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: 16
10
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Read comment wrong, my bad.
edit on 11/14/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Nope, that never happened. Hell even THAT junk has been debunked years ago. Why is it still being brought up? Are you just scraping the bottom of the barrel?

Wait, you're saying you've never seen another plane crash leave wing scars in the ground, which would be evidence the Shanksville plane crash (which supposedly left wing scars) was staged, then you go on about stuff being debunked years ago.

What was "debunked" years ago? Are you agreeing you too have never seen another plane crash leave wing scars in the ground?



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by GenRadek

Nope, that never happened. Hell even THAT junk has been debunked years ago. Why is it still being brought up? Are you just scraping the bottom of the barrel?

Wait, you're saying you've never seen another plane crash leave wing scars in the ground, which would be evidence the Shanksville plane crash (which supposedly left wing scars) was staged, then you go on about stuff being debunked years ago.

What was "debunked" years ago? Are you agreeing you too have never seen another plane crash leave wing scars in the ground?


I'm sorry I thought you were referring to the alleged pre-9/11 "scars" made in the ground. My mistake.

As for wing scars happening? I have not been to many plane crash sites. Have you?



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

As for wing scars happening? I have not been to many plane crash sites. Have you?

Nice dodge attempt.

Now, have you have seen another plane crash leave wing scars in the ground?



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Now, have you have seen another plane crash leave wing scars in the ground?


I know of two other crashes that left very visible wing marks.

You can just look at the picture and say: Yes.The wing hit right there.


The impression the plane left is amazingly similar to the shape of the Shanksville crater.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

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?


I and others are convinced upon viewing all available evidence and reviewing eyewitnesses testimony that the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


You'll notice that Ath911 ignored most of my post where I showed him that he had inadvertantly agreed that the evidence does in fact suggest a crash. Along the way he also said I was wrong to say this was a thread about a plane exploding at Shanksville, despite the title. He's tied himself in so many knots that his replies to me literally no longer make any sense.

But you seem sure of what he's saying. Perhaps you could quickly precis it for everyone.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

"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.


So the thread is not an appeal for an answer to the question of how a plane exploded on crashing into the ground at Shanksville?

What is it then?



Then what did you mean by it?


By what? I merely pointed out that you said that the evidence could suggest a plane crash.



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


Smoke lightens in colour as it dissipates. Cameras alter tints and colours. I can prove these things if you like, but I'm not sure I want to end up proving to you that 2+2 = 4.
edit on 15-11-2011 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Well I looked around, here is a good one:



Wing scars!



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



I and others are convinced upon viewing all available evidence and reviewing eyewitnesses testimony that the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757.


Bully for you! Now why don't you and the others get together and give us some basic science that would support your convictions? Just a simple crater impact analysis. Calculate a range of possibilites and then explain how what is observed does not or can not be fitted into that range.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

I know of two other crashes that left very visible wing marks.

You can just look at the picture and say: Yes.The wing hit right there.
i.imgur.com...

The impression the plane left is amazingly similar to the shape of the Shanksville crater.

That's a weird looking ground, ya know, what I asked for.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

So the thread is not an appeal for an answer to the question of how a plane exploded on crashing into the ground at Shanksville?

Um, no.



What is it then?

And you wonder why I call you "slow"!


Read the OP. It's all right there as it's been since the start of this thread. It's never changed. Neither has the title.


I merely pointed out that you said that the evidence could suggest a plane crash.

Key word: "could." And notice I didn't say what type of plane.


Smoke lightens in colour as it dissipates. Cameras alter tints and colours. I can prove these things if you like, but I'm not sure I want to end up proving to you that 2+2 = 4.

No please, prove it to me. Show me a non-9/11 plane crash where the jet explosion smoke wasn't black.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Well I looked around, here is a good one:
www.ww2incolor.com...

Wing scars!

Another weird looking ground. You skeptics sure bring up weird looking grounds.

Now, you done trolling?



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Another weird looking ground. You skeptics sure bring up weird looking grounds.

Now, you done trolling?


Hey, I'm not the one who has a hard time understanding that when a plane plows into the ground at 500MPH, it explodes and has debris scattered every which way including some being buried into the ground and some being ejected, and then goes on and ridicules and ignores every person that shows up to explain it as simply as possible.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

So the thread is not an appeal for an answer to the question of how a plane exploded on crashing into the ground at Shanksville?

Um, no.



What is it then?


And you wonder why I call you "slow"!


Humour me. You've written a thread entitled "How was there even an explosion at Shanksville (officially speaking)?"

What is it if not a thread posing the question of how there was an explosion at Shanksville? I've read the OP, I cannot fathom that it's anything different. I think you know this and realise you're being foolish and are resorting to insults and appeals to "read the OP".

I have. It's a thread that askes its respondents to account for an explosion at Shanksville. You are now, for some extraordinary reason, claiming it's not.




Key word: "could." And notice I didn't say what type of plane.


But if you think there could have been a plane (of whatever kind) you presumably think there could have been an explosion. It seems to me that the threads question - or whatever you have now decided it is - has been answered.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



I and others are convinced upon viewing all available evidence and reviewing eyewitnesses testimony that the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757.


Bully for you! Now why don't you and the others get together and give us some basic science...


I dont have to. The information you request has been outlined quite clearly in numerous flight 93 threads that proved the crater was not caused by a Boeing 757.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 





The impression the plane left is amazingly similar to the shape of the Shanksville crater.



I've noticed the same. Missiles in crossfire.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



I dont have to.

No, you do not. Of course. However, if the purpose of your endeavor is to seek truth and justice and not just attention then I would suggest that since over a decade has passed that it would be incumbent upon you to present something with a little more substance than simply repeating your personal incredulity.

The information you request has been outlined quite clearly in numerous flight 93 threads that proved the crater was not caused by a Boeing 757.

Not even close.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Hey, I'm not the one who has a hard time understanding that when a plane plows into the ground at 500MPH, it explodes and has debris scattered every which way including some being buried into the ground and some being ejected, and then goes on and ridicules and ignores every person that shows up to explain it as simply as possible.

The crash you describe is not how UA93 supposedly crashed. I recommend reading my OP so you don't make yourself look any more ignorant.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



The crash you describe is not how UA93 supposedly crashed.


Actually, that's exactly true. We know the speed at the time of impact (in excess of 500mph, don't feel like looking it up right now), there was an explosion (we have photos of the resultant cloud) and we know some material was embedded (photo of excavator removing engine section) and some was scattered (photos of material on the ground).

End of story.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join