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: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


You cited wikipedia as your source there... Thats unreliable as many "truthers" can go on and edit when they want. You need to find more reliable sources.




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


I know what I am about to say is not proof of anything, but does anyone else find it odd that the plane comes down adjacent to some dirt road affecting both sides of the dirt road? Out of all the places to crash it comes down exactly where someone could have driven in equipment to dig a huge light some trees on fire all from the dirt road.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Patman12
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


You cited wikipedia as your source there... Thats unreliable as many "truthers" can go on and edit when they want. You need to find more reliable sources.


Are you assuming the wiki article is fake because the dimensions of the Shanksville crater is too small?

Do you have the intelligence and kindness of course, to provide ATS with the official dimensions of the Shanksville crater ? Please provide "Official" sources only please.


I understand why you would think the description of the hole is falsified. How can a 123+ foot wide airliner leave a crater only 30 feet wide and 10 + feet deep.




Here the link that the last poster claims was faked because the hole is too small for a boeing 757. Fact.

At 10:03:11, near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the plane crashed into a reclaimed coal strip mine in Stonycreek Township in Somerset County.[59] The National Transportation Safety Board reported that the flight impacted at 563 miles per hour (906 km/h) at a 40-degree nose-down, inverted attitude.[19] The impact left a crater eight to ten feet deep (c. 3 m), and 30 to 50 feet wide (c. 12 m).
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 26-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder


I understand why you would think the description of the hole is falsified. How can a 123+ foot wide airliner leave a crater only 30 feet wide and 10 + feet deep.





The main crater in that photo does look to be about 30' wide and 10' deep. But the marks left by the wings look to be about 124' 10" in every photo.


You never did answer this question, how did they rotate the gash 80 deg. The gash is not any where near the same angle as the 124' 10" wide wing marks, How can you explain this.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Thats the thing. What looks like wing gashes are anything but. Look carefully and you will see that nothing struck the ground where those 'gashes' are. They have dry, unbroken grass. The terrain is weathered and unbroken. Fact.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


What I see is burn marks in the crater that end exactly were the gas tanks end. I also see a change in the amount dirt displaced by the impact at this very same place. This to me indicates that a 124' 10' wing span aircraft crashed there.



You never did answer this question, how did they rotate the gash 80 deg. The gash is not any where near the same angle as the 124' 10" wide wing marks, How can you explain this.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Yes, you are deluded by the illusion. Youwill have to look clearer and use common sense and the intelligent mind.


Look carefully at where the wing root ( thickest part ) would hit the ground if it were a real plane crash. This is not so in Shanksville. The ground is not broken and is weathered. No wing hit there and by using your picture look at the edge of where you think the wing hit, see that it is barely dented, where is the wing, fragments of it etc etc... think think man.... Its easy if you try.

As for your USGS questions. Who ever said that it is the exact scar. The crater site sits on a hill and water runs down after years creating those "gashes" considering the area was recently ( before 911) covered with loose dirt to cover over the reclaimed coal mine.
edit on 26-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



The ground is not broken and is weathered.


Opinion. How about a fact? Please tell us the exact dimensions of the crater and then tell us exactly how large, small, or different it should be. Show your work. Crater impact analysis.

Or

It is what it is, its ten years on and you're the only one who has a problem.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
We have a 580 mph mostly burying plane (the 80% that houses the fuel tanks), no burnt grass surrounding the crater, and a huge huge mushroom cloud.

How can that be, skeptics?



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Hooper, contribute to the discussion or bugger off.
You are revealing yourself to be an un-informative troll here at ATS.
Prove me wrong. You have yet to prove anything but blatant willful ignorance.

"I've no plans to call on you, Clarice. The world is more interesting with you in it."
edit on 26-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 

Skeptics, care to comment?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Hooper, contribute to the discussion or bugger off.

A "discussion" requires a response from time to time and you refuse the do just that. So respond: Exactly how big was the hole and based on actual calculations (not personal incredulity) what size should it have been?

You are revealing yourself to be an un-informative troll here at ATS.

All the information is already out there, I am here to challenge claims and supposition of facts.

Prove me wrong. You have yet to prove anything but blatant willful ignorance.

Present something first other than incredulity. You're correct about one thing - you don't believe the "OS", the problem is - that's irrelevant.

"I've no plans to call on you, Clarice. The world is more interesting with you in it."

Quoting fictious serial killers?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by ATH911
 

Skeptics, care to comment?



