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.
I've never heard a truther suggest personal effects wouldn't have survive if a commercial airliner crashed there, so this is a moot comparison.
Therefore the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 767 or anything remotely the size
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Shadow Herder
Therefore the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing....... anything remotely the size
Flight93 was a Boeing .....
Where did the wings and the tail fin hit the ground
show us where the wings would of struck the ground and where the vertical stabilizer hit the ground
Prove that these items would have survived, intact, long enough after the initial impact to make an impression.
The plane, like most modern jets, had a swept wing design meaning the wings would not have impacted the ground (if they survived at all) at a uniform point in time.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by hooper
The plane, like most modern jets, had a swept wing design meaning the wings would not have impacted the ground (if they survived at all) at a uniform point in time.
What
They MUST hit the ground..It's called gravity...
Or are they like the wings at the Pentagon that some say sort of liquified and went through the building?
we would like an 'official' answer from you ATS resident 911 forum 'debunkers' *people who parrot the official story even tho they were shown that the official story of 911 has been proven false.
For starters , please show where "the official story of 9/11 has been proven false" . What part of the "OS" has been proven false , and how was this proven ?
Has it been proven that airliners were not hijacked ? Has it been proven that those same airliners were not hijacked by muslim extremists ?
Has it been proven that the towers were brought down by anything other than the impacts and subsequent damage that was incurred ?
Have you proven that the Pentagon was not struck by Flight 77 ?
Have you proven that Flight 93 did not crash in Pa.? If this has been proven , and I don't see where it has , have you proven that it was something else that crashed there ? No , I have not seen this proof . Please prove to me what it was that crashed there , without simply saying that it should have looked different .
Maybe you could show some sort of evidence that missile fragments , or wreckage from something other than an aircraft was recovered from this site ? Maybe you could show me some proof that the engine remains as well as the fan , etc. , were in fact planted there ?
Maybe you could also show proof that the passenger remains and personal effects were also planted at the site ?
As an extra , could you also show proof that the site should have looked entirely different , by posting pics of other crashes where the planes impacted the ground at similar angle and speed ?
Can you also show proof that under similar scenarios , the impact would show definitive signs of the vertical stabilizer etc. , leaving distinct impressions in the ground ? Can you show proof that this should be the case in all crashes of airplanes that come down in the same angle of impact , and speed ?
If you could show evidence of such , I will be more than willing to look at it , but please don't expect me to just take your word that airplane crashes should look like you say they should .
If the "OS" has been proven false , why hasn't anything been done about it ? If you guys have iron-clad evidence to support your accusations , why haven't you brought criminal charges against those you accuse of being the perps ?
Maybe you don't really have evidence to the contrary , and maybe your "proof" amounts to nothing more than opinions of how things "should have" looked on that day ?
Until you show me some actual , tangible proof , then I will have to continue to believe that you have shown nothing of the sort .
This next photo IS NOT FLIGHT 93 but an Iranian plane crash that recently happened.
Maybe you don't really have evidence to the contrary , and maybe your "proof" amounts to nothing more than opinions of how things "should have" looked on that day ?
Until you show me some actual , tangible proof , then I will have to continue to believe that you have shown nothing of the sort .
Or are they like the wings at the Pentagon that some say sort of liquified and went through the building ?
You sure? When that leading edge strikes the ground at close to 500 mph what happens to the rest of the wing structure? What effect does all that energy being transfered to the wing structure have on the wing? Does the remainder of the wing survive, intact, long enough to strike the ground as a monolithic structure?
Now , with that in mind , how should the wings have reacted to being slammed into a building at 400-500 miles per hour ?