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

Originally posted by ATH911
Why can't skeptics explain how that debris landed on the "just filled-back hole"?

Because "skeptics", aka, rational people, really can't understand what you want "explained".

Do you want someone to explain gravity? Do you want someone to explain what an explosion is? What do you need explained?

Do you want someone to explain why YOU think the government is saying that the plane was sucked whole into the earth? I, nor any other person can explain your views to you, you must be the source of that explanation.

reply to post by hooper

I wouldn't ask your Government or mine anything!

I wrote previously in this thread:

UA 93 crashed at a 40 degree angle, while on its back (inverted). The crater at the crash site looks like it was caused by a plane that hit at a 90 degree angle (head on).

Reply by hooper:

Really? You have that much personal experience with airline crash craters in reclaimed strip mines in southwest Pennsylvania?

Answer: No, I have no personal experience with airline crash craters in reclaimed strip mines. I rely on documentation. Read the NTSB report. Here is the link:

www.ntsb.gov...

Animated GIF of UA 93 crashing:


[edit on 10/8/10 by The Surgeon]

reply to post by The Surgeon

The crater at the crash site looks like it was caused by a plane that hit at a 90 degree angle (head on).

Again, what experience do you have (and I don't mean necessarily professionally, even just real life experience) that would inform your viewpoint objectively? I can just as easily sit here and say I think it does look like a crater caused by a plane that crashed at a 40 degree angle inverted, but that is just my opinion.

reply to post by The Surgeon

I looked at that an i wont repeat what my comment was here its to obvious!

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


Really? ANYTHING? Thats a pretty big category. My government consist of my fellow citizens and I am not one to automatically assume someone is lying simply because of who writes their paycheck. I may take the word of say, a politician, with a BIG grain of salt for obvious reasons (they are trying to get elected) but I do not project that attitude unto everyone else in government.

reply to post by hooper

Yea an it shows!
Maybe there are a few cool men in politics, but most are there not for the People they are supposed to serve but only to serve themselves and TPTB ofcourse!

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


Now, are you talking about elected or appointed officials or are you talking about government employees? You know, inspectors, clerks, investigators, law enforcement, administrators those kind of people. Do you uniformly mistrust them like you would an elected official? Or maybe even more in that they don't have to stand for office?

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE

you tell me?
then answer me this, why was it quickly taking off the News! I suppose the TPTB thought it was compelling evidence enough to do so!

So your only evidence from Shanksville of government involvement in 9/11 is the non-repetition of a news story?

they got rid of the CCTV vids very fast from the Pentagon, up on till this day 9 years later nobody has seen any of what they contain why? one Building coming down like a Demolition is almost believable, but three Buildings! one mirroring the other exactly is a bit on the far out side dont you think?

You're doing it again. Seeing one of your fondly-held convictions wash up against a lack of firm evidence, and so skipping off to another topic.

Plus you don't actually make much sense here. What building mirroring what other building?

so to sum up theres to many ifs an buts far to many unanswered questions, thats why you have the likes of me saying whats going on? but not you! an goodoldave, sixsigma, weedwhacker, tombham, an joey canoli ,,your all happy with the official story, just 5 of you trolling around all the 9/11 threads trying to debunk everything that says differently to the TPTB's official story!


[edit on 8-8-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]

I suppose if you look at things in this way, without particularly considering what's in front of you, then stuff must often make you wonder "whats going on?"

And I don't try to debunk everything that says differently to TPTB's story, In fact I think that they were negligent, and then foolhardy to the point of idiocy. What I dislike is the Truth Movement narrative, because it lets the real culprits - or more accurately the real crimes - go unpunished, while looking elsewhere, at nonsense and cant.

Still, all that's OT, really. I mention it only to respond to you. The fact remains that your evidence at Shanksville is thin.

6) Many people in Pennsylvania saw the Boeing 757, traveling at low altitude and high speed, roll to the right and plummet upside-down, nose first, towards the ground. Many people witnessed the subsequent enormous explosion and fireball. Val McClatchey photographed the mushroom cloud.

At the crash they tell you the plane was to close to the ground for this. People working at the recycling area at the top of the hill by the crash had to dive for cover because the plane was so low.
the recycling center is just a couple hundred feet for from the crash site.
The difference in elevation between the recycling center and the crash site can't be more then a 150 feet.

Still no answer to my OP.

The plane supposedly tunneled a 40 deg hole down to 45 feet. The earth then supposedly caved back in on the hole which covered it up and left a shallow crater. Lots of little debris is seen lying in the crater. How was all that debris able to land on the surface of the crater if the ground had just caved back in on itself? Was all that debris, including a tire, suspended in the air and just happened to fall straight back down just after the ground finished filling itself back in?

Originally posted by ATH911
Still no answer to my OP.

The plane supposedly tunneled a 40 deg hole down to 45 feet. The earth then supposedly caved back in on the hole which covered it up and left a shallow crater. Lots of little debris is seen lying in the crater. How was all that debris able to land on the surface of the crater if the ground had just caved back in on itself? Was all that debris, including a tire, suspended in the air and just happened to fall straight back down just after the ground finished filling itself back in?

