Challenge: produce two photos from Shanksville scene showing plane wires

reply to post by ReptileRipper


Your video of the B-52 crash is one I use to illustrate the fireballs from the three building impacts.

However, it does not illustrate properly the United 93 impact. LOOK at the B-52. Its airspeed is slow, around 180 knots I'd guess. The pilot (who was hot-dogging and showing off too much) forgot what an accelerated stall is, in an airplane. (The stall speed of an airplane increases when you steepen the angle of bank....he cranked that sonof-a-bear to a nearly 90° bank angle, and it fell out from under him).

You see how it drags one wingtip, first? This breaks open the fuel containment in that wing, it atomizes, and begins to ignite as soon as contacting the hot engines, also on that wing.

United 93 was nose first!! The wings impacted virtually simultaneously. Much of the Jet-A1 atomized, and was flung by inertia all around, but also, the engines had hit the mostly soft dirt and sand!!

Tell us -- if you are out camping, how to you put out your campfire? Do you cover it in dirt or sand, to be sure it won't flare up after you leave?


There were some hot ignition sources, yes.....but the United 93 impact was very, very different from that B-52 Air Show example, for countless reasons.


Here is a photo of the aft fuselage of Delta 191, crashed in Dallas, Texas, in 1986.




Again, not in any way similar to United 93 in terms of the damage one would expect from the crash, but.......You can see the blackened areas that indicate there had been a fire. Yes? See it?

But, look at the field, and the grass. What color is the grass??

reply to post by ProudBird


HEY BRANIAC...LOL..... thats the tail section. there is no fuel there.



In shanksville the official story claims a boeing 757 fully fueled crashed. The crash site proves one didnt. 30 foot crater x 10 feet deep, no fire.

You debunkers are getting your butts handed to you and you dont even know it. Last page was shameful for you guys considering you tag teamed the thread and still you managed to turn people away from the official story one post at a time..... Keep it up

This next image shows you what was created on 911. 30 feet wide 10 feet deep. I highlighted the grass green. As you can see, no fire, no burnt grass just a small crater too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757.

This next image give you an idea how tall and dry the grass was.

I posted this before. I am posting it again to let people look at it .... and to let it index itself into google.

Did flight 93 crash in Shanksillle?
Flight 93 homepage
Flight 93 official story.

The crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757. (flight 93)

reply to post by Shadow Herder


That is a deceptive photo, and I would appreciate it if you stopped using it. Your highlighting implies that you have some magical knowledge of where the grass is, even though it is clearly not visible. It is based on your personal bias and is misleading to all the other members here.

Thank you for your support. Ya, there arent too many people here that believe the crater in Shanksville was NOT caused by a Boeing 757. Just investigate and google Shanskville or flight 93.

We just had a poll and the majority of Abovetopsecret.com users/visitors dont believe the official story upon researching legitimate sources.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Th...hting implies that you have some magical knowledge of where the grass is, even though it is clearly not visible. It is based on your personal bias and is misleading to all the other members here.

In case you forgot....


I will use a photo to show you what grass looks like in case you basement dwellers forgot.



Note: Put more thought into your replies.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Someone reflexively starred you, even though you have no idea what you are talking about?

HEY BRANIAC...LOL..... thats the tail section. there is no fuel there.

That is a Lockheed L-1011. The L-1011 has THREE engines --- one on each wing, and the other in....

The Tail!

What does a jet engine need in order to run? Fuel. Where is the engine? In the tail. Therefore, does fuel go to the tail, and can a fire burn there?

I will let the members and other readers decide.

Of course, the fire evidence is also rather obvious....so is the green grass.

oops dble post

reply to post by Shadow Herder


That's always from the same angle. You can't see what the other side looks like, yet in your highlighting, you have clearly assumed that it looks like that from all 360 degrees. How scientific of you [/sarcasm]

Here is a photo just moments after the crash.

No fire. Crater was not caused by a Boeing 757 flight 93. But we all agree on that except for 1-3 of you tag teamers here.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


There was no sustained conflagration. That is correct.

A brief fireball, from the initial impact. A "flash", if you will. The foliage was not combustible enough, nor was all of the fuel contained in a way so as to perpetuate ignition.

Recall, those first responders at the scene said there was a strong odor of the jet fuel (basically, high-grade kerosene).

