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

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



I see scorch marks up to the red arrow, about halfway out from the center of the crater.
And torn up, unscorched earth for the rest of the wing scar.
So then the photographic evidence proves that the scorch marks match up to the location of the fuel tanks on a 757.
Thanks for that proof.

Sorry, that does not conform to the big book of airliner crash standards.


Well damn, Beelzubub was sending that to me.

How come I never got my copy?




posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by EleninPfft
 



No , it was smaller than a 757 maybe a BAe 146 ? i dunno , but the fact still remains THAT IS NOT A CRATER LEFT BY A 757.


care to give us your qualifications in evaluating aircraft accidents?

Are you a pilot...? Aircraft engineer? Police/FirefighterEMS with experience at aircraft accidents ?

And no watching video in mommy's basement does not count......



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Now back on topic...

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

I don't see how there could have been an explosion consistent with the official story, so by that the burn damage to the forest and the massive mushroom cloud from the McClatchey photo and Berkebile video could not have come from a 757 crash at that field and that would be proof of an inside job.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
If I'm getting this right, you think that a huge plane ploughing into the ground at collosal speed won't cause an explosion?



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If I'm getting this right, you think that a huge plane ploughing into the ground at collosal speed won't cause an explosion?

Yes, the one that “went in the ground so fast it didn’t have a chance to burn.” That one.


.
edit on 4-11-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If I'm getting this right, you think that a huge plane ploughing into the ground at collosal speed won't cause an explosion?

Yes, the one that “went in the ground so fast it didn’t have a chance to burn.” That one.


.
edit on 4-11-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)


So what's confusing you? You know things can explode and not burn,right? Shadowherder posted a wonderful photo of the smoldering impact site. So there, we have a mushroom cloud from the explosion and smoldering impact site. What else?



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If I'm getting this right, you think that a huge plane ploughing into the ground at collosal speed won't cause an explosion?

Yes, the one that “went in the ground so fast it didn’t have a chance to burn.” That one.


.
edit on 4-11-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)


Okay. So you're saying that something can't explode if it doesn't burn?

I literally have no idea what you're on about.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Okay. So you're saying that something can't explode if it doesn't burn?

We're talking about planes with thousands of gallons of jet fuel on board, no just "something" like a missile or C4 explosive.


I literally have no idea what you're on about.

Well please explain to me how UA93 could have produced an explosion without conflicting with the official story.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

We're talking about planes with thousands of gallons of jet fuel on board, no just "something" like a missile or C4 explosive.


What do you mean? I asked you if you thought that an explosion meant something had to burn. You respond with this. What are you talking about. Why is it strange to you that a palne with "thousands of gallons of jet fuel on board" might explode?



Well please explain to me how UA93 could have produced an explosion without conflicting with the official story.


It seems to me completely in line with the "official story" that it would explode.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Well please explain to me how UA93 could have produced an explosion without conflicting with the official story.

I hate to even ask, but how does the explosion contradict your version of the "official story"?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

What do you mean? I asked you if you thought that an explosion meant something had to burn. You respond with this. What are you talking about.

There are a lot of things that can explode with usually not burning and vise versa.


Why is it strange to you that a palne with "thousands of gallons of jet fuel on board" might explode?

That's not strange to me on the surface (no pun intended).


It seems to me completely in line with the "official story" that it would explode.

And it very well may be. Can you please walk me through how UA93 supposedly crashed so it makes sense to me how it could of exploded.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

I hate to even ask, but how does the explosion contradict your version of the "official story"?

Well maybe that's the problem. Maybe what I think officially happened was not how it officially happened.

Is this what happened?...


Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


You know the plane exploded within milliseconds of making of impact.

You know the entire plane never made it to the ground.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Well maybe that's the problem. Maybe what I think officially happened was not how it officially happened.

Huh? How you think it officially happened? So, basically, you have no clue as to how it officially happened yet for some reason you know that the explosion is in contradiction to what you don't know.



Is this what happened?...
You know the plane exploded within milliseconds of making of impact.
You know the entire plane never made it to the ground.

Yes. The plane exploded withing milliseconds of impact. Some of the physical structure never made it to the impact area. I know this because I live in the real world and thats how things work there.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Is this what happened?...


Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


You know the plane exploded within milliseconds of making of impact.

You know the entire plane never made it to the ground.


ATH911 -

No, these OS'ers are all wrong. We know that the following happened:

1- Flight 93 and it's passengers took off on 9/11 but was landed at another location. (probably a hanger somewhere)
2- Passengers were removed from the airplane and each were told to make phone calls to loved ones. This was done at gun point so as to not tip anyone off.
3- Phone calls were re-routed through AirPhone servers so that when investigated it would appear that they were coming from the sky.
4- Passengers were either killed or paid a substaital amount of hush money.
5- A missile or disguised plane was put in place in the sky where ATS employees mistakenly assumed it was flight 93.
6- Disguised aircraft was crashed in Shanksville at a determined location.

PRIOR to 9/11:

Bone fragments and other body parts were planted in and around the ground in shansville. Local coroner Wally Miller was instructed to perform the indentification of all remains along with DMORT workers and told to fake the results.

Personal belongings that were found were taken from the real passengers at the blimp hanger and Fed-Ex'd over night. (yes they got an exemption to fly) and planted in and around the crater when it got dark out.

There you have it!



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
So, basically, you have no clue as to how it officially happened yet for some reason you know that the explosion is in contradiction to what you don't know.

No, if you read what I said properly, you'd know I wasn't saying that. I'm saying it's possible I could be wrong about what the OS says. I don't think I am. You seem to think I am. Am I?



Yes. The plane exploded withing milliseconds of impact. Some of the physical structure never made it to the impact area. I know this because I live in the real world and thats how things work there.

Sweet! Please continue walking me through the whole OS from when the plane was, let's say, over the Rollock scrap yard until all the dust settled.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

There you have it!

Cool story, bro.

Did you engage in that smartalic diatribe because you really don't know the OS? That would be my guess as to why.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Sweet! Please continue walking me through the whole OS from when the plane was, let's say, over the Rollock scrap yard until all the dust settled.


Here ya go:

www.gwu.edu...

Now please tell me why the plane couldn't explode.

Thanks.
edit on 7-11-2011 by hooper because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I'm going with the wrong spot theory. The real crash site was over several miles and this site was just to distract people while they cleaned up the bullet ridden wreakage.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


You must of linked the wrong PDF. That was the ATC recordings. Doesn't do anything to explain how the plane allegedly crashed.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join