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: 18
10
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper


Eyewitnesses saw something much smaller crash.

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

Wait, I thought you skeptics bring up the few people who reportedly saw "UA93" go down (even though the angle they describe greatly conflicts the official angle of the alleged crash)?




posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper


Eyewitnesses saw something much smaller crash.

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

Wait, I thought you skeptics bring up the few people who reportedly saw "UA93" go down (even though the angle they describe greatly conflicts the official angle of the alleged crash)?


Nope, you must be thinking of someone else. No one was at the crash site at the moment of impact.

Try again.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

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


You say above, quite clearly, that you think it possible that a 757 crashed there.

Here, once again,is what you wrote:

I've never said I can't comprehend based on the evidence how a plane could crash there very fast.

Now I know that writing English isn't your strong suit, but it is inarguable that that sentence means that you can see how a plane crashed there.

I can only go on what you write.



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


I've understood what you asked. It's just that it's an easily answered question that, once settled, you have tried to obfuscate. That's the point at which you become impossible to understand - intentionally so, because you don't want to be understood.

Shadow Herder is keen to agree with you for reasons of his own, but even he can't explain what you're on about. Notice how he doesn't even try.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Nope, you must be thinking of someone else. No one was at the crash site at the moment of impact.

Try again.

Oh, you mean reportedly saw the "plane" impact the ground.

Let's see, there was Lee Purbaugh:

Lee Purbaugh, 32, was the only person to see the last seconds of Flight 93 as it came down on former strip-mining land at precisely 10.06am - and he also saw the white jet.
------------------
The fate of United Airlines Flight 93, the last of the four hijacked planes to go down in the United States on 11 September, holds no mystery for Lee Purbaugh. He saw what happened with his own eyes. He was the only person present in the field where, at 10.06am, the aircraft hit the ground.


And Linda Shepley's son, Michael:


James and Linda Shepley stand in the backyard of their Stoystown home. Linda Shepley saw Flight 93 fly over her house and plunge toward the earth.

Seconds later she heard the crash, saw a fireball rise into a mushroom cloud, smelled the acrid scent of burning jet fuel from three miles away.

Unknown to her at the time -- 10:03 a.m. -- her son, Michael, had picked up the visual, catching sight of the plane just as it disappeared from her view. Working at the Rollock Inc. scrap yard on the hill overlooking a reclaimed strip mine just yards away, he and a fellow worker [Lee Purbaugh] had a bird's-eye view of the plane falling from the sky and slamming into the field at 563 miles per hour.
» An index to the Post-Gazette's coverage.

Michael Shepley, then 22, not only watched and smelled the catastrophe, he felt the heat from the conflagration and saw debris flying through the air.


Do I need to try anymore?



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

Keep believing whatever makes you think you are winning the argument.

Btw:


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 ATH911
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, 24 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


You can try anything you want. So far its been one big fail after another. You keep asking a question, you keep getting the answer and then ask the same question again. Repeating a question over and over and over is not proof that you haven't been answered its only proof that you just like to hear your own voice.

The plane crashed and the fuel exploded, just like it has in a thousand other plane crashes. No mystery.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Oh, you mean reportedly saw the "plane" impact the ground. Let's see, there was Lee Purbaugh:

Lee Purbaugh, 32, was the only person to see the last seconds of Flight 93 as it came down on former strip-mining land at precisely 10.06am - and he also saw the white jet.
The fate of United Airlines Flight 93, the last of the four hijacked planes to go down in the United States on 11 September, holds no mystery for Lee Purbaugh. He saw what happened with his own eyes. He was the only person present in the field where, at 10.06am, the aircraft hit the ground.

And Linda Shepley's son, Michael:
James and Linda Shepley stand in the backyard of their Stoystown home. Linda Shepley saw Flight 93 fly over her house and plunge toward the earth.
Seconds later she heard the crash, saw a fireball rise into a mushroom cloud, smelled the acrid scent of burning jet fuel from three miles away.
Unknown to her at the time -- 10:03 a.m. -- her son, Michael, had picked up the visual, catching sight of the plane just as it disappeared from her view. Working at the Rollock Inc. scrap yard on the hill overlooking a reclaimed strip mine just yards away, he and a fellow worker [Lee Purbaugh] had a bird's-eye view of the plane falling from the sky and slamming into the field at 563 miles per hour.
Michael Shepley, then 22, not only watched and smelled the catastrophe, he felt the heat from the conflagration and saw debris flying through the air.

Do I need to try anymore?


Nope, that just about covers it. You openly admit that there were on the ground eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit the ground. Kind of puts an end to your whole charade about no plane crashing in Shanksville, huh? So what's next for you? There's obviosuly no place to go from here, maybe move on to no planes in NYC or maybe you can hop on the Pentagon bandwagon for awhile. Good luck.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


thank you ATH911. You and others have proven without a doubt that the crater in Shanksville was NOT caused by a Boeing 757.

