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.

 

Evidence no plane crashed & buried in Shanksville; piles of dirt, but no piles of plane debris

page: 18
26
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


whats your view on shanksville? i dont have a doubt the plane slammed into the ground at close to 500 mph
vaporizing most of the plane. This was acting like a missle hitting the ground fragments of the plane
have no where to go but up and out. besides i just found out yesterday my old shift partners uncle
is the one leading the investigation for PSP. i will also say there was not one report of fighter jets in this area
before the plane went down. And an F-16 is loud I know this because I had been around them for a long time. In fact all fighter jets are loud. If this plane was shot down there would have been reports of these jets in the air because they would have heard them and they would have seen them. If this plane was shot down why were locals assisting with the recovery? Wouldnt there be fears of them finding missle fragments?




posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


"all that weight" was reduced to small fragments. You might be using the fallacious thinking, unconsciously, of looking at the overall assembled size of the airframe, and mentally imagining that much volume of displacement, in the soil and dirt.

Try this thought experiment, smaller scale:

You have six dozen whole, raw eggs. They are all piled in a box, and they just exactly "fill up" that box.

Now, crush the shells. Do they still fill up that box?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
And ATH continues to posture.... unable to show the official story states "tons and tons" of the plane were recovered.

I told you where to find the link in this thread. Don't blame me if you don't know where to look, Mr. I'm Afraid to State My Position.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfnow2
reply to post by 46ACE
 


whats your view on shanksville? i dont have a doubt the plane slammed into the ground at close to 500 mph
vaporizing most of the plane.

Haven't I not stated that a dozen times now? No plane crash, thus nothing was buried.


This was acting like a missle hitting the ground fragments of the plane have no where to go but up and out.

Again, if the official story says most of the plane buried and the dirt fell back in on itself, covering the evidence up, would you still believe the official story?


If this plane was shot down

Nothing was shot down and nothing crashed.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

"all that weight" was reduced to small fragments.

Even all the plane that buried was reduced to small fragments?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfnow2
reply to post by 46ACE
 


whats your view on shanksville? i dont have a doubt the plane slammed into the ground at close to 500 mph
vaporizing most of the plane. This was acting like a missle hitting the ground fragments of the plane
have no where to go but up and out. besides i just found out yesterday my old shift partners uncle
is the one leading the investigation for PSP. i will also say there was not one report of fighter jets in this area
before the plane went down. And an F-16 is loud I know this because I had been around them for a long time. In fact all fighter jets are loud. If this plane was shot down there would have been reports of these jets in the air because they would have heard them and they would have seen them. If this plane was shot down why were locals assisting with the recovery? Wouldnt there be fears of them finding missle fragments?



So one can ask was there a complete aircraft in that hole?Or did somebody dump 50 gallons of kersosene in the sand and set it alight?
You know... I don't have any evidence or finished theories, I just have armchair freshman physics level questions on every impact site.
I think jumping conclusions from: "that wasn't a 757" directly to "Okay well then; where are the passengers"( implying: oh you're an idiot).. Does a disservice to this whole thing.

I say move one and only the one step; (we can verify as true or false) at a time.

All options have to be on the table,. Some where in the reams of internet so called "evidence/research " I read of a private analysis of the pentagon flt recorder data which showed the data bit "flagging" the "cockpit door open" was never set. Not once after the wheels came up. That's kinda important if you ask me. Not to mention ( no mention of bldg 7 in the final commission report?????What the hell?
There's
Norman Minettas Withe House situation room testimony:

Airman:"Sir the plane is 20 miles out does the order still stand sir?"
Cheney:" Of course the order still stands have I said otherwise?"


Warrants a subpoena from a grand jury.

Why was the prez sitting there after the secret service told him Sir the country is under attack. I knew secret service folks and had enough vip protection exposure to think the prez felt safe and knew what was on...If I was detail leader I'd have grabbed him by his big texas ears and tossed him into the heavy car with 6 close in agents sitting on top of him. I don't get why that whole thing played out like it did. Theories?? Nah; I'm quite content to be harassed for merely asking questions.

I don't have any answers just weird feelings

edit on 31-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2010 by 46ACE because: spelling and punctuation errors



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Typical "Empty Operating Weight" (OEW) B-757 will vary a great deal, but ranges 130,000 to 134,000 pounds.

