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

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
The crater in Shanksville has something to do with the war games taking place over the area that involved live fly hijacked airliners, simulated cruise missile attacks. Sometimes surrogates are used such as small 1 man mini jets posing as cruise missiles.

One thing for sure is that a Passenger jet did not crash there. The crater was possibly caused by a Missile, bomb.




posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
The crater in Shanksville has something to do with the war games taking place over the area that involved live fly hijacked airliners, simulated cruise missile attacks. Sometimes surrogates are used such as small 1 man mini jets posing as cruise missiles.

One thing for sure is that a Passenger jet did not crash there. The crater was possibly caused by a Missile, bomb.


Reference? Link? Anything? War games over Pittsburgh? Hijacked airlines and cruise missiles?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by waypastvne
The jet fuel is held in the wings and it was atomised and ignited on impact. Just like it did at World Trade Center 1, World Trade Center 2

If the WTC videos are correct, the "planes" that "hit" the WTCs penetrated inside first, exploded, then the explosion seen coming back out of the buildings. At Shanksville, supposedly after the later 80% of UA93 penetrated the ground, the dirt fell back in on itself, covering up the hole.

So did the explosion escape before the dirt fell back in on the hole?


and every other crash site involving a large amount of jet fuel.

Which other ones mostly buried in the ground like most of UA93 supposedly did?
edit on 17-9-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)

Bump for waypastvne.

Would like to hear your answers.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 

I criticize the way it is "compiled". A little from column A and little from column B, a snippet from one newspaper, half a photograph of this, etc.

You're suggesting I quote-mined. Please show me where I did that.


Official version of what?

Don't play stupid (maybe you're not playing?!). The official version of the UA93 crash details.


Uh, why would you ask the county coroner about the dynamics of the plane impact?

Cause he was working under the FBI who told him what happened, hence "the explanation was..."


And what is it I'm making up?

You said Miller told the truthers "what he thinks he heard from the FBI." Do you know that for a fact, or are you just wildly guessing?


Working "under"? Miller is a duly elected public official.

Yes, working under. If you don't know what I mean by that, perhaps you're not smart enough to participate in this thread. It requires a certain amount intelligence.


Nope, let me put it this way, its 10 years now and if you don't know how to find photo images of the site on the internet then telling you where to find them isn't going to help.

I know how to find photos (an intelligent person would know that by seeing my OP), I just haven't seen any with fire damage to the grassy field outside the small crater. You said that "just about any of them" show fire damage to the greenish grass surrounding the crater that I asked about, consistent with the explosion from the est. 7,000 gallons of jet fuel on board at impact. I'd like to see just one, if I may.


So, according to you, the county coroner said that the first thing to hit the ground was the wing full of fuel but for some strange reason you don't think this could result in an explosion. Please explain your odd position.

Um, I did. It's in the OP. An intelligent person would have noticed that.

Btw, did UA93 crash the way Miller said the explanation was, wingtip hip/began to cartwheel/cockpit broke off into trees/rest buried?
edit on 20-9-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Not to mention that Wally Miller and others claim the crater was a mere 10-15 feet deep and no more than 30 feet wide. Odd considering the wingspan alone is over 123 feet.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Not to mention that Wally Miller and others claim the crater was a mere 10-15 feet deep and no more than 30 feet wide. Odd considering the wingspan alone is over 123 feet.


I placed a red dot on each end of the wing marks in the photo below.



I went to google earth and placed two red dots 124' 10" (span of a 757) apart using the google earth ruler.



Would you care to compare ?



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



You're suggesting I quote-mined. Please show me where I did that.

Look at your avatar, thats graphic evidence.

Don't play stupid (maybe you're not playing?!). The official version of the UA93 crash details.

As far as I know no official description of the impact dynamics has been publically released. So there is no official crash details.

Cause he was working under the FBI who told him what happened, hence "the explanation was..."

What comes after the .....?

You said Miller told the truthers "what he thinks he heard from the FBI." Do you know that for a fact, or are you just wildly guessing?

Uh, you just said the FBI told him so why am I wildly guessing when I say the same thing?

Yes, working under. If you don't know what I mean by that, perhaps you're not smart enough to participate in this thread. It requires a certain amount intelligence.

No, he was not working "under" the FBI, he was the duly elected county coroner. The Federal Bureau of Investigation does not have the authority to direct the activities of public elected officials in the their official capacity. Basic civics.

I know how to find photos (an intelligent person would know that by seeing my OP), I just haven't seen any with fire damage to the grassy field outside the small crater. You said that "just about any of them" show fire damage to the greenish grass surrounding the crater that I asked about, consistent with the explosion from the est. 7,000 gallons of jet fuel on board at impact. I'd like to see just one, if I may.

Then keep looking.

Um, I did. It's in the OP. An intelligent person would have noticed that.

No you didn't. According to you the wing full of fuel hit first.

Btw, did UA93 crash the way Miller said the explanation was, wingtip hip/began to cartwheel/cockpit broke off into trees/rest buried?

I don't know and neither do you.

Enough with the stupid and lack of intelligence stuff. You want discourse, fine. You want to call people stupid that don't agree with you than maybe you can understand why its 10 years and no one cares what you think or say.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Not to mention that Wally Miller and others claim the crater was a mere 10-15 feet deep and no more than 30 feet wide. Odd considering the wingspan alone is over 123 feet.


