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: 18
3
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


LOL!

Your "proof" was a link to our own history of thread-making?

The piece of fuselage with the cabin windows? There simply aren't many wires located in those areas on the Boeing 757, and in any case, with the energy of the crash and debris being flung about, they are not likely to remain attached IF were there in first place.

In any case, this thread was started on a false, or shall I say, "overstated" premise...because, I challenge an examination of any and all large airliner crash scene photos showing "wires".

I'll help you out, if you look for examples of Swiss Air 111....since that crash was directly related to wires causing an electrical fire, therefore they were critically examined.

But, in general....just browse through any number of any other crashes, and see how many "wires" you can find.




posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
Your "proof"

Why did you quote the word "proof" when I said "evidence"?


was a link to our own history of thread-making?

Um yeah, that's where the evidence is. Duh.


The piece of fuselage with the cabin windows? There simply aren't many wires located in those areas on the Boeing 757, and in any case, with the energy of the crash and debris

That piece is missing everything, even the logo colors!


being flung about

I thought most of the plane buried? You OS believers need to get your official story straight.


In any case, this thread was started on a false, or shall I say, "overstated" premise...because, I challenge an examination of any and all large airliner crash scene photos showing "wires".

I'll help you out, if you look for examples of Swiss Air 111....since that crash was directly related to wires causing an electrical fire, therefore they were critically examined.

Please post links to crash scene photos of Swissair 111 so we can examine for wires.
edit on 5-11-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



That piece is missing everything, even the logo colors!


Yet another attempt at deception.

The piece of fuselage being referred to was photographed as it lay PAINT SIDE DOWN!! That is the interior portion shown. They do not paint the airline colors on the insides of the fuselage.

This is one I'm talking about, and as seen by added red circles and text, was altered by the website "KillTown" to show parts that were bent:



Problem is.....obviously, that is the inside, you see the rivets and the window frame parts. BUT, the color of the major portion? That is not the original color of the undamaged section interior side...it would have been either the color of zinc chromate, a light green. (Applied as a corrosion inhibitor)....or the natural aluminum neutral dull grayish. (Depends on the age of the airplane, and how recently it had undergone heavy maintenance inspection, the zinc chromate or anodized inhibitor can fade with time).

There is obvious heat damage inflicted on it, thus the color. This is also the case with the folded-over corners that display the other side (outer) area. Same color, so obviously the same heat damage.



edit on Sat 5 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
That piece is missing everything, even the logo colors!


Not necessarily. If the paint scheme was anything like this:



which is similar to the other big piece (with paint!) found at Shanksville:



Then there would not be red/blue paint on that section of the plane. Observation and rationally applied thinking is awesome!

Edit: Here are a couple videos of the paint scheme in action, showing that it was on the planes, and older ones at that.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
edit on 5-11-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-11-2011 by Varemia because: fixed quote

edit on 5-11-2011 by Varemia because: fixed quote again



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
This is one I'm talking about, and as seen by added red circles and text, was altered by the website "KillTown" to show parts that were bent:



Problem is.....obviously, that is the inside

The parts circled are the outside that they show the outside paint scheme missing. Did it get burned off?


(Depends on the age of the airplane, and how recently it had undergone heavy maintenance inspection, the zinc chromate or anodized inhibitor can fade with time).

Looks like that piece is very weathered as if it was laying outside for years. Of course, that would be evidence it was planted.


There is obvious heat damage inflicted on it, thus the color. This is also the case with the folded-over corners that display the other side (outer) area. Same color, so obviously the same heat damage.

How come the surroundings around that pieces show no signs of heat damage like someone dropped that piece in the middle of a forest to stage a photo of it?

Btw, please post links to crash scene photos of Swissair 111 so we can examine for wires.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
which is similar to the other big piece (with paint!) found at Shanksville:


Awesome! How many other pieces from the scene had the plane's paint sheme on them? Supposedly 95% of the plane was recovered. There should have been a boat load of debris pieces with the paint scheme still on them!

And PS, no wires in this photo.


Then there would not be red/blue paint on that section of the plane.

When I said logo colors, that meant any of the plane's paint scheme. There's no paint scheme colors on it (or wires) and no heat damage around that window piece. Evidence it was planted.
edit on 6-11-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 




Before attempting to make your "arguments", might first want to get a lot more education about aviation, airplane construction, and also crash scenes, and the state of the debris.....and, the incredible variety of appearance that result.



The parts circled are the outside that they show the outside paint scheme missing. Did it get burned off?


The "outside paint scheme"?? It was a light gray paint. As shown to you up above, by a photo example. The entire piece of debris, there, was subjected to the same heating conditions, and looks like it.



Looks like that piece is very weathered as if it was laying outside for years. Of course, that would be evidence it was planted.


Really?? Well then, this shows why I needed to mention at the beginning that you lack the experience and knowledge to properly interpret what you see. Aluminum does NOT "weather" to that condition as seen in the photo. Aluminum left in the elements does NOT become a shade of brown and appear to have been charred by heat.


Now, this last question boggles the mind, and is an insult to rational, logical thinking:


How come the surroundings around that pieces show no signs of heat damage....


If you are so desperate in the need to find fault with a photo of something that you do not understand in the first place, it is simply embarrassing for you now......

If it helps, try to imagine a "flash fire" scenario. That would be quite close to reality in this case. Now, tell everyone how a piece of aluminum would become sufficiently heated in such an event so as to retain that heat sufficiently to then "burn" the foliage after it hit the ground? After being flung through the air....air which has a tendency to draw heat out of an object, by conduction?



edit on Sun 6 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


I already showed you that the paint scheme would be gray there.

Here's one picture of the debris field. You can see some blue mixed in there, but the dirt and low quality of the photo obscures a lot of it.

www.911myths.com...

