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 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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by hooper
That's because your cobbling together quotes, innuendo, hearsay and anything else you want.
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.
Photos show the ground was scorched. Too bad.
No. Still don't understand why the fuel won't explode.
Originally posted by hooper
Where does your story put most of the alleged 95% recovered plane debris?
Currently in a storage facility.
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?
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?
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.
Perhaps my threads are too complex for you then
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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 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?
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.
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.
Eyewitnesses saw something much smaller crash.
Originally posted by hooper
No, most of the evidence was at the crash site.
Nope, read your post - you said the entire scene.
Huh?
You've seen it, I think you even posted it. I don't post photos.
But please explain what in all of that word soup would have precluded the fuel from exploding.
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.
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.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
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.