Shanksville forest damage conflicts with official story?

reply to post by K J Gunderson

That is why I am asking you to tell me what did actually happen with some sources.

What do you mean with some sources? I thought you were trying to debunk the "official story" so aren't you looking for official sources?

Originally posted by hooper

What do you mean with some sources? I thought you were trying to debunk the "official story" so aren't you looking for official sources?

Sorry you have to play games like this in order to keep believing what you do. You know exactly what I have asked you and know what sources are. You took the time to post about how I used the word "some" instead of "official?" This is the best you have? Sorry, troll but I am not biting. Go play with dereks if you want to play ring around the rosy.

You have no answers and have nothing. You mentioned the shape of the wings and you do not know why. You claimed that the story I am commenting on is just something someone made up but when I ask you to tell me what did really happen then...we get this.

You have nothing. Thanks for playing but you lose on all counts. If you ever get tired of playing games like that and feel like answering direct questions, I would be happy to go from there. Any further trolling will just be ignored.

This just further proves that you OS pushers have no clue why you believe what you believe other than that you were told what you should believe. Thank you for being a prime example of that I can refer to whenever I remind people of this tactic.

I want to add that I am not looking to cling to any story. I was really hopeful that you had some information that would shed some light on this. I was actually eager to read it. Running me around in circles just further reinforces my belief that the OS was a lie. I hope that was your goal then.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Look at the OP again. You want to discuss the "official story" yet here we have some newspaper articles quoting people who were simply repeating what they think they heard. No one quoted either witnessed the crash or was at the crash site shortly after the crash. And to top it off the poster quotes all these people talking about how they heard the cockpit or a piece of the cockpit separated from the plane and went into the woods and then THE POSTER adds the juicy little tidbit about it exploding. You want to know how the cockpit could explode- then ask the poster - he/she added that detail of their own volition. I do not have a source - official or otherwise to back up that detail. Ask him to explain it.

As for the wing shape, all I did was ask you to imagine what would happen as those swept wings make contact with the ground. Would you really expect the whole length of the wing to survive and make an outline in the earth? Or would you imagine the leading edge making contact and the remainder of the wing then disentegrating from the shock and force of the impact.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Look at the OP again. You want to discuss the "official story" yet here we have some newspaper articles quoting people who were simply repeating what they think they heard.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I will just stop you there. I already stated that I do not plan on going around in circles and any other distraction will just be ignored. Now I guess I have to just put you on ignore.

I do not tell my children anything 3 times. I do not have to ask them anything 3 times. I also never have to then explain after a third time what I really wanted and then hope the 4th time is a charm only to be dissapointed. Obviously, I would be better off having this conversation with a child. Thanks but no thanks to your little circle jerk. Not my thing.

Avoidance, distraction, and playing really really really stupid in order to avoid any real discussion noted.

Originally posted by hooper
Most people go their whole lives and never actually see any kind of molten metal, in any quantity, close up.

You mean except for people like the fire chief, president of Tully Construction and president of Controlled Demolition Inc.?

Again i ask do you have any evidence to prove them wrong?

reply to post by REMISNE


Please provide the quotes for all of the above named. Then, I assume based on your standrards of evidence, that they provide you with written evidence that what they said was true. Because in your world everyone is lying until they directly provide to you written, physical evidence that what they are saying is true. Lacking that you are accusing these good people of lying.

Why are you accusing the Fire Chief, the Presidents of Tully Construction and Controlled Demolition of being liars?

Originally posted by hooper
Please provide the quotes for all of the above named.

I have already posted the video many times with the fire chief stating the conditions at ground zero. Do you have proof he is not telling the truth?


il.2.sturmovik.computerspiel.de.wikimiki.org/en/corpora - [Cached Version]
Published on: 6/27/2009 Last Visited: 6/27/2009
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y, observed "literally molten steel" at the WTC.

www.algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html - [Cached Version]
Published on: 1/19/2003 Last Visited: 9/12/2007
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center.The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said.He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. -American Free Press (9/03/02)

www.twf.org/News/Y2009/0914-False.html - [Cached Version]
Published on: 9/10/2009 Last Visited: 12/27/2009
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, which was involved in the clean-up operation, said that he saw pools of "literally molten steel. [32]

www.bollyn.com/chapter-1-9-11-through-the-eyes-of-an-am - [Cached Version]
Published on: 8/8/2009 Last Visited: 9/30/2009
In my research into the removal of the rubble, I learned from one of the contractors and a demolition expert that molten metal had been discovered at the bottom of the rubble pile in the lower basement levels. This molten metal was described to me as "molten steel" by Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, and Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of

il.2.sturmovik.computerspiel.de.wikimiki.org/en/corpora - [Cached Version]
Published on: 6/27/2009 Last Visited: 6/27/2009
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y, observed "literally molten steel" at the WTC.





