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 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.
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)
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.
Official version of what?
Uh, why would you ask the county coroner about the dynamics of the plane impact?
And what is it I'm making up?
Working "under"? Miller is a duly elected public official.
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.
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.
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.
You're suggesting I quote-mined. Please show me where I did that.
Don't play stupid (maybe you're not playing?!). The official version of the UA93 crash details.
Cause he was working under the FBI who told him what happened, hence "the explanation was..."
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
You should find something else to do other than sit here on ATS on the 911 forum and troll. Really.
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.
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.