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: 15
10
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

No truther was confused about what I said. Why is it always you skeptic who are confused what I said?


No Truther said anything! Find me a Truther who understood what you wrote.

Because, trust me, that sentence literally makes no sense.



Cool. Let's see what you got.


Why? I wasn't there. I know a jet smashed into the ground very fast and I'm not that surprised that there was apparently an explosion.

You are, which makes you very unusual I would say.



See, this is where you keep showing your ignorance. I've NEVER said I don't understand how a plane could explode from crashing into the ground and a speed like that. Please read my OP before you make yourself look anymore foolish.


I've read it. It makes little sense. You seem to be saying that if something you call "The OS" is true then there couldn't have been an explosion.

Since the "OS" posits a plane crashing into the ground at high speed I have to disagree with you. Any sane person probably would.



Maybe you missed my "according to your guy's logic"?


I didn't actually. But again this is one of your sentences that makes absolutely no sense. What guy? Nobody mentioned a guy. Why would you expect the pictures to be different?



To test your camera angle/lighting theory.


It's not a theory. It's fact.




posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Look hooper, my threads require a certain amount of intelligence. If you can't handle that, then better luck on other people's threads.


This is the single most amusing thing I've read in weeks.

Bravo.



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Because, trust me, that sentence literally makes no sense.

What did you not understand about it and if you comeback and say "all of it!," then that will just show your lack of intelligence.


Why? I wasn't there. I know a jet smashed into the ground very fast and I'm not that surprised that there was apparently an explosion.

You are, which makes you very unusual I would say.

You really, really, REALLY need to read my OP. Let me know which part you don't understand.


I've read it. It makes little sense. You seem to be saying that if something you call "The OS" is true then there couldn't have been an explosion.

EXACTLY! See, you are not as ignorant as you come across.


Since the "OS" posits a plane crashing into the ground at high speed I have to disagree with you. Any sane person probably would.

Any person who didn't read or understand my OP might. Didn't you see on my title:

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

"Officially speaking" means how it supposedly crashed and what happened after, fyi.



I didn't actually. But again this is one of your sentences that makes absolutely no sense. What guy? Nobody mentioned a guy. Why would you expect the pictures to be different?

guy = you skeptics.



It's not a theory. It's fact.

Then you should have no problem finding me a non-9/11 plane crash video that show grey or lighter mushroom cloud smoke from the explosion. Hop to it!

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



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

What did you not understand about it and if you comeback and say "all of it!," then that will just show your lack of intelligence.


Here's what you wrote:

Like if it crashed on the asphalt tarmac, regardless of any speed as long as it crashed hard enough to ignite the fuel, which seems like what you are saying, yes?

This was in answer to my question about what you meant when you asked if the plane crashed "on top of the ground".

Do you mean that crashing on top of the "asphalt tarmac" is similar to crashing on the "top of the ground"? You use the word like at the start which seems to suggest this, but then you spin off into two subclauses which seem to imply (very loosely, they are grammatically a total mess) that you think I am saying "regardless of any speed as long as it crashed hard enough to ignite fuel".

I have no idea what that means. "Regardless of any speed" seems to me redundant. Why would I be disregarding speed? Do you mean that I am saying the fuel was ignited? If so why don't you just ask?



You really, really, REALLY need to read my OP. Let me know which part you don't understand.


I have, underneath.



Any person who didn't read or understand my OP might. Didn't you see on my title:

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

"Officially speaking" means how it supposedly crashed and what happened after, fyi.


I've seen the title. I've understood it. You are syaing that the "OS" as you comprehend it seems to preclude an explosion. Since the "official" evidence suggests a massive plane hitting the ground very fast, I can't see why you are struggling with this. Indeed nobody can.

You can keep refering us back to your OP but it says nothing on this subject.




guy = you skeptics.


I wrote a refutation of your ideas about why smoke should be exactly the same colour in photos and you said that according to "my guy" two photographs should always look different.

So "my guy" is "us skeptics". Which means that your sentence reads "Shouldn't they be different color according to you skeptics' logic?" Leaving aside your extraordinary conflation of me with other skeptics, and your decision to do that by the frankly weird use of the term "your guy", why would one expect them to be different colours? Are you just going down this route of talkinga bout "a guy" because you realise you know nothing about cameras and it's reasonable to expect that they produce different results?



Then you should have no problem finding me a non-9/11 plane crash video that show grey or lighter mushroom cloud smoke from the explosion. Hop to it!


Sorry. I can't be bothered.



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Builder: Are you sure this will have enough load bearing strength?
Architect: You are so caught up in the minutia of things. It's steel. It's strong. What's the problem?