Look, the most that I can find is a possibility that the plane was shot down, but there's absolutely no support for no plane at all. There most certainly was a plane there.

Read this site for a detailed explanation for a lot of things:

sites.google.com...



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Not to mention that some of this debris wasn't found for a few months, when they widened the search efforts. People here act as if everything was found and documented in the same day.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Not to mention that some of this debris wasn't found for a few months....


Nevertheless, the piece being referred to (side of fuselage cabin, with window openings) is aluminum, and would not "weather" as claimed by KillTown....aluminum remains a dull gray.....or, when corrosion sets in, becomes a darker grayish black, in extreme cases.


This video of jets being scrapped in a "boneyard" is showing examples of airplanes that have been sitting out, getting "weathered", for many, many years. No where is the same color of exposed aluminum seen as that piece of United 93 debris. It is important to note, too....that none of these airplanes were subjected to the explosive heat and force of a crash, as was United 93. In that very high-energy event, the fragmentation of most components left little that was recognizable to a lay person.


edit on Sun 6 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Theres a reason why fighter pilots refer to "smoking holes" in the ground. At near sonic velocities, which I understand is the case with 93, you get just that... a smoking hole in the ground. Lack of identifiable bits of material is primarily due to aspect ratio of plane at impact (upside down), angle of impact (shallow glancing), and most importantly, air speed (near sonic). All three of these contributed to the confetti shallow carter look of this event. I wasn't there, just remembering what I heard and seeing the destruction.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
The "outside paint scheme"?? It was a light gray paint. As shown to you up
above, by a photo example. The entire piece of debris, there, was subjected to
the same heating conditions, and looks like it.

Um, yeah. So what's your point?


Aluminum does NOT "weather" to that condition as seen in the photo. Aluminum left in the elements does NOT become a shade of brown and appear to have been charred by heat.

OK, let's say it was charred by heat, how do you 100% know it came from UA93 and not a scrap that got charred from another plane crash that's been staged in some unknown forest?


If it helps, try to imagine a "flash fire" scenario. That would be quite close to reality in this case. Now, tell everyone how a piece of aluminum would become sufficiently heated in such an event so as to retain that heat sufficiently to then "burn" the foliage after it hit the ground? After being flung through the air....air which has a tendency to draw heat out of an object, by conduction?

I guess this other large plane debris piece managed to escape your "flash fire" scenario, huh?




posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

I already showed you that the paint scheme would be gray there.

Yeah, its paint scheme. It's not there.


Here's one picture of the debris field. You can see some blue mixed in there, but the dirt and low quality of the photo obscures a lot of it.

www.911myths.com...

Can you circle them? Can't see em.


but there's absolutely no support for no plane at all.

I offer a plethora of evidence to support no plane at all. None of you skeptics have been able to debunk any of it.


Read this site for a detailed explanation for a lot of things:

sites.google.com...

A logical question for you, if an evil group wanted to stage a plane crash, would they not plant debris and stuff to make it look like a plane crashed there?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Not to mention that some of this debris wasn't found for a few months, when they widened the search efforts. People here act as if everything was found and documented in the same day.

The FBI claimed they recovered 95% of the plane in about 2 weeks after 9/11, so...



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
subjected to the explosive heat and force of a crash, as was United 93. In that very high-energy event, the fragmentation of most components left little that was recognizable to a lay person.

Yeah about that. I'm having trouble understanding how that could have happened without contradicting the official story. Perhaps you can work me through what happened there in this thread of mine:

How was there even an explosion at Shanksville (officially speaking)?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
Theres a reason why fighter pilots refer to "smoking holes" in the ground. At near sonic velocities, which I understand is the case with 93, you get just that... a smoking hole in the ground. Lack of identifiable bits of material is primarily due to aspect ratio of plane at impact (upside down), angle of impact (shallow glancing), and most importantly, air speed (near sonic). All three of these contributed to the confetti shallow carter look of this event. I wasn't there, just remembering what I heard and seeing the destruction.

Where was most of the wreckage found?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Where was most of the wreckage found?

All over. Mashed beyond recognition in the hole. And scattered all thru the woods right beyond the impact crater. Here is a bit of video I found about UFO's. Its just a rocket gone south( you can see the engine burning even after it impacts the first time. Then at the end, it comes in hard and fast, shallow and glancing. Watch the debris cloud.


That might give you a better feel for hi velocity impacts?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



I guess this other large plane debris piece managed to escape your "flash fire" scenario, huh?


Obviously. There is no discoloration, not the paint from the exterior portion, nor the unpainted aluminum from the inside.

Really, this is an exercise in futility, by now......



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
A logical question for you, if an evil group wanted to stage a plane crash, would they not plant debris and stuff to make it look like a plane crashed there?


If an evil group wanted to stage a plane crash, they would use a real plane. Everyone knows that the most convincing argument is one where you're not technically lying. That's how you deceive. It's in the handbook, man. Tell truths, but not the underlying truth that is the truth about the truth.

I believe that there is no logical reason to go to the trouble of planting plane parts when an unquestionable result would be obtainable through using an actual plane, with real passengers, and even real terrorists. The idea is to get the terrorists to think that they were doing everything themselves, when really you are aiding them from the background and guiding them to where you want them to die.

This is how sophisticated plotters would think. It's ridiculous to imagine that no one would come forward who helped plan all the things some Truthers think are necessary for their ideas to be true.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr

All over. Mashed beyond recognition in the hole. And scattered all thru the woods right beyond the impact crater. Here is a bit of video I found about UFO's. Its just a rocket gone south( you can see the engine burning even after it impacts the first time. Then at the end, it comes in hard and fast, shallow and glancing. Watch the debris cloud.

That might give you a better feel for hi velocity impacts?

What's your point?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join