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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Hooper scooper

Why would you think the hole would reflect the exact dimensions of the intact plane. Watching cartoons again?


No, I have proven that there is no wing scars at the crater site. So therefore the crater being only 30 feet wide heck I will give another 40ft to make you happier and that still is over 40-50feet too small to have been done by a boeing 757.

You see hooper, we have proven that the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757. You have proved to be annoying and have failed approach to trolling/debunking. Maybe whittling is more of your pace.
edit on 27-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Here is a REAL plane crash in Iran


Here is the Flight 93 crater


If these arguments and trolls are irritating you here at ATS dont hesitate to go elsewhere and research this yourself. Sometimes ATS can be a bad place for research when you got guys like HOOPER trolling.
edit on 27-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

No, I have proven that there is no wing scars at the crater site.


Except for the 124' 10" wing scars plainly visible for all to see.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

No, I have proven that there is no wing scars at the crater site.


Except for the 124' 10" wing scars plainly visible for all to see.


You missed it. The "scars" werent caused by the wings. They were present before 9/11. As hooper put it, this is not some cartoon where there is a silhouette of a plane. Try again or atleast provide us with some official documents that claim the size of the crater and or wing scars... thanks. this shouldnt be a problem fer ya.
edit on 27-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   

edit on 27-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder


You missed it. The "scars" werent caused by the wings. They were present before 9/11.


Could you please provide some proof of this...... thanks. this shouldnt be a problem fer ya.




Your proof should look exactly like this 124' 10" wing scar.

Also notice the vertical stabiliser imprint.
edit on 27-9-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 

In what fantasy world do you have to come from where a 124 object hits the ground at over 500mph and leaves exactly 124 foot silhouette. Learn some basic physics chum.
Still waiting for the official dimensions of the crater and official description of the 'scars'.


Its is easy to see unless you are willfully ignoring reality. This next image was taken with the photographer in one of the "scars" and as you can see it is weathered. The ground is not broken, dry, unburnt etc.

Think hard. Dont let pride get the best of you.
edit on 27-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Oh and for your vertical stabilizer delusion, its just part of the drainage ditch... see pic....


ty
edit on 27-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


Here is another picture from the same angle as the one post above. The photographer is standing in the depression the is usually confused to be caused by wings.


As you can see the crater was not caused by Flight 93 a Boeing 757-222
edit on 27-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder




Yea I've seen that picture, What appears to be thick white smoke on the lefthand side of the pictures is actually oil vapour boiling out of a very hot engine core, buried in the bottom of that 124' 10" wide crater.

Are you going to show me some proof of that crater existing before the crash.


edit on 27-9-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
You claimed there was a vertical stabilizer and I proved that you were incorrect and disillusioned. You claim that the those scars were caused by wings and you have been proven wrong again. You have no right to demand anything from me Mr.sock. lol.
No vert stab. Old ditch. New crater.
edit on 27-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
Are you going to show me some proof of that crater existing before the crash.



The crater is new. What you were confusing for wing scars were already present before the crater was allegedly made on 911.

These next 2 pics show you "wing scars" mere meters away from the crash site.


Were those caused by wings too?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder






Cool photos Dude now. Are you going to show me some proof of that crater existing before the crash.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
Cool fotos dude. Are you going to show me some proof of that crater existing before the crash.
Kid, you are not thinking well. Re read what you just said.

Who said the crater existed before the crash? The crater is there no denying that. It is just too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757.

P/s I meant the nap part. You will think clearer.

Winning!
edit on 27-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
The crater is there no denying that. It is just too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757.


You seem to have forgotten, I provided you with proof that the crater was 124' 10" wide.

There is no evidence for anything other than UA 93 crashing, inverted, rolling hard right, 40 deg attitude, pulling .64 Gs, at 580 mph, on a south east heading.

You lose.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
The crater is there no denying that. It is just too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757.


You seem to have forgotten, I provided you with proof that the crater was 124' 10" wide.


You are just ignoring the fact that you have just been schooled and yet you still fail to provided any proof of anything but your silly, cartoonish alice in wonderland logic. The crater is not more than 30-40 feet. I dont know where you are getting this 124 foot dimension. Present some official documents of the dimensions you presented or leave. Hooper sock.

WTAE-TV's Michelle Wright toured the crash scene and said that a crater of about 30 to 40 feet long, 15 to 20 feet wide and 18 feet deep was created by the crash

Read more: www.wtae.com...

read my mood.

edit on 28-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

read my mood.


What you don't seem to understand is you and the entire truth movement have lost. You have nothing, no evidence,
no theory, no proof... just lies. You can say that crater is only 30 to 40 ft wide but anyone can look at and see it is 124' 10" wide so.... You lose. No New Independent investigation Under Oath With Subpoena Power for you.

You told the best lies you could but in the end the world didn't believe you, The truth movement and you are insignificant.

I'm only here to laugh at you.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



WTAE-TV's Michelle Wright toured the crash scene and said that a crater of about 30 to 40 feet long, 15 to 20 feet wide and 18 feet deep was created by the crash


Wow! Now its 18 feet deep!



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I still don't see how an explosion could have happened at Shanksville. Maybe I don't know the exact crash details? Skeptics, can you help a brotha out?



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



I still don't see how an explosion could have happened at Shanksville.


Well, if you can't figure out how a plane with thousands of gallons of jet fuel hitting the ground at 560 mph can explode then having the "crash details" ain't going to help you. You need some very, very basic science instruction.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Investigators pore over the site of the nose-first, high speed-impact JF-104A crash that left this large crater in the desert near Edwards Air Force Base in December 1962. NASA test pilot Milton O.

Thompson ejected from this aircraft on Dec. 20, 1962, after an asymmetrical flap condition made the jet uncontrollable.


Actual high speed nose inpact by a jet fighter made this hole in the ground which is bigger than the crater shown in Shanksville.

My view is that had it been a large commercial airline, surely the crater at Shanksville, should have been huge.


i224.photobucket.com...




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join