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: 20
10
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I'd just like to see another photo of an aircraft that crashes into the ground without any sort of visible debris field. I always thought that was very suspicious of flt 93 ever since the day it happened. It's an aluminum airplane for crying out loud.

Why the lack of debris around the impact location?

We all saw what happened recently when a Reno Mustang went straight into the ground at full throttle, the entire airplane bounced off the earth in pieces, leaving a huge debris field in all directions. Yes flight 93 was a larger airplane, but the basic physics still apply. Both planes are made of the same materials. But one suspiciously performs like a bunker buster bomb when it crashes, while it should have left wreckage everywhere.

If you look at photos of the crash scene of any other airline accident, there is always a debris field.

Oh, and maybe that mushroom cloud of the impact should be a bit darker, but to me the lack of debris was always the real red flag.

If 9/11 really happened as advertised, I really don't think people would still be questioning the details of it ten years later.
First thirty seconds says quite a lot regarding Flight 93 there, no? Debris 6 miles away? I never even knew about this detail until now.
I guess that ties right in with recent threads talking about Cheney admitting the order was given to shoot it down? Ah well, it's all water under the bridge now.




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Sek82
 



'd just like to see another photo of an aircraft that crashes into the ground without any sort of visible debris field. I always thought that was very suspicious of flt 93 ever since the day it happened. It's an aluminum airplane for crying out loud. Why the lack of debris around the impact location?

Go to Google Images - search for Flight 93 and tell me that in those photos you don't see anything that looks like the remains of an airplane.

We all saw what happened recently when a Reno Mustang went straight into the ground at full throttle, the entire airplane bounced off the earth in pieces, leaving a huge debris field in all directions. Yes flight 93 was a larger airplane, but the basic physics still apply. Both planes are made of the same materials. But one suspiciously performs like a bunker buster bomb when it crashes, while it should have left wreckage everywhere.

Different plane, different circumstances, different results.

If you look at photos of the crash scene of any other airline accident, there is always a debris field.

Try the Missaoui [sp] trial exhibits.

Oh, and maybe that mushroom cloud of the impact should be a bit darker, but to me the lack of debris was always the real red flag.

Then you should probably look at the photos.

If 9/11 really happened as advertised, I really don't think people would still be questioning the details of it ten years later.

They're not.

First thirty seconds says quite a lot regarding Flight 93 there, no? Debris 6 miles away? I never even knew about this detail until now. I guess that ties right in with recent threads talking about Cheney admitting the order was given to shoot it down? Ah well, it's all water under the bridge now.

There was some light weight material down wind from the crash site.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sek82

Why the lack of debris around the impact location?

hooper, you "forgot" to answer this question of his. I'm curious of your answer too.




posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

No, I was just making fun of your hypocritical responses.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Can ANYBODY explain to me how was there even an explosion at Shanksville that doesn't contradict the crash details?



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Can ANYBODY explain to me how was there even an explosion at Shanksville that doesn't contradict the crash details?


They can't do that for any of the alleged crash sites. The damage evidence at all three locations are not consistent with jet crashes.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 

They really seem scared of the details of the alleged crash, don't they?!



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by septic
 

They really seem scared of the details of the alleged crash, don't they?!



They get angry and nasty when the details are scrutinized, that's for sure. I have been researching 911 for about 10 years off and on...more "on" these last 5, and the evidence has led me to different conclusions numerous times over the years...I call it learning. But to be an OS believer requires a faith I can only compare with religion. Blind-faith; no amount of research and no new evidence can shake their first and last impression of what happened on 911.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 
My entire post, the points made, and the questions asked within it still stands. For someone who went in depth to responding to it, you really failed to deliver.

Light weight material six miles downwind from a ground impact. Now that is an epic explanation. Very bold of you to expect it to be believed, I will give you that.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
They get angry and nasty when the details are scrutinized, that's for sure.

And that's why, with Shanksville specifically, they try to keep a moving goal post!



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I see there are a lot of skeptics posting right now.

Can any of you help me out with the topic of this thread (make sure you read the OP unlike some skeptics on here!)?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Sek82

Why the lack of debris around the impact location?

hooper, you "forgot" to answer this question of his. I'm curious of your answer too.



Sorry, I choose to "beg" the question. That is to say, I challenge the factual premise of the question. Your turn.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Can ANYBODY explain to me how was there even an explosion at Shanksville that doesn't contradict the crash details?


No, I don't think anyone can explain it to YOU. Its not that there isn't an explanation its just so apparently obvious that you have no interest in the answer. Your hobby is repeating the question ad nauseum. Have fun.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Can ANYBODY explain to me how was there even an explosion at Shanksville that doesn't contradict the crash details?


It's been done, repeatedly. A bit like in your other silly thread where you asked people a question and then pretended nobody had answered.

Where we're at: You say there can't have been an explosion given the other details of what you call the "OS". When asked why not you refer back to a post that doesn't explain your stance. After dozens of tortuous posts it looks like the reason you think this is because "the ground is not burned" - at least that's what I surmise because you answered my question about why the ground would need to be burned with an emoticon.

That's the extent of your logic. Your respondents are left to disentangle what passes for your thought process from an emoticon. Very well. Let's leave aside that this has nothing to do with the thread's purported subject of an inconsistency in the "OS" - an inconsistency you are still strangely unable to describe - it's also nonsense. There's loads of burned grass. You're just trying to pretend that it was caused by the excavation.

Since you have no evidence whatsoever for this your thread, like all your others, is an irrelevant waste of time. I suspect you've already alluded to it as backup 'evidence' for your silly assertions elsewhere, as though creating a critical mass of material, no matter how idiotic, somehow constitutes proof.

It doesn't.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

There's loads of burned grass.

Really?! Please show. Can't wait to see this!




posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Whatever crashed in Shanksville was likely the same bunker busting mod that hit the pentagon and WTC, hence the hole in the ground and nothing much else. The planes were modified into missiles and loaded with explosives. It's the only thing that makes all 4 crash scenes add up. From the first eyewitness which I've never heard before sounds like the nose may of had some kind of penetrating warhead.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

There's loads of burned grass.

Really?! Please show. Can't wait to see this!



Look at almost any picture of the Shanksville crash site. There's a big bit in the middle with no grass. Check the forest. Not technically grass, but there's a huge burned section.

Can you genuinely not see this?



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Think the plane was shot down myself. That hole is from a piece of the plane.


This website has some interesting articles and possible evidence to that fact.

What Really Happened



edit on 15-1-2012 by D8ncer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Look at almost any picture of the Shanksville crash site. There's a big bit in the middle with no grass.

Um, I was talking about the grassy field around the crater, I mean "the hole that filled itself back in into the shape of a crater."



Check the forest. Not technically grass, but there's a huge burned section.
Can you genuinely not see this?

Oh I have. Not sure what is has to do with the grassy field around the "hole."



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join