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: 17
10
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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?

Let me dumb it down for you a little more.

You are seeing the OS simply as 1+1=2: "UA93 crashed at 580 mph" + "breaks apart" = "explosion then mushroom cloud"

However, if you actually read and understood my OP, you'd see the details of how UA93 supposedly crashed that you are not adding to your equation.

The equation of the alleged crash is more like this: 1+1+1+1+1+1+1=?

"UA93 reaches ground nearly inverted at 40 deg angle going 580 mph" + "Wing-tip strikes first" + "plane begins to cartwheel" + "cockpit snaps off into forest" + "rest of plane on back tunnels down into ground and accordions off of bedrock 40 ft below" + "loose earth caves back in on self covering up the hole" + "all this happened so fast it didn't have a chance to burn" = "explosion that produced a massive multi-football field wide mushroom cloud, but didn't scorch the grassy field around the crater"

I don't see how those details can add up to that result. Understand now?




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

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.

Where does your story put most of the alleged 95% recovered plane debris? It only looks like about 5% of a 757 remained on the surface. Your story is missing a LOT of plane.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Let me dumb it down for you a little more.

Like only you can.

You are seeing the OS simply as 1+1=2: "UA93 crashed at 580 mph" + "breaks apart" = "explosion then mushroom cloud"

I'll give you credit - thats pretty dumb.

However, if you actually read and understood my OP, you'd see the details of how UA93 supposedly crashed that you are not adding to your equation.

That's because your cobbling together quotes, innuendo, hearsay and anything else you want.

The equation of the alleged crash is more like this: 1+1+1+1+1+1+1=?

Here, let me help you, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1=7

"UA93 reaches ground nearly inverted at 40 deg angle going 580 mph"

OK

"Wing-tip strikes first"

Says who? The county coroner in an interview with a couple of truthers as he recounts what he was told by persons or persons unknown? Be that as it may, if the wingtip hit first, there's your explosion.

"plane begins to cartwheel" + "cockpit snaps off into forest" + "rest of plane on back tunnels down into ground and accordions off of bedrock 40 ft below" + "loose earth caves back in on self covering up the hole" + "all this happened so fast it didn't have a chance to burn" = "explosion that produced a massive multi-football field wide mushroom cloud, but didn't scorch the grassy field around the crater"

Photos show the ground was scorched. Too bad.
As for that other stuff, none of it, true or not, precludes the fuel from exploding. Oh, and except for the speed, the inversion and the angle I don't think any of that other stuff is official. And also, for the record the photo of the fuel explosion cloud is not official either. So you can rest comfortably now.

I don't see how those details can add up to that result. Understand now?

No. Still don't understand why the fuel won't explode.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Where does your story put most of the alleged 95% recovered plane debris?

Currently in a storage facility. Did you ever contact United and ask to see it? Would resolve a lot of issues for you.

It only looks like about 5% of a 757 remained on the surface.

How long were you at the crash site? Or are you basing this on photos you find on the internet?


Your story is missing a LOT of plane.

How so?



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Where does your story put most of the alleged 95% recovered plane debris?

Currently in a storage facility. Did you ever contact United and ask to see it? Would resolve a lot of issues for you.

It only looks like about 5% of a 757 remained on the surface.

How long were you at the crash site? Or are you basing this on photos you find on the internet?


Your story is missing a LOT of plane.

How so?



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

That's because your cobbling together quotes, innuendo, hearsay and anything else you want.

Proof?


Says who? The county coroner in an interview with a couple of truthers as he recounts what he was told by persons or persons unknown? Be that as it may, if the wingtip hit first, there's your explosion.

So, that's not what happened, but that's what happened?!?!



Photos show the ground was scorched. Too bad.

Really?! Please link!!!!!!


No. Still don't understand why the fuel won't explode.

Perhaps my threads are too complex for you then.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper


Where does your story put most of the alleged 95% recovered plane debris?

Currently in a storage facility.

Nice side-step. I forgot you like to weasel around what people are trying to get at.

Let me "hooper-proof" my question, where does your story say most of the alleged plane debris was at the scene before the cleanup started, in which the FBI later said they were able to recover 95% of the plane?



It only looks like about 5% of a 757 remained on the surface.

How long were you at the crash site? Or are you basing this on photos you find on the internet?

Yes, photos taken from many different angles on the ground of the scene, many different aerial photos, and many different ground and aerial videos from many different angles, all encompassing the entire scene to get an accurate visual of all that was left.

Feel free to circle areas on a map where you think a lot of debris on the surface was that the many ground and aerial photos and videos taken of the scene doesn't show.


.
edit on 18-11-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Let me "hooper-proof" my question, where does your story say most of the alleged plane debris was at the scene before the cleanup started, in which the FBI later said they were able to recover 95% of the plane?

It doesn't. Said that before. There is no official accounting of the remains of the aircraft with regard to there exact placement at the crash site.

Yes, photos taken from many different angles on the ground of the scene, many different aerial photos, and many different ground and aerial videos from many different angles, all encompassing the entire scene to get an accurate visual of all that was left.

Wait, you now have access to a complete video and photograhic record of the entire crash scene? Or is it the same handful of photos that everyone else has seen? Now you're just plain lying.

Feel free to circle areas on a map where you think a lot of debris on the surface was that the many ground and aerial photos and videos taken of the scene doesn't show.

Tell you what please post this huge database of photos that you have so we can all share in the details.
Face it, you've been beating this dead horse for a long time now and it didn't get up and run the last twenty times and it ain't going to get up and run now.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Perhaps my threads are too complex for you then

Well, I wouldn't use the word "complex". But please explain what in all of that word soup would have precluded the fuel from exploding.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

It doesn't. Said that before. There is no official accounting of the remains of the aircraft with regard to there exact placement at the crash site.