Planes were hijacked on 9/11 (Yes or No)
(if you answer no, please proceed to David Icke Forum with the reptilian people and read no further)

Flight 93 passengers made several calls to loved ones describing the hijacking? (Yes or No)

Passengers described to loved ones that they are going to try to take over the cockpit? (Yes or No)

The CVR recorded the hijackers' decision to end the flight, followed by repeated shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" (Yes or No)

FBI was on site in Shanksville and determined that the crash was not casued by explosives. (Yes or No)

Okay, so am I safe to assume that yes was answered to all these questions.....

That being said...do you think the NTSB gives a Flying Frogs Fat Ass how big the crater is or how much dirt was displaced? You and truthers like you are the only ones concerned with dirt and holes.

Once again...a point you continue to ignore: There is not a single professional aircraft crash investigator that was in Shanksvill that agrees with you.

Does that sink in? ..... i didn't think so.



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Do you mean that crashing on top of the "asphalt tarmac" is similar to crashing on the "top of the ground"?

You questioned what I meant when I said "So did it explode on top of the ground?"

I said "asphalt tarmac" to mean the plane crashed on a hard surface and the plane exploded on the surface like all the plane crash samples Gen R. posted.

Is this what you are saying happened with UA93, it exploded on the surface?


I've seen the title. I've understood it. You are syaing that the "OS" as you comprehend it seems to preclude an explosion. Since the "official" evidence suggests a massive plane hitting the ground very fast, I can't see why you are struggling with this. Indeed nobody can.

Yes and this is my whole point, the evidence has to fit the story. See, you're showing your ignorance again. I've never said I can't comprehend based on the evidence how a plane could crash there very fast. Do you see that in the title? Are you really this slow?


Which means that your sentence reads "Shouldn't they be different color according to you skeptics' logic?"

Yes, I guess I should have typed "guys' logic" instead of "guy's logic." Who new a small little grammatical typo would send you skeptics in such a fit about what I was trying to say. Only in a skeptic.


Sorry. I can't be bothered.

So you have enough time to come here ofter to chase truthers, but not enough time to prove your point? Got it.
edit on 11-11-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
do you think the NTSB gives a Flying Frogs Fat Ass how big the crater is or how much dirt was displaced? You and truthers like you are the only ones concerned with dirt and holes.

Only if they are concerned with the truth as apparently none of you skeptic are.


There is not a single professional aircraft crash investigator that was in Shanksvill[e] that agrees with you.

Read what you just wrote and think why that may be.



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Is this what you are saying happened with UA93, it exploded on the surface?

Exploded on the surface? Do you know what "exploded" means? What are you trying to get at?

Let me guess - because some folks said that a portion of the remains of the plane became embedded in the earth at the impact point due to the great force of the imapct that this somehow or another precludes the fuel from exploding - is that it?

Please explain this "theory".



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 



Is this what you are saying happened with UA93, it exploded on the surface?

Exploded on the surface? Do you know what "exploded" means? What are you trying to get at?


Please explain this "theory".


ATH911 explained it quite well. I and others agree with him. The crater was not caused by a Boeing 757.

edit on 12-11-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

You questioned what I meant when I said "So did it explode on top of the ground?"

I said "asphalt tarmac" to mean the plane crashed on a hard surface and the plane exploded on the surface like all the plane crash samples Gen R. posted.

Is this what you are saying happened with UA93, it exploded on the surface?


I'm not saying anything. You keep asking me how I can think a plane exploded at Shanksville - indeed it's the subject of this thread - and I keep telling you why everyone bar you and a few other fringe nutters think it's plausible.



Yes and this is my whole point, the evidence has to fit the story. See, you're showing your ignorance again. I've never said I can't comprehend based on the evidence how a plane could crash there very fast. Do you see that in the title? Are you really this slow?


So you do see how a plane could crash there very fast?

In that case you must appreciate why one might think an explosion would occur.

I can't see that I'm being slow. This information is not in the title. You now seem to think a plane crashed there, at speed, and you still think an explosion is impossible? Why?



Yes, I guess I should have typed "guys' logic" instead of "guy's logic." Who new a small little grammatical typo would send you skeptics in such a fit about what I was trying to say. Only in a skeptic.


It's not the logic of a group of people. It's my knowledge of cameras and photography and reproduction. You may see my small expertise as some kind of skeptic plot, but it remains true that different conditions and cameras will produce enormously different results. You can doubt this based on nothing except your own ignorance and paranoia but the rest of the world is just going to carry on paying you no attention whatsoever.



So you have enough time to come here ofter to chase truthers, but not enough time to prove your point? Got it.
edit on 11-11-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)


You want me to prove to you that different cameras take different photographs. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to do it. Next you'll be demanding that I prove the moon isn't made of cheese or something.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder


ATH911 explained it quite well.


