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: 9
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


You've been making your opinion loud and clear about the crater size being too small for it to have been made by a 757.

But the crater size alone isn't sufficient enough to prove a plane did not crash there (if that's what your attempting to show). It seems you're focusing on all the wrong sorts of details here.




posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


You've been making your opinion loud and clear about the crater size being too small for it to have been made by a 757.

But the crater size alone isn't sufficient enough to prove a plane did not crash there...


There is no denying 'something' crashed there.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



There is no denying 'something' crashed there.


Really? I'll bet I could find a few folks who would deny something crashed there. In fact, I think the poster who started thread believes precisely that - no plane or anything else ever crashed in Shanksville.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I am not making anything up. the witness statements, reporters, and authorities have said the plane crash site is no more than around 30 feet wide and 10 feet deep. The images corroberate the claims.

The odd poster here claims the crater is 124.10 feet wide who is a blind official story pusher as he lifted a measurement from the wiki page on the wingspan of a boeing 757. Silly.

Counter claim it. Show sources, official or news links that claim the size of the crater is larger than that.

Here is wikipedia

Crash


Flight 93 crash site
At 10:03:11, near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the plane crashed into a reclaimed coal strip mine in Stonycreek Township in Somerset County.[60] The National Transportation Safety Board reported that the flight impacted at 563 miles per hour (906 km/h) at a 40-degree nose-down, inverted attitude.[19] The impact left a crater eight to ten feet deep (c. 3 m), and 30 to 50 feet wide (c. 12 m).[61]
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 17-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Yes, it would seem that there really isn't any dispute over the size of the impact crater:


"The plane left a crater 20 feet wide and 15 feet deep, churning up chunks of deep brown earth and scorching trees in the nearby woods." (11)

"Pittsburgh's WTAE-TV reporter 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." (9)


www.unitedflight93.com...

Thing is, you have to remember that the full width of the plane couldn't exert all the force on the ground. Once the engines hit, it caused an explosion which prevented the wings from doing much damage. The plane didn't have much left of itself because the fire destroyed it fairly completely, and the impact caused a near disintegration as the energy passed through the material.

I was just reading on the same site I linked how the police camp cadets have a yearly thing where they go through and fill garbage bags full of little debris from the crash. On the site I linked are also some of the larger pieces found of the airplane. I'm sure you'll dismiss it as fake without even a shred of evidence, but it's worth giving it to you for a look.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Anyone could have planted tons of wires from any airplane bone yard scrap yard.
None of you debunkers can prove the wires depicted in the photos belong to the alleged plane.
As far as I am concern the photo in question could have been taken anywhere in the world at any time. Totally meaningless.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 
If I remember correctly I read in another 911 thread that the crater in Shanksville was there prior to 911,have you heard of that?
I will try to find it.


edit on 17-10-2011 by TWILITE22 because: (no reason given)
found it



edit on 17-10-2011 by TWILITE22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I just looked up this site.

img77.imageshack.us...

It was associated with a vid on youtube but the vid was canceled.

Did't knowif you had seen them so I passed them on anyway.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
What do truthers think?

Flight 93 was deliberately crashed into a field at a very high rate of speed at a 40 degree angle. What should have the crash scene looked like? What have YOU compared it to?

Shadow, for two + pages now has dodged the picture I posted of a crater of a plane crash. Although there are not any crashes that we can compare with the exact same parameters, there are crashes with similar results.


First of all lets compare flight 1771 to flight 93 and look at the similarities -

Fatalities:
Flight 1771 43
Flight 93 44

Type of crash:
Flight 1771 Suicide
Flight 93 Suicide

Debris fields:
Flight 1771 6-8 miles
Flight 93 8 miles

Debris:
Flight 1771 Suicide note found(paper)
Flight 93 Hijacker passport found

From the NTSB Report:
Witnesses:Flight 1771 "Plane was intact"
Flight 93 "Plane was intact"

Witnesses:
Flight 1771 Plane was "nose down"
Flight 93 Plane was "nose down"

From the CVR Report:
Flight 1771 Scuffle in the cockpit
Flight 93 Scuffle in the cockpit

Photos of body parts made public:
Flight 1771 0
Flight 93 0

Release reports of matching serial numbers:

Flight 1771 0
Flight 93 0

Crater with debris?
Flight 1771 yes
Flight 93 yes

Debris found in trees?
Flight 1771 yes
Flight 93 yes

Witnesses of Debris:

Flight 1771:

Bill Wammock -“nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”

Flight 93:
Ernie Stull- Mayor of Shanksville-"They just found the two turbines because, of course, they're heavier and more massive than everything else. But there was almost nothing left of the actual airplane. You can still find plate-sized parts out there. And Neville from the farm over there found an aluminum part from the airplane's outside shell behind his barn that must've been about 8 by 10 or even 8 by 12 feet."


Now what about the crater?