And your OP will remain unanswered because the OP is your special fantasy and nobody can explain why you create these scenarios within the confines of your own imagination.

But here is an attempt, however futile it may be, to respond to some of your creations.

When the Flight 93 made impact it was inverted and at an approximately 40 degree angle to the horizontal. The plane did not "tunnel in". The plane is not a solid steel auger. The plane exploded withing microseconds of impact, some of the materiality of the plane, guided by the force of forward motion of the plane embedded into the earth at the impact point, the plane exploded within microseconds of the impact, the force of the explosion caused some additional material to be embedded and also some material to scatter.

I can't help you any more, this is getting to be like trying to explain where the water goes when you drop a waterballoon. Either you grasp the concept or you don't. I have a feeling you do but just love the attention hoping your little line of "inquiry" will be the next big thing in the truth movement. Good luck with that.

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


I'm honest, but then again how would anyone know on an internet forum lol.

I'd have to give this debate to Dave and 911, the "debunkers" didn't even address the question of the OP. Just the same old ad hominem attacks. Self proclaimed experts and pilots talking down to anyone who disagrees with them, typical of ATS these days.

But meh, I really don't get into the 911 debate anymore because of this.

It's seems futile anymore.

Anywho Op 1 - De bunkers 0

JohnnyR

Originally posted by hooper
When the Flight 93 made impact it was inverted and at an approximately 40 degree angle to the horizontal. The plane did not "tunnel in".

Hooper lying again about what the official story claims:

"The remainder of the plane burrowed deep into the ground, creating a long, narrow crater."
----------------------------
"Flight 93 burrowed into a secluded field that was a reclaimed strip mine"
----------------------------
"United Flight 93 burrowed into the ground"
----------------------------
"the Boeing 757 tunneled right in. They had to dig 15 feet to find it."
----------------------------
"The plane had burrowed into the soft, reclaimed earth of the former strip mine and crumpled like an accordion, he says."
"It's almost like a dart hitting a pile of flour. ... The plane went in, and the stuff back-filled right over it.""
----------------------------
"Shanksville Chief Terry Shaffer said the earth literally opened, swallowed the aircraft and closed up"
----------------------------
"The fuselage had burrowed so far into the earth that the "black box" was found at a depth of 25 feet below ground."
----------------------------
"The plane had pierced the earth like a spoon in a cup of coffee: the spoon forced the coffee back, and then the coffee immediately closed around the spoon as though nothing had troubled the surface. Anything that remained of Flight 93 was buried deep in the ground." - Lisa Beamer
----------------------------
"The fuselage accordioned on itself more than thirty feet into the porous, backfilled ground. It was as if a marble had been dropped into water."
----------------------------
"the remaining 2/3'rds went down in the ground." - Wally Miller
----------------------------
"80% of the plane was in the crater"
----------------------------
"the rest of [UA93] went straight down and the ground came in around it"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's kinda funny that even the skeptics don't believe the official Shanksville story!

[edit on 21-8-2010 by ATH911]

double

[edit on 21-8-2010 by ATH911]

reply to post by ATH911


Ok, you probably don't speak English as a first language and may be having difficulty distinguishing between formal and techincal speaking and general conversation wherein the speaker is trying to convey a concept rather than a specific image.

Be that as it may, you still can't tell anyone what you want explained. And you still haven't told me where the top of a crater is located.

reply to post by ATH911


Well, congradulations!! You found us out! We are now in deep trouble - your persistence has finally paid off - I admit - I did it. Me and Dick and Rummy and W. We thought we had pulled off the big one, damn almost got away with it but I guess we should have staged the Flight 93 site a little better, but you know we went with the low bidder on that one and it shows. Should have figured that eventually someone would pick up on that detail. Before you go to the press can you give us a chance to set some things straight first? Boy do we have egg on our face.

Please, please tell me when the press conference is going to be, this is going to be major!!

Just for the fun of it, please explain to me what you think is inconsistent about the crash scene in Shanksville. For the life of me, and the rest of the world, I have no clue what you are trying to get at. The plane hit the ground at a steep angle and upside down and some of it went into the ground, now you seem to be all confused and stuff about the words "tunnel" and "borrow" and what they mean. Also, please be advised that there are no eyewitnesses to the impact. That is pretty much key here. People are trying to use their best communication skills to try and describe in words what happened approximately. You're exercise in taking them as perfectly literal is starting to make you look even sillier than some of your OP's.

reply to post by hooper


Dont be so patronising man do yea want to try me ? i speak good, bad, English an Irish! an i think that little hole that you say had a 757 jet plane inside it or disintegrated before it hit the ground is a load of bull$H!T!

[edit on 21-8-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]

reply to post by ATH911

Hooper lying again about what the official story claims:

Please show me in the 9/11 commission report you found these quotes. Or any other "official" document.

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

.....think that little hole that you say had a 757 jet plane inside it is a load of bull$H!T!

I'm sorry, but someone creates a convoluted myth spun from seocnd hand quotes and armchair analysis of photos and then wants me to prove their myth is true and if I don't then I am a liar.