Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How was there even an explosion at Shanksville (officially speaking)?

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Before you start spouting ridicule at this notion, remember we are supposed to be basing things off the official story.

There was supposedly a large explosion when UA93 supposedly crashed in the grassy Shanksville field. It supposedly burned a section of the forest next to the crater and formed a huge mushroom cloud that was allegedly photographed by Val McClatchey in a single photo before "dropping her camera" and this large grey plane crash smoke cloud (grey?) was recently "confirmed" by the newly released Dave Berkebile smoke cloud video that the media supposedly "wasn't interested in" right after 9/11.



(Top: McClatchey photo; Bottom: Berkebile video)


But if you look at the official story of how UA93 supposedly crashed, I'm wondering how was there even an explosion at all?!?

Remember, we are being told that this is how the Boeing 757 supposedly crashed:



Wally Miller: "The explanation was... The right wing hit the ground right there were the impact area is and as that happened, it took the front end...[does cartwheel hand gesture].
The front 1/3 of the plane, including the cockpit, slammed into the ground off of the wing and the front 1/3 broke off and flew up into the trees and there was a fireball behind it and the remaining 2/3'rds went down in the ground."


One of the landowners working with the FBI during the excavation described that the 757 went in the ground so fast that it didn't have a chance to burn:


The location was eventually determined because of some disturbed ground in front of a grove of charred evergreens, explains Jamie. The ground had swallowed up much of the wreckage.

Because of their familiarity with the property, the Svonavecs were asked to work with the F.B.I. on recovery efforts. “We hired some extra people and worked one long shift, seven days a week,” says Jim, a former federal mining inspector.

Using a Kobelco excavator, the process was slow and meticulous because “every bucket of material that was excavated went through screens,” explains Sally. Screening helped locate many body fragments and debris from the plane.

The plane “went in the ground so fast it didn’t have a chance to burn,” says Jim.




And you can see that there is hardly any fire damage to the grassy field surrounding the crater:



The only real fire damage seen is to the small section of forest next to the crater that the broken off cockpit section of UA93 supposedly flung into:



But as I asked before, what's contained in the cockpit section of a 757 that could even cause an explosion?


So help me out here, based on the official story, how could there have been any explosion, no less a large one that supposedly produced a super huge grey mushroom cloud (grey?) as seen the the McClatchey photo and Berkebile video?




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
IF there was an explosion, it´s probably from the missile that struck flight 93.




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 

Nothing was shot down or there'd be a debris trail leading up to the crater, not after. Nothing crashed there.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


then debunk Cheney stating he gave the order to shoot it down.

would also explain the 8 mile radius of debris found



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 

Please start a new thread on that topic.

Keep this thread about the alleged ground explosion.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
The jet fuel is held in the wings and it was atomised and ignited on impact. Just like it did at World Trade Center 1, World Trade Center 2, the Pentagon, and every other crash site involving a large amount of jet fuel.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
reply to post by ATH911
 


then debunk Cheney stating he gave the order to shoot it down.

would also explain the 8 mile radius of debris found


i've always though that Cheney saying that was misdirection.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
The jet fuel is held in the wings and it was atomised and ignited on impact. Just like it did at World Trade Center 1, World Trade Center 2

If the WTC videos are correct, the "planes" that "hit" the WTCs penetrated inside first, exploded, then the explosion seen coming back out of the buildings. At Shanksville, supposedly after the later 80% of UA93 penetrated the ground, the dirt fell back in on itself, covering up the hole.

So did the explosion escape before the dirt fell back in on the hole?


and every other crash site involving a large amount of jet fuel.

Which other ones mostly buried in the ground like most of UA93 supposedly did?
edit on 17-9-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Planes crash, and they explode....Here's an example:
edit on 17-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 

Not sure if that was meant to support my thread, or try to debunk it, but note how this real plane crash produced an explosion with thick BLACK smoke, not the grey smoke seen in the McClatchey photo and Berkebile video.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


I think that's because the smoke seen in that video is formed immediately after the explosion compared to the smoke from the images that clearly are taken a short while after the explosion. The smoke in those images has already began to dissipate, so it lost much it's original thickness/color.

What else could have possibly produced the smoke that looks like the aftermath of an explosion on the site that we were told a plane just crashed? Did they set off some smoke grenades or something?
edit on 17-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



So did the explosion escape before the dirt fell back in on the hole?


Yeah, that sounds good to me! Thats why they call them explosions and not slow leaks. How long do you think an explosion takes? An hour? Maybe two hours? Maybe a millisecond? 5 milliseconds?

According to your version of the official story the right wing hit the ground first. That's where the fuel is located. Explosion.

