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

page: 21
10
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by D8ncer
 

Evidence and logic doesn't fit a shoot down. The shoot down theory is a ruse. Nothing crashed.




posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

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."



So you admit that there is some burning?


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



It suggests an explosion. Or do you disagree? Hard to see how you could, given that your criteria for the occurence of an explosion is "burned stuff".



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

So you admit that there is some burning?

None to the grassy field outside the "hole" that I can see. Am I wrong?


It suggests an explosion. Or do you disagree?

Never said there wasn't an explosion. Still don't see how UA93 could have that doesn't conflict the official story.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I'm still curious why with the thousands of people working the crash scene, not ONE person has come out to question the FACT that a plane (Flight 93) crashed there.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I'm still curious why with the thousands of people working the crash scene, not ONE person has come out to question the FACT that a plane (Flight 93) crashed there.


It's amazing isn't it. All of these Internet Conspiracy Theorists (searching for the "truth"
) know better based on ignorance, a few photographs, and imagination than the folks who actually cleaned it up. But, man can the Internet Conspiracy Theorists quote mine folks who were actually there and did the clean up. They're smarter than everyone else and have insight that normal folks don't have, don't ya know.
edit on 15-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

None to the grassy field outside the "hole" that I can see. Am I wrong?


So there is burning. Just not in the unburned areas. The burned areas obviously are burned, you're happy with that, but what has set you off is that some bits of unburned areas are unburned. Am I getting this right?

Why does that mean there couldn't have been an explosion?



Never said there wasn't an explosion. Still don't see how UA93 could have that doesn't conflict the official story.


Okay, now it's not the burning. I was led to believe that it was the burning because that's what you claimed had set your conspiracy radar off. But apparently not.

So which aspect of the "OS" is it that you find contradicts an explosion? And before you refer me to your OP, it doesn't say there.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I'm still curious why with the thousands of people working the crash scene, not ONE person has come out to question the FACT that a plane (Flight 93) crashed there.


It's amazing isn't it. All of these Internet Conspiracy Theorists (searching for the "truth"
) know better based on ignorance, a few photographs, and imagination than the folks who actually cleaned it up. But, man can the Internet Conspiracy Theorists quote mine folks who were actually there and did the clean up. They're smarter than everyone else and have insight that normal folks don't have, don't ya know.
edit on 15-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)


Hang on, don't you know that everyone who works anywhere will do anything, no matter how evil, just to keep their job? And they'll remain absolutely silent about it.

This is particularly true of air-crash investigators, architects, journalists, engineers, DNA analysts, firemen, police, TV anchors, construction company employees, demolition experts and pilots. But really any employee of anything will pretty much murder anybody you like and just shut up about it if you threaten them with losing their job.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

It's amazing isn't it.

Yes, amazing that no one can explain how there could have been an explosion at that field that could produce such a HUGE mushroom cloud with the alleged plane crashing the way it supposedly did and not scorching the grassy field around the oddly-shaped crater. Amazing.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Yes, amazing that no one can explain....

Oooops, it think you meant to say its amazing how everyone has explained everything over and over and over again and then a few weeks slip by and you decide to ask for the same explanations again.

Amazing.

Couldn't agree more.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Apparently never been to real crash scene - this is how things happen. Fuel on impact is aersolized - it burns
quickly with massive fireball

Seen it live when small jet crashed in my neighborhood - produced large fireball which quickly burned out
with little effect on the surrounding area

Also should consider that the trees were still green and vegetation had large water content making difficult to
burn



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911


Yes, amazing that no one can explain how there could have been an explosion at that field that could produce such a HUGE mushroom cloud with the alleged plane crashing the way it supposedly did and not scorching the grassy field around the oddly-shaped crater. Amazing.


Ah you're back.

A clue - disappearing for a while doesn't make the facts go away. Except in your head.



new topics
 
10
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join