Let's look at United Airlines Flight 585


Then, it rolled to the right, pitched down until reaching a nearly vertical attitude, and compacted itself into a 39-foot wide, 15-foot deep crater in an area known as Widefield Park.



"There was no damage to structures on the ground. Trees adjacent to the impact crater were damaged by flying debris and soot, and nearby patches of grass north and northeast of the crater were scorched. The size of the impact crater measured approximately 39 feet by 24 feet and was about 15 feet deep.


SOURCE: NTSB

The Wingspan of this 737-200 was 93 ft
Flight 93 Wingspan was almost 125 ft.


Northwest Airlines Flight 710


The plane and its final explosion blew out a smoldering crater 50 ft. wide and 25 ft. deep.

Time Magazine, March 28, 1960

Civil Aeronautics Board Flight 710 accident report stated:


...Impact forces formed a crater 30 feet across it's top from east to west and 40 feet from north to south; it was 12 feet deep.


Again, conditions of all these crashes are different. What we do see are some similarities in the craters. There is not a truther in the world that can come up with any type of evidence to show that the crater formed could not have come from Flight 93.

There is not a single investigator that was at the crash site that agrees with ANY truther. This goes for the FBI, the NTSB, the Red Cross, the thousands of volunteers, the Somerset County Emergency Management Agency, the Berlin Volunteer Fire Department, the Somerset Volunteer Fire Department, etc.

Not a single one of the thousand plus people that were there sifting through the pieces of flesh, aircraft, and personal belongings agree with you Shadow. You are clueless when it comes to aircraft accidents and unable to substantiate any of your claims with evidence.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
So we got " The wings hit the ground leaving a 124 gash exactly the width of a Boeing 757" then we have " the wings never hit the ground because the plane exploded 1 mil second upon hitting the ground".

Exploded meaning no fire or fire that does not burn grass.


I thought truther conspiracies were ridiculous. Get your 'official' story straight.

So the fact that the crater being to small to have been caused by a Boeing 757 is now being furnished with ridiculous theories as to why this is so and the funny thing is that all the back peddling and double speak is coming from the official story believers (duh-bunkers) and not from true skeptics like myself and others.
edit on 17-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Northwest Airlines Flight 710


The plane and its final explosion blew out a smoldering crater 50 ft. wide and 25 ft. deep.

Time Magazine, March 28, 1960

Civil Aeronautics Board Flight 710 accident report stated:


...Impact forces formed a crater 30 feet across it's top from east to west and 40 feet from north to south; it was 12 feet deep.




Really? A clip from 1960? Completely different plane but look.......

What a bad example, look how deep that crater is and you forgot one thing....
There was a lot of wreckage.

Thanks for trying tho. All respect.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Exploded meaning no fire or fire that does not burn grass.


Where do you find these definitions?

Exploding into a jet fuel fire. Without other combustibles to maintain the fire, it burned out the flammable materials rather quickly, though it did spread to a portion of the trees.

I have to wonder what is so complicated and confusing for you?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Really? A clip from 1960? Completely different plane but look


But nothing....all I was showing were craters. What I find interesting is your lack of comments on flight 1771. But But But..... But where are your experts that have come out stating that the crater is not consistant with the type of crash it was? Your fantasy is just that...a fantasy.

oh and about the debris......

Flight 1771:

Bill Wammock -“nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”

edit on 18-10-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Exploded meaning no fire or fire that does not burn grass.


Where do you find these definitions?

Exploding into a jet fuel fire. Without other combustibles to maintain the fire, it burned out the flammable materials rather quickly, though it did spread to a portion of the trees.

I have to wonder what is so complicated and confusing for you?


How about over 11,000 US gallons of kerosene , and not as much as a black spot on the grass.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 



How about over 11,000 US gallons of kerosene , and not as much as a black spot on the grass.


Yeah, thats right, nothing burnt. Just ignore those pictures of the buring woods adjacent to the impact crater.

Please prove that the impact area was completely grass covered and therefore should have been burnt.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 



How about over 11,000 US gallons of kerosene , and not as much as a black spot on the grass.




Please prove that the impact area was completely grass covered and therefore should have been burnt.


No buds, YOU PROVE that there was no grass in the crash area. Show ONE image!

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



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



No buds, YOU PROVE that there was no grass in the crash area. Show ONE image!


First, I didn't say there was NO grass. Second, you are asking someone to prove a negative. Typical truther tactic. Tell you what, prove the area was completely grass covered and then you are more than welcome to explain why an explosion has to burn the grass that may or not be there.

And then explain why after more than ten years you haven't gotten anywhere with this line of "questioning".



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 



How about over 11,000 US gallons of kerosene , and not as much as a black spot on the grass.




Please prove that the impact area was completely grass covered and therefore should have been burnt.


No buds, YOU PROVE that there was no grass in the crash area. Show ONE image!

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


Um, have you ever tried proving a negative before?

This is getting really stupid, really fast.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
double-post, my bad
edit on 18-10-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
dble
edit on 18-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join