So you would acknowledge that your story has quite a big hole in it? I mean you have no accounting where most of the evidence was!


Wait, you now have access to a complete video and photograhic record of the entire crash scene? Or is it the same handful of photos that everyone else has seen? Now you're just plain lying.

The only one who is lying is you saying that I said I have some complete record of the footage. But honesty has never been your strong point.


Tell you what please post this huge database of photos that you have so we can all share in the details.

How many photos would constitute a "huge database" and how do you know the footage of the scene, that hardly shows much debris, doesn't constitute most of the footage taken of the scene?


Face it, you've been beating this dead horse for a long time now and it didn't get up and run the last twenty times and it ain't going to get up and run now.

Says the person who said "Photos show the ground was scorched. Too bad." but when asked to produce these photos you totally skip over it like you have something to hide.

Sounds like you're not that confident about the official story at Shanksville.



Originally posted by hooper

Well, I wouldn't use the word "complex". But please explain what in all of that word soup would have precluded the fuel from exploding.

Read the OP.
edit on 18-11-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



So you would acknowledge that your story has quite a big hole in it? I mean you have no accounting where most of the evidence was!

No, most of the evidence was at the crash site.

The only one who is lying is you saying that I said I have some complete record of the footage. But honesty has never been your strong point.

Nope, read your post - you said the entire scene.

How many photos would constitute a "huge database" and how do you know the footage of the scene, that hardly shows much debris, doesn't constitute most of the footage taken of the scene?

Huh?

Says the person who said "Photos show the ground was scorched. Too bad." but when asked to produce these photos you totally skip over it like you have something to hide.

You've seen it, I think you even posted it. I don't post photos.

Sounds like you're not that confident about the official story at Shanksville.

I am quite accustomed to you hearing and seeing things that aren't there as well as not seeing and hearing things that are there.
Again:

Well, I wouldn't use the word "complex". But please explain what in all of that word soup would have precluded the fuel from exploding.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I dont know what those last posters were on but ATH911 you have proven a very good case. Upon reviewing the evidence it is a fact that the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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?

Let me dumb it down for you a little more.

You are seeing the OS simply as 1+1=2: "UA93 crashed at 580 mph" + "breaks apart" = "explosion then mushroom cloud"

However, if you actually read and understood my OP, you'd see the details of how UA93 supposedly crashed that you are not adding to your equation.

The equation of the alleged crash is more like this: 1+1+1+1+1+1+1=?

"UA93 reaches ground nearly inverted at 40 deg angle going 580 mph" + "Wing-tip strikes first" + "plane begins to cartwheel" + "cockpit snaps off into forest" + "rest of plane on back tunnels down into ground and accordions off of bedrock 40 ft below" + "loose earth caves back in on self covering up the hole" + "all this happened so fast it didn't have a chance to burn" = "explosion that produced a massive multi-football field wide mushroom cloud, but didn't scorch the grassy field around the crater"

I don't see how those details can add up to that result. Understand now?


Yeah I've understood this all along. Despite your extraordinary use of the English language.

The problem is that pretty much everybody else can see how those details can add up to that result.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
I dont know what those last posters were on but ATH911 you have proven a very good case. Upon reviewing the evidence it is a fact that the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757.


Interesting. Because above ATH911 even says that he thinks it possible that a 757 crashed there.

You don't agree, and you obviously haven't understood him.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
I dont know what those last posters were on but ATH911 you have proven a very good case. Upon reviewing the evidence it is a fact that the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757.


Interesting.


Thank you. Yes there is not any evidence that suggests that the crater was caused by a Boeing 757. The crater is less than 30 feet wide and around 10-15 feet deep. Eyewitnesses saw something much smaller crash.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Eyewitnesses saw something much smaller crash.

There were no eyewitnesses to the crash. Plain and simple fact.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

No, most of the evidence was at the crash site.

Damn, forgot to "hooper-proof" my questions again so you wouldn't weasel out of answering what I meant.

Your story doesn't say where most of the alleged 95% recovered wreckage was at the site. The story you tell only describes what all the photos and videos show, only about 5% of a 757 left at the scene. Where was the other 90% of the wreckage? It's got to be somewhere, right?

Or are you saying that most of the alleged 95% recovered wreckage is on the surface there at the scene, but the "limited amount" (your words) of photos and videos taken of the scene from various angles just don't happen to show where most of it was?


Nope, read your post - you said the entire scene.

I said there is enough footage that shows the entire scene, not that I have the complete database of photos. That was your lie.


Huh?

How many photos would constitute a "huge database"?


You've seen it, I think you even posted it. I don't post photos.

Nope, I haven't seen any pics that show fire damage to the grassy field outside the unusual crater. If you don't know how to post a photo here, maybe this forum is too complex for you.



But please explain what in all of that word soup would have precluded the fuel from exploding.

Again: Read the OP. Sheesh.
edit on 19-11-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
I dont know what those last posters were on but ATH911 you have proven a very good case. Upon reviewing the evidence it is a fact that the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757.

See skeptics, truthers don't have any problem understanding my threads.

Why does it seem you guys always do?



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Yeah I've understood this all along.

The problem is that pretty much everybody else can see how those details can add up to that result.

Well please explain to me how it can add up. It's what I've been asking for someone to do this entire time.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Interesting. Because above ATH911 even says that he thinks it possible that a 757 crashed there.

Why do you keep lying about this? I lying second nature to you skeptics?


You don't agree, and you obviously haven't understood him.

You've said you haven't understand what I've been asking almost this whole time, then suddenly . . .



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join