How was there even an explosion at Shanksville (officially speaking)?

reply to post by ATH911

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 guess its pretty useless to point out that all plane crashes, like all car crashes and boat crashes and any other random event is "unique". There is no such thing as a standard crash.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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 it was a simple plane crash into the ground going really fast, sure, I would surmise an explosion too. Too bad the alleged crash of UA93 supposedly wasn't your average plane crash into the ground. You'd know this if you read my OP.

Your OP does not contain "all the details"

Which details am I missing that would really change the outcome of a potential explosion?

but if you have all the details then why do you need me to explain it?

*sigh* Because I can't understand how UA93 could have exploded based on those details. You apparently can understand how it would, so I want you to walk me through your explanation. Sheesh.

It's about whether what you call "The OS" can plausibly involve an explosion. It can.

Sweet! Awaiting your explanation.

Unless perhaps you could explain why it couldn't. Which I seriously doubt, since you've been failing to do that for several pages.

I did. It's in the OP. I thought you read it?!

reply to post by ATH911


The explanation is that the plane hit the ground really fast and caused an explosion. You can't see how this can be, apparently because of something hidden in your appallingly written OP. Nobody else - even the sympathetic shadowherder - can understand why you have a problem with the notion of a plane exploding when it crashes into the ground very fast. And since you refuse to explain why you think something so obviously illogical and simply pretend you've already explained it it seems difficult to see how anyone can help you from here.

reply to post by ATH911

Which details am I missing that would really change the outcome of a potential explosion?

Exactly which "detail" in your OP do you think would prohibit the fuel in the plane from exploding?
The cockpit broke off? Nope, that wouldn't stop the fuel in the wings from exploding.
The burn marks in the photo? Nope, that wouldn't stop the fuel in the wings from exploding.
The right wing tip hitting first? Nope, that wouldn't stop the fuel in the wings from exploding.
The plane embedding into the ground? Nope, that wouldn't stop the fuel in the wings from exploding.
Your assumption that because the grass is burned in the same direction that you assume the broken off cockpit may have traveled and therefore are assuming that the broken-off cockpit caused the burn? Nope, that mumbo-jumbo of assumptions would not have stopped the fuel in the wings from exploding.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


If you can't walk me through how the 757 could cause an explosion based on the official crash details, just say "I'm not smart enough to."

Originally posted by hooper
Your assumption that because the grass is burned in the same direction

The grass was burned? Sweet! Awaiting your photographic proof.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
Your assumption that because the grass is burned in the same direction

The grass was burned? Sweet! Awaiting your photographic proof.

You first - which of those details would have prohibited the fuel in the plane from exploding? I await your explanation.

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

If you can't walk me through how the 757 could cause an explosion based on the official crash details, just say "I'm not smart enough to."

I've walked you through it. It's incredibly simple and no other person seems to have any difficulty with it.

Here it is again:

The plane hit the ground very fast.

It exploded.


You claim to have information which challenges this notion, but for some reason cannot do anything except pretend you presented it earlier.

I am with everyone else on this thread. There is no evidence to support the theory that the small crater in Shanksville was created by a Boeing 757. Aka Flight 93.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
I am with everyone else on this thread. There is no evidence to support the theory that the small crater in Shanksville was created by a Boeing 757. Aka Flight 93.

And now that you have established this fact, what is your next move? Where will you take this revelation?

Originally posted by hooper

You first - which of those details would have prohibited the fuel in the plane from exploding? I await your explanation.

Dunno. That's why I wanted you guys to walk me through what "happened" and explain it all.

The grass was burned? Sweet! Awaiting your photographic proof.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Here it is again:

The plane hit the ground very fast.

It exploded.

And didn't burn any of the tall grass surrounding the oddly shaped crater? How'd that happen?!?

reply to post by ATH911


Have a look at your own signature picture.

Not a lot of grass.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
I am with everyone else on this thread. There is no evidence to support the theory that the small crater in Shanksville was created by a Boeing 757. Aka Flight 93.

You're with ATH911. And yet you remain unable to explain what he's on about.

Weird.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper

You first - which of those details would have prohibited the fuel in the plane from exploding? I await your explanation.

Dunno. That's why I wanted you guys to walk me through what "happened" and explain it all.

The grass was burned? Sweet! Awaiting your photographic proof.

Nope, sorry this is on you. Which of the "details" you posted would have prevented the fuel in the plane from exploding upon impact? If you are wondering about how and why fuel explodes then you need some real basic science instruction. You need to get that on your own. Maybe a few pre-college level courses at your local night school. Look at the photos that were posted by your buddy. The smoldering grass in the photos. The big burn marks adjacent to the impact crater.

reply to post by ATH911


Okay, so after days of you refusing to answer we've finally found your reason why their could apparently not be an explosion. It's that the grass wasn't burned.

Explain why the grass would need to be burned for there to be an explosion.

reply to post by ATH911

And didn't burn any of the tall grass surrounding the oddly shaped crater? How'd that happen?!?

You are making the affirmative statement that none of the grass in the area of the impact point was burnt. Care to back it up or are we just supposed to take your word for it? And don't ask me to prove it was burnt. You are stating that it wasn't, so it is on you to prove that none of the grass was burnt. Good luck with that. I guess you have a full database of mulitple photos, in great resolution, of evey square foot of ground within 2000 feet of the impact point in order to make that statement. Care to share?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Have a look at your own signature picture.

Not a lot of grass.

Um, that's because they were excavating the scene.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Okay, so after days of you refusing to answer we've finally found your reason why their could apparently not be an explosion. It's that the grass wasn't burned.

Explain why the grass would need to be burned for there to be an explosion.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by ATH911The grass was burned? Sweet! Awaiting your photographic proof.

Nope, sorry this is on you.

Originally posted by hooper

And didn't burn any of the tall grass surrounding the oddly shaped crater? How'd that happen?!?

You are making the affirmative statement that none of the grass in the area of the impact point was burnt. Care to back it up or are we just supposed to take your word for it? And don't ask me to prove it was burnt. You are stating that it wasn't, so it is on you to prove that none of the grass was burnt.

reply to post by ATH911


I'll take your non-response as affirmation that indeed you cannot support your contention that the grass was not burnt around or about the crash site.