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: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


And?




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   


This is important. There is claims that there are scars left by wings. For one, wings dont leave 'scars' at 500 mph in soft soil. 2. The photographer of this photo was standing in the trench commonly confused as to have been caused by wings. As you can see it was not caused by wings as the ground is weathered and unbroken as you can see where the photographer is standing.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



This is important.

No its not. Not in the least. Not at all. Not the least little bit.

There is claims that there are scars left by wings.

No there are facts.

For one, wings dont leave 'scars' at 500 mph in soft soil.

Really? Prove it. A little science.

2. The photographer of this photo was standing in the trench commonly confused as to have been caused by wings.

Or commonly known to have been caused by a crashing plane.

As you can see....

No, I can't see it. You're making it up. Oh, and repeating it doesn't make it true.
[quote....it was not caused by wings
No it was bigfoot.

as the ground is weathered and unbroken

Except where it is broken and opened.

....as you can see where the photographer is standing.

Its really funny the things you see and things you don't see. Like all the flaming wreckage from the plane that crashed there.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper.... Your reply was well....


ShadowHerder : 911 is important, many people died and continue to do so....

Hooper: No its not. Not in the least. Not at all. Not the least little bit.



Hooper, you arent swaying anyone here or lurkers from google.You should know that.
edit on 6-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


9/11 is important. Terrorism is important. Your fantasy enfueled opinions about soil reactions to plane impacts are not.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Dont forget that earlier you and your buddy claimed there was a vertical stabilzer scar as well ( tail fin) and as you can see I disproved you.

It was just a marking from water drainage into the already present (before 911) trench that the 911 crater so happened to be created on.

Come on hoop. Time start being honest now. It's ok.

edit on 6-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
For one, wings dont leave 'scars' at 500 mph in soft soil. 2



This one did. The wing scars appear to be only around 100 ft span. The wing scars in shanksville were 124' 10". You can also tell by the dihedral verses momentum that this was also inverted/shallow angle impact. Do you think Truthers, such as yourself, are capable of understanding that the forces acting on an inverted aircraft are not the same as one flying right side up ? Did you notice how the corn right in front wingtips is not even damaged, just like the grass in front of the wing scars at Shanksville.




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   


Lol!. Looks like something crashed horizontally. What was it. A small little wooden plane? Wow, I saw that pic in your photobucket dumpster and I was wondering when I was going to see that joke.

You are worse than some of the delusional hologram truthers that come here.

edit on 6-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 

Are you going to publically admit that you know nothing of crash physics especially Flight 93 and that your silly illustrations of tail fins scars and wing scars was proven to be drainage marks into the pre 911 drainage ditc???

edit on 6-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Here is another picture that has nothing to do with Flight 93


this next image shows you where the photographer is standing.

this next photo is the photographer in the ditch. Notice it was not caused by anything on 911. Just the crater 10 feet deep 30 feet wide.


Look carefully. thanx



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Shadow Herder that is very simple to answer. The planes that the 19 terrorist flew on 911 were magic planes. Two of the magic planes crashed in WTC1 and WTC2 and somehow turned both buildings to dust in a few hours. Those planes were so magic that they turned WTC3 intdo dust as well. The one who made the wing marks was a type of magic plane that dissolves on impact. Same type was used at the pentagon. Very easy to explain when you realize they use magic planes.

Peace to you



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Are you going to publically admit that you know nothing of crash physics especially Flight 93 and that your silly illustrations of tail fins scars and wing scars was proven to be drainage marks into the pre 911 drainage ditc??? [


Actually I do have experience in investigating aircraft accidents. Lets stop talking about dirt and move on to aerodynamics:

Do you think Truthers, such as yourself, are capable of understanding that the forces acting on an inverted aircraft are not the same as one flying right side up ?

You've stuck your head in my photo bucket, the answer to this question is in their see if you can find it.

What would the difference in vertical G forces be on Flight 93 just prior to crash if it had been right side up (same angle, same speed, same angle of attack) ?



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Are you going to publically admit that you know nothing of crash physics especially Flight 93 and that your silly illustrations of tail fins scars and wing scars was proven to be drainage marks into the pre 911 drainage ditc??? [


Actually I do have experience in investigating aircraft accidents.



Here we go...... another one of those " I am an investigator " .... You know nothing. You have proven the ridiculousness of your views which does not coincide with the basic laws of physics taught at an elementary level.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Here is an example of the absurdity that the 30-40 foot wide 10 foot deep crater was caused by a 124 foot wide Boeing 757.


Impossible.

One eyewitness describes the craft being no bigger than her van.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Based on that little "interperative" photo shopped exhibit I could see where you would be confused. A commercial passenger plane is not half a mile long.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hey Jwad, how do you figure the plane is 800 meters long?

Sillys. armchair pseudo-skeptics...So blind so blind.

edit on 10-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by hooper
 


Hey Jwad, how do you figure the plane is 800 meters long?

Sillys. armchair pseudo-skeptics...So blind so blind.

edit on 10-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


Half a mile, 2000 feet, whatever. Its a preposterous piece of photoshopping either way. Unlike you, I can not look at a photo and determine to the foot the size of objects. You may think I am blind, but I know you are seeing things that just aren't there.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Here is an example of the absurdity that the 30-40 foot wide 10 foot deep crater was caused by a 124 foot wide Boeing 757.


Impossible.

One eyewitness describes the craft being no bigger than her van.


edit on 11-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
dble post



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Here is an example of the absurdity that the 30-40 foot wide 10 foot deep crater was caused by a 124 foot wide Boeing 757


Why do you insist on repeating the nonsense that a Boeing 757 is 124 foot wide? Its not, and everyone know its not. The plane is 13 foot wide with a 124 foot wing span, its not a 124 foot wide.

I know nothing of your physical appearance, and don't want to know, however if you stretch out your arms would it be fair to describe you as being 6 foot wide? No, of course not.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join