse....


Well, actually, quite a few buildings collapsed. But why be tied up with all those "facts", lets just use what sounds spooky.


Pentagon.....Alleged plane crash site...no plane visible or found


Really? How hard did you look? How long were you there?


Shanksville....Alleged crash site...no plane visible of found


Do you have any clue how silly that sounds?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Can anybody tell me were the 2 big Engines ended up? surely not in that little hole! o an is there any vid or photos of them recovering the huge Engines from that hole! an what about all the seats! there all metal framed there Otha have been a lot of crushed seats in that hole, man that hole sure has or should i say had a lot of stuff in it, is all the plane an bits an pisces in a hanger somewhere? i only say this because after a crash they always try to put every thing together like a jigsaw puzzle to look see what they can find, can anybody give me a link to this !? and also a link for the same reason of the other mysterious crash at the pentagon!

[edit on 28-7-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
Can anybody tell me were the 2 big Engines ended up? surely not in that little hole! o an is there any vid or photos of them recovering the huge Engines from that hole! an what about all the seats! there all metal framed there Otha have been a lot of crushed seats in that hole, man that hole sure has or should i say had a lot of stuff in it, is all the plane an bits an pisces in a hanger somewhere? i only say this because after a crash they always try to put every thing together like a jigsaw puzzle to look see what they can find, can anybody give me a link to this !? and also a link for the same reason of the other mysterious crash at the pentagon!

[edit on 28-7-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]


First, those 2 "big engines" are much like the rest of the plane, an assembly of components subjected to the same destructive forces as the rest of the plane was so to assume that the engines remained wholly intact after the impact is quite misleading. Second, there are not a lot of photos of the recovery process that have been posted on the internet, so if your determination of what constitutes reality is limited to what you can find in Google you are really limiting your world view.

Also, those plane reconstructions are only done when there is real doubt about what caused the crash, which is not the case with Flight 93. Same thing for the Pentagon.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


DAVE, you don't know how the engines are put together, out of the thousands of separate parts that make them, do you?

Also, you don't seem to understand that the FORCES of that high-speed impact shattered almost every part on that airplane...yes, even the passenger seat frames...to tiny bits.

Take a look at OTHER high velocity airplane crashes.

-Valujet 592
-PSA 1771
-SwissAir 111 (IT hit the ocean surface, but slapping into the water is the same as hitting concrete, in terms of impact forces)

There are others, if you search.

Further, back to the engines....many, many pieces, and in the case of UAL 93, the engines were developing POWER, and the major components were rotating at a very high rate of speed....and under tremendous stress. On impact, a lot of stuff would fly around everywhere, on many different trajectories.

BTW...I have a visual representation to show you, so you can see what a typical jet turbine engine actually looks like. This is particularly helpful, as it is a "cut-away" drawing, showing a lot of the internal arrangements.

When you look at a jet's "engine", you are really seeing the cowling (or 'nacelle') that encloses the engine, and a LOT of empty space within.

People like me (pilots), and just about everyone else who has been up-close-and-personal with airplanes understands this. I realize the average layperson may not, though...



See that?

The biggest, most obvious "piece" is that giant fan, the first 'part' in the airflow of the engine. Actually, every one of those blades is detachable from the central hub. The blades are made of aluminum (an alloy, of course, but basically aluminum. Sometimes they aren't even solid! They are hollow inside, to save weight).

Further back, the majority of the rotating parts are the compressor rotors and blades, and the turbine rotors, and blades. Many of those assemblies also have individually-attached blades....not all of them are solid one-piece castings. Also, those components that are subjected to extreme heat from internal combustion temperatures are typically made of titanium. Titanium is actually fairly fragile, when compared to steel. It is favoured for its heat resistance, though...so that's why it's used.

There is a heckuva lot more to learn...more than can be conveyed here on ATS.....





[edit on 28 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Engines dont just vaporise weedy....and you know it....

Remember, the 'bunker defence originally was that they bounced a few hundred metres away, through the trees and into the lake....

How could it "bounce" ala a rubber ball if its uber "fragile" ??

Thats totally ridiculous, so it seems you have all agreed to change your tunes....

A bit like everything else on 9/11...the story keeps changing as another flaw is discovered...


You guys should stop parroting the debunker websites that peddle official story tales as the truth....you look as stupid as the sites do.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


Please show where in the "official story" it said that the entire engine assembly bounced, as whole and complete unit - unscathed and undamaged, to some other point.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


Let me get this straight, benoni. You cannot for one second use a little critical thinking or common sense to understand how an engine can bounce AND have parts shatter and beak off???


Its very simple. In fact so simple, its almost embarrassing.
When the entire engine assembly broke off the wing and impacted the ground (ie the entire engine assembly that we see hanging off the wing) all the lighter, fragile pieces shatter and break off on impact (ie the fan blades, cowling) leaving behind the more solid interior "core" if you will (compressor blades, shaft assembly) to bounce farther away in (relatively speaking) a solid piece. Its that simple. Please dont embarrass yourself like this, and use some critical thinking before trying to ridicule someone who obviously knows and understands aircraft a whole lot better than you.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
An what about the huge wheel assembly did they break up into little pieces to?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


Uh, yeah. Why would they be immune? The plane hit the ground at about 60% of the speed of sound and then exploded with the energy contained in a couple of thousands of gallons of jet fuel. Hard mechanical assemblies suffered.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni

A bit like everything else on 9/11...the story keeps changing as another flaw is discovered...