Could you briefly paraphrase what he's saying then? He now says that he has "never said I can't comprehend based on the evidence how a plane could crash there very fast". Which seems to suggest that he now believes it's a plane crash site.

What he appears to be struggling with, for reasons that become more and more obscure, is the explosion. Since he won't explain why perhaps you can?



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Shadow Herder


ATH911 explained it quite well.



Nope, you will have to review the last couple of pages. Thank you for trying to understand.

Well done ATH911 you and others have convinced me and many that Flight 93 the Boeing 757 did NOT cause the crater in Shanksville.
edit on 12-11-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder


Nope, you will have to review the last couple of pages. Thank you for trying to understand.

Well done ATH911 you and others have convinced me and many that Flight 93 the Boeing 757 did NOT cause the crater in Shanksville.
edit on 12-11-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


How so?

The dimensions fit a 757. Are you that blind or just ignorant? Just tell us how big the crater is suppose to be?



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



ATH911 explained it quite well.

Explained what quite well? If I am not mistaken (and I'm not) the OP was a question. So please explain the question.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder


Nope, you will have to review the last couple of pages. Thank you for trying to understand.



I suspect this is because you don't understand him either.

I don't blame you, it's not really possible to comprehend why someone could believe a plane crashed, could believe that it exploded, but for some reason chooses not to.

The only thing I find mystifying is that you apparently agree with him.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I'm not saying anything. You keep asking me how I can think a plane exploded at Shanksville - indeed it's the subject of this thread

See, showing your ignorance . . . again. Try not to quote-mine my OP.

One last time, UA93 supposedly crashed there a certain way (i.e. the official story). How could it have exploded without contradicting the official story of how the plane supposedly crashed? Read my OP again to help you understand . . . read the entire OP, that is.


I can't see that I'm being slow.

Well, that is a side-effect of being slow.


You now seem to think a plane crashed there, at speed, and you still think an explosion is impossible? Why?

Again, showing your ignorance. You brought up the high speed crash thing because of the small pieces left at the scene. I don't disagree that high speed plane crashes can leave only small pieces behind. That doesn't mean that's what I think happened at Shanks (as any person with a brain cell left would know from reading my other Shanksville threads here).


You want me to prove to you that different cameras take different photographs. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to do it.

I want you to prove your claim. Scared to?



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

What he appears to be struggling with, for reasons that become more and more obscure, is the explosion. Since he won't explain why perhaps you can?

I've explained it many times (and it's explained very well in my OP).

It's not my fault you don't understand it. My threads require a certain about of intelligence, so . . .



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

The dimensions fit a 757. Are you that blind or just ignorant? Just tell us how big the crater is suppose to be?

Have you ever seen a plane crash leave wing scars in the ground prior or after 9/11?



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

You keep asking me how I can think a plane exploded at Shanksville - indeed it's the subject of this thread


See, showing your ignorance . . . again.


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

That's literally the title of the thread. How is it ignorant to suggest that you are asking how people can think a plane exploded at Shanksville? Study your thread title. It poses a question, doesn't it? A question about an aeroplane exploding. At Shanksville.

And when I suggest that that is what the thread concerns, you call me ignorant. You're either fantastically stupid or you're joking.





Again, showing your ignorance. You brought up the high speed crash thing because of the small pieces left at the scene. I don't disagree that high speed plane crashes can leave only small pieces behind. That doesn't mean that's what I think happened at Shanks (as any person with a brain cell left would know from reading my other Shanksville threads here).


No I didn't. I never mentioned the pieces. You brought up the crash thus:

I've never said I can't comprehend based on the evidence how a plane could crash there very fast. Do you see that in the title? Are you really this slow?

This sentence says that you think that, according to the evidence, a plane could have crashed there. And yet you choose to think that one didn't.

Not sure it's me that's "slow".



I want you to prove your claim. Scared to?


Okay, you can believe that all photographic devices take identical photos if you like. I'm not sure I care, especially since the rest of your writing is, to be charitable, seriously confused.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
How was there even an explosion at Shanksville (officially speaking)?

That's literally the title of the thread. How is it ignorant to suggest that you are asking how people can think a plane exploded at Shanksville? Study your thread title. It poses a question, doesn't it? A question about an aeroplane exploding. At Shanksville.

"Officially speaking" and a person, with common sense, who didn't quite understand what I meant with "officially speaking" by just reading my title would have exercised their common sense and read my OP to know what I meant by that.

But if you want to judge a book by a cover, that's your choice.


No I didn't. I never mentioned the pieces.

Then what did you mean by it?


Okay, you can believe that all photographic devices take identical photos if you like. I'm not sure I care, especially since the rest of your writing is, to be charitable, seriously confused.

Just saying, never saw an explosion from a non-9/11 plane crash not produce a black smoke cloud. Prove me wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join