Your "hundred of thousands" implies the weight of fuel, too. Fuel is a liquid. It soaks into the ground, if it doesn't burn off from initial fireball at impact.

Lets look at that one statement because I get overwhelmed easily. Ever heard the resounding "smack" of a fat kid doing a lay out belly flopper off a diving board? Liquids are "incompressible"

that's why hydraulic machines work . pressurize a line to an expanded cylinder,close the valve and you might as well have used a steel rod in place of the fluid.it doesn't give. I'm no crash exper:t I canonly imagine fuel tanks and fuel moving at over 500mph and stopping immediately bursting the leading edge of the tanks like a party balloon as the nose of the "aircraft started to crumple at impact.
even that should have left on hell of a mark
as the column of fuel impacts the soil at 500mph?

I haven't done any serious research on shanksville I'm just shooting from the hip....you can go back to arguing with the others now; I have some work to do.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Airplane is constructed out of many, many separate pieces, all attached together in various ways. (Lots and lots of rivets, mostly).

See what one looks like on the inside, with the exterior skin "removed":














posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE
Liquids are "incompressible"

that's why hydraulic machines work . pressurize a line to an expanded cylinder,close the valve and you might as well have used a steel rod in place of the fluid.it doesn't give. I'm no crash exper:t I canonly imagine fuel tanks and fuel moving at over 500mph and stopping immediately bursting the leading edge of the tanks like a party balloon as the nose of the "aircraft started to crumple at impact.
even that should have left on hell of a mark
as the column of fuel impacts the soil at 500mph?

This is another area about Shanksville where skeptics are all over the place. Some believe most of the fuel buried with the plane, some believe the fuel "aerosolized" and floated up many feet above the ground and then blew up, creating the massive smoke plume seen in the Val McClatchey photo. Not making that up.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


sorry your wrong, but there were never any photo's or video's of debris at this site or the Pentagon. please do show us the magical photo's you speak of with plane debris, or any human remains evidence.

tell me, how could they have have 'found' teeth and fingers which they supposedly use to identify 'remains' to be returned to their families, and yet the impact apparently completely disintegrated all the 6 ton steal engines? hint, it never happened because that is not possible in even the slightest bit. there would have never ever, ever, ever been body parts that were intact enough to be able to identify them, or passports as the 911 Commission reports on some and around these supposed body parts that were never once caught on film, OR plane debris. because the crashes NEVER HAPPENED it's so completely and blatantly obvious if you actually research the subject instead of living with you head up you.... like most Americans. jesus, wake up.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
if you want to see an AMAZING documentary on the 9/11 conspiracy(and not like most of the crappy ones posted here in various thread...sorry) what this. it completely shows how everything was done, and in a way that leaves you thinking how no one could see the blatant evidence pointed out.

Zeitgeist www.youtube.com...

its a 2 hour documentary which is all very interesting, but if you just want to skip to the 9/11 part it starts about the middle(an hour in).

your welcome.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


I am well aware of how hydraulics work.

And, your "belly-flop" analogy is .... well, a flop:


Ever heard the resounding "smack" of a fat kid doing a lay out belly flopper...


____

.... fuel moving at over 500mph and stopping immediately bursting the leading edge of the tanks like a party balloon....


You said you couldn't "imagine" it, yet you just described it, in part. Yes, fuel is a liquid, and thus, non-compressible....BUT, your "non-compressiblity" concept requires the fuel be contained, by some solid method, with no where else to go. Once the structure (which make the "tanks"...the wings are considered "wet-wings"...the structure itself IS the "tank") ...once the structure lost integrity, fuel was free to go anywhere....it DID have momentum in the direction of travel, of course. BUT, that very energy of motion is also what helps to make a portion of the quanitty atomize so quickly, as other quantities splash, and move around. The dynamics are very complex. Have you seen the Purdue simulations, on YouTube? They show a possible way that the fluid would behave, at the WTC and the Pentagon. But, that was a horizontal vector component, into a building, and the open spaces....

Here, it's not at 500 MPH, but this tragic crash example into the ground is a visual aid:




Now, this?


...as the nose of the "aircraft started to crumple at impact.