I will spread the word



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

Keep believing whatever makes you think you are winning the argument.

Btw:


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 ATH911
Well please explain to me how it can add up. It's what I've been asking for someone to do this entire time.



How can it not add up?

You say that you can see that a plane may have crashed there "fast". Almost everybody in the entire world can see how that would in all likelihood create an explosion.

Except you.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by ATH911
 


thank you ATH911. You and others have proven without a doubt that the crater in Shanksville was NOT caused by a Boeing 757.

I will spread the word


How? You don't show any evidence that you understand a word of what he's talking about.

You're going to spread the word that a plane crash can't cause an explosion? Because that's what ATH911 is claiming.

Good luck with that.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

How can it not add up? Almost everybody in the entire world can see how that would in all likelihood create an explosion.

Except you.

Well if that is the case, then you should have no problem walking me through how UA93 crashed and when the explosion occured.

I anxiously awaiting your response.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
How could I do that? I wasn't there.

If your point is that you would like to know exactly how the plane crashed then I refer you to the crash investigation.

If your point is "how was there an explosion" - which is after all the title of the thread, even if you apparently want to change it - then I think that's been answered. A plane hit the ground - an occurence you now seem to have less difficulty with. It blew up.

Only an insane person could have a problem seeing how that might be a reasonable chain of events.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Well if that is the case, then you should have no problem walking me through how UA93 crashed and when the explosion occured.

The plane hit the ground, shortly thereafter the fuel exploded.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


The Cockpit fuel? they don't have any fuel in that part of the plane.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
How could I do that? I wasn't there.

But you earlier said: "How can it not add up?"

You pulling a Mitt Romney?


If your point is that you would like to know exactly how the plane crashed then I refer you to the crash investigation.

Well if you bothered to read the OP (like I suggested you do about thousand times now), you would have seen that I posted all the details of how the plane supposedly crashed.


If your point is "how was there an explosion" - which is after all the title of the thread

Quote-mine much?


even if you apparently want to change it

the only reason I'd want to change it was because it's apparently too complicated for you to understand.


then I think that's been answered. A plane hit the ground
It blew up.
Only an insane person could have a problem seeing how that might be a reasonable chain of events.

Well if UA93 simply hit the ground like all other real high speed plane crashes that hit the ground, I wouldn't have started this thread, but if you even bothered to read the OP, you would see that this alleged plane crash was "unique."

I would say have hooper help you with this, but he's also demonstrated that he's pretty clueless what this thread is about.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by hooper
 


The Cockpit fuel? they don't have any fuel in that part of the plane.






posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by hooper
 


The Cockpit fuel? they don't have any fuel in that part of the plane.


Yeah, the cockpit fuel. Because that's exactly what I said. You're right, unless the fuel tank is hit first, nothing can ever explode so there must have been fuel in the cockpit.

The fuel tanks are in the wings and the center of the body and smaller tank in the rear for the APU. If you don't think the fuel containment areas ever hit the ground, well, then, you are beyond help.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

But you earlier said: "How can it not add up?"

You pulling a Mitt Romney?


So let me get this straight. If one does not witness a plane crash one is unable to surmise that it might have resulted in an explosion?



Well if you bothered to read the OP (like I suggested you do about thousand times now), you would have seen that I posted all the details of how the plane supposedly crashed.


Your OP does not contain "all the details", but if you have all the details then why do you need me to explain it?



Quote-mine much?


How is it a quote mine to repeat the question asked in the title? I'm trying to work out what you're asking. Perhaps stupidly I am assuming that your question in this thread has something to do with the question asked in the title.

It seems to me that you are asking how a plane can explode. Nobody else seems to be having any difficulty at all with this. Even shadowherder, the only other person in the thread, cannot help you.



the only reason I'd want to change it was because it's apparently too complicated for you to understand.


Or you don't really know what you're asking. One of the two.



Well if UA93 simply hit the ground like all other real high speed plane crashes that hit the ground, I wouldn't have started this thread, but if you even bothered to read the OP, you would see that this alleged plane crash was "unique."

I would say have hooper help you with this, but he's also demonstrated that he's pretty clueless what this thread is about.


It's about whether what you call "The OS" can plausibly involve an explosion. It can. Unless perhaps you could explain why it couldn't. Which I seriously doubt, since you've been failing to do that for several pages.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by hooper
 


The Cockpit fuel? they don't have any fuel in that part of the plane.


My god! You're right!

How could fuel in the wings possibly explode? They must have hit the ground at, what, a gentle 20 miles an hour once the cockpit bore the brunt of the crash.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join