[edit on 17-2-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


Again, when and where did they present written evidence to you that what they said was true and why are you accusing them of lying?

Sidenote: I do not accept "American Free Press" and "Bollyn" as anything but garbage because of their direct and indirect associations with Holocaust deniers.

Originally posted by hooper
Sidenote: I do not accept "American Free Press" and "Bollyn" as anything but garbage because of their direct and indirect associations with Holocaust deniers.

Thanks again for showing how you live in a fantasy world and will not accept facts and evidence shown.

reply to post by REMISNE


I do not accept anything coming from Holocaust deniers.

Originally posted by hooper
I do not accept anything coming from Holocaust deniers.

Kind of like i do not accept anything comming from OSers who do not know what went on or do research.

reply to post by REMISNE


So enlighten me and everyone else. You have infered that I do not know "what went on", now the only way you can make that inference is you must, of course, know exactly what went on.

Now at this juncture and for the sake of entertainment, I am not going to require you to provide "evidence".

Just tell us exactly what went on that day, 9/11/2001.

Do skeptics have an answer to how that section of forest got burned and damaged?

two

Originally posted by ATH911
Do skeptics have an answer to how that section of forest got burned and damaged?

two

I imagine that you are talking about Shanksville crash site? I would think, and this is only a guess mind you, but it probably has something to do with the big plane that crashed there with all that jet fuel in it. Any other thoughts on the matter?

reply to post by hooper

I love simplistic answers from skeptics.

So how did some of the fuel jump up and over the service road to land in the forest and cause an explosion there when the rear 2/3 of the plane (that would include all of the fuel tanks) buried deep into the ground going 580 mph, so fast it "didn't have a chance to burn?"

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper

 

I love simplistic answers from skeptics.

So how did some of the fuel jump up and over the service road to land in the forest and cause an explosion there when the rear 2/3 of the plane (that would include all of the fuel tanks) buried deep into the ground going 580 mph, so fast it "didn't have a chance to burn?"

Wow, you've convulted so many misrepresentations and carefully mined quotes you must be exhausted!

So you think.....never mind, I can't even begin know what you think.

The plane hit the ground at over 500 mph. There was a fireball caused from the well aspirated fuel in the wings, hence the damage to the trees. The service road was not burnt because dirt roads don't burn.

You've done a fine job of mixing and matching quotes from various people, none of whom witnessed the crash.

You are looking for an explanation for a crazy quilt of misconceptions and are ready to accuse innocent people of mass murder if you don't get it. You do realize that is exactly what you are doing every time you put something like this in writing, correct?

Skipping through all your usually trolling tripe to get to the important arguments.

Originally posted by hooper

There was a fireball caused from the well aspirated fuel in the wings, hence the damage to the trees. The service road was not burnt because dirt roads don't burn.

LOL, this is too much. Do you know what happens to fuel with it spills out and splatters from a plane crash? It catches on fire, no matter what surface it's on. Example:

The wreckage of TWA 800 burns on the Atlantic, as seen in this photo taken from a U.S. Coast Guard rescue boat.

You can also see soot marks inside the crater on the dirt, dirt just like the dirt road. Why no soot marks on the dirt road?

There was also grass between the crater and road and between the road and trees. Why didn't they catch on fire?

[edit on 17-2-2010 by ATH911]

reply to post by ATH911

LOL, this is too much. Do you know what happens to fuel with it spills out and splatters from a plane crash? It catches on fire, no matter what surface it's on.

So you think the plane hit the ground at close to the speed of sound and the fuel spilled out like an overturned mug of coffee?

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper

 

I love simplistic answers from skeptics.

So how did some of the fuel jump up and over the service road to land in the forest and cause an explosion there when the rear 2/3 of the plane (that would include all of the fuel tanks) buried deep into the ground going 580 mph, so fast it "didn't have a chance to burn?"

Hooper cannot actually address any of this. You will see that I asked four times to explain how the part of the plane with no fuel, that was thrown clear, burned up so completely. The best he could do was say that it did not go down that way. Now, he has no idea how it did go down or why he believes it or even what it means to have actual sources. He can just tell you that you are wrong and then run in circles.

Originally posted by hooper
So you think the plane hit the ground at close to the speed of sound and the fuel spilled out like an overturned mug of coffee?

Why did you leave out the word "splatter" I used hooper? Quote mine much?