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.

 

Challenge: produce two photos from Shanksville scene showing plane wires

page: 12
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

just a small crater too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757.



I have a new .gift for you, hope you like it, I made it my self.




I imported a photo of the crash site into google earth and lined it up. I used the 2 telephone poles and the roof of the garage that had the doors blown in to line it up. A three point line up should make the dimensions accurate to within 2%.

Next I laid a 124.7 ft line across the crater. As you can see the crater easily matches the dimensions of Boeing 757.

No that we have conclusively, beyond any shadow of doubt, unquestionably nailed down the indisputable fact that the crater is the perfect size for a Boeing 757, we should move on to the forces acting on an inverted aircraft pulling positive .64 Gs.

That green arrow in the drawing below played a big part in your "grass not burnt" mystery.



You got any idea what that green arrow represents "




posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Omg waypast, your posts mean nothing, say nothing and actually help people turn away from the official story. Measure away using google earth and you come up witht the exact width of a boeing 757. Awesome. Childish and


Waypast you have been shown official that those scars were not caused by wings on 911. Even the other duhbunkers say that the wings never hit the ground.

You have been pwned in this thread and now are just wasting peoples time.

Put more thoughts into your posts. Showing childish images with arrows just shows your lack in everything.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
That green arrow in the drawing below played a big part in your "grass not burnt" mystery.





But wait I thought you 3 debunkers here have said that the grass did burn. Silly debunkers, cant get their stories straight.



Hey waypast still wating for thos calculations and official accounts that claim the crater and damage caused to the ground was caused by a Boeing 757 and the scars were caused by the wings.

Dont bother. You will fail to prove anything but ignorance over the subject.
edit on 19-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Where are those 3 debunkers that say this video is coached. Give up. Here are 2 more sources.


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.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

just a small crater too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757.



I have a new .gift for you, hope you like it, I made it my self.




I can tell you made it yourself. it is completely stupid.


Look at it. you just measured 124 feet because thats the size of the wingspan of a boeing 757 that you lifted from wikipedia so you drew a real stupid line at 124 feet and it doesnt even line up with the pre 911 weathered trench .The lame thing is the other 2 debunkers gave you a start not knowing how really dumb your image is.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Wow, Waypastvne must have hit a nerve! Here he goes and freaking measures the location based on multiple years, and you have the gall to spit and call him childish, saying that his post means nothing? What gives you the right? What makes what he is doing wrong?

I'm calling you out, Shadow Herder. This is bullcrap and you know it. Now, either you're a disinformation agent, or you just really don't want to even consider a different position no matter what evidence shows up. Which is it?



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Here is an image showing the 30 foot wide 10 foot deep crater that was caused on 911 on top of a weathered trench that was there before 911 due to the recent covering of a surface coal mine.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


I mean, seriously. You're willing to freaking COLOR an image to demonstrate where grass is, conveniently making it difficult to see most of an image, but you'll call a line arbitrary and pointless, when you can see the freaking crater that is being outlined?

This is just ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


And slap me thrice and give me to my mother. There's the image again. Seriously. How the HELL is this better than Waypastvne's? It's a COLORATION based off your BIAS.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
dbl post


edit on 19-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


I'm guessing you colored this one too? Where is the original source, and the source of the date, and the proof that what you're saying is even credible at all?



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
This next image shows you the drainage into the weathered trench that was there before the crater was made on 911.

The crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757.
edit on 19-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
The crater was created upon and older trench or ditch as you can see in this next image.


The photographer is standing in what is oftenly confused to be caused by wings. As you can they arent. Therefore the crater in Shanksville is too small to have been caused by a fully fueled commercial airliner.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Glad you liked my .gift. I double checked the accuracy of the google earth ruler useing a parked 757.



I hope this helps to end your silly confusion of what made the wing scars.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


HUH??


Even the other duhbunkers say that the wings never hit the ground.


Just making stuff up, I guess? How on Earth could anyone assert that people who actually know what they're talking about would say that the "wings never hit the ground"? That's just asinine.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
You know that moment in an argument when you realize you have lost? Your defense mechanism tries like hell to help you out....but to no avail..... this is a defense mechanism gone bad.....



Originally posted by Shadow Herder


I can tell you made it yourself. it is completely stupid.


Look at it. you just measured 124 feet because thats the size of the wingspan of a boeing 757 that you lifted from wikipedia so you drew a real stupid line at 124 feet and it doesnt even line up with the pre 911 weathered trench .The lame thing is the other 2 debunkers gave you a start not knowing how really dumb your image is.




posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Yes in debunker wonderland where pseudo skeptics bleed ignorance at a blinding pace as plane with a wingspan of 124 feet hits the ground at 500 mph, upside down on an angle but in this lame debunker delusion it poorly suggestes there should be an exact imprint on the ground 124 feet wide when all authorities and witness claim the the crater in shanksville that was caused on 911 was no more than 30-40 feet wide and 10-15 feet deep. Stop spreading your disinfo.


Show some sources to your opinions and show corroborated evidence that suggest the weathered trench was actually caused by wings. Demonstrate how YOU claim the wings hit the ground. and show us how you think a fully fueled wing can hit the ground without breaking grass or soft soil let alone leaving any evidence that their were Boeing 757 wings.

We are waiting...
edit on 19-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
[You think that a plane with a length of] 124 feet hit[] the ground at 500 mph, upside down on an angle[.] [You think that the crater should then be] 124 feet wide [even though] all authorities and witness claim th[at] the crater [at] shanksville [from] 911 was no more than 30-40 feet wide and 10-15 feet deep. []


Show some sources to your opinions and show corroborated evidence that suggest the weathered trench was actually caused by wings. Demonstrate how [] the wings hit the ground[,] and show us how you think a fully fueled wing can hit the ground without breaking grass or soft soil[,] let alone leav[e] any evidence [of] Boeing 757 wings.
[]


Alright, I think I've cleaned up what you were trying to say there. You claim that the crater was 30-40 feet wide and 10-15 feet deep. You say that to think otherwise, you will require sources and corroborated evidence that also says that the trench was caused by wings.

Immediately the problem arises in how specific your demands are, as I don't think there is a witness report that looks at it from that perspective. I've personally been having difficult utilizing Google to find out what any witnesses at all said about the size of the crater.

This site says that witnesses reported the crater at "more than 80 feet long and 14 feet deep," but I've not been able to corroborate this with the linked witness reports. I naturally haven't seen any witness report that says the size yet, and I can't say I'd trust their opinions anyway, since measurements are way more accurate.

On this forum, a guy posts a few witnesses with no sources (except one which even archive.org cannot recover), and the sizes are all similar to what you said, or smaller.

This P4T post depicts varying reports ranging from widths of 15-80 feet. This is just less than helpful, as the only link that works (as an archive) doesn't even say anything about the width of 10-20 feet they say WPXI Pittsburgh reported.

All in all, there is a lack of coherent information available, and to claim a specific stance seems irresponsible.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Rededit.
edit on 19-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Who are you talking to, exactly? I'm still trying to get all the facts straight and you're rambling about how you already showed all the witnesses and just need to get answers for other things.

I'm not taking a stance. Consider me a blank slate right now, attempting to acquire the accurate information. I'll only accept credible sources that are not based on opinion.

You know, if you start from the beginning and get everything rounded in a nice, concise manner, then it will be easier for people to take this information in and use it.



new topics




 
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join