I placed a red dot on each end of the wing marks in the photo below.


You are wrong. I dont blame you. With no research or skills it would appear the marks are caused by wings when all the evidence shows its not.

If you did any research you will learn that what looks like scars from the wings were not caused by wings at all. The marks were present before 911. Fact.
edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



If you did any research you will learn that what looks like scars from the wings were not caused by wings at all. The marks were present before 911. Fact.


Proof? And not just some old aerial photo, we've all seen it. I want coordinates for the all the points related to the State plane coordinates. Anything other than that and its not a fact, it is, at best a guess at worse it is a lie.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper you and 3 others are the only 'debunkers' here and resident ones at that. You have seen all the evidence. You are no authority and have proven yourself here to have very little knowledge. Dont pretend or play stupid. Dont be a troll.

You know that the 'wing scars' were not caused by wings at all as they were present before 9/11. You know this.
edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper you and 3 others are the only 'debunkers' here and resident ones at that. You have seen all the evidence. You are no authority and have proven yourself here to have very little knowledge. Dont pretend or play stupid. Dont be a troll.

You know that the 'wing scars' were not caused by wings at all as they were present before 9/11. You know this.
edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


Sorry, simply repeating over and over and over again that the wing scars were there before 9/11/2001 doesn't make it true. Prove it with numbers. Or just admit you have no way to prove it and you're lying.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I dont have to prove the wings never hit the ground. The evidence shows that the wings scars were present before 911 therefore there is no evidence to suggest an aircraft with wingspan at over 123 feet wide ever hit the ground in Shanksville.. Aka Flight 93.

Are you saying the wings hit the ground?
edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



I dont have to prove the wings never hit the ground.

You don't have to do anything. I don't care and neither does anyone else. You want people to start listening and paying attention - then yes you have to provide proof for your claims.

The evidence shows that the wings scars were present before 911 therefore there is no evidence to suggest an aircraft with wingspan at over 123 feet wide ever hit the ground in Shanksville.. Aka Flight 93.

Again, there is no evidence. Simply repeating the same thing over and over is not evidence.

Are you saying the wings hit the ground?

Well, its been ten years, I don't think they're still flying around up there.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 
over and over is not evidence.

Are you saying the wings hit the ground?

Well, its been ten years, I don't think they're still flying around up there.


Well get your bull stories straight before you try to troll here on ATS.


Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


You know the plane exploded within milliseconds of making of impact.

You know the entire plane never made it to the ground.



This is your insane response as to how the plane's wings never struck the ground as you agreed that the "wings scars" werent caused by wings on 911 or by a Boeing 757.

You should find something else to do other than sit here on ATS on the 911 forum and troll. Really.
edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder


If you did any research you will learn that what looks like scars from the wings were not caused by wings at all. The marks were present before 911. Fact



Can you explain how they spun that strip mine mark 80 deg to make it line up with the wing marks ?



You joined here in 2009, so I could not be the first person to correct you on this.That means you are deliberately lying. HowTruthery of you.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


I never said that the scar that was present in the 90's was the exact scar that the crater was made on 911 but thanks for bringing it up. Look at that.

It is in the exact location but not the exact same scar but both are natural and weathered and not caused by a Boeing 757.

Your image just shows what really caused the 'wing scar' illusion was NOT made by a Boeing 757 on 911. Thanks.
edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



This is in response as to how the plane's wings never struck the ground as you agreed that the "wings scars" werent caused by wings on 911 or by a Boeing 757.

No it wasn't, it was in response to a discussion about the crater size. The entire or whole plane never made it, as a unit, to the ground.

You should find something else to do other than sit here on ATS on the 911 forum and troll. Really.

You really hate being called out on your little fabrications, don't you? Just puts your panties in a bunch, I can see you sitting there thinking that maybe you're about to hook some young, gullible "thinker" into your world when along comes the spoiler asking you to prove your propositions. So, any tangilble proof yet those wing scars were there before 9/11/2001 or are you just going with the old post, repeat, post, repeat?



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I will give you one last chance.

Without out injecting your double speak or nonsensical responses please provide us and enlighten us with official description, dimensions, trajectory of the plane and crater. We are eagerly waiting.

Show one official source that claims the old weathered trenches were caused by a Boeing 757 on 9/11. Good luck.

edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by hooper
 


I will give you one last chance.

Without out injecting your double speak or nonsensical responses please provide us and enlighten us with official description, dimensions, trajectory of the plane and crater. We are eagerly waiting.

Show one official source that claims the old weathered trenches were caused by a Boeing 757 on 9/11. Good luck.


Thank you for admitting that you have nothing to back up your proposition with regard to the location of the "old weathered trenches" (pulled that one out of your *
:lol
and the impact crater. So do you have anything else?



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder


Your image just shows what really caused the 'wing scar' illusion was NOT made by a Boeing 757 on 911. Thanks.


The wing scars do line up perfectly with a 40 deg inverted 124' 10" wingspan 757 on a south east heading.

You do understand the truth movement has lost the battle.... Right ? It's over you lose.






top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join