All done here now. Anything else?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by ATH911
 


I think that's because the smoke seen in that video is formed immediately after the explosion compared to the smoke from the images that clearly are taken a short while after the explosion. The smoke in those images has already began to dissipate, so it lost much it's original thickness/color.

Can you show me another smoke trail from a non-9/11 plane crash that lost its black color as you suggest?

It won't be from this one:



What else could have possibly produced the smoke that looks like the aftermath of an explosion on the site that we were told a plane just crashed? Did they set off some smoke grenades or something?

Here might be an answer:


Jeff: Val McClatchey... she has a famous photo.
Ms. Leverknight: It was a fake photo, because it didn't have a mushroom cloud.
Jeff: It what?
Ms. Leverknight: There was no mushroom cloud.
Jeff: So it was a fake photo?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah.
Jeff: Her photo's faked?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah.
Jeff: For what? For money?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah.
Jeff: Why, do you know that for sure?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah!



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 


According to your version of the official story

Ah, "my" version, the one you disagree with?


the right wing hit the ground first. That's where the fuel is located. Explosion.

Yeah, the unburnt grass surrounding the crater really supports that theory.




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Ah, "my" version, the one you disagree with?

No, the one you compiled through cherry picking newspapers, dubious interviews, etc. But you screwed up, you included the wing hit the ground first. Thats where the fuel is, thats what exploded, thats what formed the mushroom cloud.

Yeah, the unburnt grass surrounding the crater really supports that theory.

You have some evidence that all the grass around the crater was unburnt? Or was some burnt and some not burnt - you know - like what happens in real life.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 



Ah, "my" version, the one you disagree with?

No, the one you compiled through cherry picking newspapers, dubious interviews, etc.

So you agree with my version, the one I compiled through "cherry picking newspapers, dubious interviews, etc."?


But you screwed up, you included the wing hit the ground first.

Is that not the official story?


You have some evidence that all the grass around the crater was unburnt? Or was some burnt and some not burnt - you know - like what happens in real life.

Did you not see that one aerial photo were you can see the unburnt greenish grass surrounding the crater? If you can find images that show fire damage consistent with the explosion from the est. 7,000 gallons of jet fuel on board at impact, please post.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



So you agree with my version, the one I compiled through "cherry picking newspapers, dubious interviews, etc."?

Oh Dear God, no. Because I have no idea what your version is!!

But you screwed up, you included the wing hit the ground first.
Is that not the official story?

You tell me. A couple of conspiracy whackos wrangle their way into the office of the coroner and supposedly ask him about the crash and he tells them what he thinks he heard from the FBI? Does that sound official to you?

Did you not see that one aerial photo were you can see the unburnt greenish grass surrounding the crater?

No.

If you can find images that show fire damage consistent with the explosion from the est. 7,000 gallons of jet fuel on board at impact, please post.

Uh, just about any of them. You look, I don't like posting photos.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 


Oh Dear God, no. Because I have no idea what your version is!!

Then how can you be criticizing "my version" if you don't even know what it is?



You tell me.

In other words, you don't know what the official version is.


A couple of conspiracy whackos wrangle their way into the office of the coroner and supposedly ask him about the crash and he tells them what he thinks he heard from the FBI?

Aren't you one of the one's who keep telling truthers to contact those involved? How do you know Miller was just telling them "what he thinks he heard from the FBI" and not that that's what the FBI told Miller, hence "The explanation was..."? Or are you just making things up again? You are very well known for that.


Does that sound official to you?

Who was Miller working under at the scene?


Uh, just about any of them.

Like the one I posted in my OP?


You look, I don't like posting photos.

That's fine, just post a link to any of them.
edit on 17-9-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Then how can you be criticizing "my version" if you don't even know what it is?

I criticize the way it is "compiled". A little from column A and little from column B, a snippet from one newspaper, half a photograph of this, etc.

In other words, you don't know what the official version is.

Official version of what?

Aren't you one of the one's who keep telling truthers to contact those involved? How do you know Miller was just telling them "what he thinks he heard from the FBI" and not that that's what the FBI told Miller, hence "The explanation was..."? Or are you just making things up again? You are very well known for that.

Uh, why would you ask the county coroner about the dynamics of the plane impact? And what is it I'm making up?

Who was Miller working under at the scene?

Working "under"? Miller is a duly elected public official.

That's fine, just post a link to any of them

Nope, let me put it this way, its 10 years now and if you don't know how to find photo images of the site on the internet then telling you where to find them isn't going to help.

So, according to you, the county coroner said that the first thing to hit the ground was the wing full of fuel but for some strange reason you don't think this could result in an explosion. Please explain your odd position.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join