You do realise that that is how people analyse events and arrive at a conclusion?

Unless you think the whole explanation had to be known straight away, in its entirety, by about 8pm on 9/11. And if you did think that, you would have to be presupposing there was a conspiracy. Which would make you, well, biased.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


But dont yea think its a bit weird that all the bits an pieces seemed to disappear into tiny pieces at the pentagon, i mean on the news footage over here it showed
only men picking up little pieces here an there an well with such a big plane i would expect a huge amount of debris an a much bigger hole in the side of the building! im sorry but for it to happen twice in one day seems a bit odd yea got to admit, i mean at Lockable i know the jet was blown up in the air but the huge hole in the ground was 5 times the size of the one in the field! an the devastation an fires were every were an went on for hours!


[edit on 28-7-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
heres an aerial of the devastation caused at Lockerbie...

Now you have to remember that in that incident the plane exploded at 31,000 ft....yet below we can see the damage it caused and the crater bits of pieces of exploded plane made...
Note the size of the crater against the car....




Now look at the crater at Shanksville supposedly caused by a plane flying at full speed vertically into the ground...




Huh???

Seem odd to you???

Something perhaps not quite adding up???
A missing plane maybe....???


One plane wipes out a massive area with pieces of plane...

Shankville shows no evidence of a plane crashing there at all.....except for the small hole in the ground....hell, even the good folks in the photo seem to be looking for the wreckage!!

Oh, but wait a minute....the "ground swallowed the plane" was the official fairytale as I recall....thats why we cant see it...OK, makes sense now.....move...no more questions please...

Ridiculous....

[edit on 28-7-2010 by benoni]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


Ah yes a 747 whose fuselage and wing section containing the main fuel tanks, impacted the ground is going to prove what exactly? Hey wait a sec! Where are the engines? Where are the parts? I dont see an airplane in your picture benoni. Where is the 747? Its a huge plane, why dont I see a 747 there? I just see a hole in the ground, which could have been made by anyone. I dont see any airplane parts, just some scraps from the destroyed homes. Nope. No plane parts. So ergo, no plane crashed at Lockerbie. Any plane parts shown have been planted, like that obvious planted nose section of the 747. But your picture proves it. Nothing crashed at Lockerbie. Thank you for showing that picture.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Dont worry...I know what you mean mate...!!



Nice try......

Wheres the big crater in Shanksville....the one that should have been there after a 767 crashed vertically...at full speed?????

remember ...thats your story....full speed...vertical...swallowed by Mother Earth...no wreckage at the site...remember??


You might struggle finding that mystery impact site .....just like the Men in Yellow are struggling....so Lockerbie gives you an idea as to what to look for....



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
heres an aerial of the devastation caused at Lockerbie...

Now you have to remember that in that incident the plane exploded at 31,000 ft....yet below we can see the damage it caused and the crater bits of pieces of exploded plane made...
Note the size of the crater against the car....



Something perhaps not quite adding up???
A missing plane maybe....???




Really? Do you have a CLUE as to what you're talking about??

Lets look at the basics:

757 weight: 255,000 lbs

747 weight: 735,000 lbs



757 Fuel: 11,489 gallons

747 Fuel: 48,445 gallons

Wingspan:

757: 124 ft 10 in

747: 195 ft 8 in

So, do you understand the difference in the two planes?

Good.

Two totally different planes two totally different crashes.

On Flight 103, the fuselage broke into smaller pieces, the section attached to the wings landed first in Sherwood Crescent, where the 200,000 lb of kerosene contained inside ignited. Both wings were in the crater....not much left of them actually. The only reason why they knew they were in there? The investigators found in the crater large steel flap drive jack screws. Outside the crater...do you know how much of the wings structure was found? NADA!

Flight 93 was intact as is hit at a 40 degree angle.

High Speed... nose down.

Be a little more honest in your comparisons. You obviously overlooked my post regarding flight 1771. Go Google in and learn something.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni


Wheres the big crater in Shanksville....the one that should have been there after a 767 crashed vertically...at full speed?????


it was a 757.

Can you compare this crash to another high speed nose down crash....


remember ...thats your story....full speed...vertical...swallowed by Mother Earth...no wreckage at the site...remember??


No, it's the story of the many witnesses and the THOUSANDS of responders and investigators that were there. No wreckage? Why are you lying?



You might struggle finding that mystery impact site .....just like the Men in Yellow are struggling....so Lockerbie gives you an idea as to what to look for....



You have proven you know nothing about the crash in Shanksville AND nothing about flight 103.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
The biggest difference between the two planes was the fact that the 747 was blown out of the air at 31000ft, therefore falling to earth in a myriad of small pieces...so your "mass" comparison holds no bearing....

...whereas in Shanksville it hit the ground in one piece....(or so you gullibles believe...) causing a small crater as seen in my photo above.....


The difference is obvious...get with it!!





top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join