We have a 580 mph mostly burying plane (the 80% that houses the fuel tanks)

Uh, says who? How did you determine that the plane wings were buried?

no burnt grass surrounding the crater

Again, says who? First, was the area of the impact fully surrounded by grass before the impact? Second, why would the grass need to be burnt?

and a huge huge mushroom cloud

Huge, huge, explosion.

How can that be, skeptics?

How can what be? Explain how you made your deteminations - no grass burnt, plane wings buried - and then maybe we can explain the cause. Just because you post something doesn't make it true.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Hooper the non-contributing troll claims the plane turned into conffetti the millisecond the nose touched the ground so according to hooper the wings never hit the ground.

He says that because that there is no evidence of what ever caused the crater having wings any where near the dimensions of a Boeing 757 so he invents the most stupid idea. Get used to it. He and 3 others are trolls here.
edit on 27-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Hooper the non-contributing troll....

Troll = someone who keeps showing shadowherder where he is wrong.

....claims the plane turned into conffetti the millisecond the nose touched the ground so according to hooper the wings never hit the ground.

Hmmmm. That's interesting, what else do I claim? The wings never hit the ground, huh? Lets think about that - what choices do we have - wings never hit the ground, wings completely hit the ground and maybe some of the wings hit the ground. Think I'll go with maybe some of the wing hit the ground. Not that it matters anyway. Still waiting for you to provide some calculations showing what the appropriate size crater should be.

He says that because that there is no evidence of what ever caused the crater having wings any where near the dimensions of a Boeing 757 so he invents the most stupid idea.

What - that maybe the plane broke apart upon impact? Well, if that's a "stupid" idea then I'll stick with "stupid".

Get used to it. He and 3 others are trolls here.

10 years of beating the same dead horse and for some reason it still won't get up and run.




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 
he wings never hit the ground, huh? Lets think about that - what choices do we have - wings never hit the ground, wings completely hit the ground and maybe some of the wings hit the ground. Think I'll go with maybe some of the wing hit the ground.


You are not well. I think you might need to think things over before you reply as you are just confirming that your purposefully playing stupid.


Prove that any part of the wing hit the ground. Pictures wont do. Show us which wing hit what broke off and where did it hit the ground. Show us where the vertical stabilizer hit.

Still waiting for those official dimensions of the crater since you claim wikipedia, the county corner and others who were there are all lying when they described the hole. Hannibal



We all know here that talking to you hooper is a waste of time and everyone claims you are a 911 troll here. I dont think there is anything you can say or do to change that.
edit on 27-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



You are not well.

I am not the one quoting fictious serial killers.

I think you might need to think things over before you reply as you are just confirming that your purposefully playing stupid.

Nope, just dealing with stupid innuendo and suppositions.

Prove that any part of the wing hit the ground.

Why, what do you think happened to the wings? Still up there somewhere?

Pictures wont do.

Says you. Then what will "do it"?

Show us which wing hit what broke off and where did it hit the ground. Show us where the vertical stabilizer hit.

Again, why? I wasn't there, I didn't see it and as far as I know no one actually saw the plane hit the ground. Roughly speaking, the plane was upside down at about a 40 degree angle to the horizon and travelling about 550 to 580 mph. Thats about 64% of the speed of sound. Plane begins to break apart the millisecond it meets the earth. Why would you think the hole would reflect the exact dimensions of the intact plane. Watching cartoons again?

Still waiting for those official dimensions of the crater since you claim wikipedia, the county corner and others who were there are all lying when they described the hole. Hannibal

Who said lying? I never said they were lying. As far as I know there was no engineering survey of the crater. So there is no official dimensions. What others that were there want to estimate is fine by me, but don't pretend its "official".

We all know here that talking to you hooper is a waste of time and everyone claims you are a 911 troll here. I dont think there is anything you can say or do to change that.

So why don't you take your amazing insights public and then you don't have to put up with "trolls".



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Classic resident Hooper response. I see why no one cares to read your posts. They are quite pointless.

Still waiting for those "official" dimensions of the crater and explain what happened to the wings and vertical stabilizer.

... But be careful I have 3 posts of yours where you did answer that and they are all stupid and contradicting responses. So try to make this one at least intelligible.
edit on 27-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by ATH911
 

Skeptics, care to comment?


Hooper is not a skeptic. He has no knowledge on the subject. Disregard him. He want to insult the good readers of ATS.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Patman12
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


You cited wikipedia as your source there... Thats unreliable as many "truthers" can go on and edit when they want. You need to find more reliable sources.
You still didnt provide us with what was fake in the wiki article. Still waiting.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join