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: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
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.


Check it again, I changed the link. Also, we are well beyond the "allegedly" phase. The plane did crash. You are making the allegations that the plane did not crash.




posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
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.


The only problem is the old "why"? No one is shying away from the idea that they would have shot down Flight 93 if they had the chance. There is nothing to hide. So why go through all the trouble of faking a crash site to cover up something that you publically admit you would do?



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Check it again, I changed the link.

If I'm reading that PDF right, the best it does is give a graph of how the alleged plane came in to the point where it hit the ground. Guess I'm more wanting to know what happened after that point. Plus, since I can't read the graphs, can you please tell me the behavior of the plane from Rollock scrap yard (funny the closest business from the alleged crash site that just basically left small scrap metal parts was a scrap metal business!) until it touched the ground?


Also, we are well beyond the "allegedly" phase. The plane did crash. You are making the allegations that the plane did not crash.

Oh, well, thanks for clearing that up.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper

Check it again, I changed the link.

If I'm reading that PDF right, the best it does is give a graph of how the alleged plane came in to the point where it hit the ground. Guess I'm more wanting to know what happened after that point. Plus, since I can't read the graphs, can you please tell me the behavior of the plane from Rollock scrap yard (funny the closest business from the alleged crash site that just basically left small scrap metal parts was a scrap metal business!) until it touched the ground?


Also, we are well beyond the "allegedly" phase. The plane did crash. You are making the allegations that the plane did not crash.

Oh, well, thanks for clearing that up.

This flight data is different than the flight data I read 2 years ago. I smell coverup. The original flight data showed much more altitude and speed changes.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude

This flight data is different than the flight data I read 2 years ago. I smell coverup. The original flight data showed much more altitude and speed changes.


Thats the same file I downloaded 4 years ago, no changes.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 

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



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



If I'm reading that PDF right, the best it does is give a graph of how the alleged plane came in to the point where it hit the ground.

Alleged? Unless you have direct evidence to the contrary there is no "alleged". Thought we got that clear. The burden is on you to prove your allegation - that no plane crashed and so far, no good.

Guess I'm more wanting to know what happened after that point.

Well, I can't find any "official story" so I guess your out of luck. Another dead end. Now, you are more than welcome to either provide an official souce for your story, you know - FAA, NTSB, FBI or any other governmental body that is specifically tasked with providing an official descriprition of the information you're looking for, or you may do like you have been doing and argue with your own speculations.

Plus, since I can't read the graphs, can you please tell me the behavior of the plane from Rollock scrap yard (funny the closest business from the alleged crash site that just basically left small scrap metal parts was a scrap metal business!) until it touched the ground?

Nope. You want official - you got official. You figure it out and then tell all of us why a plane hitting the ground at over 500 mph can't explode.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by waypastvne
 

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



CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O
edit on 7-11-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by waypastvne
 

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

CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

You're unable to explain along with hooper, gotcha.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


That is the correct answer to the question you asked me. You don't understand chemistry ?



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by waypastvne
 

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

CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

You're unable to explain along with hooper, gotcha.


Well, its either that, or Option "B" - you can't understand.

Do you understand why when a plane full of fuel hits the earth a a high rate of speed why it explodes or do you need someone to explain combustion?



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Alleged? Unless you have direct evidence to the contrary there is no "alleged". Thought we got that clear.

Oh, well, thanks for clearing that up.



The burden is on you to prove your allegation - that no plane crashed and so far, no good.

What do you mean "no good"?


Well, I can't find any "official story" so I guess your out of luck. Another dead end.

That's OK, just give me what you think happened.



Now, you are more than welcome to either provide an official souce for your story, you know - FAA, NTSB, FBI or any other governmental body that is specifically tasked with providing an official descriprition of the information you're looking for, or you may do like you have been doing and argue with your own speculations.

Which part of my "official story" do you think I got wrong?


Nope. You want official - you got official. You figure it out and then tell all of us why a plane hitting the ground at over 500 mph can't explode.

Are you saying "no" because you can't interpret the graphs either?
edit on 7-11-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by ATH911
 


That is the correct answer to the question you asked me. You don't understand chemistry ?


No, please explain it for the laymen.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Do you understand why when a plane full of fuel hits the earth a a high rate of speed why it explodes or do you need someone to explain combustion?

Like when plane mostly stays above ground and doesn't bury? Yes, I understand how that would cause the plane to explode.

I just don't understand how UA93 could have the way I interpret how it was said to have crashed.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Like when plane mostly stays above ground and doesn't bury? Yes, I understand how that would cause the plane to explode.

Well thats a little garbled. Can you straighten that out a bit? I really don't know what that means.

I just don't understand how UA93 could have the way I interpret how it was said to have crashed.

Huh? I think you mean that you don't understand how the plane could have exploded based on what you think may have happened, correct?

Well, here's one for you - the plane didn't explode.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by ATH911
 


That is the correct answer to the question you asked me. You don't understand chemistry ?


No, please explain it for the laymen.


Jet fuel is a hydro-carbon fuel when mixed with oxygen and its temperature raised above flash point the hydrogen - carbon molecule splits and and merges with the oxygen to form carbon-monoxide and dihydrogen-monoxide.
This releases energy.

Thats about as layman as I can put it.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Well, here's one for you - the plane didn't explode.

Sweet, you agree with me!



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Jet fuel is a hydro-carbon fuel when mixed with oxygen and its temperature raised above flash point the hydrogen - carbon molecule splits and and merges with the oxygen to form carbon-monoxide and dihydrogen-monoxide.
This releases energy.

Thats about as layman as I can put it.

So, how could it have done that without contradicting the official story?



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper

Well, here's one for you - the plane didn't explode.

Sweet, you agree with me!


The fuel in the plane exploded.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

So, how could it have done that without contradicting the official story?


By igniting just like the official like the official story tells us it did....Silly.

If it didn't ignite ... then it would contradict it.




top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join