There is no fuel in the nose, not sure what you mean. (The Center Tank is under the cabin floor, and out a bit laterally into each wing. A diagram is below, for the 767, but it's very similar). And, keep in mind the velocity....try thinking of it in feet per second (around ~800 fps, just for round numbers). The entire length of the fuselage is only 155 feet. How long from nose to tail, on impact??

Diagram:





...even that should have left on hell of a mark
as the column of fuel impacts the soil at 500mph?


I see what you're getting at, there....the mass of fuel, leaving a mark? Well, some, but not sure it'd be all that obvious, from the distances of most of those long-shot photos.


edit on 1 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Where was most of UA93's fuel before it . . . did whatever it did when the plane supposedly crashed?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Where was most of UA93's fuel before it . . . did whatever it did when the plane supposedly crashed?


Why? Why is that significant?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Your link on the OP that refrences a volunteer worker at the temporary memorial? Really? That is your "official story?" Wow.

Wouldn't you think contacting the "officials" that were there during 9-11 give you more definitive answers? Perhaps DMORT could give you some info? Maybe the firemen that were there? I know you have the list of names of those that were there and their contact information. Do you think you will contact them for a more "official" narrative as to what happened? If not, why?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Where was most of UA93's fuel before it . . . did whatever it did when the plane supposedly crashed?


Why? Why is that significant?

Well you skeptics seem to be saying most of the fuel blew up on/above ground, but we are told the section of the plane with the fuel tanks supposed buried in the ground going 580 mph down to 45 feet, so fast that it "didn’t have a chance to burn," so there appears to be a contraction of the story. Just trying to straighten that part out.


.
edit on 3-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by ATH911
 


Your link on the OP that refrences a volunteer worker at the temporary memorial? Really? That is your "official story?" Wow.

Are you saying those ambassadors, who are going to the site voluntarily out of the goodness of their hearts, are pulling facts out of their arses?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Just trying to straighten that part out.


Really? You don't understand something that simple? There was a fireball and a fire at the site, there are photos of both.

The plane impacted the earth at over 500 mph. The structure shattered. Fuel is a liquid. Liquids don't shatter. Some of the physical remains of the aircraft embedded in the earth, some did not. Liquid isn't a solid, it acts differently then solids. Wow.





posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 



Just trying to straighten that part out.


Really? You don't understand something that simple? There was a fireball and a fire at the site, there are photos of both.

Obviously you didn't understand what I was asking. I'm hearing two different things that happened to the fuel, it blew up on/above ground, most of it buried with the plane so fast "it didn't have a chance to burn." Pay attention next time.


The plane impacted the earth at over 500 mph. The structure shattered. Fuel is a liquid. Liquids don't shatter. Some of the physical remains of the aircraft embedded in the earth, some did not. Liquid isn't a solid, it acts differently then solids. Wow.

So you're saying most/all of the fuel blew up on/above ground?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Obviously you didn't understand what I was asking. I'm hearing two different things that happened to the fuel, it blew up on/above ground, most of it buried with the plane so fast "it didn't have a chance to burn." Pay attention next time.


Actually, you're not hearing two different things. You have an article written in a Catholic magazine about the experiences that some of the readers had at the crash site. You should try and read the entire article, get some names and call those people and tell them they were all fooled, no plane crashed in Shanksville!

I don't know why you can't understand that any given amount of the fuel aboard that plane may have had different experiences. Some burned and some didn't. Some exploded and some didn't. It happens. Fuel, again, is a liquid. It is fungible. Any amount has the same potential as any other amount of the same, greater or lesser amount. One gallon will burn. Ten gallons will burn. One gallon can explode. One once can explode. Or not.

This why, after almost ten years now this is going nowhere. This is a basic understanding.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 



Obviously you didn't understand what I was asking. I'm hearing two different things that happened to the fuel, it blew up on/above ground, most of it buried with the plane so fast "it didn't have a chance to burn." Pay attention next time.


Actually, you're not hearing two different things. You have an article written in a Catholic magazine about the experiences that some of the readers had at the crash site.

So I'm not hearing two different things, yet you mention the article where I hearing something different from what you are saying.
hooper, you're too much.


I don't know why you can't understand that any given amount of the fuel aboard that plane may have had different experiences. Some burned and some didn't. Some exploded and some didn't. It happens.

Why can't you answer my simple question of are you saying most of the fuel blew up on/above ground?

It just requires a simple yes or no hooper.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join