The fire began, but was snuffed due to the circumstances. Singing occurred, and this is documented downwind, in the stand of trees (not rightly a "forest", but call it a forest if that helps).

reply to post by Shadow Herder

No fire.

Ok, this was really, really funny. You posting the words "no fire" right under a photo of smoke whisping up from the ground. Really, that was pretty funny, you've obviously have a good sense of humor.

reply to post by ProudBird
Every day I am amazed by you guys. Do you even read what you are writing? And yet, you guys ask, how I'm still here? As long as you continue to post absurd conclusions based on nothing, then expect grief from me.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Here is a photo just moments after the crash.

No fire. Crater was not caused by a Boeing 757 flight 93. But we all agree on that except for 1-3 of you tag teamers here.

edit on 18-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

I suppose with all that smoke the one thing you can definitely rule out is fire...

reply to post by dillweed


Show the extensive fire from PSA 1771. Where is it?

Or, United 585. Where is it?

Or, USAir 427. Where is it?

Edit, compare to American 587...went down in Queens, in the residential area. Houses, you know...burn and stuff.

And the impact of that jet was more like the majority of other large jet crashes. In other words, not nearly vertical at high speed.

This is really pretty simple to comprehend, for those with experience.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by dillweed

 

Show the extensive fire from PSA 1771. Where is it?

Or, United 585. Where is it?

Or, USAir 427. Where is it?

Edit, compare to American 587...went down in Queens, in the residential area. Houses, you know...burn and stuff.

And the impact of that jet was more like the majority of other large jet crashes. In other words, not nearly vertical at high speed.

This is really pretty simple to comprehend, for those with experience.

edit on Tue 18 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

They can't! Look at Shadow whom I have asked on several occasions to compare flight 93 to 1771. Not a perfect match, but quite similar.

Truther tactics... ask questions: ignore answers.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by ProudBird

 

Every day I am amazed by you guys. Do you even read what you are writing? And yet, you guys ask, how I'm still here? As long as you continue to post absurd conclusions based on nothing, then expect grief from me.

It seems all you do is troll these threads with a lot of noise and pollution.

I hadn't any clue that you were the BSD in this arena. So I suppose you think it was a missile that blew up in PA too then, eh? The same missile that no one saw being launched by ship, plane or battery, nor flying through the sky? Probably the same missile that several people confused for a 757. Also probably the same missile that disposed of all the planes debris and human remains too.

Right.

And I'm sure you're in no way able to logically assert why the Gov't would even bother faking a plane crash in BFE PA.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by ProudBird

 

Every day I am amazed by you guys. Do you even read what you are writing? And yet, you guys ask, how I'm still here? As long as you continue to post absurd conclusions based on nothing, then expect grief from me.

So I suppose you think it was a missile that blew up in PA too then, eh?

Interesting that you say that. Susan saw what crashed. Seconds before she saw what crashed she described it. Watch video.

"No bigger than my van"......

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Susan McElwain has long ago been shown to be less than credible, as a non-pilot she is certainly not skilled in that sort of observation. The possibility that she was coached, or asked leading questions in order to tailor her interview recollections....it's important to always check the sources, such as in that YouTube video. And, whether any editing occurred. Sadly, that same clip is trotted out again and again, and leaves one to wonder why the so-called "Truth Movement" hasn't anything better. Like say, a follow-up interview with her? Under proper conditions?

Because, look closely...."produced by samuel anthony ettaro"........that says a lot..... (just Google).


But, let's see what an actual pilot, flying nearby, had to say to WTAE in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:

PITTSBURGH -- A pilot of a single-engine Piper might have been the last person to see United Flight 93 before it crashed in Somerset County on Sept. 11.

Local pilot Bill Wright (pictured, left) told Team 4 investigator Paul Van Osdol that he thinks that he witnessed a struggle for control of the plane.

Wright was flying over Youngwood, Westmoreland County, and was getting ready to land in Latrobe under order from air traffic control.

Then, an air-traffic controller asked him and his passenger to look out the window.

Wright was flying a Piper Arrow when he spotted a jet crossing behind him -- about three miles away. It was close enough for him and his photographer to see the United Airlines colors

Read the full story

She is not being coached and to assume she is proves you are up against the wall defending the official story that now you are furnishing ridiculous assumptions and theories.

There are some ufo threads you can go debunk, those are easy.