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.
Originally posted by ATH911
No truther was confused about what I said. Why is it always you skeptic who are confused what I said?
Cool. Let's see what you got.
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.
Maybe you missed my "according to your guy's logic"?
To test your camera angle/lighting theory.
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.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Because, trust me, that sentence literally makes no sense.
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.
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.
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?
It's not a theory. It's fact.
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.
You really, really, REALLY need to read my OP. Let me know which part you don't understand.
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.
guy = you skeptics.
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!
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?
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"?
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.
Which means that your sentence reads "Shouldn't they be different color according to you skeptics' logic?"
Sorry. I can't be bothered.
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.
There is not a single professional aircraft crash investigator that was in Shanksvill[e] that agrees with you.
Is this what you are saying happened with UA93, it exploded on the surface?
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".
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?
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?
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.
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)
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
ATH911 explained it quite well.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
ATH911 explained it quite well.
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)
ATH911 explained it quite well.
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Nope, you will have to review the last couple of pages. Thank you for trying to understand.
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
I can't see that I'm being slow.
You now seem to think a plane crashed there, at speed, and you still think an explosion is impossible? Why?
You want me to prove to you that different cameras take different photographs. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to do it.
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?
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?
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.
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).
I want you to prove your claim. Scared to?
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.
No I didn't. I never mentioned the pieces.
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.